An Environmental Resource Packet published under a grant from the Exxon Education Foundation by:
Environmental Resource Packet Project
Department of Physics & Astronomy
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland 20742
(g) J. M. Fowler and K. E. Mervine, 1974

An annotated bibliography prepared by K. E. Mervine
under a grant from the Exxon Education Foundation;
J. M. Fowler, Project Director.
1st Printing JANUARY 1974
2nd Printing MAY 1974

1.	Noise Pollution, Hearings
2.	"Report to die President and Congress on Noise".
3.	Noise Pollution: The Unquiet Crisis.
4.	"The Noise Around Us".
5.	"Noise-Sound Without Value".
6.	Industrial Noise Manual
7.	"Noise"
8	"Noise in the Environment"
9.	"Sound Pollution: Another Urban Problem"
1.	"Laws and Regulatory Schemes for Noise Abatement".
2.	"Environmental Noise Control Act of 1972 ".
3.	"Noise Control Act of 1972".
4.	"Summary of Noise Programs of the Federal Government".
5.	Noise Pollution and the Law .
6.	"Community Noise Ordinances: Their Evolution, Purpose and Impact".
7.	"Compilation of State and Local Ordinances on Noise Control".
1.	"Economic Aspects of Noise Pollution".
2.	"The Economic Impact of Noise".
3.	"Technology and Economics of Noise Control. "
4.	"The Costs and Economic Impacts of Environmental Improvement''

1	"Transportation Noise and Noise from Equipment Powered by Internal Combustion
2	Transportation Noises: A Symposium of Acceptability Criteria.
3	Lectures in Transportation Noise
4	"The Evaluating Noise from Freely Flowing Road Traffic1.'
5	"Survey of Motor Vehicle Noise".
6.	"Manufacturing and Transportation Noise"
7.	"Transportation Noise (Rail and Other)"
8 "Traffic Noise"
1	"Conference on Aircraft and the Environment".
2	"Report on Aircraft-Airport Noise".
3	"Fourth Federal Aircraft Noise Abatement Program ".
4	"Noise Standards- Aircraft Type Certification "
5	"Aircraft Noise Abatement"
6	"Alleviation of Jet Aircraft Noise Near Airports"
7	"Aircraft Noise Impact: Planning Guidelines for Local Agencies"
8.	"Outdoor Noise and the Metropolitan Environment".
1	SST and Sonic Boom Handbook.
2	"Some Booms from Supersonic Transport"
3.	"The Effects of Sonic Boom and Similar Impulsive Noise on Structures".
4	"The Concorde SST"
X	"Sonic Boom in Relation to Man"
6.	"Sonic Boom"
7	"Sonic Booms"
8	"Sonic Boom Research"
9	"The Supersonic Transport"

1.	"The Community Noise Problem: Factors Affecting Its Management".
2.	"Community Noise".
3.	Toward a Quieter City .
4.	"Community Noise Study".
5.	"Urban Planning and Noise Control".
6.	"Industrial Noise - Impact on the Community".
7.	"Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment,
and Home Appliances"
8.	"Public Hearings on Noise Abatement and Control: Construction Noise".
1 Handbook of Noise Control
2.	Noise and Vibration Control.
3.	"Fundamentals of Noise: Measurement, Rating Schemes and Standards".
4	Sound. Noise and Vibration Control.
5.	"Noise Assessment Guidelines".
6.	"Noise Assessment Guidelines: Technical Background".
7.	"Guidelines for Noise and Vibration Control".
8.	"Modern-Day Rock and Roll Music and Damage-Risk Criteria".
9.	"The Control of Vibration and Noise".
10.	Noise Control (Hearings)
11.	"Recommended Standards for Occupational Noise Exposure".
12.	"Interstate Motor Carrier Noise Emission Standards".
1.	"Effects of Noise on People".
2.	The Effects of Noise on Man.
3.	Noise As a Public Health Hazard.
4.	"A Basis for Limiting Noise Exposures for Hearing Conservation".

5.	"Public Health and Welfare Criteria for Noise".
6.	Physiological Effects of Noise
7.	Physiological and Psychological Effects.
8	"Hazardous Exposure to Intermittent and Steady-State Noise"
9. "Psychological Reactions to Aircraft Noise".
1	Noise Pollution.
2	Fundamentals of Acoustics.
3.	Noise and Man.
4.	Environmental Acoustics.
5.	Noise.
6.	"Noise".
7.	"Noise".
8	"Sound from Motor Vehicles: An Exercise in &foise Pollution
9	"The Fight for Quiet"
10 "The Tyranny of Noise"

This is the third of a projected six Environmental Resource Packets produced under a grant from die Exxon Edu-
cation Foundation. It is the first of the set of four for which prepaid orders of $3.00 have been collected.
The first two packets of the series, "Energy and the Environment" (published January 1973, 62 pages, in-
cluding a review article and 46 reviews of references) and "No Deposit, No Return: Muncipal Solid Waste Manage-
ment" (published April *73; 78 pages, including a review article, 69 reviews of references, and an appendix on
sources) are out of print. We now have a sufficient number of additional requests to justify reprinting them. Since
we have exhausted our funds for printing and mailing we must charge $1.00 per packet for these and enclose an
order form with this mailing for your convenience.
As we have become more expert at this business of packet production we have greatly broadened our search
procedures and thus increased significantly the amount of material we must read, select, and review. This has
delayed production of Noise Pollution well beyond our expected publication date, but as you see this is our most
ambitious packet to date.
The topics chosen for the remaining three packets are:
Urban Mass Transportation
The Automobile and Air Pollution
Technological Assessment
These will be mailed to those who have ordered them as soon as they are completed.
Negotiations are currently underway which may allow us to continue the ERPP activities. We are seeking
funds to do the complete revision and updating of the "Energy and the Environment" packet tiiiit the last year's
explosion of information suggests. We are also hopeful of receiving EPA support for some further packets; the
first two of which will cover industrial and municipal water pollution. We will hope to announce such develop-
ments in the next mailing.
We remain as always appreciative of any comments on or suggestions for improvement in this or future
packets and look forward to a continuation of our mutual activities to improve the basis of environmental education.
John M. Towler
Project Director

We want first to express our appreciation to James Hildebrand and the Columbia Law Review for their permission
to reprint "Noise Pollution: An Introduction to the Problem and an Outline for Future Legal Research", the review
paper which introduces this packet Several people have been most generous in providing assistance with this packet:
Patrick Cunniff, Professor of Mechanical Engineering here at Maryland who, through his position this summer at the
EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control, was able t» ease our access to numerous government publications and
provide much needed advice and guidance; Barbara Aleshire, Department of Transportation publications officer, who
met with us to review appropriate DOT publications; Senator John Tunney, whose staff was most cooperative in pro-
viding access to various Congressional and Committee reports; and Cecilia Campbell, of the Library of Congress
Congressional Research Service, who graciously provided us with numerous CRS documents. Finally, we were assisted
in the preparation of this packet by two individuals new to the ERP Project: Becky Cawley, who is responsible for
much of the library research work here,and LaVeme Havelka, who patiently and cheerfully prepared this manuscript
for publication

I have long held the opinion that the amount of noise which anyone
can bear undisturbed stands in inverse proportion to his mental
capacity, and may therefore be regarded as a pretty fair measure
of it. . . . Noise is a torture to all intellectual people.1
Noise is one of the scourges of the modern world. It is an unwanted
product of our technological civilization, and is becoming an increasingly
dangerous and disturbing environmental pollutant. There is a growing public
awareness and even some progress in the fight against air and water pollution,
but a third jeopardy—noise pollution—has only recently begun to gain atten-
tion. Since the industrial revolution the daily lives of people, particularly in
urban environments, have been invaded by unwanted and disruptive sounds.
Traffic noise, which has been generally accepted without complaint until
recently, has become intolerably noticeable. Not only is the actual number
of operating motor vehicles increasing annually (an increase of 11.5 million
cars and trucks in 1969 alone),2 but there is also an upward trend in speed
and weight, plus an almost universal adoption of the diesel engine for com-
mercial vehicle use. However, the greatest increase in the urban noise level
has been brought about by the introduction of the turbojet engine into
commercial airline operation. It can be argued that the antagonism evoked
by aircraft noise has stimulated a more critical public attitude toward noise
in general and has drawn attention to other sources of unwanted sound which
were previously tolerated. The advent of the supersonic transport (SST) is
creating a global dimension to what is already a major national noise problem.
Noise has always been with us, but it has never been so obvious, so
intense, so varied, and so pervasive as it is today. Background noise8 has
increased at a rate of one decibel4 a year on the A scale (a scale devised to
* A.B., Hamilton College; J.D., Case Western Reserve University; LL.M. Candi-
date, Harvard Law School. Member of the Ohio Bar.
The author is currently editing a selection of essays to be published in book form
under the title Noise Pollution and the Law (J. Hildebrand ed ). All rights of future
publication of this article are reserved by the author
1.	A. Schopenhauer, On Noise, in 2 The World as Will and Idea 199 (H
Haldane & J. Kemp trans. 1844)
2.	N.Y. Times, Jan 11, 1970, g 12, at 18, col. 3. This figure is predicted to increase
to 15 million annually by the end of the 1970's. Id. There are over 99.9 million motor
vehicles in the United States today. See N Y. Times, Apr. 26, 1970, 8 1, at 22, col 1
3.	See notes 28-31 and accompanying text infra
4.	The decibel is a unit measure of sound intensity and is calculated from the level
at which sound becomes audible to the human ear. One decibel represents the lowest
VOL. 70, PAGE 652 (APRIL 1970)

give greater weight to high-pitched sounds, which are more annoying to the
human ear than low-pitched sounds). If this increase continues at the same
rate for the next 30 years as it has for the last 30, it could become lethal.5
Since the intensity of sounds doubles with every six decibels, it will take
only six years to double the loudness of city noise. "The strength of the
general noise background in some of our communities is now four times what
it was in 1956, and 32 times what it was in 1938."®
Noise may affect one's health in subtle ways—both psychologically and
physiologically. Dr. Samuel Rosen, clinical professor of otology (the science
of the ear) at Mount Sinai School of Medicine and consulting ear surgeon
at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, recently stated: "At an un-
expected or unwanted noise, the pupils dilate, skin pales, mucous membranes
dry; there are intestinal spasms and the adrenals explode secretions. The
biological organism, in a word, is disturbed."7 Noise also causes a loss of
nervous energy to the detriment of the health and well-being of the individual.
Moreover, noise pollution may be a major factor in creating individual
cognitive dissonance as well as mass societal neuroses. As the noise level in-
creases, man like other animals becomes more irritable and more prone to
irrational and neurotic behavior.8 An interesting correlation might be made
between our nation's increasing crime rate and increasing urban noise level.
The problem has also become an economic one. The World Health Organiza-
tion estimates that lowered efficiency and increased errors caused by noisy
working environments result in a loss of $4 billion per year to American
industry9 In 1961 a Time estimate placed the cost of noise to American
audible sound and each additional decibel represents a tenfold increase in volume. For a
discussion of the physical properties and the measurement of sound see A Peterson &
E. Gross, Jr, Handbook of Noise Measurement (5th ed. 1963) , W. Burns, Noise
and Man 10-51 (1968) ; A Bell, Noise: An Occupational Hazard and Public
Nuisance 58-61 (1966). The decibel measurement, however, cannot measure either the
subjective impression of noise perceived or the degree of mental disturbance caused.
For example, the 50 decibel change of intensity between the rustling of leaves and the
sound of people talking is far less noticeable than the next 50 decibel increase from
the sound of people talking to the roar of a jet plane. See generally notes 85-89 and
accompanying text infra
5 Noises Takes Toll, Says Experts, Today's Health, Oct 1967, at 87, col 1, see
also Conn , Our Noise, American Legion Magazine, Feb 1968, at 30; Bailey, The Sound
of Madness "Noise ts a Slow Agent of Death," N.Y. Times, Nov. 23, 1969, | 6
(Magazine), at 46
6.	Conn, supra note 5, at 30 Many noise levels encountered in urban areas today
exceed standards found injurious in industry Dougherty & Welsh, Community Notse
and Hearing Loss, 275 New England J Medicine 759 (1966) ; See Dep't Housing
and Urban Development, Noise w Urban and Suburban Areas, Technical Studies
Program op Federal Housing Administration (1969); Ostergaad & Donley, Back-
ground Noise Levels m Suburban Communities, 36 J. AcouST. Soc. Am. 409 (1964);
Stevens, Communtty Notse and City Planning, in Handbook on Noise Control 35-1
(D. Harris ed. 1957).
7.	Noise Takes Toll, Say Experts, Today's Health, Oct. 1967, at 87, col. I.
8 See notes 28-49 and accompanying text infra
9. Mecklin, It's Time to Turn Down All That Noise, Fortune, Oct 1969, at 133
For a discussion of one company's early attempts at combating industrial noise, see
Scholtz, Combating the Traumatic Effects of Industrial Noise, 7 Cleve -Mar. L. Rev.
260 (1958). See also Miller, Case Histories of Machine and Shop Quieting, in Noise

[Vol. 70:652
industry—for compensation, lost hours, and decreased efficiency—at $2 million
a day.1®
The present state of affairs leaves little room for man to be sanguine.
But how did we get into such a situation ? The primary reason is the same as
in other areas of environmental pollution—social and legal measures were
not taken to prevent it, and for the failure to act in time the public authorities
bear the major responsibility. The increase in noise has been accepted as a
natural process, as a price to be paid for our technological progress. Law,
justice, and public authorities all have capitulated to technology.
Yet, it is perhaps unfair to make modern technology the scapegoat of all
our social and ecological ills. The pessimistic attitude—that technology has
become an end in itself, that it subjects man to its demands rather than serves
human needs, that it is inherently destructive of personal freedom, and that it
will make the world totally uninhabitable or at least deprive it of all hope and
beauty—is based upon a vast oversimplification. The converse—that technology
is a universal solvent which has not only liberated Western man from the
bondage of poverty and disease but will assure global prosperity and universal
happiness for future generations if only applied vigorously—is likewise sim-
plistic.11 There is a more rational and balanced attitude somewhere between
the two extremes:
Between these two extremes lies the view of those who recognize
that benefit and injury alike may flow from technology, which, after
all, is nothing more than a systematic way of altering the environ-
ment. They recognize that the quality of life has been greatly im-
proved by technological advance and would deteriorate rapidly in a
period of technological stagnation; that a technological culture, al-
ready adopted by one third of the human race and eagerly sought by
much of the remaining two thirds, could be abandoned only at the
cost of relegating hundreds of millions of human beings to suffering
and death. The choice, from this perspective, is not between the
abandonment of technology as a tool of human aspiration and the
uncontrolled pursuit of technology as though more tools invariably
meant a better life. The choice, rather, is between technological ad-
vance that proceeds without adequate consideration of its conse-
quences and technological change that is influenced by a deeper
concern for the interaction between man's tools and the human
environment in which they do their work.12
Reduction, S71-98 (L. Beranek etL 1960); Karplus & Bonvallet, A Noise Survey of
Manufacturing Industries. 14 Am. Indus. Hyg. Ass'n Q. 235 (1953).
10.	Time, Jan. 2, 1961, at 29.
11.	House Comm. on Science and Astronautics, Technology: Processes of
Assessment and Choice, Report op the National Academy op Sciences 2 (July
1969). For a discussion of these and other oversimplified views about technology, see
Mesthene, The Role of Technology in Society: Some General Implications of the Pro-
gram's Research, in Harvard University Program on Technology and Society,
Fourth Annual Report 1967-1968, at 41-43 (1968). See generally E. Mesthene,
Technological Change: Its Impact on Man and Society (1970).
12.	Technology: Processes of Assessment and Choice, supra note 11, at 2-3.

The stimulus necessary to provoke such a deeper concern for man's environ-
ment is often lethal. When air and water pollution was shown actually to kill
people, there was action. Fortunately or unfortunately, a direct cause and effect
relationship between excessive noise and death cannot yet be shown.18 How-
ever, the bell that is tolling is a loud one, and it is getting louder. If complete
environmental deterioration is to be avoided, we must view the world, in
Barbara Word's terminology, as a spaceship Earth which is capable of carrying
only so much cargo and whose environmental level must be qualitatively
Existing legal remedies have proved grossly inadequate to meet the
expanding needs for effective noise control. Common law nuisance remedies
and outdated municipal noise ordinances are not sufficient to protect individual
rights and public health and safety from the damages caused by noise pollution.
Even recent legislation, embodying modern scientific audiometric concepts, has
had only limited success. Ultimately, the quieting process will not gain impetus
until individual outlooks are changed. We must first realize that noise is not
just an unpleasant annoyance, which must be endured as part of the price of
progress Once individuals realize that unwanted noise is a threat to health,
not too dissimilar from air or water pollution, and that determined efforts
are needed to keep it within reasonable bounds, then market pressures can be
brought on manufacturers of noise-producing items and public pressure can
become an effective catalyst for securing particularized legal regulation of
specific noise-producing sources.
The purpose of this article is to provide an introduction to the practical
problems surrounding noise as an environmental pollutant. The continuing
deterioration of man's habitat demands a revaluation of the present approaches
to ecomanagement,18 and it is hoped that the discussion of the physiological,
behavioral and psychological effects on the physical and mental well-being of
our society and its members will emphasize the current need for legislative
as well as judicial regulation The article will also discuss the various sources
of noise pollution and what can be done to ameliorate their disruptive in-
fluences. Finally, an outline for future legal research to meet the needs of
13. It is rumored, however, that the latest exotic weapon for military use in Vietnam
is a siren capable oi emitting 200 decibels—a sound intense enough to literally "boil"
the inner ear. Dreher, It's Getting Noister, The Nation, Sept. 18, 1967, at 238-39.
14 In the last few decades, mankind has been overcome by the most fateful
change in its entire history. Modern science and technology have created so close
a network of communication, transport, economic interdependence—and potential
nuclear destruction—that planet earth, on its journey through infinity, has
acquired the intimacy, the fellowship, and the vulnerability of a spaceship.
B. Ward, Spaceship Earth vii (1966).
15. Ecology is the science of the relations between organisms and their environment.
Ecomanagement can be defined as the public management of all natural resources,
including space and air. Su J. Mayda, Environment and Resources . Fhom Conserva-
tion to Ecomanagement (1968).

[Vol. 70:652
planned and rational ecomanagement in the area of noise pollution will be
I. The Effects of Noise Pollution
As in other areas of environmental pollution, the adverse effects of noise
pollution are multivariate and interrelated. While it can be shown empirically
that exposure to excessive noise causes loss of hearing, it is more difficult to
show the subjective effects of noise on individual and societal mental well-
being. Man's ability to adapt to the deterioration of his environment further
complicates attempts to measure the effects of noise pollution in any objective
fashion. "It is possible to become 'acclimatized' to some noises, although only
to the extent that one may become less aware of their subjective effects.
However, the reverse may also occur and the noise become more noticeable."16
For simplification, this discussion will divide the effects of noise pollution on
the human organism into physiological effects—including hearing loss, occupa-
tional deafness, and noise-induced diseases—and psychological and behavioral
effects—including annoyance, speech interference, fatigue, psychosomatic dis-
orders, tension-related diseases, sleep interference, and mental illness. The
effects of infrasound and ultrasound and the effects of noise pollution on other
animals and on our nation's wilderness areas will then be discussed.
A. Physiological Effects
The most severe and noticeable effect of exposure to excessive noise is
loss or impairment of hearing. In the United States alone, 11 million adults
and 3 million children suffer some form of hearing loss.17 Airborne sound is
16.	A. Bell, supra note 4, at 33.
17.	Brower, Noise Pollution: A Growing Menace, Saturday Review, May 27, 1967,
at 17. There are several types of deafness: (1) nerve deafness, sometimes called inner-
ear, perceptive, or neurosensory deafness, in which noise is the usual cause; (2) con-
ductive hearing loss, in which there is interference with the conduction of sound to the
inner-ear; (3) additive or mixed hearing losses due to a combination of the above; and
(4) functional deafness, which is due to psychological factors or to malingering. A Bell,
supra note 4, at 22. See generally J. Ballantyne, Deafness (1960); H. Davis &
S Silverman, Hearing and Deafness (1961). On the mechanism of hearing, see
T. Litter, The Physics of the Ear (1965); I. Whitfield, The Auditory Pathway
(1967); A. Glorig, Noise and Your Ear (1958).
Until recently it was generally thought to be a physiological effect of aging that
the ability to hear high tones gradually diminishes storting at about age 32 for men and
age 37 for women. However, it is now believed by some doctors, including Dr Samuel
Rosen, consulting ear surgeon and clinical professor of otology at New York's Mount
Sinai Hospital, that this hearing change, called presbycusis, is not a natural hearing loss
but rather is caused by the general noise level in our society. See Rosen, Presbycusis
Study of a Relatively Noise-free Population of the Sudan, 71 Annals op Otology,
Rhinology & Laryngology 727 (1962); Rosen, Hearing Studies in Selected Urban-
Rural Populations, 29 Transactions of the N.Y. Academy of Sciences 9 (1966). Of
course, it is possible that factors other than noise cause a loss of hearing which corre-
lates with age in Western society. Dr. Roy Sullivan has suggested that atherosclerosis
and hypertension are two other possible factors, and he warns that Dr. Rosen's findings
should be interpreted "with caution, in light of cultural, hereditary, diet and other en-
vironmental differences between the [Sudan and Western] societies." 113 Cong. Rec.
H670 (daily ed. Jaa 26, 1967). See generally A. Bell, supra note 4, 41-43; W. Burns,
supra note 4, at 17-18.

a variation in normal atmospheric pressure,18 and the response of the ear is
proportional to such pressure. There are numerous ways that noise can
damage hearing. The most common effect of excessive noise on hearing is
nerve deafness, which occurs when noises damage the hearing mechanism to a
point where the sensory nerve function is depressed. In the process of hearing,
sound waves are transmitted to the inner ear's cochlea, a shell-like chamber
which is lined with hair-like sensors. Sounds are analyzed by the ear in this
chamber. Prolonged exposure to excessive noise can cause marked changes in
the cells of the hair-like sensors, causing a hearing loss which may be perma-
nent.19 A more exceptional hearing damage, called acoustic trauma, or blast
trauma, is caused when a sudden burst of noise, such as gunfire, ruptures the
eardrum or disrupts the chain of small bones that transmit the sound within
the ear to the auditory nerve. Explosive noise may also affect the inner ear,
producing cochlear damage and permanent nerve deafness.20
Not only the intensity of noise but such factors as duration of exposure,
distance from the source, and frequency must be considered when assessing the
probability of both correctable and irreparable hearing damage. Obviously, the
longer the exposure the greater the damage. The intensity of sound diminishes
over distance, with a propressively greater reduction as the frequency in-
creases. Moreover, higher frequency sounds, such as that created by a turbo-
prop airplane, are more disagreeable and dangerous than those of lower
18 A Peterson & E. Gross, Jr., supra note 4, at 3 Sound can be defined as a
mechanical disturbance or an oscillation in pressure, stress, particle displacement, particle
velocity, etc., propagated in an elastic medium, of such character as to be capable of
exciting the sensation of hearing. By extension, the term sound is sometimes applied to
any disturbance, irrespective of frequency, which may be propagated as a wave motion
in an elastic medium. The medium in which the source exists is often indicated by an
appropriate adjective, e.g, airborne, waterborne, structureborne. Sound can also be de-
fined as the sensation of hearing excited by mechanical disturbance. Disturbances of
frequency too high to be capable of exciting the sensation of hearing are described as
ultrasonic. Hypersonics is the name given to ultrasonic disturbances in a medium, whose
wavelength is comparable with the inter-molecular spacing. Disturbances of frequency
too low to be capable of exciting the sensation of hearing are described as infrasonic.
See id. at 213; British Standards Institution, BS661, Glossary of Acoustical
Terms (1969) For a discussion of the physical properties of sound, see W. Burns,
supra note 4, at 10-51; W. Hall & O. Matthews, Sound (2d ed. 196S); L. Kinsler &
A. Frey, Fundamentals of Acoustics (1962); R Stephens & A. Bate, Acoustics
and Vibrational Physics (1966).
19.	See W. Burns, supra note 4, at 69; Brower, supra note 17, at 17; discussion in
note 21 infra
20.	Lehmann, Noise and Health, UNESCO Courier, July 1967, at 26.
21.	Id.
Two physicians, Dr. John D. Dougherty of the Harvard School of Public
Health and Dr. Oliver I. Welsh, chief of the Audiology Unit of the Veterans
Administration Outpatient Clinic in Boston, made a study of loss of hearing in
the high frequencies Their report was published in the New England Journal
of Medicine [Vol. 27S, No. 14, Oct. 6, 1966, at 759], In the process of hearing,
they explained, sound waves are transmitted to the inner ear's cochlea, a shell-
like chamber which is lined with hairlike sensors High-frequency sounds are
analyzed by the ear at the front of this chamber, while the low-frequency sounds
are dealt with all along the path of the inner cochlea. Consequently, there is
persistent wear in that one small area where the high-frequency sounds impinge;
this area wears out first. The two physicians also noted marked tissue changes
in the hair cells during noise exposure. According to Dr. Dougherty, "the hair

[Vol 70:652
Loss or partial impairment of hearing is not the only physical damage
that can be caused to the human organism by noise pollution. There is a grow-
ing concern that other serious physical difficulties may be caused or aggravated
by the increasing noise in the urban environment.32 At a recent meeting of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, it was asserted by
Dr. Lester W. Sontag that the human fetus may be damaged by noise pollution
either directly by such violent noise as sonic booms, or indirectly by the
mother's psycho-physiological reaction to excessive noise.23 On the adult level,
physicians have reported a causal relationship between exposure to excessive
noise over a period of time and the incidence of heart disease and cardio-
vascular dysfunction,34 migraine headaches, gastrointestinal disorders, and
allergies, as well as endocrine and metabolic effects.25 A recent report by the
Federal Council for Science and Technology has stated that "[increasing
numbers of competent investigators believe that [prolonged exposure to in-
tense noise] may adversely affect other organic, sensory and physiologic func-
tions of the human body."16 Dr. Vern O. Knudsen, a physicist, a founder of
the Acoustical Society of America, and former Chancellor of the University
of California, did not overstate the problems when he said: "Noise is a slow
agent of death."27
B. Psychological and Behavioral Effects
Noise can be defined simply as one or a group of loud, harsh, nonhar-
monious sounds or vibrations that are unpleasant and irritating to the ear.28
cells regenerate themselves after noise exposure; but after long-term exposure,
it is entirely likely that they will wear out altogether."
Brower, supra note 17, at 17.
22.	See, e.g., Hearings on Noise: Its Effect on Man and Machine, Before the Special
Investigating Subcomm. of the House Comm. on Science and Astronautics, 86th Cong.,
2d Sess. (Aug. 23-25, 1960) [hereinafter cited as Hearings on Noise]; American Ass'n
for the Advancement of Science, Symposium: Physiological Effects of Audible Sound,
Boston, Mass., Dec. 28-29, 1969 [hereinafter cited as AAAS Symposium], discussed in
Welch, Physiological Effects of Audible Sound, 166 Science 533 (1969); N.Y. Times,
Dec. 29, 1969, at 1, cols. 4-5. The papers presented at the AAAS Symposium are
scheduled to he published later this year by the Plenum Press.
23.	Sontag, Effects of Noise During Pregnancy Upon Foetal and Subsequent Adult
Behavior, at AAAS Symposium, supra note 22, discussed in N.Y. Times, Dec. 29, 1969,
at 1, cols. 4-5, and 25, col. 2.
24.	Rosen, Noise, Hearing and Cardiovascular Function, at AAAS Symposium,
supra note 22; Rosen, Hearing Loss and Coronary Heart Disease, 82 Archives of
Otolaryngology 236 (1965); Rosen, Relation of Hearing Loss to Cardiovascular
Disease, Transactions Am. Acad. Ophthalmology and Otolabyngoiocv 433 (1964).
See also N.Y. Times, Mar. 19, 1967, S 1, at 42, col. 1 (report of Dr. Samuel Rosen at
Conference on Noise Control, New York); Ragon, Impact, World Health, Feb-Mar.
1966, at 26-28.
25.	N.Y. Times, June 23, 1967( at 22 col. 2 (report of Professor Lee E. Farr to
American Medical Ass'n Convention); Blum, Noise: How Much Can We Taket,
McCalls, Jan. 1967, at 113. See generally AAAS Symposium, supra note 24.
26.	Retort of the Comm. on Environmental Quality of the Federal Council
for Science and Technology, Noisb: Sound Without Value 3 (1968) [hereinafter
cited as Noist: Sound Without Value], discussed in N.Y. Times, Nov. 10, 1968
at 42, col. 1.
27.	Quoted in Bailey, supra note 5, at 131.
28.	Noise is any undesired sound By extension, noise is any unwanted dis-
turbance within a useful frequency band, such as undesired electric warn in any

"Whether a sound becomes noise—whether it is wanted or unwanted—whether
it is injurious—in many instances is all in the point of view."29 The degree of
annoyance is not necessarily related to the intensity of the sound; it may often
be influenced by subjective factors, such as familiarity and personal attitudes.
Very loud music may still be considered beautiful by an appreciative listener,80
whereas even minute scratching and extremely weak sounds can be a disturbing
noise. Since annoyance is largely an individual response, and varies with
persons and situations, it can be said that what makes a sound a noise is a
matter of psychology rather than acoustics.
A sound which we associate with something pleasurable is far less
likely to be considered as a noise than one with unwelcome con-
notations. We always tend to underrate the noise of our own car,
for example, and the children next door always seem to make more
noise than our own. So whether a sound is regarded as a noise and
how noisy it is depends also on who causes the noise and his relation-
ship with the person who hears it.81
In determining whether a sound is a noise, mental attitude and environment
are of major importance,32 and it is interesting to note that groups of people
with different backgrounds of work experience have differing annoyance
As in other areas of psychological and behavioral reaction, there is no
objective method of measuring annoyance as such. By asking a sufficient
number of people about their reactions to noises, it is possible to obtain some
transmission channel or device .... Noise is an erratic, intermittent, or statis-
tically random oscillation .... II ambiguity exists as to the nature of the noise,
a phrase such as "acoustic noise" or "electric noise" should be used . Since
the above definitions are not mutually exclusive, it is usually necessary to depend
upon context for the distinction.
A. Peterson & E. Gross, Jr , supra note 4, at 210.
29	American Medical Ass'n, Noise and Its Health Effects, Human Develop-
ments in Action, May-June 1967, at 23.
We shall apply the term noise to describe sounds which are unwanted and
possibly also loud and objectionable. The criteria are thus subjective. The very
nature of these definitions presupposes a very wide range of reactions by different
people to the same sound, but if the sound is sufficiently loud or long-lasting, or
both, or if it has some peculiarity in quality or time pattern, it will be found
disagreeable by some people. By and large the louder the noise the greater the
number of people who will find it objectionable; with certain noises, a larger
proportion of those exposed will be likely to object strongly.
W. Burns, supra note 4, at 7-8.
30	Even desired sound can be damaging, whether you call it noise or not •
In Melbourne, Australia, noise researcher R. F. Burton set out to discover why
he was noticing "tender ear" in two or three percent of teen-agers. He went
to a rock'n roll teenage dance and clocked 114 decibels of sound, a dangerously
high level for the ear to tolerate. He came away predicting that many teen-agers
who subject themselves to this wanted noise will lose their hearing earlier in
life than usual, and many will be deaf at 40.
Conn, supra note S, at 32 See also Medicine, Going Deaf from Roek'n'Roll, Time, Aug 9,
1968, at 47; Not Exactly Music to Your Ears: High Sound Levels of Rock-and-Roll
Mustc, Consumers Report, July 1968, at 349; Rock Physically Unsound, Science
Digest, June 1968, at 67.
31. Lehmann, supra note 20, at 26.
32 A. Bell, supra note A, at 33.
33. See Kryter, Noise Control Criteria For Buildings, 3 Noise Control, Nov.
1957, at 14; Noise: Sound Without Value, supra note 26, at 2

[Vol. 70:652
indication of the general degree of annoyance or distress. On the statistical
basis of replies to specific questions concerning annoyance caused by noise,
"together with a knowledge of the relevant noise environment, some quantita-
tive indication of the way in which noise interferes with people's lives can be
obtained."34 It can be generally said that the louder the noise and the higher
the pitch of its components, the greater the annoyance is likely to be; other
factors are the characteristics of the sound and the modulation of loudness
and pitch.
Another behaviorally disruptive effect of noise is its interference with
speech communication. This is probably the best understood of the non-
auditory effects of noise. This aspect of noise pollution is important for
industry where the ability to communicate by speech is vital, and its inter-
ference may cause inconvenience, disruption of work, inefficiency, and acci-
dents. The consonants convey most of the information content of speech, and
because they are articulated in higher frequencies and are weaker in intensity
than the vowels, they are more readily drowned out by other noises.89 The
interference with speech communication caused by noise is basically a masking
process.86 Background noises increase an individual's threshold of hearing, and
the extent to which the hearing threshold is increased is called the speech
interference level and can be expressed in decibels. "Discontinuous or impul-
sive noises often produce less interference than expected because speech that
is partly masked may be complemented by interpolation or gesture to make
good the gaps in what is actually heard."37 The necessity to talk loudly or the
extra effort caused by misunderstandings due to speech interference may cause
fatigue. However, because of differing individual reactions it is not easy to
prove that employees become more tired working in noisy surroundings than
in quiet ones.88
34	W. Burns, supra note 4, at 101.
35	See Grimm, Perception of Segments of English-Spoken Consonant-Vowel
Syllables, 40 J. Acousr. Soc. Am. 1454 (1966) ; Fairbanks & Mir on, Effects of Vncal
Effort Upon the Consonant-Vowel Ratio Within the Syllable, 29 J Acoust Soc Am
621 (1957) ; Kryter, Williams & Green, Auditory Acuity and the Perception of Speech,
34 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1217 (1962).
36	See Webster, Speech Communications as Limited by Ambient Noise, 37 J
Acoust. Soc. Am. 692 (1965) For a discussion of masking, see note 52 infra.
37	A Bell, supra note 4, at 31 For a discussion of non-verbal communication, see
Rosenthal, Unintended Communication of Interpersonal Expectations, 10 American
Behavioral Scientist 24 (Apr. 1967); Communication Wkat's tn a GlanceTime.
Oct. 17, 1969, at 74; NY. Times, Sept 28, 1969, 5 1, at 53, col. 1. See also Bacon, The
Man Who Reads Nature's Secret Signals, National Wtuiure, Feb -Mar. 1969, at 4.
38	A Bell, supra note 4, at 35, citing Pugh, Noise—Noxious or Ntce, 15 Aw
Industr Hyg Ass'n Q. 127 (1954). Similarly, the claim that noisy working environ-
ments cause a loss of employee morale is a matter difficult to assess objectively "In
general, morale is related more to the degree of ego involvement in one's work than to
noise levels or other disturbing conditions " A Bell, supra note 4, at 35, citing Felton &
Spencer, Morale of Workers Exposed to High Levels of Occupational Noise, 22 Aw.
Industr Hyg Ass'n Q. 136 (1961) Because of psychological considerations, often re-
sulting from the participation of employees in noise-effect investigations, employee work
performance may improve temporarily under simulated noisy conditions. See discussion
and citations in A. Bell, supra note 4, at 34.

Psychiatrists and psychologists have recently noted the connection be-
tween excessive undesired noise and mental disorders. Drs. Rosen and
Knudsen suggest that loss of hearing may in fact be the least serious impair-
ment to the human organism caused by noise pollution. Both of these doctors
point out that one no longer has to work in a boiler factory to suffer noise-
induced psychological and physiological damage. Day and night most of us
are exposed to a general racket. These noises are now being recognized as a
major factor in the celebrated "tensions" of modern living; they contribute
and aggravate all of the tension-related diseases—from stomach ulcers,
neuroses, and mental illness to allergies and cardiovascular and circulatory
Dr. Knudsen calls the total effect of the background roar of modern
life "decibel fatigue," and says that millions of Americans suffer from
it. Dr. Rosen believes that medical science will one day recognize an
entire "noise syndrome"—a family of symptoms related to unwanted
or unexpected noises. He and others already cite dilation of the pupils,
dry mucous membranes, skin paleness, intestinal spasms and glandular
secretions as candidates for membership in the full "noise syndrome"
when it is recognized.40
Similarly, the late Dr. Fabian Rouke reported to the New York Committee for
a Quiet City:
One of the insidious aspects of excessive noise is the fact that an
individual may be unconsciously building up nervous tension due to
noise exposures. This may cause a person thus exposed to noise
suddenly to be catapulted into an act of violence, or mental collapse,
by some seemingly minor sounds which drive him beyond the point
of endurance. Many persons who are using tranquilizers may be
treating the symptoms rather than the disease.41
Persons exposed to unwanted noise easily become irritable and un-
sociable : "Studies show that workers in noisy jobs tend to be more quarrel-
some at work and away from it (at home, for example) than those doing
equivalent jobs, but who are not subjected to similar noise stresses."48 There
is evidence of increasing concern relating to the effect of noise on the
efficiency, performance, and concentration of factory workers and office em-
ployees. It has been reported that astronauts subjected to a reproduction of
the 145 decibel sound of a jet engine at full thrust experience difficulty in
carrying out simple arithmetical operations, and tended to put down any
answer in order to end the experiment.48 "In many cases, [people working
39.	See notes 22-36 and accompanying text supra. For additional citations, see A
Bell, supra note 4, at 34.
40.	Conn, supra note 5, at 31-32 (emphasis added)
41.	Committee fob a Quiet City, Inc, Final Report & Recommendations, July
7, 1960, at 24.
42.	Lehmann, supra note 20, at 30-31.
43.	A. Bell, supra note 4, at 34.

[Vol. 70:652
in a noisy environment] make more mistakes and their thinking gets slow and
fuzzy. Often they carry a burden of resentment and irritation, have more
'social conflicts' at home and on the job than workers in quieter surround-
ings."44 Obviously, unwanted noise that is deleterious to an individual's well-
being and that also decreases working efficiency will add significantly to the
costs of production and industry. As noted above, these costs caused by lowered
efficiency and increased errors have been estimated to result in an annual $4
billion loss to American industry.45
One of the most disruptive effects of noise pollution, both physically and
mentally, is loss of sleep. Even when the sleeping area is quiet a person
may be kept awake by a ringing sensation in the ears, called tinnitus, which
may have been caused by exposure to excessive noise several hours earlier.
Adequate sleep is a physiological necessity, and noises which prevent sleep
can be said to be prejudicial to physical health.48 Victims may also "develop
psychotic symptoms because their dreams are interrupted."47 Because of the
individual and personal peculiarities in the reaction to noise with respect to
interference with sleep, it is virtually impossible to lay down rules of a
practicable nature for preventing such disturbance. Maximum permissible
noise levels for sleeping accommodation can be suggested,48 "but an additional
factor is that of intermittent noise, such as that from passing road or air
traffic, and attempts must be made to account for the consequent individual
disturbances on the basis of their frequency of occurrence. This factor is of
particular importance in the case of aircraft noise."49
C. Effects of Infrasound and Ultrasound
"Sound" may damage body and mind even though it cannot be heard.
Studies have only recently been started by the French National Centre for
Scientific Research in Marseilles concerning infrasound, which has a pitch or
frequency of below 30 cycles per second and is thus inaudible to the human
44.	Manchester, Rising Time of Noise, S3 Nat'l Civic Rev. 418, 419 (1964). See
also Broadbent, Effects of Noise on Behavior, in Handbook on Noise Control, supra
note 6, at 10-10.
45.	See Mecklin, supra note 9 at 133. For a discussion of one company's early attempts
at combating industrial noise, see Scholtz, supra note 9.
46.	See W. Burns, supra note 4, at 100; THiessen, Psychological Effects of Noise
During Sleep, at AAAS Symposium, supra note 22; Lukas & Kryter, Awakening Effects
of Simulated Sonic Boom and Subsonic Jet Noise, at AAAS symposium, supra note 22.
See also Atherly, Hempstock & Noble, Study of Tinnitus Induced Temporarily by Noise,
44 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1503 (1968).
47.	Trial, Aug-Sept., 1966, at 6 (summarizing testimony of Dr. Julius Buchwald,
psychiatrist, New York State Medical Center, before the Mental Hygiene Commission
of the New York State Assembly. See Mendels, Sleep and Depression, at AAAS
Symposium, supra note 22.
48.	It has been suggested that 35 decibels is the threshold for optimum sleeping
conditions See Bragdon, Noise—A Syndrome of Modern Society, 10 Scientist &
Citizen 29, 33 (1968).
49.	W. Burns, supra note 4, at 101.

ear, but which is still capable of harming the human organism. "Industrial
cities abound in infrasound, generated by many kinds of machines and motors
that turn at a slow rate. Even infrasound of weak intensity can penetrate
houses and become the unsuspected cause of such ills as dizziness and
fatigue."80 Infrasound is blamed for feelings of malaise and discomfort some-
times experienced by airplane passengers,81 and for this reason most airlines
cancel out or "mask" such infrasound with music while the engines are
idling.52 Persons affected by infrasound experience physiological effects similar
to those caused by low-frequency mechanical vibration. Vertigo and nausea
are attributed to the excitation of the semi-circular canals, and infrasound may
also cause resonances of internal organs producing intense irritation, visual
disturbances, and interference with intellectual activity.63
At the other end of the frequency scale are the ultrasounds which are also
inaudible to the human ear but which may have other serious effects on the
human organism. In an extensive survey of the auditory and subjective effects
of industrial ultrasonic sources made in 1967, it was found that unpleasant
subjective effects, including headache, nausea, tinnitus, and fatigue, were
experienced by some persons and that temporary threshold shift occurred.54
However, the conclusion of this report suggested that the effects were probably
due to noise in the high but audible frequency range which also occurred in
the industrial machine noise, and was not necessarily due to the ultrasonic
components as such.
50.	The Danger of Sounds We Cannot Hear; UNESCO Courier, July 1967, at 28.
See also discussion in note 18 supra.
51.	Id.
52.	It is common experience to have one sound completely drowned out when
another, louder noise occurs. For example, during the early evening when a
fluorescent light is on, the ballast noise may not be heard, because of the usual
background noise level in the evening. But late at night when there is much
less activity and correspondingly less noise, the ballast noise may become rela-
tively very loud and annoying^ Actually, the noise level produced by the ballast
may be the same in the two instances. But psychologically the noise is louder
at night because there is less of the masking noise that reduces its apparent
Experimenters have found that the masking effect of a sound is greatest
upon those sounds close to it in frequency. At low levels the masking effect
covers a relatively narrow region of frequencies. At higher levels, above 60
[decibels], say, the masking effect spreads out to cover a wide range, mainly for
frequencies above the frequencies of the dominating components. In other words,
the masking effect is asymmetrical with respect to frequency. Noises that include
a wide range of frequencies will correspondingly be effective in masking over a
wide-frequency range.
A. Peterson & E. Gross, supra note 4, at 20-21.
53.	W Burns, supra note 4, at 249, citing Gaveau, Condat & Saul, Infra-sons•
Gintrateurs, Dftecteurs, Propriltis Physiques, Effects Biologiques, 17 Acustica 1
(1966). Another very important study in this area is Mohr, Cole, Guild & von Gierke,
Effects of Low Frequency and Infrosonic Noise on Man, 36 Aerospace Medicine, No. 9,
at 817 (1965).
54.	Acton & Carson, Auditory and Subjective Effects of Airborne Noise from
Industrial Ultrasonic Sources, 24 Brit. J. Industr. Med. 297 (1967). See also Parrack,
Effect of Airborne Ultrasound on Humans, 5 International Audiology 294 (1966).
For a discussion of temporary and permanent threshold shift, set note 82 infra.

[Vol. 70:652
D. Effects of Noise Pollution on Other Animals and on Wilderness Areas
Man is not the only animal affected by noise pollution. Mink farmers
can lose a majority of their animals in the ldlling frenzy the female minks
undergo after being startled by a sonic boom.85 "The laboratory exposure of
animals to short loud sounds can cause diverse effects, such as a temporary rise
in breathing and heart rates, a rise of blood pressure, or a lessened flow of
gastric juice; but these responses quickly subside when the noise ceases."58
Laboratory experiments have also demonstrated that sound with an intensity
of 150 to 160 decibels is fatal to certain animals. The animals suffered from
burns, spasms, and paralysis before dying.67 Sport fish are believed to be
hypersensitive to sound,58 and research is also being undertaken to determine
the effects of noise on commercial oyster beds.59 Guinea pigs exposed to short
periods of above-normal but supposedly tolerable noise have developed swollen
inside-the-ear membranes, and vital auditory ear hair cells have been destroyed.
Prolonged exposure to excessive noise has made rats lose their fertility, turn
homosexual, and eat their young. If loud enough (ISO decibels) the noise
eventually kills them through heart failure.60
America's wilderness areas and national parks, which to date have
remained out of hearing range of urban and industrial noise, will soon be
subjected to a new menace—sonic booms from supersonic transport (SST)
planes flying overhead.81 Serious damage connected with sonic booms has been
observed and reported in the Canyon de Chelly National Monument in Arizona,
Bryce Canyon in Utah, Mesa Verde National Park in Colorado, and elsewhere.
At the Canyon de Chelly an ancient Indian dwelling was demolished
when a large portion of an overhanging cliff fell following a sonic
55.	The Minneapolis Tribune reports that Zack Taylor, a mink farmer at
Frazee, Minnesota, was recently awarded $37,490 in damages resulting from
an Air Force sonic boom in 1965. The farmer said his minks "exploded"
simultaneously from their nest boxes and crashed against the ends of their cages
with all four feet, then became quiet. Later, he found dead kittens in the boxes
and cages, some partially devoured, and conduded that the frenzied mothers had
eaten many of their young. In 1966 hip herd produced less than half the
expected number of kittens.
National Parks, Aug. 1968, at 21. See Bond, Effects of Noise on the Physiology and
Behavior of Form Animals and Farm-raised Mink, in AAAS Symposium. Supra note
22. See also Heinemann, Effects of Sonic Booms on the Hatchability of Chicken Eggs,
at AAAS Symposium, supra note 22.
56.	A. Bell, supra note 4, at 35. See N.Y. Times, Feb- 8, 1970, § 1, at 83, col. 5
(report on experiments by Dr. Joseph Buckley, chairman and associate dean of pharma-
cology, University of Pittsburgh).
57.	Echoes from Our Noisy World, UNESCO Courier, July 1967, at 22, 23.
58.	See N.Y. Times, Oct. 27, 1968, 8 5, at 28, col. 2.
59.	See Cleveland Plain Dealer, Mar. 16, 1968, at 10, col. 1. See also A. Peterson &
E. Gross, Jr., supra note 4, at 21.
60.	Bailey, supra note 5, at 131. See also Rocket Blasts and Guinea Pigs, Science
Digest, Oct. 1968, at 63. Ecological studies have shown that rats exposed to excessively
loud noise exhibit a marked decline in the 'pregnancy rate. Echoes from Our Noisy
World, supra note 57, at 23.
61.	See generally text accompanying notes 126-132 infra.

boom. Rare sandstone formations in Bryce Canyon have been severely
damaged. A rockfall of 66,000 tons occurred recently in Mesa Verde
after the passage of two jet planes traveling at supersonic speeds. A
rock slide from a canyon wall of the Navajo National Monument in
Arizona has just been reported. In the Death Valley National Monu-
ment (California and Nevada), 323 sonic booms were counted in a
six-month period ending in February 1968, with 68 of these con-
sidered to be serious enough to cause weakening and demolition of
geologic features.62
The future does not appear promising. "In a hearing before a congres-
sional committee on May 22, 1967, Secretary of Transportation Alan S. Boyd
said that it was probable that certain routes over thinly populated areas could
be worked out in order to avoid booming the cities."63 This means, of course,
that special efforts will be made to find routes over our nation's wilderness
and national park areas for the supersonic jets. If such efforts are successful,
the tranquility and solitude of these sanctuaries will be destroyed by the
persistent cannonade of sonic booms.64
Increasing the threat to our parks and wilderness areas is the opinion of
some government officials that these areas provide the only "feasible and
prudent alternative" for locating the new SST jetports. The first of such air-
ports was scheduled to be built, and construction was begun in the Everglades
National Park in Florida. Six months after the project had begun, and after
$13 million had been spent on the construction of a landing strip for training
flights, the international jetport was banned by a joint federal and state
agreement.66 When finished, the jetport would have covered 39 square miles
in the middle of the Great Cypress Swamp, which supplies 38 percent of the
water flowing into the park. Conservationists contended that the interruption
of this flow would have upset, if not totally destroyed, the ecological balance
in what has been regarded as the last refuge of solitude along the Eastern
Seaboard. The construction of the flight training landing strip has already
endangered the fragile and unique ecology of the park.®9
62 Editorial Comment to Graves, Sonic Booms and Wilderness, The Living
Wilderness, Winter 1967-68, at 17, 18 See also N.Y Times, Dec 1, 1968, 8 1 at 73, col. 4
(discussion of sonic boom damage to Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado) , 113 Cong.
Rec H3S2 (daily ed Jan. 18, 1967).
63.	Graves, supra note 62, at 19.
64.	The magnitude and range of the noise created by the new SST's are, to say
the least, awesome. On its maiden flight, the Anglo-French Concorde was heard 20 miles
away. Boeing's SST will generate noise above the threshold of pain Soucie, The
Everglades Jetport—One Hell of an Uproar, 54 Sierra Club Bulletin, July 1969, at 4, 7
See also SST. Noise Reduction Sideline Noise Viewed as Major Problem by Boeing 21
Aerospace Technology, May 20, 1968, at S3.
65.	NY. Times, Jan. 16, 1970, at 1, cols. 6-7; N.Y. Times, Feb. 1, 1970, 8 10, at
1, cols 1-4.
66.	See Soucie, supra note 64, at 7. See also Editorial, A Jetless Everglades, N.Y
Times, Sept. 7, 1969, § 4, at 14, col. 1; Pennekamp, Disaster tn Everglades National
Park, 50 Sierra Club Bulletin, Oct 1965, at 4.
Another aspect of our ecological crisis is that pollution problems are not only
multivariate but they are also interrelated—where there is big-league noise pollution, there
invariably will be air and water pollution. The construction and expansion of our nation's

[Vol. 70:652
II. Sources of Noise Pollution—And What We Can Do About Them
The sources of noise pollution are infinite in number and diversity. If the
average person were to stop for ten minutes and attempt to identify all the
unwanted sounds he hears, he would find it impossible to even list them in
that amount of time. We have already defined noise as any unwanted or dis-
ruptive sound. Noise control can be defined as the technology of achieving an
acceptable noise environment consistent with economic and operational con-
siderations.87 There are three approaches to the problem: One solution is to
reduce the noise level at its source; the second solution is to dampen or insulate
the places where we live and work; the third alternative is to "mask" un-
wanted noises with other more pleasing sounds.08 For purposes of this
discussion the sources of noise pollution will be divided into four general
categories: (1) household appliances; (2) industry and construction; (3)
traffic; and (4) aircraft noise and the sonic boom.
A. Household Appliances
The kitchen is the noise center of the modern home. An electric blender
can produce 98 decibels, as compared with 95 by a subway and 107 by a loud
power motor.69 When the exhaust fan, the dishwasher, and the garbage disposal
operate simultaneously, is much as 100 decibels may result. The situation has
reached such proportions that Dr. John D. Dougherty of the Harvard School
of Public Health has cited the kitchen as a major contributor to the increasing
deafness of the general population.70
The household roar, indoor and out, is multiplied not only by increasing
the number of appliances but also by increasing the size of their power sources.
Fifteen years ago, the typical, self-propelled power mowers had one horsepower
engines, while today the "economy" models are equipped with engines three
times that size; riding mowers and home tractors may have as much as
twelve horsepower.71 Vacuum cleaners often will have more than two horse-
power motors, and it is exceptional to find one with less than one horse-
power.72 Music reproduction has undergone a similar, and perhaps unreason-
airports not only means an increase in pollution from jet sound, but also pollution from
jet contrails and from the attendant on-ground sewage and industrial waste. It was
estimated that the proposed Everglades jetport would have added 9,000 to 72,800 tons
of carbon monoxide, 4,150 to 6,000 tons of nitrogen oxides. 13,000 to 40,250 tons of hydro-
carbons, 1,000 tons of aldehydes and 1,260 to 3,250 tons of particulates to the surrounding
atmosphere when it reached the projected operational level of 900,000 flights a year.
Soucie, supra note 64, at 7.
67.	Harris, Noise, Environmental Science & Technology, April 1967, at 292.
68.	See note 52 supra.
69.	That Noise You Hear May be Pollution, Business Week, Apr. 22, 1967, at 42,
70.	See Brower, supra note 17, at 17; see note 21 supra.
71.	Dreher, supra note 13, at 239.
72.	Of course, another problem is changing personal attitudes—millions of dollars have

able, increase in power size A stereo amplifier for home use will commonly
produce 120 watts, or 60 watts of audio power per channel. The advantage is
supposed to be that momentary peaks will be accommodated without distor-
tion. The acoustic output of a 100-man symphony orchestra, however, seldom
rises above 10 watts.73
One approach to the problem of household appliance noise is to require
manufacturers to rate their products on a numerical decibel scale so that
consumers can compare relative noise levels of the products before they buy.
Similarly, houses and apartments could be rated by city inspectors for noise
so that prospective buyers and tenants will have some concept of how noisy
the physical location actually is. Many noise levels encountered in community
areas now exceed the safety standards found in industry.
"Sound absorbing materials, drapes, curtains and carpets which deaden
noise, quieter air-conditioners, ventilators and other household appliances, and
sound-insulated ceilings, walls, doors and windows all help to make the home
a quieter and more restful place."74 Acoustical research at the Owens-Corning
Fiberglas Corporation has brought forth several simple ways that household
noise can be reduced.78 Since uninsulated walls are useless in stopping airborne
noise (voices, street sounds, appliances), it is recommended that the house
or apartment be built with a double-wall system in which there is no direct path
for the transmission of undesired sound. Wall studs should be staggered so
that the same stud does not touch the inner surface of both walls. "Blankets"
of heavy insulation can then be hung between the walls. Impact noise
(slamming doors, footsteps, mechanical equipment) can be reduced by cushion-
ing. Carpets and sound-absorbing ceilings and walls can also greatly reduce
impact sounds. Plumbing noise, which is a major headache for homeowners,
can be reduced by "wrapping" the pipes so that they do not touch any part
of the building structure, and holes where pipes pass through walls can be
stuffed with resilient materials. One relatively easy way to control noise from
motorized home appliances is to place them on sound-absorbing materials, and,
if possible, within sound-insulated rooms.
been spent on advertising so that housewives will prefer "powerful" sounding household
appliances While it is technically feasible to build a vacuum cleaner that is nearly
silent, it may not sell very well because today's housewife has been conditioned to the
sound of power See N Y Times, Apr 30, 1969, at 31, cols 4-8.
73. Dreher, supra note 13, at 239.
74 Schenker-Sprungh, Down With Decibels', UNESCO Courier, July 1967, at 4, 7.
75. Solutions to Noise Control Problems tn the Construction of Houses, Apartments,
Motels and Hotels, Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. (undated) ; discussed in Noise-
Sound Without Value, supra note 26, at 23, 26-28 For a comprehensive 420 page report
which analyzes the basic causes of noise problems in buildings and recommends cor-
rective measures for their alleviation, see U S. Dep't Housing & Urban Development,
Report No ST/TS-24, Guide to Airborne, Impact and Structure-Borne Noise Con-
trol in Multipamily Dwellings (Jan 1968) See also Noise Control tn Architecture
More Engineering than Art, Architecture Record, Oct 1967, at 193; Some Particular
Problems of Noise Control, Architecture Record, Sept 1968, at 185

[Vol. 70:652
There is some indication that "sound conditioned" houses sell more
rapidly than those in which noise-absorbers have not been installed. At a
meeting of the National Association of Home Builders, in Washington, D.C.,
Charles McMahon, a spokesman for the association, reported that in a housing
development in Birmingham, Alabama, 11 sound conditioned houses were
built. These houses sold more quickly than similar homes in which the anti-
noise features were not installed, despite the fact that the sound conditioned
homes cost from $600 to $800 more. The homes included such special equip-
ment as "a 'super-quiet toilet,' sound-proofed air-conditioning and heating
units, sound-absorbing tiling and staggered stud construction in the walls."78
In an attempt to develop low-cost methods and materials to reduce noise
transmission between housing units and the intrusion of noise from outside
sources, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
has entered into a $160,000 contract with Wyle Laboratories of Segundo,
California, for an 18-month study. The findings of this study will be published
as a guide to architects and builders.77
Great Britain, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the Soviet Union
have all developed strong building codes containing comprehensive noise-
control provisions.78 In the United States, building codes are being used to
regulate noise in new apartment and office buildings. The New York City
Council has drawn up a code calling for the reduction "of airborne noises
traveling from one apartment to another through wall partitions or floors or
coming from a public hallway; for the quieting of machinery such as central
air conditioning; and for limitations on noises transmitted through ventilators,
shafts, ducts, and outlets, as well as noises emanating from a neighboring
building."79 The New York City Board of Estimate recently withheld approval
of Tracey Towers apartments in the Bronx until the builder agreed to include
certain noise abating structures.80 It is encouraging to note that the Federal
Housing Administration has set impact-noise ratings in its minimum property
standards.81 While such codes have inherent limitations, it can be hoped that
they will have some effect in reducing the amount of acoustical garbage seeping
from one apartment to another.
76	NY Times, June 23, 1967, at 22, col 2
77	Cleveland Plain Dealer, July 13. 1969, 8 E, at 23, col 7
78	Editorial, City of Noise, NY Times, Nov 26, 1967, 8 4, at 12, col 2
79	Brower, supra note 17. at 19 See also Note, Urban None Control, 4 Colum J L
& Soc Prob. 105, 108-14 (1968) ; Waterhouse, Noise Control Requirements in Building
Codes, Handbook ox Noise Control, supra note 6, at 40-1
80.	N.Y. Times, Nov. 22,, 1968, at 45, col. 1 (city ed.).
81.	U.S. Dep't Housing & Urban Development and Federal Housing Admin ,
Report No. 2600, Minimum Property Standards for Multifamily Housing, (Nov.
1963); discussed in Noise: Sound Without Value, supra note 26, at 25. See also
Federal Housing Admin. Report No. 760, Impact Noise Control in Multifamily
Dwellings (1963).

B Industry and Construction
Since the 19th century it has been recognized that workers in noisy
surroundings suffered hearing loss earlier in life than other people. Today,
hearing loss resulting from excessive noise is recognized in most countries as
an occupational disease with financial compensation based on the extent of
loss of hearing82 The scope of such occupational deafness has reached im-
pressive proportions "Claims for compensation for hearing loss on the job
now run at about $2 million a year, while it has been estimated that 4 1/2
million American workers who don't file claims might win them if they
would."83 The Federal Council for Science and Technology, in a report issued
in September 1968, estimated that the number of United States workers
experiencing noise conditions unsafe for hearing to be in excess of 6 million
and perhaps as high as 16 million 84
A leading acoustical engineer, Dr Leo L. Beranek,88 has observed that
men of 30 who have been exposed to a work environment with an average
noise level of 90 decibels for periods as short as 10 years probably can hear
no better than men in their 60's and 70's who have worked in a quiet environ-
ment.88 The danger limit for most individuals is somewhere between 80 and
82 See Lehmann, supra note 20, at 26, 30. The most common result of excessive
exposure to noise is a temporary shift in an individual's threshold of hearing, in other
words, for the affected individual to hear clearly sounds must now be louder. By
definition temporary threshold shift refers to any loss of hearing from which the ear
recovers, however long this takes If no recovery occurs, then there is said to have been
a permanent threshold shift—an important factor in determining a workman's com-
pensation. See Nelson, Legal Liability For Loss of Hearing, Handbook of Noise
Control, supra note 6, at 38-1.
83. Conn, supra note 5, at 32. See also Brower, supra note 17, at 17
84 Noisn: Sound Without Value, supra note 26, at 32 See N Y. Times, Nov. 10,
1968, at 42, col 1; A. Gloria, supra note 17, at 133
See generally Subcomm. on Noise of the Comu. on Conservation of Hearing
and Research Center, Guide for Conservation of Hearing in Noise (1964) ; cf.
Address by William H Stewart, Surgeon General, Public Health Service, U.S Dep't
of Health, Educ. & Welfare, Health and the Urban Environment, Medical Symposium on
Biological Effects of Air Pollution, Oct. 28, 1966 (Public Health Service Reprint). Much
of this research has been financed by affected industries See Blum, Now How Much
More Can We Take?, McCalls, Jan 1967, at 113. Industry has traditionally looked on
the problem from a defensive position Not only is industry the defendant in claims for
occupational hearing loss, it is often the object of attack by irate citizens claiming that
a factory or industrial plant is a public noise nuisance A "classic" in this area is the
article by William H. Lloyd, Notse as a Nuisance, 82 Univ Pa. L. Rev 567 (1934).
See also Note, Nuisance and Legislative Authorization, 52 Colum. L Rev. 781 (1952) ;
Note, Nuisance—As a "Taking" of Property, 17 U. Miami L Rev. 537 (1963) ; Prosser,
Private Action for Public Nuisance, 52 Va. L Rev. 997 (1966).
85. Dr Leo L Beranek is a leading American specialist on problems of acoustics.
He is a lecturer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
where he was formerly associate professor of communications engineering, and is
president of an American noise research and consulting firm See L Beranik, Acoustics
(1954) ; L Beranek, Noise Reduction (1960).
86 Dreher, supra note 13, at 239

[Vol 70:652
85 decibels.87 The United States Air Force, the largest single employer with
an inescapably noisy environment for most of its personnel, has settled on 85
decibels as the level where ear protection is mandatory.88 Long-term exposure
to noise with a decibel rating of over 80 is a generally accepted cause of
hearing loss, and investigations have shown that some degree of hearing loss
THRESHOLD OF PAIN (one trillion
times greater than least audible sound)
Noise Weapon (?)
Jet Aircraft at 200 feet
Pneumatic Riveter;
Air Raid Siren
Rode Music with Amplifiers (4 to 6
feet away); Power Mower
Food Blender (2 to 4 feet away)
Subway Train
Sports Car; Heavy Track
Busy Street
Normal Conversation
Quiet Street, Average Urban Interior
Quiet Room, Residential Area at Night
Tick of Watch (at 2 feet)
Leaves Rustling in Wind
Compiled from the following sources: Schenker-Sprungli, supra note 74, at 6; Dreher,
supra note 13, at 241; Medicine, Going Deaf from Rock'n Roll, Time, Aug. 9, 1968, at
47; Brower, supra note 17, at 17-18.
88. U.S. Air Force Regulation 160-3:5, Hazardous Noise Exposure (1956).

may occur at levels which are well below those commonly encountered under
all sorts of contemporary conditions. Temporary deafness can be caused by
short exposure to levels between 100 and 125 decibels. Listening becomes
painful in the range of 125 and 140 decibels, and at 150 decibels the ear can
be permanently damaged even with only short exposures.
Industrial noise is also a source of irritation for the general community.
Mayor John Lindsay of New York City has been quoted as saying:
This city has an obligation to protect its citizens against all forms of
violence, including assault by decibels .... In a modern industrial
civilization, I suppose we have to be prepared to tolerate some in-
crease in the sound level, but I see no reason why this city or its
people should have to put up with battering, shattering noises.89
This statement holds true for every other American city as well as for our
nation as a whole.
With liability on their minds, it is not surprising that industries are
searching for quieting processes. A relatively quiet pile-driver and air com-
pressor are already on the market,90 and it would take little research to
develop similar less noisy industrial and construction equipment. The silenced
machines are usually enclosed in a solid plastic housing lined with sound-
deadening material. Furthermore, some noise reducing progress could be made
if silencers and adequate mufflers were attached to present equipment, or if this
equipment were properly isolated, screened, or enclosed. Techniques are being
developed to permit economical and effective noise reduction where it was
once considered too difficult or too expensive. Industries should be encouraged
to seek suitable noise control measures, "and where large numbers of persons
are exposed to a severe noise hazard, governments should encourage research
and provide, directly or indirectly, the necessary financial assistance."91 Since
noise control measures which are economically impossible today may become
feasible or mandatory tomorrow, the problems must be kept under constant
Laws which allow unlimited construction noises between 7 a.m. and 6 pm.
in New York City and elsewhere should be re-evaluated. There is little reason
why millions of people should be awakened by drills and jackhammers at
7 a.m. if these tools can be effectively quieted. Even the noisy garbage collectors
celebrated by Carl Sandburg can be made more quiet by the use of rubber or
plastic containers or by placing rubber bumper-rings around the garbage
To a great extent the problem of controlling needless construction noise
89 Quoted in Brower, supra note 17, at 19
90.	Id at 19; Muffling the Clamor of Urban Construction, Business Week, Dec. 14,
1968, at 168 For a discussion of European efforts to abate construction noises, see Schen-
ker-Sprungli, supra note 74, at 7.
91.	A. Bell, supra note 3, at 62.

[Vol 70.652
is a legal one. The typical municipal zoning ordinance or anti-noise regulation
is more or less capable of regulating the neighborhood nuisance potential of
fixed industrial installations, but there is virtually no legal restriction on how
much noise temporary or transient construction companies can make in any
neighborhood they invade. "If complaining citizens attack them as public
nuisances, courts will generally rule that if even the noisiest construction
project serves a social purpose, it isn't a public nuisance—and of course con-
struction serves a social purpose."92 The logical result of the absence of legal
control is that existing methods of abating construction noise are not applied.
Air compressors and jack hammers, riveters, paving breakers, cement mixers,
auxiliary engines, and pumps are all used amidst stores, homes, and office
buildings with little or no muffling. Sometimes, the engines are surrounded
with metal sheets that only act as sounding boards. In their vicinity conversa-
tion and rational thought are impossible. The answers to these problems must
be in the form of new laws and law enforcement to reduce the volume of
construction and demolition noise as much as possible. Noise control is expen-
sive, and it is as unreasonable as it is naive to ask sympathetic construction
firms and industries to invest in noise control measures voluntarily, only to
let the unsympathetic companies underbid them on jobs by avoiding noise
control costs.83
C. Traffic Noises
Traffic noise is one of the major irritants contributing to our environmental
noise pollution. Inter-city expressways, which extend for hundreds and
thousands of miles, are bringing the din of the city to the country. Passenger
car traffic, however, need not necessarily be irritating; many new car models
are being equipped with better exhaust silencers and specially designed quiet
tire treads. Furthermore, city and highway planners have it in their power
to choose (and the public can demand) quieter road surfaces.94
The more blatant violators of our relative urban peace and quiet are
92.	Conn, supra note 5, at 33-34.
93.	On May 16, 1969 the United States Department of Labor, under Secretary
George P. Shultz, took an unprecedented step forward in the battle for noise control by
promulgating new standards for industrial noise. These standards, known as the Walsh-
Healy Health and Safety Regulations, 34 Fed. Reg. 7948 (1969), became effective on May
20, 1969 and apply to all industrial firms which have federal contracts of $10,000 or more
during the course of one year. These new regulations establish a maximum allowable level
of 90 decibels measured on the A scale for a continuous eight hour per day exposure; as
the permissible noise level exposures increase in decibels, the_ duration per day and per
number of exposure hours decreases. The new regulations will benefit some 27 million
workers in about 70,000 plants. However, the $10,000 minimum, and the fact that the
standards apply only to government contractors means that millions of other workers
will not be covered by these safety regulations. Furthermore, the regulations establish a
maximum noise level of 90 decibels which is 5 to 10 decibels higher than most experts
regard as safe.
94.	See, Beranek, Street and Air Traffic Noise—And What We Can Do About It,
UNESCO Courieb, July 1967, at 12, 14. A brief biography of Dr. Beranek appears in
note 85 supra.

trucks, buses, mrtorcycles, sports cars, and passenger cars with loud or faulty
mufflers. In general, the average truck at 60 miles per hour is about twice as
noisy as a steady stream of automobile traffic Truck noise is also more irri-
tating because it is sporadic. Sports cars, motorcycles, and buses create similar
disruptions. The obvious remedy for this aspect of the noise pollution problem
is to require adequate shielding and noise-insulation on all engine compart-
ments and exhaust systems. It is encouraging to note that the new air pollution
control mufflers are quieter than the regular exhaust mufflers. The organized
parts of the trucking industry, such as the large fleet owners, have openly
recognized their fast-growing contribution to national noise pollution. Gener-
ally, these large trucking concerns have encouraged reasonable laws and fair
enforcement; they want truck noise control to be more legal than voluntary so
that the "gypsies" will have to conform to the same noise standards as the
Traffic noise may be abated through technology in a number of ways.
One solution is to place major thoroughfares in "ditches"—that is, building
the roads in troughs which are 15 to 20 feet below the normal land surface.
This approach is especially needed where the high-speed roads are extended
into the heart of major cities Some futuristic architects have predicted the
use of covered tunnels for all city vehicular traffic.95 Even lining streets and
highways with trees, shrubs, fences, earth banks, and so forth, helps to insulate
and to protect the surrounding area from the noise
Ultimately, or from the long-term viewpoint, it can be hoped that other
forms of propulsion may alleviate or at least alter the noise created by road
vehicles One such development is the Wankel engine which, while still an
internal combustion engine, employs a rotor in a casing rather than the more
common piston in a cylinder.88 A gas-turbine powered bus in being currently
tested in New York City, but General Motors has indicated that a production
model of the bus would not be available for another two years.97 The gas-
turbine vehicle engines have been praised for their low noise levels—"the
engine gives off a subdued canine whine, instead of the familiar feline purr that
turns into a roar when the diesel engine accelerates "°8 Since gas-turbine
produce a different type of noise, albeit quieter, than that of piston engines,
road engineers and vehicle designers are likely to continue to face noise prob-
lems in the future. The most attractive possibility for the reduction of noise
is some form of electric engine. A dual-mode transit system has been devised
by Dwight M. Baumann, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
95	See Sullivan, NY Times, Dec. 31, 1967, 5 4, at 7, cols 1-7 See also text
accompanying notes 165-66 infra
96	W. Burns, supra note 4, at 133. The only commercially available passenger
vehicle with a Wankel engine is the German NSU Moter's "Ro-80." See Chinitz, Rotary
Engines, Scientific American, Feb 1969, at 90
97	N Y. Times, Dec 20, 1969, at 61, cols. 1-5
98. Id at col 1.

[Vol. 70:652
nology, which uses special buses and cars, equipped with both internal com-
bustion engines and electric motors. The conventional engines would be used
on city streets and highways. "On specially built transit corridors, however,
they would be operated by electric motors and be guided by a retractable side
arm that would swing out and touch an electric rail along the transit way.
The rail would provide the power and guidance and control speeds."89
Still a third solution would be to encourage a shift from individual auto-
mobile transportation to mass transportation. Indeed, there is some indication
that Americans may be reaching the end of their long romance with the
automobile.100 In many cities the planner's dream has become the commuter's
nightmare. In New York, for example, it is virtually impossible to cross
Manhattan in the rush hour, either with a car or without one. The suffocation
and immobilization of the cities by the automobile has been encouraged greatly
by the federal government since the Eisenhower Administration. At that
time, the powerful lobbying interests of the oil and automobile industries
persuaded Congress to set up a huge self-perpetuating highway trust fund
which is financed from a tax imposed on all sales of gasoline. The money can
only be used for building new interstate highways. In a futile effort to abate
city congestion, large multi-story car parks have been built in the midst of the
metropolitan areas—and the effect of their presence has been to encourage more
motorists to drive into town.
The public has finally begun to react against this lunacy. The city author-
ities in San Francisco, for example, flatly refused to cooperate with the state
and federal governments in permitting a huge new highway, which would have
destroyed one of that city's loveliest parks. Other cities, including Cleveland,
New Orleans, and Memphis, are now putting up similar fights.
In addition, the new National Environment Policy Act of 1969101 may
have a revolutionary effect on projects affecting the environment, including
highway construction. This landmark legislation attempts to establish a
national environmental policy and an independent body of environmental ad-
visors within the executive office of the President. Besides the important
declaration of a national policy for a better environment, the Act requires
agencies of the federal government to consider environmental impact in
deciding on project development, and gives the Council of Environmental
Advisors surveillance over proposals. Oscar S. Gray, acting director of the
Department of Transportation's Office of Environmental and Urban Systems
99.	N.Y. Times, Nov. 26, 1969, at 90 cols. 1-3.
100.	See Boyd, The Transportation Dilemma, 54 Va. L. Rev. 428 (1968) ; J. Meyer,
J. Kaen & M. Wohl, The Urban Transportation Problem (1966) ; C. Pell, Mega-
lopolis Unbound: The Super-City and the Transportation Problem (1966).
101.	Pub. L. No. 91-190, 83 Stat. 8S2 (1970). See Sive, Some Thoughts of an En-
vironmental Lawyer in the Wilderness of Administrative Law, 70 Colum. L. Rev. 612

Research, has stated recently that among the factors to be evaluated in the
early stages of highway planning will be such environmental concerns as
recreation, parks, aesthetics, neighborhood character, erosion, wildlife, noise,
and air and water pollution 102 It remains to be seen, however, if these federal
guidelines will be followed on the state level.
Yet if transportation by automobile is to be discouraged, one must sub-
stitute a viable alternative in the form of fast, efficient, and quiet mass trans-
portation. The rapid public transit systems have been sadly neglected. New
York's subway system, which was designed at the beginning of the century,
has had no new lines added to it for 40 years, despite a tremendous population
increase in the areas it serves The railroads, which used to be the major
carriers of freight and passengers, have suffered and many have died. There
are at least two states today (Maine and Vermont) where all passenger trains
have stopped running, making the residents almost entirely dependent upon
automobiles. Moreover, city subways and rail lines are presently one of the
most important sources of urban noise pollution. "The San Francisco Bay
Area Rapid Transit District, the Montreal subway and a few other urban-
suburban railroads have taken pains to reduce noise, but most of the major
systems, like that of New York City, seem to be operated on the basis that noise
is unimportant."103 It would seem that the well-known and perfectly feasible
engineering measures for abating rail noise are "a refinement to which the
users of public transportation are not entitled."104
There is some indication that a new generation of mass transportation
trains, capable of operating at speeds up to 250 miles an hour, may help to
entice travelers and commuters off the busy highways. "Two developments
have made such trains possible; the air cushion that replaces wheels and
virtually eliminates friction, and the linear electric motor that pulls the train
in almost complete silence."105 Low noise levels are unquestionably a great
advantage of such municipal transit vehicles; other high speed trains,
propelled by jet or propellor engines, would be too noisy for use in urban and
residential areas.
The conversion to swift, silent, and exhaust-free mass transport systems
will not be easy. Not only will it require a tremendous capital investment in
new equipment, but it will also mean the sacrifice of already-existing invest-
102 Boston Globe, Jan. 22, 1970, at 4, cols. 3-4.
103.	Dreher, supra note 13, at 239.
104.	Id at 240. It is encouraging to note that "The Washington [D.C.] area's
planned $2 5 billion transit system will boast . . . quiet-gentle track curves to avoid
screech, continuous welded rails, sound-absorbing carpet between tracks, rubberized
insulation of vehicle components, acoustical treatment of stations." The Boom Nobody
Wants, Nation's Business, Sept 1968, at 76, 78
105 N.Y. Times, Dec. 14, 1969, 8 E, at 14, cols 1-3 The United States has recently
let a $3 million contract with Gruman Aerospace Corporation for the designing of a
similar transit vehicle. N.Y. Times, Mar. 18, 1970, at 73, cols. 1-4.

[VoL 70:652
tnents in conventional modes of transportation. Ingenuity must be applied to
make the new systems as compatible as possible with existing rights of way.
It is imperative that the costs of pollution control be accepted by industry and
by the public in general in the same way that costs for other safety measures
are accepted.
Most states have motor vehicle statutes or codes requiring mufflers on
automobiles, trucks, and buses to prevent excessive or unusual noise.106
However, these statutes usually do not establish maximum decibel levels, and
are, therefore, extremely difficult to enforce. Recognizing that the reduction of
traffic noise through technology may be a long way off, two states (New York
and Connecticut) as well as several foreign countries have at least attempted
to limit traffic noise through comprehensive anti-noise legislation establishing
maximum decibel noise levels for motor vehicles. In New York State, vehicles
on toll ways and public highways are limited by law to a decibel count of 88.10T
Enforced along the Thomas E. Dewey Thruway at Larchmont by state police
using portable decibel meters at toll booths, the law has substantially reduced
truck and automobile noise.108 The State of California has recently adopted
comprehensive anti-highway noise legislation that would prohibit noise levels
in excess of 82 decibels for passenger cars and 92 decibels for trucks and
buses at posted highway speeds.109 As an additional means of noise abatement,
106.	For a compilation of state and local ordinances on noise control, see 115 Cong.
Rec. E9031-E9112 (daily ed. Oct. 29, 1969). See also Yerges & Weisier, Anti-Noise
Ordinances, in Handbook on Noise Control, supra note 6, at 39-1.
107.	N.Y. Veh. & Traffic L. 8 386 (McKinney Supp. 1968-69) :
1.	No motor vehicle, other than an authorized emergency vehicle or a vehicle
moving under special permit, which makes or creates excessive or unusual noise,
shall operate upon a public highway.
2.	A motor vehicle which produces a sound level of eighty-eight decibels or more
on the "A" scale shall be deemed to make or create excessive or unusual noise.
(a)	Sound pressure levels in decibels shall be measured on the "A" scale of
a standard sound level meter having characteristics defined by American Stan-
dards Association specification S 1.4-1961 "General Purpose Sound Level
Meter." Measurements of sound pressure level shall be made in accordance with
applicable measurement practices outlined in the Society of Automotive En-
gineers Standard J672 "Measurement of Truck and Bus Noise" as approved
January, nineteen hundred fifty-seven. The microphone shall be placed at a
distance of fifty feet plus or minus two feet from the center of the lane in which
the vehicle is traveling.
(b)	Measurements of sound pressure level shall be made at speeds of less
than thirty-five miles per hour.
(c)	No arrest shall be made in cases where the noise limit is exceeded by
less than a two decibel tolerance.
In People v Byron, 17 N.Y 2d 64, 268 N.Y.S.2d 24, 215 N.E.2d 345 (1966), the court
stated that section 375 prohibiting the operation of vehicles with excessively noisy mufflers
and requiring each motorist to minimize the noise in his particular vehicle was unaffected
by section 386 which set up limits beyond which no vehicle noise could go. Id. at 69,
268 N.Y.S2d at 28, 215 N.E2d at 348 (1966).
108.	B rower, supra note 17, at 19. For a discussion of the New York experiment
with decibel laws, see Note, supra note 79, at 111-14.
109.	Cal. Veh. Code § 23130 (West Supp. 1969) :
(a) No person shall operate either a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles
of a type subject to registration at any time or under any condition of grade,
load, acceleration or deceleration in such a manner as to exceed the following
noise limit for the category of motor vehicle based on a distance of 50 feet from
the center of the lane of travel within the speed limits specified in this section:

California now restricts the sale of new motor vehicles which exceed established
noise levels.110 In Connecticut the state police have begun to use a new
electronic system to record the noise levels from passing vehicles and to
photograph each car or truck exceeding a certain decibel level.111 Microphones
record each vehicle as it passes. If the emitted noise from the passing vehicle
reaches a certain level, the system trips a camera which photographs a noise-
level gauge in a corner of the photograph of the offending vehicle. A signal is
then automatically relayed to a state police cruiser so that an immediate warn-
ing or arrest can take place. This system can be used to provide evidence for
court cases in states and communities that outlaw noise over an established
Speed limit Speed limit
of 35 mph of more
or less than 35 mph
(1)	Any motor vehicle with a manufacturer's
gross vehicle weight of 6,000 pounds or more,
any combination of vehicles towed by such
motor vehicle, and any motorcycle other than
a motor-driven cycle:
(A)	Before January 1, 1973 	 88dbA	90 dbA
(B)	On or after January 1, 1973 . ... 86dbA	90dbA
(2)	Any other motor vehicle and any combina-
tion of vehicles towed by such motor
vehicle 	 	 82 dbA	86 dbA
(b)	The department 'shall adopt regulations establishing the test procedures
and instrumentation to be utilized.
(c)	This section applies to the total noise from a vehicle or combination of
vehicles and shall not be construed as limiting or precluding the enforcement of
any other provisions of this code relating to motor vehicle exhaust noise.
(d)	For the purpose of this section, a motortruck, truck tractor, or bus that
is not equipped with an identification plate or marking bearing the manufacturer's
name and manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating shall be considered as
having a manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000 pounds or more if
the unladen weight is more than 5,000 pounds.
(e)	No person shall have a cause of action relating to the provisions of this
section against a manufacturer of a vehicle or a component part thereof on a
theory based upon breach of express or implied warranty unless it is alleged and
proved that such manufacturer did not comply with noise limit standards of the
Vehicle Code applicable to manufacturers and in effect at the time such vehicle
or component part was first sold for purposes other than resale.
110.	Cal. Veh. Code 8 27160 (West Supp 1969):
9 27160. Motor vehicle noise limits
(~)	No person shall sell or offer for sale a new motor vehicle which produces a
maximum noise exceeding the following noise limit at a distance of 50 feet from
the centerline of travel under test procedures established by the department:
(1)	Any motorcycle manufactured before January 1,' 1970 	 92 dbA
(2)	Any motorcycle, other than a motor-driven cycle, manufactured
on or after January 1, 1970, and before January 1, 1973 	 88 dbA
(3)	Any motorcycle, other than a motor-driven cycle, manufac-
tured on or after January 1, 1973 	 86 dbA
(4)	Any motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000
pounds or more manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, and
before January 1, 1973 	 88 dbA
(5)	Any motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000
pounds or more manufactured on or after January 1, 1973 	 86 dbA
(~)	Any other motor vehicle manufactured on or after January 1,
1968, and before January 1, 1973 	 86 dbA
(7) Any other motor vehicle manufactured after January 1, 1973 84 dbA
111.	N.Y. Times, Nov. 15, 1969, at 73, cols. 1-3.

678	COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW	[Vol. 70:652
level. A reading of more than 85 decibels is considered excessive in Connec-
ticut,112 and in a six-month study, which recorded the noise levels of 2,900
vehicles on the Connecticut Turnpike, 11 percent of the vehicles had decibel
levels of 94 or higher from 25 feet away.
A British regulation requires that all passenger cars and trucks con-
structed after April 1, 1970 shall not produce more than 85 decibels; motor-
cycles and other mechanically propelled two-wheeled vehicles are limited to
noise levels below 90 decibels.113 Maximum permissible noise levels in France,
determined under the British testing procedure,114 are 83 decibels for passenger
cars and small trucks, 86 decibels for motorcycles, and a maximum 90 decibels
for large trucks and buses. In Switzerland the maximum permissible noise
levels, measured laterally in an open field at a distance of seven meters with
full engine power, are 80 decibels for passenger cars, 85 decibels for two-stroke
motorcycles, large trucks, and buses.110 The "maximum noise level" scales
established by the Swiss Anti-Noise Commission,110 have been of great value
in providing points of departure for the anti-noise legislation of other
State decibel laws are a delayed step in the right direction for abating
noise pollution from surface traffic. Perhaps truck noise and commercial
vehicle noise should be federally regulated because of the heavy interstate
112.	Connecticut's Motor Vehicles Law states in part: "(c) Each motor vehicle
. . . shall be provided with a muffler or mufflers designed to prevent excessive, unusual
or unnecessary exhaust noise, which'muffler shall be maintained by the owner in good
•working order and in constant operation." Conn. Gen. Stats. Ann. § 14-80 (Supp.
113.	The Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1969, reprinted in
The British Noise Abatement Society, The Law on Noise 53-64 (1969).
114.	The acoustical test for British automobiles requires measurement of the
noise at a point 25 ft. from the centerline of the lane in which the vehicle
travels for three different operating conditions: [11 constant speed of 30 mph
in top gear; [2] starting from a steady speed of 30 mph and (beginning 32 ft.
before passing the test microphone) accelerating as rapidly as possible over a
distance of 65 ft ; and [31 maintaining a constant speed of 30 mph at full throttle
with brakes applied. The highest noise level obtainedxunder these three condi-
tions of test is used to rate the vehicle.
Beranek, supra note 94, at 15.
115.	Beranek, supra note 94, at 15.
(in decibels)
Established by the Swiss Anti-Noise Commission
Basic	Frequent	Infrequent
Areas	sound	peaks	peaks
night	day	night	day night	day
Recreational 	i	 35	45	45	50	55	55
Residential 	 45	55	55	65	65	70
Mixed 	 45	60	55	70	65	75
Commercial 	 50	60	60	70	65	75
Industrial 	 55	65	60	75	70	80
Main Traffic Arteries 	 60	70	70	80	80	90
Source: Schenker-Sprungli, supra note 74, at 7.
117.	Id.

traffic involved. Due to the increased costs of providing and maintaining
adequate mufflers and engine covers, decibel laws may be ultimately effective
only if they are national in scope and apply uniformly to all vehicles.118
D. Aircraft Noise and the Some Boom
In no other area of noise control are conflicting values more clearly seen
than in the controversy over jet noise and the location and extension of
airports.119 William F. McKee, Federal Aviation Administrator, has indicated
that irritated citizens, protesting over aircraft noise, are the main obstacle to
airport expansion 120 The creation of any new airport or the enlargement of
an existing one brings immediate protest from whole communities and chains
of communities Airlines and airports alter flight patterns and runways, while
manufacturers attempt to minimize the noise problem on the ground by dras-
tically altering airplane design. Recognizing the problem, federal agencies
as well as private organizations are searching for means to control such noise.
Although quieter jet aircraft engines have been developed, the airline
companies have been slow to change engines in mid-stream. Because of the
increased costs of the new quieter jets,121 the public must exert economic and
political pressure on the aircraft industry and the government. Many citizens
are now demanding that their legislatures pass laws requiring all aircraft to
118	Beranek, supra note 94, at IS.
119	The first comprehensive report on the growing aircraft noise problem was
the Doolittle Report in 1952. The Airport and Its Neighbors, Report of the Pres-
ident's Airport Commission (1952). Since then numerous other reports have been
made See, eg, Noise: Sound Without Value, supra note 26, at 8-16; White House
Press Secretary, Aircraft Noise and Compatible Land Use in the Vicinity of Airports,
Memorandum for Heads of Departments and Agencies (Mar. 22, 1967) ; Office of
Science and Technology, Alleviation of Jet Aircraft Noise Near Airports, Report
of the Jet Aircraft Noise Panel (1966) ; Investigation and Study of Aircraft
Noise Problems, H R. Rep. No. 36, 88th Cong, 1st Sess (1963).
For a discussion of the legal aspects of aircraft noise, including noise litigation,
claims, and theories of recovery, see Hill, Liability for Aircraft Noise: The Aftermath
of Causby and Griggs, 19 U Miami L. Rev. 1 (1964) ; Munro, Aircraft Noise as a
Taking of Property, 13 N Y L. Forum 476 (1967) ; Spater, Noise and the Law, 63
Mich. L Rev. 1373 (1965) ; Tenzer, Jet Aircraft Notse: Problems and Their Solutions,
13 N.Y.L. Forum 465 (1967) ; Tondel, Noise Litigation at Public Airports, 32 J. Air
L. & Commerce 387 (1966) ; Note, Jet Notse in Airport Areas' A National Solution
Required, 51 Minn. L. Rev 1087 (1967). See also Nat'l Aircraft Noise Abatement
Council Aircraft Noise Littgation and Claim Survey (June 1965) ; 115 Cong Rec E9031
(daily ed Oct. 29, 1969) (remarks by Senator Hatfield)
120	NY Times, Oct. 5, 1967, at 79, col. 1. See generally Tenzer, supra note 119;
Note, supra note 119	'
121. "Prior to the introduction of jet-powered commercial aircraft, an estimated
$50 million was spent on research and development by the industry to perfect in-flight
sound suppressors for jet powerplants. By 1965, the industry had invested an estimated
$150 million in installation of in-flight suppressors" Noise Sound Without Value,
supra note 26, at 10, cttmg Report of Proceedings, Nat'l Aircraft Noise Symposium,
Jamaica, New York, at II-I (1965).
On the federal level, Representative John W. Wydler introduced a bill during the
second session of the 89th Congress which sought to amend the National Aeronautical
and Space Administration (NASA) appropriations to include $20 million for noise
reduction research Although this bill was defeated, NASA has since instituted research
on jet noise reduction, with a budget of $1 5 million See Bragdon, supra note 48, at 31.
For a discussion of jet engine noise and its reduction, see W. Burns, supra note 4,
at 209-14

[Vol. 70:652
produce lower noise levels in residential areas. Such laws have little immediate
effect, however, because most of today's jet aircraft cannot meet a substantially
lower noise requirement. The proper approach to abating commercial aircraft
noise is to impose noise limitations on all new aircraft entering the airlines'
inventories. Then the process of quieting existing aircraft can' begin. Federal
requirements establishing acceptable noise levels before certification of new air-
craft are the existing legal means available to accomplish this result. "Without
such regulation, competitive pressures in both the manufacturing and operating
industries will maintain the same lack of concern about noise as that which
now exists from trucks."123 Municipal ordinances which attempt to ban exces-
sive jet noise and sonic booms caused by airplanes flying over their territory
may be invalidated, as was the case in American Airlines, Inc. v. Town of
Hempstead,l2a on grounds of federal preemption.134 But while local anti-noise
ordinances may be ineffective, they at least give clear warning to the federal
government and to the airplane industry that the public is very much disturbed
by the problem and demands a solution.125
The public has also made clear its impatience with the problem of sonic
booms—"the loudest, most startling and most damaging noise yet made by any
ordinary thing for routine peaceful human use"120—which will be a part of the
next generation of jet aircraft.127 Any airplane flying faster than the speed of
sound produces pressure or shock waves around the nose and around pro-
truding parts of the plane, much like the waves created by a rapidly moving
ship. These shock waves form a cone which encircles and follows the aircraft
and intersects with the earth. "As the line of intersection with the earth ad-
vances with the movement of the airplane, people living within the width of the
122.	Beranek, supra note 94, at 20.
123.	272 F. Supp. 226 (E.D.N.Y. 1966). Private action may be brought on theories
of "taking of property" or public nuisance even though it is no longer a trespass to fly
through the airspace over private property. See generally Spater, supra note 119; Munro,
supra note 119; Hill, supra note 1H>; Tondel, supra note 119. See also Note, Nuisance
and Legislative Authorisation, 52 Colum. L. Rev. 781 (1952); Note, Nuisance—As a
"Taking" of Property, 17 U. Miami L. Rev. 537 (1963) ; Lloyd, Noise As Nuisance, 82
U. Pa. L. Rev. 567 (1934) ; Prosser Private Action for Public Nuisance, 52 Va. L. Rev.
997 (1966).
124.	See discussion in Note, supra note 79, at 117-18 & n.95; Spater, supra note 119,
at 1381-96. Compare Griggs v. County of Allegheny, 369 U.S. 84 (1962), discussed in
Hill, supra note 119.
125.	See Time, Oct 6, 1967, at 67.
126.	Conn, supra note 5, at 35. Concerning the damaging effects of the sonic boom
on the human organism, see Nixon, Human Response to the Sonic Boom, at AAAS
Symposium, supra note 22; Sontag, Effects of Noise During Pregnancy Upon Foetal
and Subsequent Adult Behavior, at AAAS Symposium, supra note 22; see also N.Y.
Times, Aug. 3, 1967, at 43,-col. 2.-
127.	See U.S. Dep't op Transportation, Summaby of Sonic Boom Claims Pre-
sented in the United States to the Air Force, Fiscal Years 1956-1967 (1967);
Baxter, The SST: From Watts to Harlem m Two Hours, 21 Stan. L. Rev. 1 (1968) ;
Ortner, Sonic Boom: Containment or Confrontation, 34 J. Am L. & Commerce 208
(1968) ; Note, Sonic Booms—Ground Damage—Theories of Recovery, 32 J. Am L. &
Commerce 596 (1966); Note, Torts—Liability—Sonic Boom, 36 J. Ant L. & Commerce
117 (1970); Katz, The Function of Tort Liability in Technological Assessment, 38
U. Cm. L. Rev. 587, 655-61 (1969).

intersecting path usually hear two closely-spaced explosive sounds, known as
the 'sonic boom,''J2S an explosive phenomena of the air caused by shock
waves generated at supersonic flight speeds.129 It is estimated that a single
supersonic transport (SST) while flying across the nation will create a 50 to
80 mile wide noise carpet, or "bang zone," behind it that could startle as many
as 20 million persons 1J0 Furthermore, a fleet of 150 SST's in operation could
cause an estimated $1 million in damage every day to windows, plaster and
other building materials131 Unrestrained, the SST could change noise pollu-
tion from a local phenomenon to one of national and international propor-
tions 132
In an attempt to "afford present and future relief and protection to the
public from unnecessary aircraft noise and sonic boom" the federal government
passed the aircraft noise abatement law on July 21, 1968.133 While this law
will not solve all the problems involved in aircraft noise abatement, it can be an
essential instrument in finding solutions and coordinating remedial research.134
128	Bcranek, supra note 94, at 20
Measured outdoors, a typical sonic boom from a high-flying aircraft is a
pressure wave that suddenly increases above normal atmospheric pressure by
0 5 to 2 pounds per square foot, then decreases somewhat moie slowly to below
normal atmospheric pressure by about the same amount, and finally jumps back
to atmospheric pressure. The result is an N-shaped pressure wave less than half
a second long. The lateral spread of the boom becomes greater as the altitude
of the airplane increases, although the intensity of the boom decreases.
129	Roth, Sonic Boom• A Definition and Some Legal Implications, 25 J Am L. &
Commerce 68 (1958)
130.	N Y. Times, June 18. 1967, 5 1, at 60, col. 3 (statement by Harvard University
physicist Dr William Shurcliff, Director of the Citizen's League Against the Sonic
Boom) ; Brower, supra note 17, at 19. See generally W Shurcliff, SST and Sonic
Boom Handbook 50-56 (1970)
If the boom turns out to be seriously disturbing, by the time the prototype is
built public resentment will collide head-on with the project. Some experts
believe that by modifying the shape of the aircraft to reduce drag and hence
the force of the boom, it can be kept within tolerable limits If they prove wrong,
there is little doubt that the SST will be barred from overland use. The economic
consequences would be serious, but the public relations problem would be even
worse. Either the technical problem will be solved, or the SST will be the first
major casualty of the antinoise movement
Dreher, supra note 13, at 242 See also N Y Times, Sept. 28, 1969, 8 4, at 8, cols. 7-8.
131.	N.Y. Times, June 18, 1967, 8 1, at 60, col 3; see also Note, supra note 79, at
105. See United States v. Gravelle, 407 F.2d 964 (10th Cir. 1969), discussed in Note,
Torts—Liability—Sonic Boom, supra note 125. Compare Brown v. United States, 230
F. Supp 774 (D Mass 1964).
132.	The application of international law to the SST is a serious question. Under
existing treaties, overflights may be restricted or prohibited for reasons of public safety.
See Huard, The Roar, the Whine, the Boom and the Law: Some Legal Concerns About
the SST, 9 Santa Clara L. Rev. 189 (1969); Hill, supra note 119, at 9-13; W. Shub-
cliff, supra note 130, at 108-10 There is also a wide variety of foreign laws that might
be applicable, including doctrines of strict liability. See Mankiewicz, Airport Noise—
Compensation of Adjoining Landowners under French Law A Report on a Case and
Some Further Considerations, 35 J Are L & Commerce 238 (1969) ; Mankiewicz, Some
Aspects of Civil Laiv Regarding Nuisance and Damage Caused by Aircraft, 28 J. Air
L & Commerce 44 (1958) Clearly, some new international convention regarding the
SST will be necessary
133	82 Stat 395 (1968) , discussed in S Rep No 1353, 1968 U S Cong & Admin
News 2688-98
134	Statement of the Sec'y of Transportation, Alan S Boyd, on Noise Abatement,

[Vol. 70:652
In amending Title VI of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958,186 the law gives
the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, after consul-
tation with the Secretary of Transportation, the power to fix standards for
the measurement of aircraft noise and regulations for noise control and abate-
ment.188 This law forms a part of an overall noise control program encompas-
sing eight basic areas: aircraft noise research, aircraft operations, sonic boom
research, airport and land use, natural environment, legal, structures, and
human response.137 At the time of enactment it was intended that all federal
efforts in these areas would be coordinated through an Inter-Agency Aircraft
Noise Abatement Program to be established by the Department of Transporta-
Before the Transportation & Aeronautics Subcomm. of the House Interstate & Foreign
Commerce Comm., Wednesday, Nov. IS, 1967 (U.S. Dep't of Transportation Reprint),
at 6, discussed in N.Y. Times, Nov. 11, 1967, at 1, col. 7.
135.	49 U.S.C. fi! 1421-30 (1964).
136.	Public Law 90-411, 82 Stat. 395 (1968) reads as follows:
Sec. 611. (a) In order to afford present and future relief and protection to
the public from unnecessary aircraft noise and sonic boom, the Administrator of
the Federal Aviation Administration, after consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation, shall prescribe and amend standards for the measurement of air-
craft noise and sonic Doom and Bhall prescribe and amend such rules and regula-
tions as he may find necessary to provide for the control and abatement of
aircraft noise and sonic boom, including the application of such standards, rules,
and regulations in the issuance, amendment^ modification, suspension, or revoca-
tion of any certificate authorized by this title.
(b)	In prescribing and amending standards, rules, and regulations under
this section, the Administrator shall—
(1)	consider relevant available data relating to aircraft noise and sonic
boom, including the results of research, development, testing, and evaluation
activities conducted pursuant to this Act and the Department of Trans-
portation Act;
(2)	consult with such Federal, State, and interstate agencies as he
deems appropriate;
(3)	consider whether any proposed standard, rule, or regulation is
consistent with the highest degree of safety in air commerce or air trans-
portation in the public interest;
(4)	consider whether any proposed standard, rule, or regulation is
economically reasonable, technologically practicable, and appropriate for
the particular type of aircraft, aircraft engine, appliance, or certificate to
¦which it will apply; and
(5)	consider the extent to which such standard, rule, or regulation will
contribute to carrying out the purposes of this section.
(c)	In any action to amend, modify, suspend, or revoke a certificate in
which violation of aircraft noise or sonic boom standards, rules, or regulations
is at issue, the certificate holder shajl have the same notice and appeal rights
as are contained in section 609, and in any appeal to the National Transporta-
tion Safety Board, the Board may amend, modify, or reverse the order of the
Administrator if it finds that control or abatement of aircraft noise or sonic
boom and the public interest do not require the affirmation of such order, or
that such order is not consistent with safety in air commerce or air trans-
In November 1969, the Federal Aviation Administration issued a regulation intended to
reduce by half the amount of noise produced by jet aircraft landings and take-offs. "The
new rule, which sets maximum noise levels, will at first apply only to the big new jets
scheduled to appear at airports within the next year But it is expected that similar
regulations will be ordered for current jet planes. Bailey, supra note 5, at 132. For a
discussion of a similar British attempt to reduce jet aircraft noise, see W. Burns, supra
note 4, at 214-41.
137.	Statement of the Sec'y of Transportation, supra note 134, at 4.
138.	Id.

III An Outline for Future Research
The purpose of this article has been to provide an introduction to the
practical problems and damaging effects of noise as an environmental pollutant.
The solutions to these problems will only be found with the backing of informed
public opinion and proper laws and regulations. As in other areas of environ-
mental control, law-making and enforcement is a vital factor in any anti-noise
campaign. The following outline for future research is an attempt to point out
various areas where information, research, and understanding are needed. This
outline does not pretend to be definitive in scope; rather its purpose is to
indicate the inadequacies of existing legal remedies, to suggest some possible
legislative solutions concerning noise pollution, and to emphasize the poly-
centricity of our ecological crisis
A. Existing Legal Remedies
The legal responses to noise pollution, as to any problem, may be charac-
terized as private or public remedies. Broadly stated, private remedies consist
of individual law suits, public remedies consist of regulatory and remedial
legislation. While these categories are obviously not mutually exclusive—a law
suit brought under a public nuisance statute is both a public and private
remedy—they do provide a convenient framework in which to analyze the
adequacy of existing legal remedies and to suggest needed research
1 Private Remedies. Private law suits are usually based on public
nuisance statutes, or on the common law of nuisance, or on the constitutional
theory of the "taking" of property.139 Generally, these solutions, based as they
are on economic and political theories developed during a period less techno-
logical and less complex than today, have proved inadequate to solve the
problems posed by present-day noise pollution. Public nuisance statutes were
not written with unwanted noise in mind.140 Moreover, other legal and social
problems limit the usefulness of the common law nuisance suit. In an urban
environment, the most offensive noise is often the conglomeration of sounds
caused by an almost infinite number of unidentifiable sources. The burden of
showing causation, combined with the important requirement that the nuisance
impair the enjoyment of the plaintiff's own property, can prove an insur-
mountable barrier to recovery.141 Finally, the constitutional theory of "taking"
139	See generally citations in note 123 supra. See also Note, The Cost-Intemational-
isation Case for Class Actions, 21 Stan. L Rev 383 (1969) ; cf. Juergensmeyer, Control
of Axr Pollution Through the Assertion of Private Rights, 1967 Duke LJ 1126.
140	Of course, this defect is easily remedied by amendment In the area of air
pollution, the State Senate of Massachusetts is currently considering legislation which
would allow private citizens to bring suit against anyone polluting the environment
within that state. (Mass Senate No 907). The bill would allow judgments requiring
that the pollution be stopped unless the costs of such action would threaten the existence
of the polluting concern See N Y. Times, Feb 4, 1970, at 19, col 4
141. Note, supra note 79, at 108.

[Vol. 70:652
of property requires governmental activity and does not reach the primary
cause of noise pollution, that is private industry.
Certainly the damaging effects of noise as an environmental pollutant is
a harm for which there should be an appropriate legal remedy. The physical
damage to nerve receptors caused by excessive noise is not unlike that caused
by a series of physical blows, and it may not be unreasonable to characterize
excessive and deliberate public noise as a form of battery.142 Perhaps our
developing law of the right of privacy, or, more appropriately, the right to
sanity, should also encompass infringement by excessive noise.148 These and
other theories deserve exploration in the light of developing sociological and
psychological studies of the effects of unwanted noise.144
2. Public Remedies. While legislative solutions to noise pollution can be
as broad and as varied as man's creativity, the response to date has fallen
considerably short of that limit. Such laws as the federal aircraft noise abate-
ment law145 and the various schemes of limiting decibel levels have already
142.	See generally citations in note 127 supra.
143.	Under British common law, freedom from noise is considered essential to the
full private enjoyment of a dwelling house. Noise alone may constitute a nuisance.
Crump v. Lambert, L.R. 3 Eq. 409 (1867) ; R. v. Smith, 93 Eng. Rep. 795 (K.B. 1726).
There are eight general principles relating to the common law of noise nuisance which
have been established in the Chancery Division of the High Court, the Court of Appeal,
and the House of Lords. These principles are: (1) There must be material inter-
ference with property or personal comfort. Walter v. Selfe, 64 Eng. Rep. 849 (Ch. 1851) ;
Betts v. Penge U.D.C, [1942] 2 K.B. 154 (1942); Rushmer v. Polsue & Alfieri Ltd.,
[1906] 1 Ch. 234 (1906). (2) It is no defense for the defendant to show that he has
taken all reasonable steps and care to prevent noise. Polsue & Alfieri Ltd. v. Rushmer,
[19071 A.C. 121, 122 (1907) (opinion of Lord Loreburn) ; Halsey v. Esso Petroleum
Co., Ltd, [1961] 1 W.L.R. 683 (Q.B. 1961). (3) The noise need not be injurious to
health. Vanderpant v. Mayfair Hotel Co., [1930] 1 Ch. 138 (1929) ; Hampstead &
Suburban Properties Ltd. v. Diomedous, [1969] 1 Ch. 248 (1968). (4) Temporary or
transient noise will not generally be accepted as a nuisance. Andreae v. Selfridge & Co.,
[1938] Ch 1 (1937); Leeman v. Montagu, E.R. 1677 (K.B. 1936). (5) The courts do
not seek to apply a fixed standard of comfort. Rushmer v. Polsue & Alfieri Ltd., [1906]
1 Ch. 234 (1906); Colls v. Home & Colonial Stores Ltd, [1904] A.C. 179 (1904);
Halsey v. Esso Petroleum Co., [1961] 1 W.L.R. 683 (Q.B. 1961) : Sedleigh-Denfield v.
O'Callaghan, [1940] A.C. 880 (1940). (6) It is no defense to show that the plaintiff
came to the nuisance. Bliss v. Hall, 132 Eng. Rep. 758 (C.P. 1838) ; Sturges v. Bridg-
man, 11 Ch. D. 852 (C-A. 1879). (7) The courts will not interfere with building opera-
tions conducted in a reasonable manner. De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd. v. Spicer Bros.
Ltd. & Minter, 30 T.LR. 257 (Ch. 1914) (dictum); Andreae v. Selfridge & Co.,
[19381 Ch. 1 (1937); Barrette v. Franki Compressed Pile Co., 2 D L.R. 665 (1954).
(8) Malice may be a significant factor. Christie v. Davey, [1893] 1 Ch. 316 (1892) ;
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v. Emmett, [1936] 2 K.B.D. 468 (1936). For a
discussion of these and other cases, see The Law on Noise, supra note 113, at 13-19;
Spater, supra note 119, at 1396-97.
144.	As of yet, the possibility that light may be an environmental pollutant has been
largely ignored. The increasing ocular barrage of neon signs and flashing lights,
however, may soon become of greater concern. There is some indication that excessive
light, like excessive noise, may produce physical and psychological damage to the
human organism. See, eg., Gregory, Visual Illusions, Scientific American, Nov. 1968,
at 66; Thomas, Movements of the Eye, Scientific American, Aug. 1968, at 88. Assum-
ing that light can be an environmental pollutant, then the plethora of legal problems
being raised concerning noise pollution will also arise concerning unwanted and obtrusive
light, and there is little hope that nuisance laws, our "taking" of property laws, or our
right of privacy laws will provide adequate remedies. The suggestions in text, therefore,
apply also to die probable future problem of light pollution.
145.	See notes 133-38 and accompanying text supra.

been mentioned.140 Other, as yet untried, possibilities suggest themselves. While
it would be difficult to tax noise polluters directly,147 tax incentives on the state
and federal level could be employed to encourage noise abatement programs
A corporation might be given the option to treat expenditures for noise pollu-
tion abatement as a business expense in order to receive an immediate tax
write-off without having to depreciate sucli expenditures over several years 148
Federal or state governments could also make low-intcre^t loaiii. to companies
unable to secure funds from traditional sources Such loans might be limited
to companies presently in existence and presently causing noise pollution
without the means of abating it.
The reason for the failure of legislatures to grapple fully with the very
real problems of environmental pollution generally and noise pollution
specifically is probably the lack of understanding of both the problem and
its possible solutions There remains much to be done in the area of compre-
hensive anti-noise regulation on city, state, and federal levels Studies in com-
parative law might attempt to evaluate various legislative solutions to noise
control. Moreover, legislators and legal counsel for legislative bodies must be
familiar with the scientific intricacies of noise pollution as well as the legal
intricacies of anti-noise legislation
B. The Possibilities for International Action
As business and transportation integrate on an international level, noise
pollution, as with air and water pollution, becomes a problem of international
control. It is obvious that international treaties and conventions are needed to
resolve international environmental conflicts. There is growing concern over
our global environment which transcends purely national interests, and it is
foreseeable that in the near future a body of transnational environmental law
will be developed.
1 Education and Communication. On the international level, the educa-
tional approaches to our environmental problems can assume various forms.
They include international conferences and symposia, demonstrations, and
scholarships. Because of its polycentric effects, a comprehensive educational
program on noise must include architects, engineers, factory inspectors, health
organization representatives, industrialists, insurance executives, lawyers,
medical doctors, machine designers and manufacturers, politicians, and trade-
union officials. Help from the World Health Organization and the Inter-
146 See notes 106-17 and accompanying text supra See also discussion of the new
Walsh-Healy anti-noise regulations in note 93 supra
147.	However, in the area of traffic noise one effective abatement solution would
be for local governments to limit the use of private motor vehicles by means of increased
taxation on private vehicle ownership or by means of "city entrance" tolls for all private
vehicles. The revenue obtained by taxing motorists who insist on driving and parking
in congested, noise and air polluted inner-city areas could be used to improve and
subsidize quieter public transportation.
148.	See Int. Rev. Code of 1954 {g 162, 167

686	COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW	[Vol. 70:652
national Labor Organization should also be solicited. The aim of a compre-
hensive educational program should be to establish a body of experts in each
country with a thorough knowledge of the subject, capable of stimulating the
development of, and perhaps even directing, noise abatement activities.149
Several international meetings devoted to noise have been held, but none of
these have been planned specifically for public health and labor officials or for
lawyers and legislators. Forums must be established where various national
approaches to environmental problems can be compared. And the structure
of model national and international noise control legislation is a matter of
prime importance.
Among the legislative considerations are a general survey of the
problem, including methods, instrumentation and standards; the defi-
nition of harmful noise levels by intensity, frequency and duration of
exposure; specification of the persons, places and circumstances where
the law applies; details of enforcement agencies and penalties for
infringements; the principles and practice of engineering noise con-
trol ; standards and methods for medical examination and action to
be taken when noise-induced hearing loss is found; the qualifications
of medical and engineering control staffs; and the types of ear-
protector, with indications for their use.160
2. International Cooperation. "Although increasing attention is being
paid in many countries to health problems arising from noise, in only a few
has there been any systematic attempt to assess the extent of the problem on a
national scale."101 To date, no survey of noise pollution has been made on an
international scale. However, there are indications of increased international
cooperation in the area of environmental control. Plans are being drafted by
a "task force" of specialists at the National Academy of Sciences for a global
warning network on environmental changes which threaten life forms.1®3 The
149.	A, Bell, supra note 4, at 111.
150.	A. Bell, supra note 4, at 112. There is also a need for a wider and freer inter-
change of knowledge and increased communication between nations concerning our
global environmental problems.
Apart from certain publications and periodicals of various organizations and
societies, the International Occupational Safety and Health Information Centre
of the ILO [International Labor Organization] has made a praiseworthy attempt
to break down this isolation, but it has to cover a very wide field. A detailed
up-to-date bibliography, including recommendations, standards and codes, would
be most useful. . . . Since the volume of published material on acoustics is
prodigious and-spans many disciplines, there is considerable need for some inter-
national correlation and for the dissemination of sufficiently detailed abstracts
on every aspect of the subject.
' 151. Id. at 113.
152. N.Y. Times, Feb. 12, 1970, at 1, cols. 6-7. See Kennan, To Prevent a World
Wasteland: A Proposal, 48 Foreign Affairs 401 (1970) ; N.Y. Times, Mar. 20, 1970,
at 12, cols. 1-3 (city ed.).
The United States itself has taken a major step toward recognizing the desirability
of encouraging international cooperation in preservation of world environment. Title I,
section 102 (E5 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 states:
The Congress authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent possible: (1) the
policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States shall be interpreted
and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in this Act, and (2)

General Assembly of the United Nations has begun plans for an international
conference in 1972 to explore the possibilities of cooperation to "eliminate the
impairment of human environment" and to organize a worldwide defense
against pollution.15J In a similar attempt, the 22-nation Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recently announced its
intention to establish international tolerance limits for environmental pollu-
tants 154 Countries wlio exceed the limits would pay indemnities Members of
OECD include the United States, Canada, Japan, and 19 Western European
countries But the organization operates by voluntary compliance, and since
there is no way of enforcing action on the independent governments, it cannot
be assumed that all the members will adhere to the standards of environmental
C. Suggested Remedial Approaches
1. Population Control Our exponential population explosion is the
underlying cause for all our natural resources problems; there are simply
too many people fighting over a limited supply of renewable and non-renew-
able,!* The population problem is by no means limited to the "have-
not" and underdeveloped nations In November of 1967 the population of the
United States was 200 million, by November 1969 it had exceeded 203 million
and the average annual population growth rate was 1 3 percent (compared
with 2 1 percent growth rate of underdeveloped nations and a world average
population-growth rate of 1 8 percent) ir,° Present projections put the United
all agencies of the Federal Government shall . . . (E) recognize the world-
wide and long-range character of environmental problems and, where consistent
with the foreign policy of the United States, lend appropriate support to initia-
tives, resolutions, and programs designed to maximize international cooperation
in anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality of mankind's world en-
vironment; . . .
Pub L No 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (1970) See also Sive, supra note 101.
153	This conference will be the First International Conference on the Human
Environment. See N Y. Times, Mar. 30, 1970, at 34, cols 2-6; id., Dec. 4, 1968, at 18,
col. 1. An eight-day symposium on international environmental problems, sponsored by
the Standing Committee on Environmental Disruption of the International Social Science
Council (a United Nations auxiliary body), was held in Tokyo, Japan, on March 9-16,
1970. Forty-five delegates, including social scientists from 13 industrial countries, ex-
changed views on environmental pollution at this meeting See N Y Times, Mar 3, 1970,
at 18, col 5 (city ed )
154	NY Times, Feb. 19, 1970, at 11, col. 1
155. Exponentially viewed, it will not be long before the earth's surface is
packed solid with humans, the whole mass standing in individual refrigerated
capsules on a thick layer of immovable automobiles Babies will issue from this
mass in a constant stream to stand on the shoulders of their parents. Suddenly,
atomic fusion is achieved by the central computer which runs this horror and
the mass dissohes into a small exploding universe of positive and negative
electrons, neutrions and antineutriors, baryons and leptons, all moving apart at
relativistic speeds Before tins, of course, we shall have all killed one another
off by the exponential rise in the crime rate, by radiation diseases, and, lacking
all exercise, by dying shortly after birth from the ultimate pollution, namely,
the inability to move away from our own excrement
Cowan, Law and Technology Uneasy Leaders of Modern L\fe, 19 Case W. Res. L.
Rev 120, 122 (1967)
156 See Time, Nov 24, 1967, at 70; N.Y. Times, Jan 11, 1970, § 12, at 16, cols 2-8;

[Vol. 70:652
States population at 308 million by the year 2000, and 374 million by the year
2015. The world population, which now stands at 3.5 billion, will be increased
by at least another 3 billion in the next 30 years; and by 2050 the world
population will exceed 15 billion unless extreme measures are taken.
One effective way of abating noise is to limit the number of noise-
producers, beginning with the biggest noise-makers—the people themselves.
Generally speaking, there are two approaches to controlling the population:
first, by limiting the number of births, and second, by increasing the number
of deaths through a comprehensive program of applied eugenics.157 For moral
and philosophical reasons, applied eugenics is not a viable solution; birth
control is the only alternative.
The United States is becoming aware, as a nation, that a voluntary birth
control program, as enunciated by President Nixon in July 1969, is an unreal-
istic and futile approach to the problem.168 Direct controls, such as compulsory
sterilization or abortion, would be too offensive. However, indirect economic'
incentives should be used to encourage the postponement of marriage and the
limitation of births within marriage. The federal government should stop
taxing single persons more heavily than married ones, eliminate tax exemp-
tions for children, legalize abortions and sterilization, and levy a "child tax"
on parents having more than one or two children. These suggestions are
extreme, and yet the choice today is not between the ideal and the undesirable,
but rather between the undesirable and the disastrous. If nothing is done, in
10 or 20 years, 50 to 100 million people may starve yearly.180 Add to this the
de-civilizing aspects of unwanted noise and the fact that the noise problem is
becoming more acute with urbanization, and the undesirable aspects of the
optimal alternatives become minimal.
2. Expanding the "Decibel Limit" Concept. As noted earlier, laws are
being enacted on state and federal levels to define prohibited noise in terms of
decibels, a measure of the intensity of sound.180 Inherent in any anti-noise
legislation based on the objective "decibel limit" concept are problems regard-
ing standard-setting, enforcement, and constitutionality.
id., Nov. 24, 1968, § 4, at 5 (full-page ad sponsored by the Campaign to Check the
Population Explosion).
157. See Golding, Ethical Issues in Biological Engineeringt 15 U.C.L.A.L. Rev. 443
(1968); Grad, Legislative Responses to the New Btology Limits and Possibilities, 15
UCLA L. Rev. 480 (1968) ; Wald, The Evolution of Life and the Law, 19 Case W.
Res. L. Rev. 17 (1967) ; Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons: The Population Problem
has no Technical Solution, It Requires a Fundamental Extension in Morality, 162 Science
1243 (1968).
158 See, eg., N.Y. Times, Oct 5, 1969, at 51, col. 1; id, Sept. 22, 1969, at 31,
cols. 3-7
159.	N.Y. Times, Sept. 22, 1969, at 35, col. 4. See Wall Street J., Dec. 3, 1968,
at 20, col 4; N.Y. Times, Dec. 15, 1968, at 55, col. 1; Cleveland Plain Dealer, Sept. 4,
1968, at 20, cols. 1-2 (Report of the 19th Annual Meeting, American Institute of Bio-
logical Sciences, at Ohio State Univ., Sept. 4, 1968) ; Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 23,
1968, at 53, cols. 1-8. See generally P. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb (1968) ;
P. Ehrlich & A. Ehrlich, Population, Resources and Environment: Issues in
Hum'an Ecology (1970).
160.	See text accompanying notes 107-117 supra.

In measuring [noise], three characteristics of sound are significant.
First, sound cannot be separated from its environment. Therefore,
when a noise-meter measurement is made, the one sound being
measured cannot be isolated, and the reading is affected by all the
sounds in the area. A meter reading is also affected by the physical
nature of the surroundings and by atmospheric conditions Second,
since sound intensity is a function of distance, a decibel reading is
meaningful only when the distance from the noise source to the
microphone is reported Third, the decibel is a limited standard of
measurement, i.e, it only registers the intensity of, or pressure
created by, sound waves Yet the offensiveness of noise varies with
the frequency as well as with the intensity of sound Thus, two
noises which register the same number of decibels on a meter can
sound louder or softer to the hearer, depending on pitch 101
The traditional type of anti-noise ordinance, which merely limits noise
that is "excessive or unusual," may be attacked as unconstitutional on grounds
of arbitrariness and vagueness The new "decibel limit" laws, while establish-
ing an objective standard and thus avoiding the vagueness problem, may
provide additional problems of enforcement. It is almost impossible to con-
duct measurement tests on crowded highways because of noises from other
vehicles and outside sources. More research is needed to determine the maxi-
mum noise levels for our modern urban environment, and the multitude of
legal problems, outlined earlier, must be attacked before the decibel-limiting
laws can become a truly viable solution.
3. The Quieting Process. In the area of noise pollution man has two
alternatives: he can attempt to abate the unwanted and disruptive noise which
pervades his habitat, or he can attempt to adjust and adapt to ever-increasing
levels of noise. People become accustomed to a steady noise level or familiar
sounds and tend to adjust themselves and their lives to these otherwise un-
wanted noises. Where convient, chemical pollution—of the air, water, and food
—noise pollution, and light pollution will be sufficiently controlled to prevent
the kind of damaging effects that are immediately disabling and otherwise
obvious "Human beings will then tolerate without complaints concentrations
of environmental pollutants (whatever their nature and origin) that they do
not regard as a serious nuisance and that do not interrupt social and economic
life "102
However, man's ability to adapt to the "quality" deterioration of his
environment has ominous implications It is probable that continued exposure
to even low levels of toxic agents and pervasive noise will eventually result
in a great variety of delayed or latent pathological manifestations, creating
physiological and psychological misery 103 Behaviorally, a similar slow mental
161	Note, supra note 79, at 111-12 (footnotes omitted)
162	Dubos, Adapting to Pollution, 10 Scientist & Citizen 1, 3, Jan-Feb 1968
163	[T]he worst pathological effects of environmental pollutants will not
be detected at the time of exposure; indeed they may not become evident
until several decades later In other words, society will become adjusted to
levels of pollution sufficiently low not to have an immediate nuisance value,

[Vol. 70:652
disintegration may result from noise-induced cognitive dissonance, thus giving
impetus to what has been characterized as the mass societal neuroses. Insanity
and irrationality scales are based on current relative deviations from what is
considered "normal" behavior. The frightening aspect of slow societal trends
towards what at an earlier time would have been considered irrational is that
typically neurotic behavior of an earlier time may slowly become the normal
and therefore acceptable level of behavior of a current or future stage of
civilization or de-civilization. What is degeneratus at Time One may be
accepted as sapiens at Time Two.
One way for our society to maintain its relative long-term sanity is to
shift to a completely controlled environment. The elephants at Windsor Park
Zoo in London have been fitted and are wearing noise-mufflers on their ears.164
Soon those members of our society that can afford them will be wearing
"space-helmets" which can filter out toxic impurities in the air and control
the amount of noise that enters the wearer's head. Automobiles in the United
States are already being fitted with air purification systems and are so con-
structed as to minimize the intrusion of outside traffic noises. "The ultimate
long-term objective in environmental control should be to manage society in
such a manner that these products of its activities can be recycled so as to be-
come useful again, instead of being wasted and thereby added to environmental
pollution."165 Such futuristic city planners as Dr. Athelstan Spilhaus have
already designed smokeless, noiseless, and trafficless cities with completely
controlled environments and recycling systems.188
It is obvious that laws and their just application could provide an effective
coercive force for noise pollution abatement. Zoning is an important part of
urban environmental planning, and it is applicable to noise pollution as well as
such other environmental noxae as air and water pollution.167 Legal compensa-
tion for hearing loss, mental disturbances, and invasion of one's right of quiet
can also stimulate change in the noise level of our urban and industrial environ-
ments. Moreover, our civilization has the technology and resources to abate
disturbances from unwanted noise. The ineffectiveness of present solutions to
the quality deterioration of our habitat nevertheless indicates the need for re-
evaluating both the methods used and the goals desired in environmental law.
but this apparent adaptation will eventually cause much pathological damage
in the adult population and create large medical and social burdens.
164.	N.Y. Times, Oct 17, 1969, at 45, col. 8; idL Sept 28, 1969, at 80, cols. 4-7.
165.	Dubos, supra note 162, at 6, citing Spilhaus, The Experimental City, Daedalus.
Fall 1967, at 1129.
166.	See, e.g., N.Y. Times, Dec. 31, 1967, 9 4, at 7, cols. 1-7; Spilhaus, supra'
note 165.
167.	See A. Bell, supra note 4, at 103-105; C. W. Kosten, Establishment of Zones
and . the Right For Quiet, in Proceedings of the Second International Congress
fob Noise Abatem-ent, Salzburg, 1962.

Future environmental programs must be synoptic in their approach; no
small facet of our complex cultural and technological system can be overlooked
without incurring the hazards of latent dysfunctionahty, the long-term dis-
ruptive and unwanted consequences of policies which attempt to solve poly-
centric problems and which otherwise, at least in the short-term, appear
functionally viable solutions to immediate socio-economic problems 168 Today
many of the central ecological issues are essentially "legal" in nature, but the
success of any legal policy for environmental control must ultimately be
evaluated in terms of its long-term effects To help make this evaluation, law-
makers must turn to the science of human ecology. Human ecology is still a
young science where advancements "depend in part on mutual understanding
and cooperation among social and natural scientists and humanists, and in part
on the development of new methods for studying interacting processes in
complex systems."169 Lawyers and legal scholars can and must participate in
this cooperation and development if legal solutions are to be successful
The types of solutions necessary to avoid the impending environmental
crisis will obviously place great strains upon basic political and economic
axioms. Such concepts as zero population growth170 and no "no-growth eco-
nomy"171 require a shift in values away from quantitative and toward qualita-
tive criteria. The most fundamental questions concerning our environmental
crisis, therefore, are ethical ones: Will a national policy of negative population
168	"A problem is 'polycentric' when it involves a complex of decisions judgment
upon each of which depends upon the judgment to be made upon each of the others."
H. Hart & A. Sacks, The Legal Process- Basic Problems in the Making and
Application of Law 669 (tent. ed. 1958). For a legal example of latent dysfunctionahty
because of only umdimensional success in socially engineering a change in female
mobilization in Central Asia, See Massell, Law as an Instrument of Revolutionary
Change in a Traditional Milieu: The Case of Soviet Central Asia, 2 Law & Soc'v Rev.
179, 221 (1968) See generally Merton, Social Problems and Sociological Theory, in
Con temporary Social Problems 697 (R. Merton & R. Nisbet eds. 1961); Function-
Anthropology, Economics, Political Science, and Sociology (D Martindale ed
169	N.Y. Times, Jan 12, 1970, at 75, cols 3-6. See also Hardin, supra note 157.
170. A population rate growth of zero occurs when the number of births equals the
number of deaths Obviously, any program to reach this end, would clash with the
"right to propagate" Compare Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U S 535 (1942), with Buck v
Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1926). Professor Kingsley Davis, director of international popula-
tion and urban research at the University of California and an advocate of the zero
population growth concept, has stated that such a drastic reduction in births would
necessarily require not only a change in existing laws but also absolute government
regulation of the size of families—a concept that most nations have found impossible
to accept "In a more Orwellian guise," writes Davis, "such control might include
pressure through limits on availability of housing, manipulation of inflation to force
mothers to work, increased city congestion by the deliberate neglect of transit systems,
and increased personal insecurity through rigged unemployment " Time, Nov 24, 1967,
at 70 See Davis, Population Policy Will Current Programs Succeedf, 158 Science
730 (1967).
171 The concept of a "no-growth economy" was discussed extensively at a recent
meeting of the United States Commission for UNESCO held in San Francisco, Calif,
on November 24-28, 1969 Basically, the concept means of repudiation of the tenet of
bigness and perpetual economic expansion for the more optimal and qualitative concern
for the ultimate consumer and the environment in general. See N Y. Times, Nov. 28,
1969, at 26, cols 2-5, id., Jan. 11, 1970, § 12, at 22, col 1; id, April 12, 1970, S 1, at 40,
cols 3-4

growth or of negative economic growth enhance the freedom of human beings
as individuals, and will it enchance justice for all human beings as members of
society ? "These two ethical ideals of individual freedom and distributive justice
often are, or seem to be, more or less incompatible. The task of law-givers
throughout history, however, has been to strike a workable balance between
them."173 So it must be as we prepare to meet our environmental crisis.
Environmental destruction has always been an aesthetic problem, but to-
day it also involves the survival of mankind as a species. In the area of noise
pollution, we are not dealing only with the maintenance of our own sanity, but
also with the mental well-being of our children and our society as a free and
rational civilization. To paraphrase Arthur Schopenhauer,178 the amount of
noise which any civilization can bear undisturbed stands in inverse proportion
to its mental capacity, and may therefore be regarded as a pretty fair measure
of it. Our ability to meet our environmental crisis may be a test of our in-
telligence and ultimately a test of the survival of our species.
172.	N.Y. Times, Jan. 12, 1970, at 75, col. 6. (Article by Dr. Roger Revelle, Richard
Saltonstall Professor of Population Policy and director of the Center for Population
Studies at Harvard University).
173.	A. Schopenhauer, On Noise, in 2 The World as Will and Idea 199 (H
Haldane & J. Kemp trans. 1844).

Authori Hearings before the Subcommittee on Air
and Water Pollution of the Committee on Public
Works, United States Senate, 92nd Congress, March
24, 1972 and April 12 and 13, 1972.
Publisher: USGTO, Washington, D.C., Serial#
92-H35 (604 pp; $2.50) 1972.
Level: Popular, for the most part, with some semi-
technical papers submitted for the record.
Point of View : These hearings were held to gather
background information on noise pollution. Tes-
timony was taken from industry and consumer re-
presentatives and from academic researchers and gov-
ernment policy personnel.
Summary: Three noise pollution bills were under
consideration by Congress at the time of these Hearings:
S. 1016, "a bill to control the generation and transmis-
sion of noise detrimental to the human environment,11
introduced at the request of the Nixon Administration;
S. 3342, "a bill to amend Title IV of the Clean Air
Act", co-sponsored by Senators Tunney and Muskie;
and H. R. 11021, "a bill to control the emission of noise
detrimental to the human environment, " passed in
February, 1972 in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The text of each bill is included at the beginning of
these Hearings and much of the testimony which follows
isolates and criticizes the various provisions associated
with them. There are three main questions to which
the legislation and, therefore, the Hearing testimony, is
addressed: (1) Should the regulation of aircraft noise emis-
sion be in the hands of the Administrator of the FAA (as it
has been to date) or the EPA; (2) Should the Federal govern-
ment develop ambient noise criteria; and (3) Should Federal
standards of new product noise emission preempt independent
and possibly stronger legislation at the state or municipal
California, being markedly ahead of the rest of the nation
in terms of noise pollution legislation, is the site of the
first day's Hearing. Testimony is provided by Robert
Moretti, Speaker of the California Assembly, briefly
outlining California's progress in this area and concluding
on a note that occurs again and again throughout the testi-
mony of state and local officials: "Any language preempting
California's enforcement role in noise pollution [should] be
deleted from the legislation". Speaker Moretti is followed
by Frank Lanterman, a member of the California legis-
lature who has long been active in the area of noise pol-
lution. Lanterman, speaking in support of S.3342, strongly
supports curtailment of Federal preemption and outlines
several noise suppression considerations which have con-
fronted California!s special technical advisory
panel on motor vehicle noise. These include: the
importance of keeping noise surveillance procedures
simple and inexpensive, of coupling ambient noise
standards with strong, effective, single-source standards,
and of recognizing the basic fact that a standard is
no better than the test which is used for enforcement.
Noise from diesel trucks and vehicle tires is briefly
discussed, as is the idea of a noise level emissions
tax on motor vehicles as an alternative to new pro-
duct standards.
A brief but useful document, "Quiet City Report",
prepared by the Los Angelos Quiet City Committee,
is included here. It contains a quick overview of
the noise problems m cities, specific recommendations
directed at urban noise control, a model noise ordi-
nance, and a short discussion of airport noise. Among
the appendices to the report are two of particular in-
terest: a brief bibliography and an outline of the
sources of noise pollution.
Testimony then turns to the issue of the psycholo-
gical and physiological effects of environmental
noise and includes remarks by two of the leading
research scientists in this area: Dr. Karl D. Kryter,
of the Stanford Research Institute, and Dr. Donald
Belt, of the Stanford Medical Center. Dr. Kryter's
testimony is focused on the need for establishing
improved Federal guidelines as to the criteria for
acceptable noise levels and Dr. Belt addresses the
need for improved public education and the establish-
ment of a large scale longitudinal study of hearing
and environmental noise, such as that begun two
years ago with the development of an audiological
data bank at Stanford Medical School.
The California segment of the hearings concludes
with remarks by State Deputy Attorney General
Nicholas C. Yost, reiterating the dangers of Fed-
eral preemption in pollution control, and two testimo-
nies addressed to the issue of aircraft noise: that of
James K. Carr, director of Airports, San Francisco
Airport Commission, and that of Randall L. Hurlburt,
Environmental Standards Supervisor, City of Ingle-
wood, California. Mr. Carr's testimony is in sup-
port of Federal preemption for regulation of aircraft
engine noise and of retaining FAA preeminence in
the setting and enforcement of such standards.
Mr. Randall, on the other hand, urges establishing
the EPA as the authority in the setting of aircraft
noise standards and summarizes the feeling of many
FAA critics with the remark that, "...making the
FAA responsible is like putting the fox m charge of

1. "POLLUTION" (cont'd)
the chicken coop.11 Several papers prepared by the City
of Inglewood, a city which is plagued with a serious aircraft
noise problem, are included here: "Noise Control,
Legislation, and Enforcement", "The Ten Point Action
Program for the Alleviation of Naise Pollution in Inglewood,
California", "Community Noise CoDtrol: Training Guide
and Enforcement Manual", "Noise Control Experience in
Local Government" and "Aircraft Noise Effects on Property
Values". Brief testimony on motor vehicle and aircraft
noise is given by various California State officials and a
very good summary introduction to the problem of noise
control, "A Report to the 1971 Legislature on the Subject
of Noise.... ", is appended to this segment of the
The remainder of the Hearings consists of two days of
testimony in Washington, D.C. , the first of which is given
over to testimony by government agency officials and the
second, t4 a day of testimony by representatives and lob-
byists for the various industries which would be directly
effected by Federal noise pollution legislation. By far the
most important testimony of the first day's hearing in
Washington is that provided by Thomas Carroll, Assistant
Administrator for Planning and Management, EPA, and
Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr., Director, Office of Noise Abate-
ment and Control. For the main part, their testimony is
in support of the administration bill (S. 1016) and critical
of the Tunney-Muslae bill (S. 3342). In particular, the
EPA strongly supports Federal preemption in the area of
noise pollution regulation and sides with the administration
in contending that primary responsibility for setting,
monitoring and enforcing aircraft noise standards should
remain with the Administrator of the FAA and should not
be transferred to the EPA. Appended to their testimony is
a very useful paper, "Additional Information Supporting
EPA Statement on Noise Control Legislation...., " which
reiterates the administration's position and provides point
by point rebuttle to the critics of Federal policy in this
area. A glossary of terms common in noise pollution
literatune is included. Representatives of the Environ-
mental Defense Fund, the National Governors Conference,
and the National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of
Mayors, conclude the day's Hearings offering support
for S. 3342, the Muskie-Tunney bill, and criticism of
the administration's position.
Finally, the last day of Hearings is given over entirely
to industry spokesmen, with representatives from each
of the following groups appearing: International Snow-
mobile Manufacturers Association, Automobile Manu-
facturers Association, Engine Manufacturers Association,
Rubber Manufacturers Association, Uniroyal Tire Company,
Construction Industry Manufacturers Association, Airport
Operators Council International, Heavy Duty Truck Manu-
facturers Association, International Harvester Company,
and the Air Transport Association. Their testimony is
uniformly in favor of Federal preemption and, where
applicable to their industry, of retaining FAA control
over aircraft noise standards. In addition, the various
industry representatives are concerned that export pro-
ducts be excluded from 4ny restrictive U.S. noise standards
and that controls not be applicable to products manufactured
prior to the date of legislative enactment. There is a
wealth of correspondence included in support of their
Four particularly interesting documents appear m the
appendix to these Hearings: "Aircraft and Noise: The
Retrofitting Approach", a 1972 Library of Congress
Congressional Research Service Report; a letter from
Wm. O. Ruckelshaus', EPA Administrator, to Senator
Randolph, outlining the EPA's views on S. 3342; the
report of a UCLA study, "Jet Aircraft Noise Over
Residential Areas", and a short paper prepared by the
National Organization to Insure a Sound-Controlled En-
vironment (NOISE) on "Aircraft Noise Pollution and the
Need for Federal Legislation. " All in all, this volume
provides an excellent introduction to the issues and problems
^ associated with noise pollution and is especially useful as
a primer on the policy questions involved in trying to legis-
late in the area of environmental pollution.

Author: Report of the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency in compliance with Title
IV of Public Law 91-604, the Clean Air Act Amend-
ments of 1970, February 1972.
Publisher: USGPO, Washington, D.C. (400 pp; $1.75)
1972. Senate Document No. 92-63; GPO Stock #5500-
004C (NTIS #PR-206716, $6 00).
Level: Popular; Prepared as a background document for
legislators at the Federal and local levels; illustrated;
numerous tables.
Point of View: "Title IV of PL 91-604, signed into
law on December 31, 1970 by the President, directed
that the Environmental Protection Agency conduct a
"full and complete investigation and study of noise and
its effect on public health and welfare" and to report,
within 1 year, the findings to Congress. To those ends,
authorization was given to the Administrator to hold public
hearings and to conduct research, experiments, demon-
strations and studies.... The result of these extensive
efforts is this report to the President and the Congress
of the United States."
Summary: As a primer on noise pollution, this
brief re port has several factors to recommend it. One
cautionary note is in order, however; generalities
abound and, while the report provides a good overview
of most facets of noise pollution, it is in no way a
definitive or source document. What it does provide,
and in a well organized, readable format, is a conden-
sation of numerous EPA Technical Information Docu-
ments and a useful summary of the material presented
m the series of eight national public hearings held by
EPA in selected cities across the country. ifMany of the
documents and, in fact, each of the hearings, are
reviewed separately in this packet, making this a par-
ticularly useful report for our purposes here).
There are six chapters in all: Effects of Noise R>llution
on Living Things and Property: Sources of Noise and
Their Current Environmental Impact; Control Techno-
logy and Estimates far the Future; Laws and Regulatory
Schemes for Noise Abatement: Government, Industry,
Professional and Voluntary Association Programs; and
An Assessment of Noise Concern m Other Nations.
Three appendices follow, one providing a listing of the
source documents used in preparing the report, another
containing the text of "a proposed bill to control the
generation and transmission of noise" (essentially, S.1016
as debated in Ref. 1-1) and the last providing a list of
participants in the various Public Hearings on Noise.
Finally, a brief but useful glossary of noise pollution
terms is provided.
The chapter treatments are somewhat uneven, re-
flecting both the established areas of emphasis for
research in noise pollution and, to a lesser degree, the
quality of testimony provided in the individual hearings.
Not surprisingly, the sections on aircraft noise and con-
trol technology (the main areas of noise investigation
at the Federal level for some years) contain the most
definitive data. Other areas, particularly effects on
living things and industry efforts to quiet consumer pro-
ducts t point to areas where a great many basic questions
remain unanswered. In sum, reading this report will
serve two useful purposes: it will provide a good, gen-
eral introduction to the "state of the art" in noise pol-
lution and it will set in context many of the documents
which form the core of this packet.
Author: Clifford R. Btagdon, Environmental Specia-
list with the Bio-Acoustical Division of the U.S. Army
Environmental Hygiene Agency and Associate Professor
of City Planning at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Publisher: University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia,
1970 (280 pp; $15.00).
Level: Semi-popular; numerous graphs and tables;
Point of View: "The attitudes of society have allowed
noise to become an environmental problem of sizeable
proportion... Society , through its technology, has created
noise and has continued to tolerate it, with only
sporadic attempts to control it.... In a period of
urban living where noisiness breeds noisiness, it is
important to re-educate the population to the virtues
of quiet. "
Summary: There are really two books here: one, a
very good introduction to the community noise problem
and the means of measuring it, and the other a case-
study report of a community noise study conducted by
the author in and around Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Altogether, it is a most satisfying combination and
should prove a particularly useful handbook to the
general reader, whether as "concerned citizen" or

as a student of environmental engineering. Bragdon
writes easily and clearly and demonstrates an attention
to pedagogy that is generally lacking in die literature in
this area.
Chapter I, "Community Noise as a Social Problem" pro-
vides an excellent overview of the many factors which
combine to create and sustain community noise pollution.
Particular attention is paid to the shortcomings of Federal
policy in this area and to the kind of government-industry
interactions which tend to minimize environmental consi-
In "What is Noise?" Bragdon examines the perception of
noise and provides a remarkably clear and concise sum-
mary of the characteristics of noise and of the means of
measuring it. It is a short chapter, but the reader will
carry away from it a good, basic understanding of the dif-
ference between sound intensity and frequency, between
Hertz units and decibels , and between the various scales
and indices used for measuring particular sound sources.
The figures, graphs and tables provided here are especially
useful in establishing comparisons of the sound from various
sources, and the equations and conversion mechanisms are
clearly explained and exampled.
Effects of noise pollution, "Nuisances and Hazards", are
examined in Chapter 3. The main focus is on physiolo-
gical effects and foagdon briefly reviews the major research
findings in this area. Some attention is paid to psychologi-
cal effects and to the subtle interferences, invasion of pri-
vacy, task performance, etc., which are less well under-
stood and researched. Finally, a section is directed to a
discussion of the damage to physical objects and some inter-
esting data is provided on the cost of sonic boom damage.
summary of the kind of community noise analysis that
is well within the range of current technology. The
methodology is carefully outlined, research procedures
are described in some detail and, perhaps most impor-
tant, careful attention is paid to describing the measure-
ment procedures and equipment. There is a wealth of
useful information in these chapters-! For the citizen who
wants to know what can bp done to quantitize the noise
problem in his area, or for the student interested in
designing a community noise survey project, these
three chapters are an invaluable resource.
Finally, in "Quieting the Crisis" Bragdon examines some
of the possible solutions to the noise pollution problem.
These range from proposing a new system for rating en-
vironmental health to an outline of new approaches to
community noise management and a variety of archi-
tectural design recommendations.
Appended to the body of this document are several use-
ful items. Appendix A contains the Community Question-
naire used in the Philadelphia Survey and Appendix B
, is an alternately humorous and maddening compilation
of the noise control claims contained in the national
advertising of various consumer products. (The automo-
tive manufacturer claims are particularly interesting when
compared to the actual test data provided by Bragdon in
Chapter 1.) It is a well documented book, replete with
informative chapter notes, but of particular value is a
Bibliography, containing more than five hundred references
arranged in six categories: Noise, General; Physical
Effects; Psycho-Social Effects; Law: Noise Abatement;
and Noise Sources. In short, it is an expensive book,
, but well worth the investment.
All of this material is introductory to toe discussion
of the Philadelphia noise survey which is really the
central focus of Bragdon's book. The three chapters
devoted to the survey (The Design of the Community
Noise Survey} Analysis of Sound and Its Sources; and
Community Response) provide an excellent and readable
Author t Report of the Panel on Noise Abatement to the
Commerce Technical Advisory Board, U. S. Dept. of
Publisher: U. S. Dept. of Commerce (NTIS: COM 71
00147; 294 pp.; $6.00) Sept. 1970.
Level: Popular; designed as background document for govern-
ment officials and primer for the general public.
Point of View: Policy ortented; the main charge to
this Panel was to recommend potential Federal initiatives
in the noise pollution area and the body of the report
is simply support data for the Panel's suggestions.
Summary: As a background document, this report

4. "THE NOISE AROUND US" (cont'd)
suffers from the tendency to generalize and, in the
process, lose clarity. For someone who knows little
or nothing about the physiology of hearing, the ra-
tionale behind the various acoustical measurement scales,
etc., the explanations here will really not be of much
help. Many topics are touched on, but few are developed
in a cohesive, instructive way. There is something in
each of eight main areas: the nature of noise, causes of
noise pollution, deleterious effects of noise, noise re-
ceivers, technology and application abatement and con-
trol, economics of abatement and control, legal aspects
of noise pollution, and strategies for achieving noise abate-
ment and control. There is some interesting descriptive
material here, in particular those sections which deal
with the technology and application of noise abatement
and control and strategies for achieving that control,
but much better coverage of that kind of material, is
provided in Ref. 1-2.
levels. The two remaining appendices focus on
state and local noise ordinances, one providing a
sampling of local ordinances classified as to their
legislative sophistication, and the other detailing the
California Motor Vehicle Code noise regulations, one of
the strongest in the country.
Finally, this is essentially a policy document and it's
real focus is on the set of twelve recommendations
which introduce the report. These are addressed to
die following areas: Institutional changes to enhance
interaction between noise producers and receivers;
hearing conservation; research; development of cri-
teria and measurement methodology prior to standard
setting; and means to achieve quiet products and pro-
duction processes. While there is nothing startling
in all this, the report does conclude on a very posi-
tive, action-oriented note:
The report does have several strong points, however,
and is a useful reference document, not so much for the
body of the text, as for the material which is appended
to it. In particular, a very useful bibliography, con-
taining 674 references, has been included here. Refer-
ences are provided under ten main headings and the list
includes a good sampling of government technical reports>
journal articles, and papers addressed to rather specialized
areas (i.e. effects of noise on task performance, impulse
noise, annoyance and community response, etc.) not spe-
cifically covered in this packet.
Appendix A,which consists of excerpts from the Walsh-
f"	,
Healey Public Contracts Act "Relating to Scope and Bluration of
Occupational Noise Exposure", provides a very useful and
time-saving service for anyone interested in a quick review
of Federal legislation relating to industrial noise exposure
Noise abatement and control can be
carried out, if the citizenry so de-
sires, in order to create an improved
quality of life. It is not necessary to
prove that noise adversely affects
health or welfare. Similarly, objec-
tive criteria far measurement of noise
can be established in the absence of
complete understanding of the subjective
response to noise. Working standards can
be implemented on the basis of existing know-
ledge and then refined, if necessary, when
further research resultsiwHre Deem obtained.
For an even more popularized summary of the Panel's
report, the reader should see:"The Noise Around Us:
Findings and Recommendations"(USGIO: 24 pp; $.50;
Sept. 1970), an illustrated pamphlet prepared by the
Commerce Department.
Author: Committee on Environmental Quality of die
Federal Council for Science and Technology.
Publisher: USGPO, Washington, D. C. (56 pp.; $.60)
September 19t>8.
Level: Popular.
Point of View: "This report reviews die dimensions of
noise in our society and the responsibilities of the Federal
agencies concerned with noise abatement. The report
has been reviewed by the agencies concerned and endorsed
by the Federal Council for Science and Technology. "
Summary: This is one of the first government docu-
ments to address the problem of noise pollution and,
while it is written on a level which makes it of limited
use as a reference document, it does reflect the kind
of policy considerations that marked the Federal govern-
ment's initial interest in this area. The discussion is
divided into three areas: Outdoor Noise, Indoor Noise,
and Occupational Noise. Little is provided in any area
beyond a very general summary of the problems involved
and the kinds of Federal activities which either are ad-
dressed to their solution or which the panel recommends
should be initiated. References used in preparation of
die report are cited in a brief bibliography, but most

of them are quite dated now. Perhaps the most
interesting feature available here is the list of
recommendations in die final section. These are
grouped under five headings: Research, Federal
Standards, Intergovernmental Actions, Education,
and Federal Coordination. In short, this is a useful
reference for the general reader who wants a quick,
popular level summary of the issues involved in the
noise pollution problem. It is not, however, aimed
at a thorough review of the subject and, while it
appears without exception in noise pollution biblio-
graphies, it should not be looked to as a substantial
reference work in this area.
Author: American Industrial Hygiene Association.
Publisher: American Industrial Hygiene Associa -
tion, 14125 Prevost, Detroit, Michigan 48227
(171 pp; $15.00) Second Edition, 1966.
Level: Semi-Technical; numerous graphs and
illustrations; references at end of each chapter.
Point of View: The Noise Committee of the AD-LA
prepared this manual as a guide for the industrial
hygienist in the implementation of a comprehensive
hearing conservation program. The focus is on
three areas: (1) the physical measurement of noise; (2)
the medical evaluation of persons exposed to it; and
(3) the control of noise exposure.
Summary: This is by far the most technical of the
background references reviewed here and, as an
operating manual for the industrial hygienist, it
necessarily also has a markedly narrower focus.
Designed to provide a basic background m the
technology of noise control, the manual contains
much information not easily available elsewhere,
but it does so at the expense of excluding such per-
tinent topics as policy, economics, etc. Nonethe-
less, this is a valuable document for the reader de-
siring a review of the engineering technology currently
available in noise control programs.
There are twelve chapters in all, the first five of which
deal with the various aspects of the measurement of
sound: Physics of Sound, Instruments for Sound
Measurement, Technique of Sound Measurement,
Noise Surveys, and Vibration. A fairly sophisticated
mathematical background is assumed and close at-
tention is paid to the details of actual measurement
procedures and to the specifications of the various
instruments involved. Photographs of the basic equip-
ment are provided.
The medical aspects of noise m industry are examined
in the next four chapters: Anatomy and Ihysiology of
the Ear, Effects of Noise on Man, Hearing Measurement,
and Medical Aspects of Industrial Hearing Conservation.
This section is particularly we 11-illustrated and con-
tains much useful data on various exposure levels, cri-
terion curves, etc.
The remaining chapters, by far the bulk of the
book, focus on noise control. In "Personal Protection, "
the authors provide both a discussion of maximum at-
tenuation criteria and a guide to the selection and fit-
ting of the various protective devices (earplugs, ear-
muffs, etc.) available. "Engineering Control" then
examines the broader area of designing for quiet in
plant construction and modification of noise sources in
existing buildings. Examples of several modifying
techniques are provided along with several tables
showing data on sound transmission loss of general
building materials and structures, sound absorption
coefficient of materials, etc. Almost all of the
equipment discussed is shown in photographs or illus-
trations and the measured quieting effect of each is
displayed in accompanying graphs and tables. Finally,
in "Legal Aspects of the Industrial Noise Problem",
a very brief discussion of workmen's compensation is
provided and a paragraph or so is directed to an expla-
nation of each of several legal issues, such as impair-
ment vs. disability, factoring for loss of hearing with
age (prebycusis), accidental injury vs. disease, alloca-
tion of liability, etc. A short appendix includes a few
guidelines on meter reading, a four-place logarithmic
table, and a brief but useful glossary of terms.

Author: Leo L. Beranek, Chief Scientist and
founding partner of Bolt, Beranek and Newman Inc.,
a consulting, research, and development firm involved
in environmental engineering.
Publisher: Scientific American 215: 66-76, December
Point of View: "It is clear that the basic problem is
essentially incurable; noise is an unavoidable price
we must pay for a machine civilization. But if we
cannot eliminate the noise of modern technology,
we can at least control it to minimize its effects. "
Level: Popular; several graphs and illustrations.
Summary: Noise control is really the main focus of
this article, but in setting the framework for a discus-
sion of abatement technology, Beranek first provides
a brief summary of the magnitude of die noise problem,
its effects on man, and the methods of noise measurement
which enable engineers to assess noise levels and inten-
Known effects of noise on hearing capacity are reviewed
in terms of noise standards and frequency levels, and a use-
ful graph of comparative noise intensities of a variety of
common sounds is provided. The problem of determining
measurable psychological effects from noise exposure
is briefly discussed and Beranek concludes by noting that,
while psychological effects are the most difficult to
standardize, "We should not minimize the annoyance
effect of noise. Some physiologists assert that annoyance
is a biological protective mechanism (like the discomforts
of fatigue, hunger, or cold) that impels the organism to
avoid noise as it does other signals of disturbance. "
The body of the article then deals with what has been
done to control noise and what might be done in the
future. The need to set standards for tolerable
noise levels is again underscored, and Beranek
reviews the levels suggested by the American
Standards Association and compares them to some
existing industrial noise levels and to those proposed
by the Council of State Governments. Finally, a
scale developed at Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc.,
the speech-interference level (SIL) is described and
the criteria derived from using that scale applied to
an examination of background noise levels in the
home and office
Building noise, vehicular noise, and the potential
impact of the SST on the noise environment are
reviewed in separate sections, each of which con-
tains a brief summary of the kinds of controls, Federal
and State, operating to regulate these noise sources.
Beranek concludes the article with the admonition
that, "We could improve die quality of our environ-
ment enormously by allocating a portion of our
energy and wealth to controlling noise... It appeals
that we shall have to pay these costs if we are to
make a tolerable adaptation to the noises of civili-
Authors: Peter A Franken and Daniel G. Page, Bolt,
Beranek and Newman, Inc.
Publisher ; Environmental Science and Technology 6
(2): 124-129, February, 1972.
Point of View : ". . Noise can be controlled , and
much of the technology required for noise control
is presently available. By properly applying existing
technology, advance planning, and appropriate con-
siderations in designing vehicles, machines, and
buildings, a substantial amount of relief from noise
could be provided at relatively small cost. "
Level: Popular; illustrated.
Summary: For the most part, this is a discussion
of noise control, but it does contain sufficient in-
teresting information on such other aspects of the
noise pollution problem as effects, land use, and
measurement, to make it a valuable general ref-
erence. A brief discussion of the trend toward in-
creased noise pollution introduces the article, fol-
lowed by several paragraphs addressed to the problem

of understanding die various units and scales used
in noise measurement. In "Effects of Noise", die
authors deal briefly with noise exposure levels and
stress the importance of speech interference as a
criterion. A table showing the noise intensity of
various community sources is provided. Land use
planning is put forward as "one of the most ap-
pealing approaches to the community noise prob-
lem" and the discussion of its potential includes a
brief treatment of acoustic planning tools and the
kind of improvements that can be made in commu-
nity noise levels by using noise forecasting techni-
ques in the siting of highways and airports. The
advantages of this approach are briefly outlined and
the obvious limitation is cited: "it does not improve
the existing situation. " The authors believe that
there are ways to improve the current state of
noise pollution, however, and the next section of
the article deals with specific improvements that
could be made in several areas: vehicles, aircraft,
residential noise, construction equipment, etc..
Finally, regulatory steps are examined and existing
ordinances in several cities are evaluated. The
limitations of such legislation are briefly noted and
the authors conclude by re-affirming their argument
that the technology for noise control exists: "What
is primarily needed now is to begin applying, on a
broad scale, the knowledge that is already available.11
Author: Peter A. Breysee
Publisher: The Science Teacher 37 (4): 29-34,
April, 1970.
Point of View; "A major effort will be required to
solve the noise-abatement problem. It will be man-
datory that many facets of our society--private, in-
dustrial, governmental, educational and technical—
assume greater responsibility in the quest for a quieter
city. "
Level: Popular; several graphs.
Summary: This is a much more quantitative article
than the other journal articles here and its value lies
in the attention the author has paid to explaining,
though very briefly, the physics of sound and the various
measuring scales used in noise monitoring. Several
useful graphs accompany this section of the article.
With that background established, Breysse then moves to
a discussion of the effects on man of exposure to noise
and briefly notes both the psychological and physical
problems that have been substantiated by research.
Aircraft noise is isolated as a particularly serious aspect
of the problem and brief attention is paid to the impli-
cations of proposed SST flight. The concluding para-
graphs here are addressed to the question of what can
be done about noise. Several common aspects of
nuisance and zoning laws are examined and the author
notes that "a review of most of these codes and laws
indicates that they are usually ineffective or unenforce-
able. " Several recommendations are then offered
and the article concludes with the following admoni-
tion: "Community noise must be recognized and
accepted as a major factor in urban planning and
development. For this to be accomplished, it would
be necessary to establish uniform standards and
criteria for evaluating and controlling noise	
Appropriate local, state, and federal legislation
must be forthcoming in order to support and effect
compliance with standards; the manufacturers of
mechanical equipment for all phases of use, domes-
.tic and industrial, must be made aware of the need
to produce quieter equipment; construction costs
must also recognize the need for acoustic treatment
in homes and buildings. "

Author: Prepared by the Program of Policy Studies
in Science and Technology of The George Washington
University under EPA Contract 68-04-0032.
Publisher: USGPO, Washington, D.C. (NTID300.4;
409 pp.; $5.50). NTIS #PB-206719; $9.00
Point of View: ". . .the primary task of the PPS/GWU
Study Group was to conduct a survey of the existing
regulatory structure and to make a tentative assessment
of the effectiveness with which such regulations are
administered and enforced. However, in sections 2, 3,
and 4 certain provisional suggestions are made which
should provide guidance in the further development of
environmental noise abatement programs at the Federal,
State and local levels."
Level: Non-technical; mostly descriptive with some
sections providing a listing of various noise codes as
they appear in the law.
Summary: As a basic reference tool in the area of
noise legislation there is nothing to compare with this
volume for clarity and comprehensiveness. There is
certainly much more here than might be needed by the
non-professional, but the authors have gone to great
effort to assure good organization and careful annotation
of all their material.
Several introductory pages outline the rationale and
procedure of the study, summarize the significant
findings and conclusions and point out, for brief expo-
sition, the most persistent problems in the regulation
of environmental noise. As an organizational device,
the basic assignment, and hence the report, was divided
into four areas or "sub-tasks": (1) Current Governmental
Noise Regulatory Schemes; (2) Analysis of Existing Legal
Regulatory Structure for Noise Abatement and Control;
(3) The Effectiveness of Existing Noise Control Regula-
tion; and (4) Proposals and Problems in die Regulation
and Abatement of Noise. In a further attempt to add to
the usefulness of this document, an analytical framework,
the "Illustrative Regulatory Matrix for Environmental
Noise Abatement and Control", was developed to faci-
litate the analysis of judgement questions inherent in the
problem of controlling environmental noise: i.e., what
noise can best be abated at the source; what noise can
best be regulated through reduction of effects, etc.
The body of the report then focuses on specific areas
within the first two "task" sections. Subsections
within Section 1, "Current Governmental Noise Regu-
latory Schemes" provide an excellent summary of
existing Federal policy and legislation. This general
policy outline is followed by specific treatment of
each of the major noise sources (transportation,
industry and construction) and the Federal regulations
applying specifically to them. Trends and gaps in
the Federal program are then briefly summarized.
Finally, the same noise-source breakdown is used
to outline detailed discussions of noise sources regu-
lated at the state level (with specific state codes cited)
and noise sources regulated at the regional level.
Section 2, "Analysis of Existing Legal Regulatory
Structure for Noise Abatement and Control", examines
the authority behind existing legislation and provides
a generic framework for a close examination of the
various regulatory schemes. Several "illustrative"
cases are provided, with the main focus in this section
being on the question of distribution of authority among
Federal, State and Local jurisdictions. Aircraft noise
regulations are then examined in some detail and a
concluding sub-section lumps all the non-aircraft noise
together for an examination of the kind of rationale
behind regulatory schemes at the private and com-
munity action level.
The effectiveness of all this Federal, State and local
regulation is examined in Section 3. Again, aircraft
noise regulations come under particularly close scrutiny,
with most of the State discussion focused on California
legislation. Highway noise and occupational noise are
also dealt with separately. The local level sub-section
provides a useful review of general noise laws along
with some discussion of zoning ordinances and building
Finally, Section 4 addresses "Proposals and Problems
in the Regulation and Abatement of Noise. " Separate
sub-sections deal with aircraft, vehicular, construction,
and domestic noise. Within each area the major con-
tinuing problems are identified and recommmendations
made toward their alleviation. An Appendix to the
report provides a fold-out series of pages illustrating
with charts existing Federal, regional, state and local
noise regulations.

Author: Report of the Committee on Public Works,
United States Senate, Together with Minority Views,
to accompany S. 3342.
Publisher; USGPO, Washington, D.C., September
19, 1972 (Report #92-1160; 54 pp.; not for sale.*
Point of View; "Noise - unwanted sound - is in-
creasing in urban areas at a rate which may double
the average person's exposure to it within 10 years.
Testimony before the Subcommittee on Air and Water
Pollution indicates clearly that the impact of noise
goes well beyond mere unpleasantness, stress, and
other psychic effects. It in fact may cause serious
physiological effects on the human body ranging from
deafness to enhanced risk of cardiovascular disease to
alteration of fetal nervous systems. "
Level; Popular; reports such as this are routinely
provided to the Congress to accompany a Commit-
tee's endorsement of pending legislation.
Summary: This is clearly an advocate document,
prepared to support the Committee on Public Works
in its recommendation for passage of the bill, "to
amend Title IV and to add a new Title V to the
Clean Air Act". As such, however, it provides a con-
venient summation of the arguments and support data
which detail the need for Federal legislation to cur-
tail the noise pollution problem. Much of this report
is, in fact, a brief summary of the testimony provided
the Committee during the 1972 hearings on this and re-
lated bills (See Ref. I-l)< The body of the report, how-
ever, is focused on section-by-section analysis of the
pending legislation in terms of its rationale and pro-
visions and a discussion of logistical factors, such as
the cost of the proposed legislation. An opening
"General Statement" briefly outlines the magnitude
of the noise pollution problem and stresses the need
for Federal regulation of the problem. In "Major
Provisions", those areas which were hotly contested
during the Hearings (i.e., preemption, standards,
and authority over aircraft noise regulation) are gone
into separately and the final resolution explained.
Finally, in the "Minority View" sectionjdissenting
opinions are aired, in the form of a brief essay on the
shortcomings of the bill (as provided in a very interesting
paper contributed by Senator Muskie) and in a collection
of correspondence from industry representatives, etc.
While there really is no substitute for a thorough reading
of the Hearings themselves, this report does provide
a summary of the main issues surrounding noise control
legislation and a quick review of the arguments supporting
Federal intervention in this area. As for the value of
the legislation itself, after some twenty pages of
strong support far the Senate bill, there is Senator
Muskie's closing comment: "But the Administration
wants a bill. Environmental Protection Agency Ad-
ministrator , William P. Ruckelshaus, told the
Committee on Public Works m executive session in
September of this year, that he was not interested
in the merits or the demerits of noise pollution
legislation which might be forthcoming. He said the
Administration wants a bill and he did not care what
provisions that bill included. "
Author; 92nd Congress
Publisher: USGPO (Public Law 92-574; 17 pp.;
$ .IS) October 27, 1972.
Point of View t "The Congress declares that
it is the policy of the United States to promote an<
environment 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
*See Appendix B, Paragraph 4.
coordination of Federal research and activities in
noise control, to authorize the establishment of
Federal noise emission standards for products distributed
in commerce, and to provide information to the
public respecting the noise emission and noise reduction
characteristics of such products. "
Level: Non-Technical; this is simply the text of the
Federal legislation.

3. "NOTSF. CONTROL ACT OF 1972" (cont'd)
Summary: Passed in February of 1971, this first compre-
hensive noise control law empowers the Federal govern-
ment to establish emission standards for all noise sources
that the Administrator of the EPA "determines to be a
threat to the public health and welfare. " Other pro-
visions of this legislation include a citizen suit clause
(identical to those in the Clean Air Act), EPA authority
to require labeling of products as to their noise generation
characteristics, and the establishment of the EPA as the
coordinator for all Federal noise programs This includes
aircraft noise initiatives, but only in so far that the EPA
can recommend regulations which the FAA may, after
proper consideration (public hearings, etc.), " either
adopt, modify or reject. . .consistent with FAA's mission
to ensure the highest degree of safety in air commerce."
Funds totaling $21 million, distributed over a 3 year
period, are authorized to carry out the provisions. The
following categories are dealt with separately under the
wording of this legislation: Findings and Policy, Defi-
nitions, Federal Programs, Identification of Major Noise
Sources, Noise Criteria and Control Technology, Noise
Emission Standards for Products Distributed in Commerce,
Aircraft Noise Standards, Labeling, Prohibited Acts, En-
forcement, Citizen Suits, Records Reports and Information,
Research, Technical Assistance and Public Information,
Development of Low Noise Emission Products, Judicial
Review: Witnesses, Railroad Noise Emission Standards,
and Motor Carrier Noise Emission Standards. (A conden-
sation of this act, "Summary of Noise Control Act of 1972"
(EPA 335) is available free of charge from: US EPA, Office
of Public Affairs, Washington, D. C. 20460).
Author: Several; compilation of reports submitted to
EPA by the various Federal agencies having noise pro-
Publisher: USGPO, Washington, D C. (NTID300.10;
400 pp.; $3. 75) December 31, 1971.
Point of View. "It is recognized that this document
represents information collected in response to a speci-
fic inquiry and is basically a byproduct of the much
broader report to the President and Congress. However,
in view of the varied and qualitative nature of the col-
lected data, this report was prepared to better inform
representatives of government and the private sector as
to the significant achievements and directions of Federal
noise programs."
Level: Semi-technical; varies from report to report;
some graphs and tables.
Summary: In addition to the EPA, there are seventeen
Federal agencies with at least minor urograms in the area
of noise abatement and control. What this document
provides is a basic introduction to which agencies
are doing what, the size of the various programs, and
some detail as to the specific problems as they are
addressed on an agency-by-agency basis. Though not
particularly inspiring reading, the basic data is here,
making this a useful reference document on how in-
dividual agencies perceive their own programs. Some
of the highlights of each agency program are identified
in the opening section, "Efforts of Other Agencies" and
the text of this summary is further summarized m an
accompanying table, which provides a quick guide to
the budget for the programs in the various agencies. As
the material for this document was gathered in response
to a standarized questionnaire, data from each agency
falls into roughly the same categories: Organizational,
Functional (program objectives, procedures, etc.), Fiscal
(current program, personnel, contracts and grants, etc.),
and Regulation and Certification (authority and responsi-
bilities, actions taken to implement regulation and
certification requirements.) Several of the attachments
appended to the various agency reports are of particular
interest: "Guidelines to the Department of Labor's
Occupational Noise Standards", "Operational-Procedural
Noise Reduction Flight Program", "Transportation Systems
Center Technical Progress Report", etc. In short,
while this is not the most readible document in the EPA
noise series, it is clearly a valuable reference work for
the reader seeking an overview of the role of the individ-
ual agencies which share responsibility for the Federal
noise program.

Author: James L Hildebrand, Editor
Publisher: William S He in and Co , Inc ,
Buffalo, New York (354 pp ; $25.00) 1970
Point of View: "It is hoped that this selection of articles
will not only provide a valuable source of reference for
private individuals, students and teachers, as well as public
and local authorities who are concerned with noise pol-
lution and its abatement, but that it will also stimulate
those who are authorized to deal with the increasing
nuisance caused by noise to acquaint themselves with
the problem and with the legal means to effectively
remedy intrusions by this new environmental pollutant "
Level: Semi-technical; the articles in this collection
have been taken from various law journals
Summary: As the author notes in the preface, this is the
first book concerning noise pollution and the law to be
published in the United States It contains thirteen
articles which have been reprinted from assorted law
journals and grouped under three headmgs: Noise and
the Law, Aircraft Noise, and Sonic Boom Throughout,
the quality of the writing is consistently good, with
the articles within each section progressing from a
rather general nature to a specific treatment of one
aspect of the noise problem, a progression which re-
flects the overall organisation of the book itself.
Part 1 is introduced by "The Noise Crisis", a very
general but useful article by Donald Anthrop which
provides a characterization of the noise problem;
what it is, where it comes from, and how it's measured.
"Noise and the Law" (George Spater) follows, providing
a summary of court cases to date and a close look at
the important question of the apparent immunity of
government-authorized entities from legal action for
objectionable noise. "Urban Noise Control" then looks
at the problem on the municipal level and provides a
review, first of the various effects of noise pollution,
and then of the existing remedies and legislative solu-
tions as provided under the two standard types of city
ordinances: general anti-noise or nuisance codes and the
more quantitative decibel laws.Finally, "Noise Control:
Traditional Remedies and a Proposal for Federal Action"
(James Kramon) examines three areas of federal involve-
ment: public contracts, federal-aid highways, and public
buildings. Kramon concludes by stating that ".. thought-
ful remedial steps can encourage responsive technological
developments and thereby reduce the need for reliance
on remedies that have proven to be ineffective. "
Section 2, "Aircraft Noise," again provides, first,
a general overview of the problem, and then four
articles which examine specific elements of the
problem: "Aircraft Noise - as a Taking of Property",
"Liability for Aircraft Noise: The Aftermath of
Causby and Griggs", "Noise Litigation at Public
Airports", and "Jet Noise m Airport Areas: A National
Solution Required. " Issues addressed m this group
of articles include the problem of setting aircraft
noise standards, regulation of airline glide paths,
compensation to landowners affected by aircraft
noise, and the formidable constitutional question
of compensation for the "taking of property" by the
intrusion of aircraft noise The articles m "Sonic
Boom", the third and final section in the book, deal
with sonic boom as an inevitable source of noise liti-
gation and attempt to outline several approaches which
might be taken to establish clear legal provisions before
the problem reaches too great proportions. The first
article in this section, "Sonic Boom: Containment
or Confrontation" (Anthony Ortner) reviews the results
of the series of tests conducted by the U.S. government
between 1961 and 1965 and provides a concise summary
of the technical problems involved in the control of
sonic boom. Four legal aspects are examined: strict
liability, trespass, nuisance and taking, damage and
proof of cause, and unknown defendant. Several
recourses are briefly noted and the conclusion drawn
that, " . . legislation is needed to identify government
as the responsible control agency, responsible for
damages and empowered to settle claims. "
A particularly clear, we 11 -illustrated discussion of what
a sonic boom is and how it is produced, is provided in
the next article: "The SST: From Watts to Harlem
in Two Hours." Effects on people and property are
described, again with the aid of numerous illustrations,
and the article concludes with a summary of the
legal aspects involved and a series of fairly explicit
recommendations regarding the regulation of sonic
boom. In "Sonic Booms: Ground Damage and Theories
of Recovery", H. Lloyd Relley examines the guidelines
for recovery under the Federal Tort Claims Act and
under existing insurance coverage provisions. Potential
suits against commercial airlines are discussed in terms
of possible legal avenues for compensation and the author
concludes that: "Since supersonic transports will cause
certain inevitable damage, the airlines should be
required to pay their own way. Since the traveling
public is demanding supersonic aircraft, it should bear
the ultimate cost for the actual physical damage to
property, which inevitably follows, through the increased

fares which the airlines will be forced to charge on
supersonic flights."
The final article, "Sonic Booms: Tart Liability", Is
focused on the various theories of recovery open to
claimants under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)i
negligence, trespass, nuisance and unconstitutional
taking. The significance of the United States v. Gravelle
decision is discussed and the author concludes that: "In
view of the general principle that operators of ultra-
hazardous activities are held strictly liable, the
operators of supersonic aircraft should stand as insurers
for all damages proximately caused by sonic booms. "
The text of "Control and Abatement of Aircraft Noise
and Sonic Boom" (P.L. 90-411) and of Senate Report
No. 1353, a report prepared to accompany that bill,
are included as chapter 14.
Author: Clifford R. Bragdon, Associate Professor,
Department of City Planning, Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, Georgia, 30332.
Publisher: Paper presented at the 74th National Meeting
of the American Institute of Chemical Engineer#, New
Orleans, Louisiana, March 13, 1973. (To be published
in Proceedings of the Meeting).
Point of View: "In the United States most municipal
noise ordinances initially regulated street activities,
however, these early provisions were generally non-
quantitative and consequently unenforceable. .. .Today
more comprehensive ordinances are evolving and these
regulations are the basis for expanded municipal noise
control programs. Their impact has varied due to the
quality, content and administration of these ordinances.
Recently approved Federal noise legislation (Noise
Control Act of 1972) will have a profound influence on
the quality and quantity of municipal ordinances. "
which do exist as either nuisance type laws or performance
type (zoning regulations). Their impact is then assessed
in terms of annual expenditure, in money and man-
hours, and incidence and type of citizen complaints
registered. Data to support the general)rations made
in this section is provided in a two-page'table, one
detailing municipal noise abatement expenditures
and the other providing a breakdown of noise complaints,
based on data from the Department of Environmental
Control of Chicago, Illinois. Federal impact on the
quantity and content of local noise laws and programs
is then examined, and NEPA (the National Environ-
mental Policy Act) is isolated as having the greatest
influence in this area. Two appendices are provided:
one charting city noise control regulations by type,
as to acoustical criteria, and one providing a quick
summary of the provisions of the 1972 Noise Control
Level: Non-technical.
Summary: This is a very readable, well-documented
summary of the role of community noise ordinances in
the control and abatement of noise pollution. A brief
history is provided at the outset of the major, precedent
setting ordinances, dating from the 1938 motor vehicle
control ordinance adopted by Memphis, Tennessee.
Noting that, "... .the majority of city governments have
no noise provisions, and many of those enacted are generally
non-specific and vague", Bragdon briefly analyzes those
Author: Hon. Mark Hatfield, U.S. Senator from	Publisher: Congressional Record 115: 32178-32259,
Oregon.	October ,2 9, 1969.

Summary: For the most part, this is precisely what the
title says it is - - simply a straightforward listing of the
noise ordinances as they appear in the various state and
Point of View ; . .the pollution of our land, air, and water
has become such a problem that we are now faced with a
situation which, if not met immediately and with all of the
creativity and ingenuity of our age, could mean the exter-
mination of all forms of life in many areas of our planet.
As yet, noise has not reached this proportion, but given
the present noise increases in our environment the same
threat could soon prevail in noise pollution that does in air
and water contamination -- and by soon I mean within
our lifetime."
Level: Non-technical
local laws. The compendium is introduced, however, by
a paper titled, "The Legal Aspects of Noise Control", by
existing state and local noise legislation. A brief
concluding section summarizes the impact of current
legislation and provides a set of six recommendations
for the direction of future policy decisions. The "Point
of View" quoted above is taken from the remarks of
Senator Hatfield prior to introducing both the Kaufman
paper and the ordinance compendium into the record.
Regrettably, there has been no attempt to categorize
the various statutes in any way and the reader is left
with a very lengthy alphabetical listing by state,
which makes for forbidding reading. It is a very useful
reference document, however, for anyone seeking quick
information of the statutes operating in a particular
state. Hatfield also included two useful reprintings
from earlier issues of the Congressional Record: one,
the Federal Occupation noise exposure regulations and
the other, the text of the FAA "Noise Standards:
Aircraft Type, Certification".
James J. Kaufman, a New York lawyer long active in the
noise pollution area. It is a very useful reference in itself,
containing a detailed discussion of airport noise legislation,
an analysis of Federal involvement m noise litigation
(particularly the FAA), and a good, general summary of
1.	"Laws and Regulatory Schemes for Noise Abatement", in "Report to the President and Congress on Noise",
(Ref 1-2)
2.	"Legal Aspects of the Industrial Noise Problem", in Industrial Noise Manual, (Ref 1-6)
3	"It's Time to Turn Down All That Noise", (Ref. I-11)
4.	"Noise Control", (Ref VIII-10)
5	"Recommended Standards for Occupational Noise Exposure", (Ref VIII—11).
6.	"Interstate Motor Carrier Noise Emission Standards" (Ref. VIII-12)
7.	"Legal and Institutional Analysis of. Aircraft and Airport Noise", (Ref V-2)
8.	"Community Noise Problem: Factors Affecting Its Management", (Ref VII-1)
9.	"Toward a Quieter City", (Ref. VII-3)

Author: Irwin Feller and Jon P. Nelson, Center
for the Study of Science Policy, Institute for Research on
Human Resources, University Park, Pennsylvania.
Publisher; USGPO (159 pp.; $6.00;NTIS #DOT TST-
73-3) April 1973.
Point of View: "This report is directed at (1) assessing
recent developments in the theoretical discussion of ex-
ternalities, particularly as they relate to the formation of
public policy concerning aircraft noise; (2) developing a micro-
economic framework for noise as a commodity; (3) evaluating
existing empirical studies on the costs of aircraft noise; and
(4) evaluating the applicability of the theoretical and empirical
literature to emerging public policy on aircraft noise, as re-
flected in existing federal legislation."
Level: Technical; some tables and graphs; references.
Summary: Essentially, this is a technical examination of
the considerations which enter into benefit-cost analysis
economics. It is a complex, scholarly paper, clearly written
to the understanding of fellow economists. Also, in consideration
of the scope of this packet, it is a somewhat narrow reference,
dealing only with aircraft noise. Despite these limitations, how-
ever, this is an extremely valuable reference and well worth the
time required for its reading.
The report begins with a "summary and conclusion"
section, which provides a state-of-the-art assessment
of the theoretical and empirical literature on the econmic
aspects of noise. Recommendations are offered for po-
tential policy formulations, given the limitations of
knowledge in this area. The general nature of externali-
ties is the subject of the next chapter, and the focus is
on the various issues relating to how an economic system
can respond to these externalities in terms of efficiency
and equity criteria. The "simple" model of externalities
provided here is useful in that it represents the analytical
framework that has been employed in most public poli-
tical analyses of environmental issues.
Chapters 4, 5 and 6 provide a micro-economic frame-
work for treating noise as a purchasable commodity,
a discussion of "Empirical Studies of Pollution and
Property Values", and further elaboration on traditional
welfare economics. A number of useful tables and
figures appear throughout the report, along with many
suggestions for further reading.
Author: The National Bureau of Standards, under
inter-agency agreement.
Publisher: USGPO, Washington, D.C. (NTID 300.14;
104 pp.; $1.00) December 31, 1971. NTIS #PBr206726; $3.00.
Point of View: "A study has been undertaken to survey
the economic impact of noise. Data available on the
entire subject of noise and its abatement are so rudi-
mentary that they do not lend themselves to even the
most primitive economic analysis. "
Level: Non-technical; numerous tables and graphs
appended to the report.
Summary: Several factors recommend this as a par-
ticularly useful reference on the economics of noise
pollution. To begin with, it is a document based on
fact, not speculation, and a careful reading will not only
tell you most of what is known about the economics of
noise pollution, but will suggest as well reasons for the
scarcity of data and. are as where research is most needed.
In the first section, a brief assessment of the state-of-the-
art in noise pollution economics is provided and the
authors suggest several reasons for there not being better
data available: the nature of noise itself (rapid "decay"),
die fact that effects associated with noise exposure are
neither as dramatic nor immediate as those associated
with other pollutants, and the existence of a public atti-
tude that seems to view noise as nothing more than
the "price of progress. "
An examination of the growth rate of environmental
noise is provided in Section II and it is clear from the
data discussed that noise pollution is growing at an
alarming rate, both in terms of a rapid percentage
growth rate and in terms of increases in the absolute
number of noise sources. These various sources are
examined separately in the next three sections. Air-
craft noise receives the Imost attention, partly because
that is where the research has been done and, therefore,
where the best data exists, and partly because that is
the area where citizen complaints and law suits have
been focused.
In an effort to examine the magnitude of the aircraft
noise problem, several aspects of the problem are examined
in some detail: cost, as reflected in specific airport
case studies; costs of easements as compensation to proper-
ty owners; awards made as a result of litigation against
airports, the growth rate of suits against aircraft noise,
construction and relocation costs for schools effected by
noise from aircraft, etc. Various schemes for abating
aircraft noise are briefly discussed and an estimate
is provided of the potential savings which could be

realized by controlling aircraft noise. It is recommended
that, when all the cost data available is considered, the
best approach to aircraft noise control is to focus on means
to reduce noise at the source.
Ground transportation and residential equipment are then
analyzed as noise sources and one of the mam problems
isolated in this discussion is the lack of definitive data
to support noise control measures. Several studies of
individual noise sources within each category are noted
and it is clear that, to date, most of what is known is
applicable only on a product by product basis.
"Spending on Noise Abatement" is one of the more
enlightening sections of the report and provides a summary
of data on expenditures by both government and private
sources. The data on private expenditures is extremely
spotty, but it is suggested that one reason for that is
simply that not much has been done to date. As to
government spending, it is almost exclusively aircraft
related (95% in 1970 and 85% in 1971) with very little
money being spent outside the NASA "quiet engine"
program and attempts to quiet the SST.
Several recommendations are included at the end of the
report as to areas where research is most needed: analysis
of effects of noise standards on the competitive position
of US products in foreign markets, effects in terms of
product quality and quantity, effects on property value,
estimates of the economic costs and benefits of alternative
means of measuring noise and alternative means of
enforcing allowable noise standards. An extensive
appendix, containing data on growth rates of various
products and associated noise generation, is provided
along with a brief but useful bibliography.
Author: Public Hearings on Noise Abatement and
Control (Vol. VIII), conducted by the EPA Office of
Noise Abatement and Control, Washington, D. C.,
November 9-12, 1971.
Publisher: USGPO, Washington, D C. (515 pp.;
$2.00) 1971 (Stock No. 5506-0056)
Point of View: "Under the Noise Pollution and Abate-
ment Act of 1970. . .the EIA, through the Office of
Noise Abatement and Control, is required to hold
public hearings. A series of eight of these hearings
was conducted in selected cities to aid the Office of
Noise Control and Abatement in compiling information
relevant to '*3 investigation of the problem of noise
pollution. F orther, these hearings present an oppor-
tunity for thJ public and industry to express their view-
points or the general subject of noise control. "
Level: Popular, some tables and graphs.
Summ ary: This is a fairly impressionistic treatment
as far as the actual economics of noise pollution is concerned.
Most of the testimony here falls into one of two categories:
either private citizens and citizen groups pleading for some
governmental action to quiet the environment, or industry
representatives (mostly engine and equipment manufacturers)
explaining why it is so difficult to control noise and how
costly such attempts would probably be to the consumer.
It is clear that there simply isn't enough known about
the costs of noise abatement to enable anyone to make
a definitive statement about what could reasonably be
done in this area.
Again, the best data relates to aircraft noise, but the
record here is spotty and, at times, bewildering. Re-
presentatives from the Boeing Company, Pratt and Whit-
ney, American Airlines, and the Northrup Corporation
provide testimony outlining their R and D efforts in
the area of aircraft noise abatement and providing some
figures as to what it all has cost. Part of the problem,
as they describe it, is that existing antitrust laws pro-
hibit their working together to seek a solution to the
noise problem. Their results on a company by company
basis have been disappointing, at a cost that is impressive,
but difficult to really pin down as it's not clear exactly
what is included in their bookkeeping for "noise research'".
What is clear is that, left to their own devices, the air-
line industry is going to move reluctantly in this area,
and at great expense. What incentive there is will have
to come from the FAA, an agency often accused of taking
it's mandate to foster commercial aviation with an
enthusiasm that overlooks such problems as aircraft noise.
At any rate, one need only read the testimony provided
by the Boeing Company to realize what a complex and
frustrating task it will be to get any real progress m
the control and abatement of aircraft noise.

Motor vehicle noise, which includes diesel trucks, motor-
cycles, and passenger cars, is another large chunk of the
noise problem addressed in these hearings. There are no
uniform, Federal standards in this area, making enforcement
of any industry noise regulations close to impossible. What
incentive does exist seems to be in the PR value of selling
"quiet" cars, but that quiet is relative only to those inside
the car, while the real problems are left relatively untouched.
Some states, like California, have fairly sophisticated noise
codes which control things like motorcycle noise, but as
the representatives from Harley-Davidson and American
Honda make clear, the motorcycle industry sees noise as a
consumer, not a manufacturer problem. They claim to be
making reasonably quiet products and contend that the problem
is in the purchaser making modifications to the product, modi-
fications, however, which are often made by using "racing"
equipment produced by these same manufacturers. The engine
manufacturers argue that placing noise standards on engines
is prohibitive to noise control efforts as it reduces the
flexibility available to those who must work to quiet the
entire end-product, the car or tractor or whatever the engine
is to become a component of. Several industry lawyers
testify to the unreasonableness of asking manufacturers
to comply with "arbitrary and ad hoc" standards and at least
one testifier, from General Testing Lab, notes that the
incentive to quiet products must come externally; there
simply isn't sufficient incentive within the various manu-
facturing industries to support noise control R and D. The
agricultural equipment people take a slightly different
tact, maintaining that they have their own industry-wide
standards, through things like the Nebraska tractor
testing program, and the EPA needn't involve itself
in their business. In the end, it all comes down to
everyone agreeing that motor vehicle noise is a serious
environmenta 1 problem , but everyone seeing it as
someone else's problem and not one that warrants
Federal standards being applied to their products.
While the feeling expressed here is a sort of intuitive
one that the cost of noise abatement will be prohibitively
expensive to the consumer, it is clear that there really
isn't sufficient data available to make any reliable
estimate in that area possible.
Several individual papers included here provided
particularly useful information: "The Economics of
Noise Pollution" (pp. 18-30), "Some Sources of
Noise from Motor Vehicles and Possible Action for
Control" (pp. 71-78), "Summary, Noise Reduction
Research and Development" (pp. 117-143); "Truck
Tire Noise" (pp. 365-437); "Economics of the Con-
struction Industry" (pp. 451-464) and the statement
of the President of the/ American Institute of Planners
on land use planning as a means to control environmental
noise. All in all, these hearings make for interesting,
but often frustrating, reading and, while they fail to
provide much in the way of useful data on the problem
of noise pollution control and abatement, they do
capture the complexity of the problem of determining
where the responsibility for general research initia-
tives and monies in this area lies.
Author; Report of the Council on Environmental Quality
Publisher: Chapter 8 (pp. 269-309) m Environmental
Quality, the third annual report of the Council on En-
vironmental Quality (Washington: USGPO) August 1972.
Point of View : "Like any reallocation of resources, the
investment to achieve environmental quality will bring
about short-run adverse impacts, i. e., higher prices,
temporary unemployment, and¦plant dislocations. Matched
against these negative results are the investments' dividends,
such as decreased health bills, increased recreational op-
portunities, diminished damage to materials, and better
maintenance of the ecological balance necessary for human
survival. "
Level: Popular, several tables and diagrams.
Summary: The importance of this article is not that
it has any definitive data on the economics of noise control
and abatement (it doesn't), but that it provides an
overview of the economic assumptions and methodology
into which noise data will eventually be fitted for
analysis. Noise, in fact, is viewed here as a very
small element in the overall pollution picture. Most
of the economic studies that have been done to date
on environmental pollution have focused on three
areas: air pollution, water pollution, and solid waste.
Noise is but one of the "other" environmental pollutants,
estimated to be no more than 3% of the cummulative
environmental impact problem. In fact, the Council
notes that: "There are no comprehensive estimates
of the cost of lowering noise to mare environmentally
acceptable levels. Such costs will vary depending on
the levels established and the classes of noise sources
included. "
What the Council has provided here, however, is a fairly
detailed description of the kind of economic analysis
that has led to the establishment of environmental cost

estimates in other pollution areas, most notably air and
water pollution. It is clear that, for the near future at
least, this same methodology will be carried into the
analysis of other cost estimates, noise pollution included,
and for that reason it is useful to have some familiarity
with the procedures outlined here. The report begins with
a discussion of the costs of environmental controls, total
and incremental, and of the impact of control costs on
the economy. The mam focus, however, is on an
analysis of the series of economic impact studies con-
ducted by the EPA "to begin to develop a better under-
standing of the nature and order of magnitude of the
adverse impacts of environmental regulations on the
economy as a whole and on individual industries and
segments within the economy". There are twelve
studies in all: eleven "microeconomic" studies and one
"macroeconomic" study. The cost definitions and as-
sumptions associated with each are briefly described and
a summary of the findings in each study provided. The
overall conclusion reached by the Council, and one
which has clear implications for the future of noise
control and abatement, is that the economy can
absorb the costs of pollution control without any serious
loss. The microeconomic studies, in fact, are sum-
marized as indicating that "none of the industries studied
would be severely impacted in that the long-run via-
bility of no industry is seriously threatened solely by
the pollution abatement costs estimated" and the macro-
economic study" indicated that the national economy
will not be severely impacted by the imposition of pol-
lution abatement standards. "
In short, while there is no definitive analysis yet avail-
able of the cost impact of noise pollution abatement
and controls, it is possible to see from these studies
on related areas the kind of factors and assumptions
which will effect the future of noise pollution policy.
1	"Economics of Noise Abatement and Control", in The Noise Around Us, (Ref. 1-4)
2.	"It's Time to Turn Down All That Noise", (Ref. 1-11).
3.	"The Concorde SST", (Ref. VI-4).
4.	"Public Hearings on Noise Abatement and Control: Construction Noise", (Ref. VII-8).
5	"Aircraft Noise Effects on Property Values", in (Ref 1-1), Noise Pollution
6.	"Effects of Noise Pollution on Property", in Report to the President and Congress on Noise, (Ref 1-2)
7.	"Economic Aspects of Noise Abatement", in Report to the President and Congress on' Noise, (Ref. 1-2)
8	"Summary of Noise Programs of the Federal Government", (Ref 1-4)
9	"Manufacturing and Transportation Noise", (Ref IV-6)

Author: Prepared by Wyle Laboratories under con-
tract for the EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
Publisher: USGPO, Washington, D.C. (NTID.300113
370 pp; $3. 75) NTIS #PB-208660; $6,00)--ien.
Point of View: "This report has been prepared by
Wyle Laboratories for the Environmental Protection
Agency in response to the directives contained in the
Clean Air Amendments Act of 1970, specifically,
section 401, "Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of
1970. " It forms part of the major study accomplished
by the Office of Noise Abatement and Control, of the
EPA, which is summarized in its report to Congress. "
Level: Semi-Technical; numerous graphs and tables;
extensive bibliography; technical background material
Summary: This is an excellent overview reference on
transportation noise, written in a readable, concise manner
with careful attention to background data and documentation.
To provide a clear understanding of the significance of
noise from die various sources, several aspects of each
are considered: nature and economic significance of the
industry associated with the source; basic noise char-
acteristics of each type of source; environmental noise
attributes of each type of source; past and present efforts
toward reducing noise; and estimated potential noise
reduction for the future with today's technology.
Aircraft noise is examined first, with separate sections
focusing on commercial aircraft, V/STOL aviation,
and general aviation aircraft. The whole chapter runs
to nearly 100 pages and there are numerous graphs,
tables and illustrations mcluded to supplement the text.
Briefer chapters follow on highway noise, rail systems,
ships and recreational vehicles. The same general
cut is taken through the available data as was done with
aircraft noise and the reasons which operate to impede
industry efforts to control vehicle noise are carefully
summarized. The sections on rail, ship and recreational
vehicles are particularly useful as data on these sources
is much harder to come by than is that for motor vehicles
and aircraft. Rapid rail transit is handled separately
from conventional, locomotive rail noise and some very
useful data is included on noise levels being achieved in
the newer metro systems. Ship noise is treated rather
briefly, mostly because the only significant noise en-
vironment is the area within the ship itself and levels
there have long been kept at an admirable "Lower than
65dB(A)level." "Recreation vehicles", however,
provides a rather lengthy treatment of some of the
favorite culprits in the environmental noise area:
motorcycles, pleasure boats, snowmobiles, and
several off-road vehicles. The growth rates here,
both in terms of noise level increase and number of
source units sold per year, are alarming, but numerous
alternatives axe suggested as means to alleviate this
problem while it is still of controllable size.
The remainder of the report deals with various devices
powered by small internal combustion engines (gen-
erators, lawn care equipment, chain saws, model
airplanes, etc.) and the discussion here ends on an
encouraging note: "The combined effort by the public
in demanding quieter products powered by internal
combustion engines and successful response to this
demand by the manufacturers, should provide a sub-
stantial decrease in annoyance from this equipment. "
With the background data on noise characteristics and
reduction potential established in these first three
chapters, the report is then directed to a consideration
of the environmental impact associated in an overall
way with transportation vehicles and small internal
combustion engines. The relative contribution of
each of the source categories is estimated and
their relative contribution to the outdoor noise level
in average urban residential areas is assessed. Some
data is then provided as to potential impact of each
source on the community and the potential hazard,
in terms of hearing damage and speech interference,
associated with each source. All of this is presented
m a readable, well-illustrated section which runs
to some fifty pages and a detailed discussion of the
methods and sources of data used in carrying out
this impact analysis is presented in Appendix B.
Appendix A provides a useful summary of various
noise standards (FAR-36, SAE, California Code, etc.)
and appendix C reviews noise generator characteristics
for jet engine noise, propeller and rotor noise,
internal combustion engine noise, and tire noise. An
extensive collection of references is scattered through-
out the report and a brief "Conclusion and Recommenda-
tions" section provides a useful summary of four areas
of the environmental noise problem: noise impact on
people, interaction between public and industry, Federal
action to reduce source noise, and recommendations
for noise reduction. All in all, this is an excellent re-
ference document on transportation noise, well-suited
for use by professionals and non-professionals alike.

Author: James D. Chalupnik, Assoc. Prof, of
Mechanical Engineering, University of Washington,
Publisher: University of Washington Press, Seattle,
Washington (362 pp; $14.50) 1970.
Point of View: This book is based on a symposium
entitled "Evaluating the Noises of Transportation" held
at the University of Washington, March 26-28, 1969,
sponsored by the Office of Noise Abatement, Depart-
ment of Transportation.
Level: Varies from paper to papsr, but technical,
far the most part; numerous graphs and tables and
bibliographies appended to several papers.
Summary: The list of symposium attendees ap-
pended to this book reads like a who's who of
accoustical research people. While the purpose of
the symposium was to address the problem of es-
tablishing a uniform scale for evaluating trans-
portation noises, in the process of discussion and
analysis, just about every scientific-engineering
aspect of the noise problem is touched on: Trans-
portation Noise Sources (aircraft surface, and
community noise levels); Scales for Expressing Noise
Level (loudness, annoyance, damage risk, etc.);
Laboratory Methods for Evaluating Human Response
to Noise; Methods for Evaluating Community Response
to Noise; and Relation Between Laboratory Results
and Community Response.
Each paper delivered during this symposium (there are
31 in all) is presented on the level of one professional to
another and, while every symposium attendee's specialty
is not transportation noise, they are, for the most part,
the leading professionals in noise research - engineers,
medical doctors, physicists, government noise program
administrators, etc. In short, quite a sophisticated
background in noise research is assumed in this book and
it is not easy reading for one new to the area. It is,
however, an excellent compilation of state-of-the-art
analyses in some of the most important areas of noise
control research and, while the hoped for consensus
on a noise measuring standard was not achieved during
this two-day meeting, what has resulted is an excellent
exchange of information between professionals working
on diverse aspects of the noise problem. This is a
document rich in background data and procedural
analysis, containing as well a very useful bibliographic
guide to the research literature m the references noted
at the end of the various papers.
Author: Richard H. Lyon, Professor of Acoustics,
Mechanical Engineering Department, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology,
Publisher: Grozier Publishing, Inc., Warren Avenue,
Harvard, Mass. 01451 (259 pp.; $20.00) 1973. Available
only by mail direct from the publisher.
Point of View: "The lectures approach transportation
noise from a traditional noise analysis viewpoint, which
considers the three elements: source, path, and receiver. .
it (this book) is intended to provide the reader with infor-
mation that will help him to understand noise and its
effects on people. .
Level: Technical; intended for seniois and graduate
students in various fields of engineering (numerous
illustrations; glossary of symbols; index, appendix).
Summary: Originally presented during the 1970 Spring
Term at MIT, the twenty-three lectures published in
this volume provide an excellent introduction to the
acoustics of transportation noise. Part analytical, part
empirical, the lectures range in approach from the
calculation of wave equations to an examination of
atmospheric attenuation using laboratory values in pre-
dicting propogation losses.
Basic acoustic theory, descriptions of physical concepts,
and engineering formulas are dealt with in the first
four chapters. While the mathematical background
assumed in this section is rather sophisticated, the author
notes that "the math is not really essential to much of
what follows in later lectures and some readers may want
to pass over the somewhat detailed derivations. "
Aircraft noise is the subject of lectures 5 through 13,
which provide an examination of the generation, propo-
gation, and effects of this particularly important facet
of transportation noise. The phenomena of speech
interference and annoyance are briefly treated here,
with special attention accorded psychoacoustic criteria
for aircraft noise ajid various abatement schemes, such
as land use planning.

Motor vehicle noise is examined in lectures 14 through
18, with particular attention to noise from automobiles,
motorcycles and trucks. Included in the discussion is
an examination of the effect of ground surface and
topography and how these effects differ from those
associated with aircraft.
Finally, the last five lectures, 19 through 23, focus on
noise from rail vehicles, both rapid transit and main
line rail. The main concern is with ground vibrations,
their generation and propogation, and the criteria for
their acceptability.
Numerous tables and graphs accompany each of these
chapters, making this by far the best source for data
on transportation noises, and a brief list of references
is appended to each chapter. While there has been
no attempt here to discuss transportation noise in an
environmental context, this is a most valuable primary
reference source on the problem of transportation noise
itself and should be of interest to the reader with a
science or engineering background.
Authors: D. R. Johnson and E. C. Saunders, Aero-
dynamics Division, National Physical Laboratory, England.
Publisher: Journal of Sound Vibration 7 (2): 287-309,
Point of View: "To determine the effectiveness of
any limitations placed on individual vehicle noise out-
put, it is necessary to establish the current levels of
noise from road traffic as a reference against which
improvement arising from noise restrictions can, in
the future, be assessed... .Environmental features and
differing roadway configurations will influence the
observed patterns of noise. The way in which all
these factors affect the noise levels in roadway en-
vironments needs to be known if valid comparisons of
traffic noise are to be made. ..."
Level: Technical; numerous graphs and tables; same illu-
strations; references noted.
Summary: Although not published until 1968, this article
reports the results of roadside surveys made between 1963
and 1965. It is one of the earliest such studies reported
in the literature and one frequently cited in articles and
reports on motor vehicle noise.
Much of the first part of the article simply sets forth
the procedures used for the study: scope of work,
measurement sites and procedures, etc. A brief section
deals with simple traffic flow analysis, suggested as a
means to indicate the effect on sound intensity of traffic
density and of distance from the roadside. Against
this background, extensive analysis is then provided
of the survey results under the following headings: uni-
fication of multi-lane Traffic Flow, Effects of Velocity,
Derivation of Empirical Law, Prediction Chart for
Traffic Noise Levels, Corrections Due to Acoustical
Environment, Effect of Heavy Commercial Vehicles,
Effect of Gradients, Method for Predicting Mean Levels
of Traffic Noise and, finally, Total Noise Exposure.
The authors note in conclusion that: "Checks made
using the present data suggest that the order of accuracy
in determining noise exposure is as good as that achieved
in predicting mean sound level. Thus, if the concept
of total noise exposure embodied in the formula L
is acceptable, it is now possible to represent the
traffic noise that will be produced under any envisaged
operating conditions, as a single figure which takes
both the factors of level and duration into account."
Appendices to the body of the report deal with the
mathematics of analysis of single line traffic flow and
presentation of data to example traffic noise level
Author: N. Olson, Division of Physics, National Re-
search Council of Canada.
Publisher: Journal of Acoustical Society of America 52
(5): 1291-1306, 1972.
Point of View; "Transportation noise, and motor-
vehicle noise in particular, account for the steady
or slowly varying ambient noise level, particularly
in urban areas. Being so numerous, motor vehicles
can be treated statistically, and this establishes con-

sistent noise emission characteristics. "
Level: Technical; this is the report of a motor
vehicle noise study undertaken by the author; numerous
graphs, brief bibliography.
Summary: This is one of the landmark studies on motor
vehicle noise and provides data and data analysis on
measured noise in the city of Ottowa from passenger
cars, trucks, tractor trailers, intercity buses and motor-
cycles. For each source, a brief description is given of
the conditions under which the noise measurements were
made and the resulting data is displayed in accompanying
graphs. A background knowledge of noise measurement
techniques and standards is assured. The author concludes:
"On the basis of the preceding measurements of
noise, the statistical properties of any given
category of motor vehicle accelerator from a
stop or cruising at speeds within a given range,
are predictable. Speed and vehicle weight
are important perameters governing the noise
level. In the case of motorcycles, throttle-
setting, i*t!ier than speed or weight, is the
most important perameter. "
urban area is the major contributor to the
ambient noise level at any given point of
observation, which follows a more or less
regular diurnal pattern in response to traffic.
Intermittent noise, local or otherwise which
rise above the ambient level, can be regarded
as intrusive noises, which, because of the con-
trast, can be more annoying dhan the steady
ambient noise. In many areas, ambient noise
from all sources may be so high that individual
sources are masked. "
Motor-vehicle traffic distributed over the whole
Author: Public Hearings on Noise Abatement and Con-
trol (Vol. II) Chicago, Illinois, July 28-29, 1971, USE
Publisher: USGPO, Washington, DC., (300 pp. ;
Stock No. 5500-00085; $2.10) 1971
Point of View: "These hearings were directed ... by
the U. S. Congress as part of an extensive effort to
develop a record for the President and the Congress on
the noise problem as it exists in the U.S. and what is
being done about it and what can be done about it so
that we may develop recommendations for further
Federal action. "
Level; Popular.
Summary: Testimony taking during this two day
hearing focuses for the most part on two aspects of the
noise problem: aircraft noise and to a consideration of
the psychological and physiological effects of noise ex-
posure, but only in a rather informal, sidelight way.
The hearings open with some interesting testimony on
the noise code in Chicago, both the original 1957 version,
which was a landmark in this area, and the revisions
that were made in 1971 after an extensive
noise study undertaken by Bolt, Berenek and Newman.
Because of Federal preemption in the area of aircraft
noise, the Chicago code addresses itself exclusively
to vehicle noise and provides a clear set of quantitative
standards which auto manufacturers and operators must
meet m that city. Aircraft noise, however, is a large
part of Chicago's problem, with O'Hare Airport being
one of the busiest, and therefore noisiest, airports in
the country. This aspect of the noise problem is the
focus for the remainder of the first day's hearings.
Five aircraft industry spokesmen provide testimony
on the various aspects of the noise problems presented
by airports and aircraft. The representative from GE
provides a lengthy description of the "quiet engine"
program they are participating m with NASA in the
production of the CF 6 Engine. The Vice President
for Development of American Airlines then provides
testimony as to the complex economic, technical and
time factors involved in quieting aircraft noise and
argues at some length against retrofitting of jet engines
as the best solution td the problem. He argues in-

stead for concentration on zoning solutions and notes his
endorsement of Federal preemption in die field of air-
craft noise control. His concluding remarks provide a -
brief analysis of noise as a "price of progress" 'problem.
The remaining testimony from the aircraft industry
(McDonnel Douglas, Air Transport Association, and
Airport Operators Council) focuses on the technical
problems associated with engine design and operating pro-
cedure modifications. There is some very useful infor-
mation contained here, although much of it is repetitious.
After several pages of testimony directed at problems in
industrial noise, foundries, etc., attention turns to motor
vehicle noise and a large chunk of the remaining testimony
is focused on the problems associated with noise from
vehicle engines, exhaust systems, and tires. Several good
reviews of the technology of the motor vehicle noise problem
are included here in testimony provided by the big three
auto manufacturers. — Ford, CM, and Chrysler. It is clear
that the California motor vehicle noise code has had a
large impact on two of the three companies, with only
CM continuing to produce cars below California
standards far sale in the rest of the states. Truck
noise is gone into in some detail and a particularly
good summary of the problems involved in control-
ling tire noise is provided by a representative from
the Uniroyal company.
Day two of these hearings provides a mixed bag of tes-
timony, most of it taken from concerned citizens who
are being subjected to alarming levels of aircraft and
highway noise. All urge increased government action
in the area of noise control and abatement. Some
useful data is provided on the physiological effects
of noise exposure but, far this part, this is testimony
to the complex annoyance factor in noise pollution
and is an impressive record of the extent of community
damage that a near-by noisy highway or airport can
Author; Public Hearings on Noise Abatement and
Control (Vol. VI), New York, New York, October
21-22, 1971, USEPA Office of Noise Abatement and
Publisher: USGPO, Washington, D.C. (324 pp;
Stock No. 5500-0036, $1.-66) 1971.
Point of View: This is one of the series of eight
jsubtte hearings held by E PA in an attempt to gather
information far its report to Congress and the President
on noise.
Level: Popular.
Summary: This volume of hearings strongly reflects
the particular concerns of two environments: the urban
environment, with its noisy construction projects and
transportation systems, and the surrounding suburbs, in
this case, Long Island, with their attendant airport noise
problems. A majority of the testimony taken during
these two days of hearings was provided by private utili-
ties and the litany of complaints, thoiqgh repetitious,
is none the less an impressive testimony to the cost of
environmental noise pollution.
Most of the first day's hearings, which took place in
New York's upper West Side, focus on noise from urban
transportation — rapid transit, railways, buse* and cars,
and proposed STOL and VTOL ports. A representative
from the City's Department of Air Resources opens the
hearings by relating the result of a recent HUD noise
study of New York. Several of the responses which have
been made to the problems identified by that study
are noted in terms of individual noise sources and what
the city can and has done about them. Numerous New
York residents, many representing various eitizen anti-
noise ancl general environmental interest groups, follow
with testimony to the magnitude of die urban noise
During the afternoon of the first day, some response
to this tJest^m'on'y is provided in testimony by represen-
tatives of the railroads and the New York Transit
Authority. Some interesting data accompanies the
testimony on rapid transit systems and a good summary of
what sorts of technological advances are possible in the
near future is provided. (See in particular "Environ-
mental Features and Advantages of Rapid Transit Systems"
—pp. 126-145).
The second day of hearings is held in Hempstead, Long
Island, a town literally in the shadow of Kennedy Inter-
national Airport. Several irate citizens and local govern-
ment: officials appear to plea for some governmental
intervention in the problem of aircraft noise and, while
no one testimony is particularly outstanding, the overall
level is impressive in terms of the self-educating that
private citizens have done in the area of noise pollution.

Point of View: "This is a basic approach to relate
noise that is attributable to streets and highways to land
Author: Burton H. Sexton, owner of Sexton-Sexton Asso-
ciates, consultants, engineers, and planners in traffic,
noise, and transportation.
Level: Semi-technical; several graphs and tables.
Summary: There is much useful information contained
within this brief article, all of it of a much simplified
nature, but still quite useful as a summary source. In
Publisher: Traffic Quarterly 23: 427-39, July 1969.
and fill sections. He concludes: "Planning for
noise control in highway construction in urban areas
has reached the stage where it should become a basic
part of highway location feasibility studies. These
studies now include land-use, transit, transportation,
and traffic studies. The next logical inclusion
should be the study of existing noise conditions and
their effects on certain areas or uses, and recom-
mendations for highway noise controls.. . .Disregard
by government officials of the annoying features
of noise generation from transportation sources cannot
long continue. The location or expansion of highways
networks, off-street parking facilities, and rapid rail
transit systems, as well as airports, should be given
a thorough acoustical engineering appraisal. "
"Physical Measurement of Sound" the author briefly explains
the sound level meter and the octave-band analyzer, pro-
viding along into the operating description a fairly exten-
sive sampling of highway section sound levels. A
brief discussion of noise sound pressures level measurement
follows, again with typical data displayed as an example
of common pressure levels. Loudness, pitch, intermittancy,
environmental factors and sources and familiarity are
separately examined m a discussion of human reactions
to sound. Finally, in "Noise Controls", Sexton looks
at special design features (walls, barriers, etc.), land-
scaping, elevated sections, wall sections, cut sections
1.	"Environmental Noise Pollution: A New Threat to Sanity", (Ref. 1-10).
2.	Section 3 of "Laws and Regulatory Schemes for Noise Abatement", (Ref. II-1).
3.	"Transportation Systems Center Technical Progress Report", appended to "Summary of Noise Programs of the
Federal Government", (Ref. II-4).
4.	"Some Sources of Noise from Motor Vehicles and Possible Action for Control" and "Truck Tire Noise
in "Technology and Economics of Noise Control", (Ref. III-3).
5.	Chapters 31, 32 in "Handbook of Noise Control" (Ref. VIII-1).
6.	Chapter IVC in "Noise Assessment Guidelines; Technical Background" (Ref. VIII-5).
7.	"Some Sources of Noise from Motor Vehicle" and "Truck Tire Noise" in Technology and Economics of Noise
Control, (Ref. Ill—3).
8.	"Outdoor Noise and the Metropolitan Environment", (Ref. V-8).

Author: Proceedings of a conference sponsored jointly
by the Society of Automative Engineers (SAE) and the
U S. Department of Transportation (DOT), February
8-10, 1971.
Publisher: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc ,
Two Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New York, 1001 (2
volumes; 402 pp; $12/ set) 1971 (Check NTIS)
Point of View; "It is the goal of the conference to
show us (DOT) how air transportation can be a good
neighbor to our social and natural surroundings "
Level: Varies; Semi-technical for the most part;
illustrated; numerous graphs and tables; some biblio-
Summary: These two volumes contain a very useful
state-of-the-ert summation on just about every aspect
of the aircraft-environment problem. They are the
product of a two day, joint SAE-DOT conference and
reflect some of the best and, certainly, the most
influential, thinking that has been addressed to this
problem. As is often the case with such conferences,
the conclusions and recommendations, requiring,
as they do, consensus on short notice, are less than
earth shaking. They should not, however, reflect on
the value of the conference itself.
thing from the training of acoustical engineers
through research on sonic boom, noise reduction
operational procedures, engine and airplane design,
water vapor pollution of the upper atmosphere,
and into public health aspects of noise pollution,
legislative remedies, and suggestions as to the role
which the federal government should play in all
this. In short, there is something and, more often
than not, a rather definitive something on everything
having to do with the aircraft-environment issue.
All of it is well-documented, and much of it is
accompanied by illustrations, graphs and tables which
provide a quick summation of existing data and help
to make this a most valuable reference.
There are forty-four papers m all, dealing with every-
Author: Report of the Administrator of the EPA in
compliance with Noise Control Act of 1972, Public
Law 92-574.
Publisher: US EB^, July 1973 (To be available
from USGPO late in 1973).
Point of View : Report of several studies under-
taken by EPA in response to the directive of the
1972 Noise Control Act. These studies were designed
to provide background information for setting of EPA
regulations to provide such control and abatement of
aircraft noise and sonic boom ... as EPA determines
is necessary to protect the public health and welfare. "
Level: Non-technical; bibliographies appended to each
Summary: This report is part of EPA's response to
section 7 of the Noise Control Act of 1972. Under
that section, the Administrator of the EPA is directed
to "conduct a study of the (1) adequacy of Federal Avia-
tion Administration flight and operational noise con-
trols; (2) adequacy of noise emission standards on
new and existing aircraft, together with recommen-
dations on the retrofitting and phase-out of existing
aircraft; (3) implications of identifying and achieving
levels of cumulative noise exposure around airports;
and (4) additional measures available to airport
operators and local governments to control aircraft
Six task force groups were established early in 1973 and
called together for two plenary sessions and four to
six working meetings, the last of which was in June
1973. The report of the six groups, collected m this
report and published in preliminary fashion in July
1973, are entitled:

-	Legal and Institutional Analysis of Aircraft
and Airport Noise and Apportionment of
Authority between Federal, State and Local
-	Operations Analysis Including Monitoring,
Enforcement, Safety, and Costs
-	Impact Characterization of Noise Including
Implications of Identifying and Achieving
Levels of Cumulative Noise Exposure
-	Noise Source Abatement Technology and
Cost Analysis Including Retrofitting
-	Review and Analysis of Present and Planned
FAA Noise Regulatory Actions and Their
Consequences Regarding Aircraft and Air-
port Operations
- Military Aircraft and Airport Noise and Op-
portunities for Reduction without Inhibition
of Military Missions
This is entirely a descriptive report and includes
little in the way of data^analysis, graphs, or tables
The summations themselves, however, are quite
useful and provide a concise overview of die issues
that are central to the Federal aircraft noise abate-
ment initiative Excellent bibliographies are appended
to each chapter. In sum, this is an extremely valua-
ble reference document.
Author: Report of the Office of Noise Abatement, Office
of the Assistant Secretary for Systems Development and
Technology, Department of Transportation.
Publisher: USGPO, Washington, D C. (72 pp; $ 95)
January 1973.
Point of View: "The purpose of this Fourth Federal
Aircraft Noise Abatement Program is to assemble in
one document brief descriptions of current work to re-
duce aircraft noise impact. The ultimate objective of
the aircraft noise abatement program is the elimination
of adverse impact from aircraft noise on airport neighbors "
Level: Non-technical; illustrated; bibliography
Summary: This summary of subsonic noise and sonic
boom research and development is published annually
by the DOT "to provide the Congress and the Executive
branch with a consolidated outline of programs and fiscal
resources involved m government and industry efforts to
reduce aircraft noise "
An opening "historical background" section reviews the
record of Federal involvement in noise abatement and
briefly examines the lands of administrative decisions
which have determined authority over the various aspects
of the aircraft noise problem. In "Aircraft Noise and the
Urban Environment, " a summary of progress to date in
developing a methodology to evaluate the noise problem
(DOT-NEF measure) is provided and a few paragraphs
summarize progress m the area of land use alternatives
and flight operational modifications procedures,
A good summation of the Eederal government's
perceived role in aircraft noise abatement is provided:
, . . the Federal government is not assigning
responsibility to determine what maximum
aircraft noise levels will be permitted in
local communities Rather the Federal
Government's prime effort has been to con-
centrate on prescribing standards for the
measurement and control of aircraft noise
in order that aircraft will be as quiet as
possible within the constraints of techno-
logy and economic feasibility ... It is
not envisioned that the Federal Government
will assume responsibility for monitoring
aircraft noise in day-to-day operations; how-
ever, the Government may publish operating
rules in conunction with certification rules
for noise abatement purposes.-" "
A brief, illustrated discussion of the sonic boom
phenomenon follows and the contirmmiice of FAA
research in this area, despite the curtailment of the
US SST development program, is explained as a
means to provide standards for foreign SST's which
might fly into the U.S. on a commercial basis.
The body of the report consists of two sections, one
providing brief descriptions of "Government Supported
Subsonic Noise R and D Programs" and the other
summarizing "Government Supported Sonic Boom

R and D rograms. " Work undertaken on an agency
by agency basis is explained in a paragraph or so for
each project and a table showing a "Summary of Fiscal
Data" provides quick reference to the magnitude of the
Federal investment in the aircraft noise abatement field.
Proposed subsonic noise R and D programs are briefly
outlined and a short section contains a review of "Non-
Government Supported Research, " briefly describing
projects underway at Boeing, GE, and McDonnell
Douglas. Unfortunately, no fiscal data is provided
on the non-govemment programs and it is difficult
from the brief descriptions provided to assess the
magnitude of the aircraft industry's commitment in
this area. Proposed NASA and DOT Sonic Boom research
for fiscal 1973 is outlined and a glossary of tens
and bibliography follow. Both are useful additions,
but the bibliography is of particular interest as it
provides a guide to several industry and government
documents that would otherwise be difficult to reference.
Author: Federal Aviation Administration notice of
proposed rule making.
Publisher: Federal Register 34 (8): 453-465,
Saturday, January 11, 1969.
Point of View: "The FAA is considering the adoption of
a new Part 36 of the FAA regulations prescribing aircraft
noise standards for subsonic transport category airplanes,
and for subsonic turbojet powered airplanes regardless
of category. "
Level: Semi-technical.
Summary: In July 1968 the Congress amended the
Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to require noise abatement
regulation, directing the Administrator of the FAA,
in consultation with the Secretary of DOT, "to pre-
scribe and amend standards for the measurement of
aircraft noise and sonic boom. "
sonic turbojet powered aircraft regardless of
category. Three points of measurement are
specified	approach, take-off, and sideline —
and the Effective Perceived Noise Level, in
units of EPNdB, is specified as the basis for
compliance. The publication of these regulations
represents die first positive step taken by the
Federal Government to halt the escalation of
aircraft noise. While this does not make for
particularly interesting reading, it is a must for
anyone wishing a full understanding of the sorts
of standards now in operation, both in terms of
their technical dimensions and legislative authority.
A familiarity with this document will help put
into perspective the data contained in the'
various EPA reports, conference documents,
and hearings which are reviewed in this section
of the packet bibliography.
With the publication of this "Notice of Proposed
Rule Making" in the Federal Register, the FAA out-
lined its proposed standards and invited "interested
persons to participate in the making of the proposed
rule by submitting such written data, views or argu-
ments as they may desire. "
It is a lengthy and somewhat tedious exposition,
reviewing on a paragraph by paragraph basis the
rationale and legal implications behind each segment
of the proposed aircraft and noise standards. Finally,
on page 458, appears the heading "Part 36 - Noise
Standards: Aircraft Type Certification, " a delineation
of the now famous FAR 36 regulations which became
effective on December 1, 1969. These regulations
prescribe maximum permissable noise levels for
subsonic transport category aircraft and for sub-

Author: Hearings before the Subcommittee on
Transportation and Aeronautics of the Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of
Representatives, 90th Congress, 1st and second
Publisher: USGPO, Washington, D C. (Serial
No 90-35; 203 pp.; Available from the Com-
mittee on request) 1968.
Point of View: "Today the Subcommittee on
Transportation and Aeronautics.. . .commences
hearings on H. R. 3400 and related bills. This
proposed legislation would authorize the Secretary
of Transportation to prescribe standards for the
measurement of aircraft noise and sonic boom
and to establish regulations for their control and
abasement. The regulations could then be applied
to aircraft certification procedures. "
Level: Non-technical.
Summary: Compared to most hearings on
environmental issues, this set is a disappointment.
No background papers have been appended here,
no definitive data is brought out, and very little
in the way of substantive debate has taken place
What these hearings do substantiate is that aircraft
noiseis a very hot political issue. Most of the
first two day's hearings, and substantial parts of the
remaining sessions, are taken up by testimony from
Congressmen who represent districts where aircraft
noise is a pervasive problem For the most part,
however, they appear here simply to reiterate die
need for Federal action in the area of aircraft noise
control and to relay the complaints of their con-
The first substantive testimony occurs at the end
of the second day with the appearence of the
Secretary of Transportation, his general counsel,
and the chief of the Office of Noise Abatement
in the DOT. A brief review is provided as to what
DOT has done to date in the area of aircraft noise
abatement and the Secretary registers his support
of the Bill under consideration, H R. 3400 The
general counsel assures the congressmen on the
hearing committee that the proposd bill does not
present any legal hazards to the Federal government
and the Noise Abatement office chief discusses some
of the technical problems in abating noise through
operational modifications.
Day three opens with testimony from the general
counsel for the Air Transport Association of America,
a group that represents most of the scheduled airlines
While noting that the airlines are agreeable to Federal
certification for noise, the counsel provides an ex-
tensive criticism of the Bill under consideration and
inserts in the record an alternative piece of legisla-
tion drawn up and proposed by the ai rimes themselves
The main points of contention relate to the limita-
tions of H R 3400, in that it deals only with noise
control at the source and says nothing about lend
use and operational modification alternatives, and
the designation of authority, which the Congress
would invest m the Secretary of Transportation and
which the airlines would like to see in the hands of
the administrator of the FAA, The counsel then
describes the various industry supported noise abate-
ment programs that have taken place without Federal
pressure and reiterates that, because certification
for noise is closely related to certification for safety
an FAA decision, the authority for that should be
set in the FAA.
A representative from the Air Operators Council
International follows and, to the annoyance of Re-
presentative Kuy Kendall, Congressman from Ten-
nessee and firm ally of the airlines, contradicts
several points made by the airlines' counsel.
His testimony provides a well-reasoned argument
as to the limitations of zoning as a solution and pro-
vides some needed moderation to the airlines claims
Several more congressmen appear at the opening of
the fourth day's session, all of them recording their
support of the Bill under consideration and empha-
sizing the need for immediate Federal action. The
President of the Air Line Pilots Association puts in
a brief appearance in which he criticizes the trend
to see flight operation modifications as a long range
solution to the aircraft noise problem. He argues
that such procedures have been pushed as far as
possible m terms of safety and that a better alternative
would be for stronger zoning laws for land around
airports and the cooperation of the FHA in refusing
to mortgage homes in high noise impact areas around
airports. This argument is seconded by testimony
from the National Business Aircraft Association
representative, speaking for the owners and operators
of some 500 business and private jets. The hearings
conclude with the appearance of several more irate
congressmen, none of them adding anything new to
the testimony record About the best thing that can
be said for all this is that the hearings do contain a
good summary of the airline industry's feelings about
Federal involvement in their affairs and, while little

in the way of new information is provided by the	on the future of Federal control in this area,
legion of congressmen who appear to testify, they
do make the point that aircraft noise is a good
political issue, a fact that will surely bear strongly
Author: A Report of the Jet Aircraft Noise Panel,
Office of Science and Technology, Executive Office
of the President.
Publisher: USGPO, Washington, D. C. (167 pp.;
$1.25) March 1966.
Point of View: The basis for this report consists
of papers presented to the OST Jet Aircraft Noise
Panel m consideration of the rising number of
citizen complaints about aircraft noise and the direct
accountability which the Federal government has
assumed in terms of responsibility for the regulation
of aircraft travel. Specialists most likely to pro-
vide authoritative views were invited to join the
Panel in a one-day discussion of the aircraft noise
problem and to provide papers outlining their
Level: Semi-technical; varies from paper to
paper; numerous graphs and tables; bibliography.
Summary; This is a classic reference on aircraft
noise and represents the first Federal effort to examine
this as an environmental problem. There are five
main topics, with several papers being delivered by
experts on each. Papers by Galloway and Kryter
address "Physical and Psychoacoustic Measurements"
in terms of the definition and execution of physical
measurement of parameters relevant to individual
and community reactions to noise, the de;velopment
of standardized quantitative indices for various
measurements, and definition of areas for further
research in acoustics. "Developments in Engines,
Airplanes, and Aircraft Utilization, " contains two
papers addressed to the general problem of engine
design for noise generation reduction. Existing
possible modifications are reviewed, potential re-
ductions (in PNdb) and their cost are estimated, and
the possibilities for developing new engines are dis-
cussed in terms of the technology and costs involved.
Airplane noise is examined in terms of the general
design and development problem of making air-
planes and engines to achieve lower generated
noise levels. Emphasis in these papers (one from
a Boeing representative and the other from a
Douglas representative) is on possible future designs
for modifications on existing jets, development
of new aircraft specifically designed to minimize
noise generation, and the possibility, irregardless
of cost, of producing in the near future a signifi-
cantly quieter jet.
"Aircraft utilization" is addressed in papers by
representatives from American Airlines and TWA.
Specifically, developments in engines and air-
craft are examined in terms of airline operations
and economics, with some discussion of the SAE
noise standardization problem.
Two operational procedures are then looked at
in some detail: air traffic and flight procedures,
for noise modification. Commentary is provided
by representatives from FAA, the Airline Pilots
Association, and a Vice President of TWA. Finally,
general economic considerations, , and utilization
potential and legal problems in noise abatement
are reviewed in separate papers on economics,
problems in public regulation, and reports on
experience in these areas at O'Hare, Kennedy,
and Los Angelos Airports. In sum, while this
is now a somewhat dated treatment of the aircraft
noise problem, it remains a classic, often re-
ferenced document that provides an excellent re-
view of the issues and alternatives involved.

Author: A HUD Planning Guidance Report,
prepared under contract by Wilsey and Ham and
Bolt, Beranek and Newman.
Publisher: USGPO, Washington, D. C. (274 pp.;
$3. 50) November 1972 (GPO Stock Number 2300-
Point of View: "This manual is an attempt to
interpret the information developed in the MANAPS
(Metropolitan Aircraft Noise Abatement Policy
Studies) reports and other case studies of aircraft
noise abatement and present it in a form that
provides a practical tool for the local planner,
local government and others in developing a
comprehensive aircraft noise abatement policy and
program. "
J,evel: Non-technical; numerous flow diagrams,
tables and illustrations; annotated bibliography.
Summary: In order to relate the costs of land use
planning and redevelopment strategies to other means
of dealing with airport noise, DOT and HUD funded
studies of four U.S airports. These reviewed the
existing local noise situation and investigated the
costs of specific abatement programs under the .con-
ditions at the study airports. Reports of these studies
were issued in 1971,and this document, published one
year later, is an attempt to synthesize the information
in those original reports and make the findings under-
standable to concerned planners. Five aspects of the
problem are discussed in separate sections: The
Planning Context (limitations of airport planning,
recent legislative trends, etc. ), Defining the
Noise Problem (nature and effects of aircraft
noise), Options for Reducing Noise Conflicts (noise
source changes, path changes, feedback and con-
trol mechanisms, etc ), Developing a Planning
Program for Aircraft Noise Abatement, and The
Future of Noise Abatement Policy Each chapter
is well illustrated with drawings, graphs and tables,
and is written on a relatively non-technical level,
with straight forward explanations provided of
technical terms or engineering concepts as they
arise. Technical appendices, running to some 80
pages, provide backup for the chapter discussions
and contain data on various noise calculations,
technical considerations in noise insulation, HUD
noise standards, proposed Air Force standards, etc.
Finally, a fairly extensive bibliography and supple-
mentary list of reports available from the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS) are provided.
While many of the problems under discussion are
given only brief textual treatment, the data contained
in the many tables and graphs here is extremely use-
ful and the overall effect is to provide a most in-
teresting, quick summary of some very complex pro-
blems. It is the kind of document which should be
most useful to anyone interested in an overview of
the complexities which govern land use policy de-
cisions as they relate to airport sitings and operations.
Author- Los Angelos City Planning Commission, Los
Angelos, California (60 pp.^) 1970.
Point of View: "Cities are faced with growing noise
pollution from more trucks, aircraft, motorcycles,
and new kinds of powered equipment. With noise
already a serious problem along freeways and around
airports, expanding air traffic will extend noise pol-
lution over entire communities unless it is controlled
It is this noise from aircraft which is a primary concern
of this study, not only because of its widespread effects
today and for tomorrow, but because it is not too late
to control it without severe economic disruption "
Level: Non-technical; numerous tables, graphs and
illustrations; bibliography
Summary This is the report of a study undertaken
in 1969 by Dale Beland, a member of the L.A City
Planning Commission, and a group of his students
in the USC Graduate Program of Urban and Regional
Planning While the study was addressed to an exam-
ination of all major external sources of noise pollution
in the urban environment, its main focus is aircraft
noise. The body of the report provides a non-technical
summation of the urban noise problem in general,
the methodology of the study, and a close look at
two areas of transportation noise: Freeways, Ground
Vehicles and Powered Equipment (24 pp. ) and Air-
ports, Aircraft andAirways (24 pp. ) Specific re-
commendations for the Los Angelos area are provided,
along with some fairly generalized conclusions and
recommendations directed at the urban noise problem

on a broader scale Supportive data and general back-
ground references are included in an extensive seven-
part appendix Throughout, useful illustrations accompany
the text, many of them portraying comparisons of data
on various noise sources as existing in 1971 and
projected to 1990. The bibliography is especially
good and contains references under ten separate
1.	"Aircraft and Noise: The Retrofitting Approach", a 1972 Library of Congress Congressional Research Service
Report, reprinted in appendices to Noise Pollution, (Ref. 1-1).
2.	"Jet Aircraft and Noise Over Residential Areas", Report of a UCLA Study, reprinted in appendices to Noise
Pollution, (Ref 1-1).
3.	"Aircraft Noise Pollution and the Need for Federal Legislation", a short paper prepared by N.O.I.S.E. and
reprinted in the appendices to Noise Pollution , (Ref. 1-1)
4.	"Aircraft Noise and Control Technology", in "Report to the President and Congress on Noise", (Ref. 1-2).
5.	"Environmental Noise Pollution: A New Threat to Sanity", (Ref. 1-10).
6.	Sections 2 and 3 of "Laws and Regulatory Schemes for Noise Abatement", (Ref. II-1).
7.	"Operational-Procedural Noise Reduction Flight Program", appended to "Summary of Noise Programs in the
Federal Government", (Ref. II—4)
8.	"Aircraft Noise", Section 2, a collection of five law journal articles in Noise Pollution and the Law, (Ref. II—5).
9	"The Legal Aspects of Noise Control", and text of "Noise Standards: Aircraft Type and Certification", in (Ref. II-7).
10.	"Aircraft Noise", in The Economic Impact of Noise , (Ref. Ill-2).
1L	Chapters 33, 34, 37 in "Handbook of Noise Control" (Ref. VIII-1).
12.	Chpater HID and IVB in "Noise Assessment Guidelines; Technical Background" (Ref VIII-6).
13.	"Transportation Noise and Noise from Equipment Powered by Internal Combustion Engines", (Ref. IV-1).
14.	"Aircraft Noise" (Lectures 5 through 13) in Lectures in Transportation Noise , (Ref. IV-3).
15.	"Manufacturing and Transportation Noise", (Ref. IV-6).

Author; William A Shurcliff, Physicist, Harvard University,
and Director, Citizens League Against the Sonic Boom.
Publisher: Ballantine Books, New York (153 pp.;
$ .95) 1970.
Point of View: "Why should the public - 95% of
whose members would never fly in an SST - be forced to
provide billions of dollars for an inefficient, unnecessary
plane that could destroy peace and quiet throughout
much of the civilized world. "
Level: Popular.
Summary: This is one of the best known products of
die recent SST debate and provides, with laudable
brevity and clarity, a most useful summary of the main
arguments raised against American development of a
commercial SST. Shurcliff has done an excellent job
of gleaning the literature, particularly Congressional
hearings testimony, £or the kinds of facts and data which
refute the wisdom of SST travel. Various chapters deal
with the design of the proposed planes themselves, 
Author: Report prepared by die National Bureau
of Standards under Interagency Agreement.
Publisher; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D C. (19pp.; $ .30; NTID 300.12;
GPO Stock #5500-0048) December 31, 1971.
Point of View: "A brief discussion is given of the
physical nature of sonic booms, and other impulsive
noises, and the parameters, such as over-pressure,
duration and mechanical impulse, which are used
to characterize sonic booms. This is followed by an
overview of the response of structures - particularly
buildings - to sonic booms and a review of the damage
history observed due to supersonic overflights. "
Level: Semi-technical; illustrated; tables, biblio-
Summary: This is the report of the sonic boom
damage incurred during the series of government
tests made between 1961 and 1966 over selected U S
cities. The first few pages provide a brief, textbook-
like discussion of the nature of sonic booms and other
impulsive noises. This leads into an examination of the
response of various structures to sonic booms and it is
shown that the main vulnerable building components
are window gloss and plaster, not an insignificant
problem when one considers that some of the newer
high-rise buildings have facades that are as much
as 8096 glass. Various building designs that might
lead to the magnification of sonic boom damage are
discussed briefly and actual test data on the financial
damage to buildings in the various test cities is
provided. A brief, concluding section takes note
of the particular vulnerability of historical buildings
and archeological structures and details damage done
at several national park monuments by test booms.
There is some mention of problems related to earth
surfaces, avalanches, etc. but there is little in
the way of reliable data on this aspect of the problem
A fairly lengthy bibliography is appended to the
Author: Migdon R. Segal, Analyst, Science and
Technology, Science Policy Research Division,
Library of Congress.
Publisher: An internal report, available only through
a member of Congress by request. (Report 72-257 SP)
December 13, 1972.
Point of View: "Despite its technological success,
the future of the Concorde remains a gamble due
to economic and environmental factors. .. .Among
the factors inhibiting Concorde sales are a relatively
high selling price, uncertainty over operating costs,
the recent recession in the airline industry, and the
fear of environmental restrictions which might hamper
Concorde operations.!'
Summary: This is one of many excellent documents
prepared by the Library of Congress staff as background
information for Senators and Congressmen. While one
must be a member of Congress to have access to this
and other Library produced documents, most Congress-
men are more than willing to secure these papers for
interested constituents, and this is a particularly
worthwhile one to request. Prepared [nor to the
Congressional decision to halt the U.S. SST develop-
ment, this is essentially an evaluation of the Concorde
program in terms of its production history, antici-
pated performance, market prospects, and environ-
mental factors. A final "Outlook'section opens with
this assertion: "The Concorde development and
testing program is proceeding smoothly, and it
seems likely that the Concorde will be ready for
the world's aviation community by 1975. It remains
to be seen, however, whether the world will be
ready for the Concorde by that time. " While this
is a relatively short summary (20 pages) it is an
extremely interesting one and full of valuable data
on all aspects of the SST.

Author: The Special Study Group on Noise
and Sonic Boom in Relation to Man, Report to
the Secretary of the Interior,
Publisher: Scientist and Citnen 10: 223-229,
November 1968
Point of View: " die Study Group has considered
various aspects of the sonic boom, together with those
effects on man which are to be expected from regular
commercial flights of supersoDic transport aircraft
(SST's) The following conclusions and recommenda-
tions give our advice concerning the effects on man and
his environment that need to be taken into account in
deciding whether SST's should be allowed to operate
at supersonic speed over the land area of our nation "
Level: Non-technical
Summary: Excerpted and printed here are the
conclusion and recommendation sections of what was
the first officially sanctioned study to warn against
the dangers of a commercial SST fleet. The main
thrust of the study group's recommendations are that
SST's not be flown over land, particularly over pop-
ulated areas, in light of the results of public response,
in terms of damage claims and complaint, to,French,
American, and British test flights It is pointed out
that relatively few people will probably fly in SST's,
compared to (he numbers to be subjected to their
sonic booms, and that the unknown consequences of
the introduction of water vapor into the stratosphere
by SST's could prove seriously damaging to the
environment The panel recommends that com-
mercial SST flight be regarded as an "experimental
technological development" and that more research
into the problems of supersonic -flight be immediately
undertaken along with public hearings Results of
existing experiments on the effects of sonic booms
on people are reported and projections given as to the
possible magnitude of these problems to result from
overland, commercial SST flights. Some data is
provided on damage claims and complaints associated
with SST test flights and particular attention is paid
to structural damage done at several of the national
monuments. A final section examines "Factors in
Decision Making" and the Panel calls for extending
the parameters of the decision beyond the confines
of aviation progress and national prestige and re-
commends turning increased attention to the associated
undesirable or adverse side-effects which inevitably
accompany supersonic flight. The report ends on a
rather prophetic note: " . every leader in the federal
administration should be concerned that the decision
making process be proper, because all probably will
face similar situations in one way or another as the
nation moves ahead "
Author- Herbert A Wilson, Jr
Publisher: Scientific American 2^6 : 36-43,
January 1962
Point of View: "The loud noises caused at the
ground by an airplane flying faster than the speed
of sound will have to be brought under control before
supersonic transports can come into service. "
Level: Non-technical; illustrated; graphs, tables.
Summary- This is an excellent, short, non-math-
ematical discussion of the physical phenomenon of
sonic boom It is extremely well illustrated, allowing
the student to easily follow along visually with the
straightforward text descriptions of shock waves and
the various physical parameters which determine
their magnitude. Various engineering alternatives
which might mitigate the inevitable boom which
accompanies all supersonic flight are briefly
discussed and the author concludes: "When the
supersonic transport comes, it will boom. But it
may be feasible to keep those booms from reaching
the ground at an objectionable intensity This
will require careful design of the airliner, with
special attention given to configuration and structure,
and possibly an extra margin of engine performance
And it will surely require carefully laid out and
strictly maintained flight plans m which sonic
boom will become an integral factor, along with
weather, visibility, and traffic m the increasingly
crowded air "

Author: Harvey H. Hubbard
Publisher: Physics Today 21: 31-37, February
Point of View: "Because booms can startle people
and shake buildings and their contents, there is
serious concern for public acceptance of the sonic
boom . . . There are those who would ban the super-
sonic transport altogether. . Others are taking
a more realistic approach. Consideration is being
given to the development of advanced-design air-
craft that would minimize the effects of sonic boom!1
Level: Semi-technical; illustrated"; references
Summary: This is a slightly more technical dis-
cussion of the physics of sonic booms and assumes
some aquaintance with wave phenomenon It is
much more a traditional textbook treatment than is
the Scientific American article and would probably
be more appropriate reading for the science or
engineering student Some historical background
is provided here in a brief section which notes some of
the early researchers into sonic boom phenomenon
The discussion then moves to point-source disturbances,
aircraft disturbances (spectral content of bow waves,
etc ) and a review of the nature and extent of sonic
boom ground-exposure patterns (lateral spread pat-
terns and overpressure). Finally, bnef attention is
turned to the effects of sonic booms, both in terms
of subjective, human reactions and actual physical
damage reports on structures The author is clearly
more skeptical of the degree of sonic boom disturbance
than is Wilson and ends on a reassuring note as to the,
ability of scientists to cope with these kinds of problems
Author: Proceedings of a Conference held at the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Washington, D C , Apnl 12, 1967.
Point of View: "The purpose of this meeting -was
to ascertain those areas of sonic boom research that
are the most pressing from the standpoint of com-
mercial supersonic transport (SST) operation and
to determine whether or not all possible aerodynamic
means of reducing sonic boom overpressures were being
explored "
Level: Technical; illustrated; graphs and tables;
references at end of each paper.
Summary: This is a compilation of five invited
papers and seven contributed remarks directed toward
a state-of-the-art survey of sonic boom research
to 1967, While much of it is now dated and somewhat
preliminary, the basic aerodynamics and many of the
proposed design features are comparable to existing
technology. In fact, the concluding remark of one
of the NASA participants proves, in retrospect,
quite accurate: " . . many of the participants seem to
share my skepticism that there are any avenues which
are not currently being explored that will lead to
real aircraft configurations with substantially lower
peak overpressures " At any rate, this is an interesting
discussion of the technology of sonic boom aerodynamics
and provides a quick reference to the kind of infor-
mation available to the developers of the prototype
commercial SST at Boeing Some of the chapter
reference listings are quite extensive and most of
the papers are well-illustrated and full of useful
Author: Kurt H Hohenemser
Publisher Scientist and Citizen 8: 1-10,
April, 1966
Point of View: "This report is an attempt to pre-
sent in simple terms the important public issues
arising from the development of die SST. In keeping
with the guiding principle of Scientist and Citizen,
the issue will be formulated and its technological
background presented without advising for or against
a specific policy decision. "

Summary; This, the first of two articles that
Dr. Hohenemser prepared for publication in this
journal, is of particular interest as it pre-dates
the real SST debate and provides one of the first,
full-fledged analysesof the potential problems in
the SST development program Some background
is provided as the role of the Federal government
in this development program and the author briefly
reviews some of the advantages and disadvantages
that aviation development has brought us since
Lindbergh's 1927 flight across the Atlantic Several
technical problems associated with the increased
speed of the SST are then reviewed, including those
associated with high surface temperatures, wing
configuration, and atmospheric tarbulence. Under
Level; Non-technical; illustrated.
chapters deal separately with "Benefits vs Costs"
(shorter travel time promised vs. real savings in
time, balance of payments problems, boom limita-
tions on land overflights, etc ) and "SST Economics:
An Added Note" which provides an updating of direct
operating costs per sear mile for the transatlantic
route, data taken from an article published just prior
to thisonegoing to press All in all, this is a most
useful summary of the kinds of problems environ-
mentalists were trying to alert the public^prior to
the full-scale development of an American com-
mercial SST. Were it not for the potential existence
of French-British Concorde fleets and Russian SST
flights, these might be considered arguments of his-
torical interest only. As it is, they are quite timely
still and, in this presentation, should be easily com-
prehended by a non-scientific audience
"Environmental Problems of the SST", Hohenemser
examines two problems: cosmic radiation and sonic
boom. Far greater attention is paid to the phenom-
enon of sonic boom and a good, though necessarily
quite simplified, explanation is provided of the
physical dimensions involved. Two concluding
1	"Environmental Noise Pollution: A New Threat to Sanity", (Ref 1-10)
2	"The SST: From Watts to Harlem in Two Hours" and "Sonic Booms- Ground Damage and Theories of Recovery",
"Sonic Boom: Containment or Confrontation", "Sonic Booms: Tort Liability", and "Control and Abatement of
Aircraft Noise and Sonic Boom", in Section 3 of Noise Pollution and the Law, (Ref II-5)
3	"Fourth Federal Aircraft Noise Abatement Program", (Ref V-3)
4	Physiological Effects of Noise , (Ref IX-6)
5	"Psychological Reactions to Aircraft Noise", (Ref IX-9)
6	"Sonic Boom" in Noise and Man, (Ref X-3)

Author; Clifford R. Bragdon (See Ref. 1-3)
Publisher: Natural Resources Journal 10; 687-718,
October 1970.
Point of View; "The noise associated with urban
living is a growing environmental liability. In-
creasing numbers of the population are affected
by this pollutant, making proper noise management
vitally important To provide a background for
effective policy decisions, it is essential to identify
those factors affecting community noise manage-
ment The purpose of this article is to discuss
each of these factors. "
Level; Non-technical; documented
Summary; Bragdon has written extensively and well
on the problems of noise pollution and this is an
excellent introduction to the duality of his work It
is aimed at answering the question that confronts
every environmental issue: Why isn't more done
about the problem? Specifically, Bragdon's in-
terest is exploring the built-in factors which have
kept noise pollution from being attacked in any
concerted, large scale way He isolates six specific
problems for examination: auditory regression,
human misunderstanding, adaptation, priority of
concerns with respect to urban problems, institutional
apathy, and ignorance. The examples which docu-
ment the role which each of these factors has played
are taken from a careful culling of the noise pollution
literatuee, particularly government documents and
hearings testimony. Some if it is highly speculative,
particularly the sections on auditory regression and
adaptation, but for the most part, the evidence is
impressive: the familiar equation of noise with
power or "progress", the inability of government
agencies to handle inter-disciplinary problems,
the lack of incentive for industry achievement in
quieter products, etc Seen altogether like this,
the catalogue of factors is impressive, sometimes
amusing, but ultimately maddening Knowing this,
Bragdon concludes by noting the existence of several
noise abatement organizations and the need for public
education through journal articles geared to the general
public. The whole tone here is one of positivism
and Bragdon is careful to emphasize that the dimensions
of these problems are amenable to change and improve-
ment Again, this fits into the category of political
literature, in the broadest and best sense of the word,
and should be required reading for any and all students
of the noise pollution problem.
Author: Prepared by Wyle Laboratories under Con-
tract for the U.S. EPA Office of Noise Abatement
and Control.
Publisher; USGPO, Washington, D C (203 pp;
NTIS #P8-207124, $3.00)1971.
Point of View; "This report addresses the part of
the overall noise pollution problem which is associated
with outdoor noise in die community It attempts to
provide a quantitative framework for understanding the
nature of the outdoor noise environment and the re-
action of people and community to its various aspects "
Level; Technical; numerous tables and graphs; il-
lustrated; bibliography
Summary: This is essentially a compilation of data
on community noise put together for EPA in preparation
for tbeir^fceport to the President and Congress on
Noise. " The density of information is quite high,
with the text supplementary to the numerous tables
and graphs which appear throughout the report. An
introductory section provides a brief but detailed
review of the nature of sound and a discussion of sta-
tistical analysis of noise levels. The range of out-
door noise environments measured at 18 locations is
examined, with particular attention to residual noise
spectra, variance in noise levels with location, and
relationships among various measures taken on the A-
Weighted scale. The two basic types of noises which
effect community noise levels, constant level noise
intrusions and intermittent single event noise intrusions,

are then Compared m terms of their relative importance to
effects such as steep and speech interference
Several scales developed specifically to examine
community reaction to these types of noises are
then described and applied to data on noise from
aircraft, traffic, etc , to document the analysis
of die EPA studies All of this data is then put into
perspective in a chapter which looks at the growth
of noise pollution, in terras of both intruding noise
and residual notse, and attempts to moderate the
popular, environmentalist contention that noise could
grow by 1 db per year, or 10 db per decade. Various
changes seen in both these areas are documented and
problems with earlier studies, some of which have
been the partial basis for the 1 db per year estimate,
are discussed. A rather extensive conclusions and
recommendations section closes die report suggesting,
among other tilings, a nationwide community noise
survey, creation of one or more metropolitan area-
wide monitoring demonstrations, reveiw and updating
°f existing analytical methods for predicting outdoor
noise, and establishing noise quality goals for the
indoor and outdoor environment. All of this is
butressed by an extensive series of appendices which
include some fifty references, background data on
thp community noise survey (community descriptions,
etc ), examples of typical noise spectra measured
at some of the locations, and descriptive definitions
of some of the principal terms used in the report.
Author: Report of the Mayor's Task Force on Noise
Publisher: Copies of this report may be obtained
from the Mayor's Task Force on Noise Control,
through the New York Board of Trade , 295 Fifth
Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 (56 pp ;
$1 75) 1970.
Point of View; "... the Task Force believes that
noise has reached a level intense, continuous, and
persistent enough to threaten basic community life
Vehicular traffic, jet aircraft, subway trains, con-
structions equipment and air conditioners, as major
noise sources, degrade the health and well-being of
New York residents. "
Level: Popular; illustrated; numerous tables and
Summary: This is a remarkable report, assembled
by a Mayor's Task Force that included everyone from
Lewis Goodfnend and Norman Cousins to the public
relations director of the New Yorker magazine At
any rate, it proves to be a winning combination and
should serve as positive incentive to citizens considering
a noise survey of their community. Granted, New
York is a special case, one where it is possible to
gather data on almost every noise abuse known to
man. And its all here, with particular emphasis on
those arch villians, construction equipment and ve-
hicle (especially truck) traffic. But this isn't just
the usual cataloging of complaints, rather it is a
carefully documented and considered evaluation
of the sources of city noise, their effects, and
what, politically, economically and technologically,
can be done to abate the problem.
The work behind this study was divided among five
subcommittees, one each on Medical, Building,
Legal, Technical and Public Relations factors.
Their reports make up the body of this text and are
replete with back-up data, most of it displayed in
easy to read graphs and tables. The overall
recommendations of the Task FoTce as a whole
introduce the individual subcommittee reports and
are mostly qualitative in nature. They range from
specific recommendations regarding EPA's role in
New York's noise problem to general summations
of impending issues, such as STOL ports, and simple,
what can be done now suggestions, including adopting
some of the quieter construction equipment that has
been available, but unused, for some time. All in
all, it makes for interesting and informative reading,
certainly a stimulating political document to recom-
mend to citizen's groups preparing to undertake com-
munity action regarding noise pollution.

Author: Robert E. Gay, Environmental Standards Di-
vision^ Planning and Development Department, City
of Inglewood, California.
Publisher: Environmental Standards Division, City
of Inglewood, Inglewood Civic Center, 105 East Queen
Street, Inglewood, California, 90301 (75 pp.)
August 1972.
Point of View: Report of a study undertaken to measure
the 24 hour noise exposure at 35 locations throughout
the City of Inglewood.
Level: Technical} illustrated; graphs and tables.
Summary: Inglewood has a special problem -
it lies along the final approach to Los Angelos
International Airport, surely one of the noisiest
residential areas in the country. For the past several
years, the citizens there have worked to document
their problem and present their case to the Federal
government in hopes of achieving some relief To
date, the problem remains a severe one, but a well
documented one that should be brought to the attention
of anyone studying community noise problems This
report is one of several documents published by the
city's Environmental Standards Division and provides
data on a 24 hour hoise survey undertaken by the City
in 1972. It is a useful document on several counts:
as a model community noise survey, as a particu-
larly good study of the impact of aircraft noise on
a community, and as an example of the kinds of
measurement problems encountered in trying to
quantify noise pollution in a residential community
There are four sections to the report: Data Acquisi-
tion (monitoring equipment, etc ), Data Evaluation,
Data Correlation, and Conclusions and Recommenda-
tions (including evaluation of the efficacy of the
techniques and perameters employed) Inglewood's
problem is an extreme one, but it is one that is
growing increasingly familiar, as numerous residents
on Long Island could testify In short, this is really
too specific a document to recommend broadly, but
it is certainly an important document ot anyone
interested in a close examination of existing techniques
of community noise measurement or the specific
problems associated with the impact of aircraft noise
on a community.
Author: Clifford R Bragdon (See Ref. 1-3).
Publisher: Sound and Vibration 8 : 26-32, May 1973
Point of View: "Noise represents a major environ-
mental problem capable of being a nuisance or a
hazard to the population. . . The future noise status
of urban areas is dependent upon controls either initiated
by or implemented by the urban planning profession "
Level: Non-technical; several graphs and tables; references
Summary: This is one of several brief but-quite useful
articles on noise pollution which appear regularly in this
journal. Directed to urban planning professionals, it
provides a brief summary of the magnitude of the noise
problem (in terms of dollars and damage) followed by a
fairly detailed examination of planning strategy for environ-
mental noise control. Bragdon notes the three components
of the noise problem: the source, the path, and the ultimate
receiver. He then looks at the kinds of techniques which can
be applied in each of these areas in the interest of noise abate-
ment. Specifically, Bragdon points to the kinds of land use
decisions which have been taken on > the part of various
cities in the past and which might now be taken as a means
to shield the population from damaging levels of
noise exposure. He concludes: "Beside comprehen-
sive planning, zoning, and environmental design-site
review, there are other urban planning techniques
useful for controlling urban noise These include
subdivision regulations, housing and building codes,
among others. The future success of urban develop-
ment -will depend in part on recognizing and solving
environmental problems. . The acoustical engineer
and related noise specialists can play a major role
in assisting the urban planner. . "

Author: Lewis S Goodfnend and Frederick M Kessler,
Lewis S Goodfnend and Associates, noise consultants
Publisher: Journal of Environmental Sciences :
18-22, September/October, 1972
Point of View: "It appears that presently, noise
due to construction job sites, surface transportation,
and aircraft exceeds in importance the contribution
of industrial plants to community annoyance At
some future date, when noise abatement efforts applied
to the above primary sources successfully reduce
their levels, the contribution of industrial plant
noise to the community residual levels will rise in
importance. using the present state-of-the-art in noise
abatement, it is possible to control industrial noise and
thus minimizes the impact of industrial noise in the com-
munity. "
Level: Semi-technical; several graphs and tables
Summary: Goodfnend is a frequent and respected con-
tributor to the literature on noise pollution and in this
brief article he provides a useful summary of several
facets of the industrial noise problem. Of particular in-
terest is his opening discussion of criteria which make
plant noise acceptable to "industrial neighbors" Good-
fnend notes that it is likely people won't complain about
industrial plant noise if the noise is within the following
bounds; it is continuous, it does not interfere with speech
communications; it does not include pure tones or impacts;
it does not vary rapidly, it does not interfere with getting
to sleep, and it does not contain fear-producing elements
He adds, too, that transportation noise frequently acts
to mask industrial noise
What all of this really adds up to is that it is difficult
for a community to isolate industrial noise from the
ambient and set objective vstandards for its control so
that, as long as it isn't startling in comparison to
the ambient noise, communities will tolerate it
Goodfnend notes, however, that work is currently
underway to develop a community noise descriptor
to evaluate noise from different sources and that
Federal laws will soon demand regulation of all com-
munity noise, industrial plant noise included A
typical data acquisition systemwwhich might be used
to measure industrial noise levels outside the plant is
described and two EPA surveys of this kind of noise
are discussed in terms of their implications for future
standard setting. Several rating systems used to
assess the community aoise impact of various noise
levels measured on standard A-weighted scales
are then described. Various community noise tolerance
factors are then discussed, along with a brief sum-
mary of the kinds of noise control devices and systems
currently available.
Authors: Prepared for the U S Environmental Pro-
tection Agency by Bolt, Beranek, and Newman under
Federal contract
Publisher: US GPO, Washington, D.C (323 pp;
NT IS #P8 206717; $6.00). December 31, 1971.
Point of View "Given that noise is a senous
environmental problem, some appropriate questions
one might ask in seeking a comprehensive noise-
control objective are: Precisely what are the sources
of noise pollution7 How many people are exposed
to these sources and how are they affected7 What
can be done to control the noise output of offending
sources7 This report attempts to answer these questions
for the specific categories of construction, home ap-
pliances, and building equipment "
Level: Non-technical; extensive graphs and tables;
data andtec hnical material concentrated in appendices;
Summary: This is clearly the most valuable general
reference on building, construction and applicance
noise, providing a thorough, non-technical review
Df the problem in the body of the report and backing
up that discussion with extensive data and technical
information concentrated in the several appendices
There are three main divisions to the report and each
aspect of this particular noise area is discussed within
each "Source Characterization, " the first division,
deals with the definition of each particular noise
source in terms of measured noise-scale readings,
duration nature, cause and available and /or existing

APPLIANCES" (cont'd)
abatement techniques Data .s provided en actual
A-scale readings for each source and the magnitude
of the noise generated by that class of noise producing
equipment is described The second report division,
"Impact", deals with the subtler problem of evaluating
the perceived effect of each particular noise source.
A brief discussion is provided of seven known effects
of exposure to noise: hearing damage risk, speech
interference, sleep interference, physiological stress,
startle, annoyance, and task interference. Kesearch
data on each aspect is noted and the problems of
measuring objectively in each category are noted.
Finally, the third section of the report, "Industry
Efforts", describes the history of industry response
to pressure for quieter equipment and notes the
various factors which mitigate against heavy industry
investment in noise control A summary and conclusion
section follows which includes a review of economic
and social impact studies and outlines "A Program of
Public Support Development. " A brief bibliography
and a series of three technical appendices, running to
some fifty pages, complete the report.
Author: Hearings conducted by the U.S. EPA.
Publisher: U.S. GPO, Washington (187 pp. >$1.25;
Stock #550- 0037) Volume I, Atlanta, Georgia", July.8-9,
Point of View: This is the record of the first of eight
national public hearings held by EPA under requirement
of the Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1970.
The hearings were designed to "aid the Office of Noise
Abatement and Control in compiling information rele-
vant to its investigation of the Problem of Noise Pollution.
Further, these hearings present an opportunity for
the public and industry to express their viewpoints
on the general subject of noise. "
Level: Popular; illustrated.
Summary: As is the case with all of the hearings
in this series, there is a great deal of interesting
information here, but there is also a lot of repetitious
testimony and a tendency to stray from the main
topic of the hearing. The first day of testimony re-
corded here is very useful, however. There is an
opening statement on the nature of hearing and
hearing loss which is we 11-illustrated and succinctly
stated. This is followed by testimony from several
professionals — engineers, architects, planners,
etc. — on various aspects of the construction noise
problem. Several newly-developed "quiet" types of
construction equipment are described and the whole
area of incentive to make and use this kind of improved
equipment is explored in some rather close questioning
by the EPA Panel members. A common theme through-
out this testimony is summarized by a manufacturer of
silencing equipment who notes that while the tech-
nology to quiet equipment exists, it is not being used
because "there is no economic incentive now to the
construction industry, in fact, there is a penalty. "
There is much discussion throughout this first day of what
kind of standards could be set to encourage the use
of quieter equipment and the general consensus is that,
if everyone in the construction field were forced to
use quiet equipment, this would result in maintaining
a uniform bidding level and no one contractor would
be punished for his attempt to silence some of the
needless noise of jackhammers, wrecking balls, etc,
All of this exchange between the manufacturers,
users, and panelists is most useful in demonstrating
the complexity of urging "quality of living'1 type
improvements on a profit -motivated industry The
questioning from the Panel, particularly that from
Alex Baron, is exceptionally good and leads to
clarification of several confusing issues.
There is a shift in emphasis for the second day's
hearings, however, and very little is said here
about construction noise. Part of the provision of
these hearings is that they are open for input from
the public on "the general subject of noise" and,
as is the case with most of these hearings, whenever
the discussion is opened in this way, it is the people
who live around airports who appear to testify.
There is, in short, very little mention of construction
noise in the second day's testimony, but a lot of
testimony as to the horrors of living near a major
airport. And, as is generally the case, it is difficult
to read this catalogue of abuse without marveling
that so little has been done to alleviate the suffering
of people living near airports. A new twist is added
here with testimony about the annoyance of police
helicopters making low passes over certain areas

of Atlanta, apparently with some frequency, and
several people annoyed with a proposed highway
development project appear to demand that more study
of the environmental impact of this construction be
made. In short, the first day's hearings offers a
useful compilation of information on construction noise,
particularly in terms of available means to abate the
problem. The second day, however, serves to
remind EPA that, while construction noise is
synonymous with airports and, until something is
done about that abuse of "peace and quiet", all
else will be seen as attempts to skirt the real
1.	Noise Pollution: The Unquiet Crisis, (Ref. 1-3).
2.	Industrial Noise Manual. (Ref. 1-6) (last chapters).
3.	Section 4 of "Laws and Regulatory Schemes for Noise Abatement", (Ref. II-1).
4.	"Guidelines to the Department of Labor's Occupational Noise Standards", appended to "Summary of
Noise Programs in the Federal Government," (Ref. II-4).
5.	"Urban Noise Control", ih. Noise Pollution and the Law, (Ref. II-5).
6.	"Community Noise Ordinances: Their Evolution, Purpose and Impact", (Ref. II-6).
7.	Chapters 35, 36 in "Handbook of Noise Control" (Ref. VHI-1).
8.	Chapters IIF, HIB in "Noise Assessment Guidelines; Technical Background "(Ref- VIII-6).
9.	"Transportation Noises: A Symposium of Acceptability Criteria", (Ref. IV-2).

Author. Cyril M Hams (Editor) Professor of
Electrical Engineering, Columbia University
Publisher: McGraw-Hill, N Y (1024 pp $27.90 )<1957
Point of View: A handbook covering all aspects
of noise and vibration generation, propagation
transmission, reception, effect, and control
Level: Technical but graded: each chapter begins
with basic concepts and definitions and the hand-
book-chapters proceed from basic introductory ones
to the highly specialized
Summary: If one were limited to a single reference
work on noise measurement and control, this is
probably the one most experts-would recommend
Its forty chapters cover almost every aspect of noise
and vibration The editor, Cyril Harris, is an
acoustical consultant and co-author of a book in
architectual acoustics and all the separate chapters
are authored or co-authored by appropriate specialists
For the non-specialist the first seven chapters are
the most useful; they cover (after an introduction
to noise by Harris) the physical properties of noise,
propogation of sound in air, the hearing mechanism,
the loudness of sounds, techniques of audiometric testing,
and hearing losses from noise
Chapter 2, "The Fhysical Properties of Noise and
Their Specification", Chapter 3, "Propagation of
Sound in the Open Air", and Chapter 4, "The Hearing
Mechanism," are of particular interest to the college
science teacher as they provide many examples of
the application of the basic sciences - physics in
particular - to sound phenomena
Chapter 5 deals with definitions and measurement
of loudness level and loudness The next two chapters
deal with effects on hearing, with Chapter 6 providing
a detailed description of audiometric testing
Author: Leo L Beranek, Editor
Publisher: McGraw-Hill Book Co N. Y
(650pps $29 50) 1971
Point of View: Emphasizes the application of
noise and vibration control techniques to real life
Chapter 8 on ear protectors is followed by two
chapters on the effects of noise on speech and be-
havior - and an unusual one on the effects of vi-
bration on man which also provides some interesting
facts about the mechanical structure of the human
body Chapters 12, 13, 14, and 15 deal with vibra-
tion control, isolation, damping, and measurement
The next two chapters treat noise measuring instruments
and techniques, and are followed by 17 chapters of a
highly specialized nature which cover acoustical ma-
terials, noise transmission, and a host of control
problems, such as Gear Noise, Bearing Noise, Fan
Noise, etc , of interest to the non-specialist are
Chapter 22," System Considerations in Noise Cultural
Problems", and perhaps the last four chapters of
this group (31, 32, 33, and 34) which cover automo-
bile noise, rail transportation noise, and aircraft
noise sources and control techniques
Chapter 35 and 36 are titled "Community Noise and
City Planning" and "Community Reaction to Noise"
and are of general interest providing quantitative data
on noise levels from various sources and on community
attitude toward noise
The last four chapters deal with the legal aspects of
noise and are of a less technical nature. The last
two are of particular interest covering anti-noise
ordinances and noise control requirements in building
This book is of obvious worth to anyone wishing to
know specific facts about any source of noise and
suggestions for ways of controlling it. It is also, as
has been said, recommended as an inclusive reference
work for the non specialist interested in sound phe-
nomena of noise pollution
Level: Technical Like its predecessor, Noise
Reduction (McGraw- 1960, Leo Beranek, Editor)
this text is aimed at the graduate engineer The ma-
terial is graded in technical level, however, so that each
section begins with simple concepts and proceeds

to advanced ones.
Summary- This book is a thorough revision and
updating of the earlier text, Noise Reduction .
It is aimed at the same audience - the practicing indus-
trial or architectural engineer - and has the same
limited usefulness for the non specially. Since it
is the more recent publication, it is the preferable
The book has been shortened by 100 pages and re-
organized; the number of specialized chapters has been
reduced. The basic sequence of concepts, etc. is
very similar: the first two chapters give basic intro-
ductions to sound waves and to levels, decibels, sound
spectra etc. Both of these chapters will be valuable
references to the -specialist.
The measurement and analysis of noise is the overall
theme of the next four chapters and they also will be
useful to the non-specialist Chapter 3, for instance, has
a good, brief treatment of different microphones,
Chapter 4 explains the systematic approach to field
measurements, and Chapter 5 contains some important
general techniques of data analysis.
Chomters 10-16 are also hiehly soeciolirrd. dealing
with sound transmission and absorption and "-ith sr^cifc
techniaues of noise and vibration reduction The
most useful of these to the non-specialist pre mt to
be chapters 10 and 11, which deal *'-ith the ncouTfical
properties of porous materials and t**e interaction of
sound waves with solid structures.
The last chapters cover Damage-Risk Criteria
for Hearing (Chapter 17) and Criteria for Noise and
Vibration in Communities, Buildings and Vehicle*
(Chapter IS) These chapters ranks with the first
two in potential usefulness to the non specialist. They
give th«» biological, physical, and philosophical back-
ground to no"e criteria. In them the Interested
teacher will find not only the quantitative data in
acceptable and unacceptable levels for the various
kinds of noise pollution and hearing damage, but
also practical examples of measurements that can
be made by teacher or student.
The next three chapters, while they are hiohly technical,
provide, at least in their introductory sections, a valuable
review. These three deal with sound propagation in
space — outdoors, and in large and small rooms. The
chapter (7), "Sound Propagation Outdoors" in combination
with the last chapter (18), "Criteria for Noise and Vi-
bration in Communities, Buildings, and Vehicles" are
likely to be of most use to the amateur noise expert.
Author: National Bureau of Standards.
Publisher: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Noise Abatement and Control (163 pps ;
$3. 00; NTIS jKPB - 206727)
Point of View: Objective and technical
Level: . an introduction to noise including the
inter-relationship between physical measures and
psychological responses. . . included are sample
calculations of sound level, loudness level, and per-
ceived noise for fine selected spectra "
Summary: The first four chapters are introductory
in nature and deal with the physical principles of
sound generation and propagation (the decibel scale
is described in detail) and some general statements
about ultrasonic and infrasonio range are included.
The basic instrumentation and techniques of physical
sound measnreriert are provided, the equipment de-
scribed. meamrine: practices are summarized and
frequency of sound pressured curves are presented.
The last of fchesr- introductory chapters deals with the
correlations h«*™een noise and human response and
the guif'-lines tr various types of damage are discussed
along with criteria for communication intereference
etc. Each of these topics is supported by graphic data
presentation and the supporting physiological experi-
mentation is summarized.
The second part. Chapter 5, presents sample calcu-
lations for sound level, loudness level, and perceived
noise level. The example developed is the fly over

of an executive jet airplane at 500 feet and two
methods for calculating the loudness level (the
Steven's method and the Z wicker's method) are
applied The different assumptions of these two
methods and the difficulty of establishing a single
rating system for loudness is explained.
Chapter 6 is a brief, two page summary of recom-
mended practices in a real world situation and
Chapter 7 is an equally brief treatment of sound trans-
mission, which emphasizes the areas where knowledge
is insufficient and more experimentation is needed.
The last chapter is a compilation of the various applicable
noise standards.	^
4. SOUNDfHOlSE AJflDi	prjTTRini'
The remainder of the report consists of appendices
which are (A) a glossary of terms, (B) a second real
worlddexample of sound measurement and data re-
duction and analysis — this time of a test of truck
tire noise. Appendices C and D provide specialized
conversion data for earlier calculations and Appendix
E addresses of relevant organizations. In short, this
reference is of use mainly to teachers wishing to
develop numerical examples or to set up actual noise
measurements in a laboratory situation.
Author: T. J. Schultz and N. M. McMahon, Bolt,
Beranek and Newman, Inc.
Publisher: Urban Noise Abatement Research Program,
U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Derelopment
(17 pp; $. 70; USGPO).
Point of View: Aimed at public involvement in
noise assessment for housing sites.
Level: Popular, technical terms and concepts
where they are used are explained in simple terms.
Summary: This is essentially a noise assessment work-
book for housing sites If contains detailed but simple
step-by-step procedures for classifying the noise level
at a given housing site into the following categories:
"cleary acceptable, normally acceptable, normally
unacceptable, clearly unacceptable". The three
sources for which procedures are given are aircraft,
truck and automobile, and train. The assessments
are to be based on onsite distance measurements and
information obtained from official sources (which
are listed) or calculable from data included in the
workbook. Worked out examples and work sheets
are included.
This workbook could be the base of student experi-
mentation, a class project etc Its simplicity will be
a handicap, however, if the physical basis of the
measurements and judgements are desirable. Such
interpretation, however, could be made with the
help of the "Technical Background Document" (Re-
ference VIII - 5).. In combination with this latter
document, some interesting and quantitative projects
could be designed
Author: Theodore J Schultz, Bolt, Beranek and
Publisher: U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment, Office of Research end Technology, (209 pps.;
USGPO; $2.00).
Point of View: Objective summary of noise abatement
and control as it applies to housing siting.
Level: Variable; topics are introduced in non-technical
terms but the report is complete With" its tecbnicsl de-
scriptions and graphic displays.
Summary: This long report is divided roughly into
four parts. The brief part I gives the sociological ra-
tionale for noise abatement, while part II, gives
an introduction to sound and its measurement in the
urban situation. Simplified treatments of both measure-
ment techniques and the evaluation of results are pro-
vided. The third part, which takes up the major
part of the report, is a complete summary of the
technical background, including descriptions of the
various rating systems and comparisons between diem.
In this section also are given the experience of various
counties with urban noise and its psychological effects.
It is in this section also that aircraft noise is separately
Out of Order. See bottom of Page 48.

considered. The correspondence between rating,
measured levels, and the criteria of tolerable
exposure are developed.
The final section provides the numerical cal-
culations and assumptions that support the
simple step-by-step procedures of tie competitor
any but the teacher who is interested in mitiatiang a
site evaluation project. Its other important use would
be as a reference document for the many noise rating
systems. The brief descriptions and discussions of
interrelations make it valuable for this purpose.
This report is much too detailed a. source for
Author: Lyle F Yerges, Contributing Editor,
Sound and Vibration
Publisher: Sound and Vibration, 7; 18-21, August
Point of View:	. the technology to avoid or elim-
inate much of today's industrial noise nuisance al-
ready exists; in fact, most of it is already over
20 years old. . . . industrial noise control will utimately
result in better, safer, and possibly more economical
Level: Popular and general but with some quanti-
tative rule of thumb data and equations provided.
Summary: This short article is aimed at indus-
trial managers and seeks to convince them that in-
dustrial noise rfiould be abetted and that it can be,
often without great difficulty. It provides a general
treatment of noise sources and of the ways of control-
ling noise at the source, through the transmission
path and at the receiver. It is enriched Try empha-
sizing the important general principles of control
and by three tables which provide relevant and repre-
sentative data on (1) effect of operating parameters
(horsepower, speed, pressure, etc.) as sound power
output (2) acoustical impedances of various materials,
and (3) costs of various noise and vibration control
While the article is of most pertinence to the en-
gineer or industrial manager faced with noise problems*
it will be a useful reference for the amateur who
wishes to have a general knowledge of industrial
noise problems and the methods and costs of solutions.
Author: James M. Flngrath, Speech and Hearing
Center, Memphis State University.
Publisher: The ]outttal of the Acoustical Society of
America ¦ 45 (3); 704-711, 1969.
Point of View; "The purpose of this paper, then, is
to analyse the sound levels of modem day rock-and-
roll music and to determine if they exceed the various
established DRC.*1
Level: The measurements and their interpretations
are technical but, overall, the level of explication
is within die understanding of e non technical redder
Summary: The study reported in this article is very
interesting for two reasons; it provides a very useful,
real example of noise measurement end the inter-
pretation of the measurements in terms of damage-
risk criteria (DRC), and it sheds more scientific light
on a' prevalent controversy between parents and
their teenage children.
For a more technical point of view Flugrath first had
to decide what kind of noise-steady state, impact,
continuous, or intermediate — was produced by rock
bands. Such a decision was necessary in order that
an applicable DRC could be selected. He recorded
1/2 hour of music from each of ten bands which played
in a local dance hall and then analyzed the results
in several different ways, including a spectral

Several amusing results emerged from the study;
one was that all bands peaked at 2000 Hz (which
die author suggests was due to a guitar amplifier
turned up to feedback volume - a situation that
occured for each band). He also found that high
frequencies prevailed in all the bands. In spite of
the apparent gee at fluctuations m songs, tones,
instruments, etc., he characterized the music as
essentially steady state over a long period of time.
sidered potentially damaging to the hearing
of the participants."
This paper obviously has potential appeal to
students and suggests as well as details the procedures
for making similar measurements — an attractive
experimental project.
The application of various DRC's to the music is
instructive as well as amusing but it is somewhat
sobering to find that, by any test, the music exceeds
maximum permissible DRC's and should "be con-
Author: Theordore P. Yui, Elastomer
Chemicals Department, E.I. duPont
de Neumours and Co.
Publisher: Scientific American 220:
98-106, January 1969.
Point of View: A new method of noise
and vibration control.
Level: Semi-technical.
review of noise generation and propagation and the
conventional methods of reducing it by isolation
and absorption. The main focus is on the use of
constrained - layer damping — a thin layer of visio-
elastic material applied directly to the vibrating source
and backed by a rigid material, usually iieet metal.
The mechanical energy of the vibrations in the con-
strained layer is converted to heat. The physical
properties of the visioelaitic material are examined
and some examples of actual noise reductions achieved
in real life applications are described.
Summary: This article is mainly concerned
with describing a new technique called con-
strained-layer damping, which provides im-
portant reductions in vibrations, and therefore
noise, at the source.
The article does provide, in addition, a general
Author: Hearings before the Subcommittee on
Public Health and the Environment of the Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of
Representatives, 92nd Congress, First Session.
Publisher: Printed for the use of the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce (504 pp.; Serial
No. 92-30) USGPO, Washington, D. C., 1971.
Point of View; Hearings on H. R. 5275, H.R. 923, H.R.
3364, H.R. 6986 and H.R. 6988, "bills to control the
generation and transmission of noise detrimental to the
human environment; to establish an office of noise abate-
ment control within HEW; to require the disclosure of the
operational noise level of machinery distributed in
interstate commerce, and for other purposes. "
Level: Varies, from testimony to testimony, mostly
non-technical; several tables and graphs
Summary: Six bills are up for consideration in this
set of Hearings, making for a rather complex agenda.
The first ninety pages of this volume, in fact, con-
tain nothing but the text of this legislation, and much
of the testimony here is that of one Congressman or
another endorsing one bill or another. There is some
useful information here, however, and a selective
reading should prove productive.
In the first day's session, the testimony of the Deputy

10. "NOISE CONTROL" (cont'd)
Director of die EPA, speaking in support
of the Administration bill, is quite informative.
It includes the text of an EPA "Summary Status
Report (as of May 7, 1971)" which briefly outlines
the scale and emphasis of EPA noise control efforts
Similarly useful testimony is provided on the second
day, including a brief summary of various state
noise control laws, a review of EPA research con-
tracts in the area of noise measurement and control,
a discussion and reprinting of a University of Ten-
nessee research paper, "Non-Occupational Noise
and the Effect Upon Hearing of Young Persons",
and a particularly useful discussion of sonic boom,
accompanied by the text of a U S. Air Force,
Department of Interior, FAA sponsored study,
"Sonic Boom Effects" (pp. 183-230). Aircraft
noise remains the focus of the remainder of testimony'
on the second day and is carried into the third
day with rather extensive testimony from various FAA
representatives. Several important exhibits accompany
this testimony, including the text of the FAR-36
regulations (See Ref V-4), and topics covered
range from retrofitting problems and STOL noise to
problems with the SST. Also included here is die
text of the FAA "Quarterly Status Report" (pp. 394-
420) which briefly summarizes FAA noise abatement
activities. The Hearings conclude with a brief
discussion of motorcycle noise and some good, solid
testimony from a U. S. Bureau of Standards delegation
as to the problems of noise measurement and the
setting of noise standards.
Author: None indicated.
Publisher; Sqgnd Vihrntion 7;35-41.Nov. 1972
Level: Technical.
for Occupational Safety and Health. It will be
useful to those who want definltSBBs, exposure
vs. duration limits, age correlations,etc.
Summary; This brief article contains the
technical contents of the Recommendations
for a Noise Standard of the National Institute
Author: EPA Notice of Proposed Rule Making.
Publisher; Federal Register 38 (144): 20102-
20107, Friday, July 27, 1973.
Point of View: "The EPA proposes to establish a
new part 202 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations establishing noise emission standards
for motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce "
Level; Semi-technical; statement of proposed
standards and supporting rationale.
Summary: This issue of the Federal Register
Author: Lyle F. Yerges, Consulting Engineet	Point of View: . .to provide, In the idiom of the
practicing architect and engineer, enough of the
Publisher: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company,	fundamentals of sound and vibration and their con-
N. Y. (203 pps. , $10. 95)1969.	trol to permit the professional to feel comfortable about
the projects."'
carries the proposed EPA noise emission standards for
interstate motor carriers. In addition to die proposed
standards (which are for vehicles -- diesel trucks -
weighing over 10,000 lbs), the brief.article
contains a summary of the sources of truck noises
and some interesting analyses of the expected impact
of this regulation on 'the trucking industry.

Level; Technical — however, the level of this book is
considerably below that of Ref VIII - 1, 2 and 3, and while
it does contain many tables and graphs it does not include
the mathematical presentations of these other references.
Summary; This is intended to be a "working guide" for
the professional but because the materials are presented
briefly and simply it will also serve as a summary of
the principles of sound and vibration control in working
and living areas for the non professional.
The book is divided into three parts: (1) a basic section
in which the theory of sound and vibration and their
effects are reviewed. (2) a section on the general
principles of sound and vibration control and the ma-
terials, systems, and construction used for diis purpose
(3) a "checklist" section which provides data, drawings,
troubleshooting guidelines, etc.
1.	"What is Noise?", Chapter 2 in Noise Pollution: The Unquiet Crisis, (Ref. 1-3).
2.	"Excerpts from the Walsh Healey Public Contracts Act Relating to Scope and Duration of Occupational
Noise Exposure", appended to The Noise Around Us, (Ref. 1-4).
3.	First five chapters of Industrial Noise Manual, (Ref. 1-6).
4.	"Sound Pollution: Another Urban Problem", (Ref 1-9).
5.	"The Need for a Noise Pollution Abatement Act", (Ref. II-8).
6.	"Transportation Noise: A Symposium of Acceptability Criteria", (Ref. IV-2).
7.	Lectures in Transportation Noise, (Ref. IV-3).
8.	"The Evaluation of Noise from Freely Flowing Road Traffic", (Ref. IV-4).
9.	"Community Noise", (Ref. VII-2).
10.	"Urban Planning and Noise Control", (Ref. VII-5).
11.	The Effects of Noise on Man. (Ref. IX-1)
12.	"Primer on Methods and Scale of Noise Measurement" in Noise as a Public Health Hazard, (Ref IX-3)
13.	Industrial Noise Manual, (Ref. 1-6).
14.	"Noise", (Ref. 1-7).
15.	"Noise in the Environment", (Ref. 1-8)
16.	"Outline for a Systematic Approach to Noise Abatement and Control", in Physiological and Psychological
Effects, (Ref. IX-7).
The first section of 16 pages could be used as student
reading as the basic principles of sound propagation,
transmission, and in die human response to sound.
The second section of 66 pages begins with definitions
of the terms used m noise measurement. The main
attention is on the general properties of acoustical
material and control techniques and it is followed by
the "practical" Section III.
The value of this reference to the non-professional
will come from, in addition to the review of basic
principles, the brief descriptions of acoustical proper-
ties and control techniques which give quick insight
into the practical side of noise pollution abatement.

Author: Prepared by Dr. James D. Miller,
Central Institute far die Deaf, St. Louis, Missouri
and reviewed and approved for publication by
members of the NAS-NRC Committee on Hearing,
Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics.
Publisher: USGPO, Washington, D. C. (153 pp;
$3.00; NT IS #PB206723) 1971.
Point of View: "It has not been demonstrated that
many people have had their lives shortened by noise.
While undoubtedly there have been accidental
injuries and death when auditory warning signals
were misunderstood or not heard because of the
effects of noise, the prevalence of these has not
been evaluated. Perhaps die stress of continued
exposure to high levels of noise can produce disease
or make one more susceptible to disease, but the
evidence is not convincing. There are only hints
of relations between exposure to noise and the in-
cidence of disease. In other words, the effects of
noise on people have not been successfully measured
in terms of "excess deaths" or "shortened lifespan"
or "days of incapacitating illness". The only well-
established effect of noise on health is that of noise -
induced hearing loss."
Summary: This is an excellent review of what is
known about the effects of noise on people, and,
more important perhaps, how it is known. Published
under the approval of the very prestigious NAS-
NRC Committee noted above, it carries the sanction
of some of the leading medical researches in this
area in tbe country.
There are seven subject sections: Ear Damage and
Hearing Loss, Masking and Interference with Speech
Communication, Interference with Sleep, Loudness
Perceived Noisiness and Unacceptability, Annoyance
and Community Response, Other Possible Psychological
and Sociological Effects, and Transient and Possible
Persistent Physiological Responses to Noise. In
short, there is a definitive summary here of the state-
of -die-art knowledge about every effect that has been
proposed as being the result of noise impacting on
people. Numerous studies are cited throughout the
report, but their findings are always summarized in
non-technical terms and the interested reader is pro-
vided full citation in the list of references which
appears at the end of the report. The emphasis here
is on the inconclusiveness of the data on every effect
except noise-induced hearing loss. The clear impli-
cation is that a great deal of research remains to be
done in this area.
Author: Karl D Kryter, Stanford Research Insti-
tute, Menlo Park, Calif.
Publisher: New York, Academic Press (633 pp.,
$25-00)1970. A publication in the Environmental
Sciences Interdisciplinary Monograph Series.
Point of View: "An attempt has been made to pro-
vide a critical and historical (dating from 1950)
analysis of the relevant literature in the field and, as
warranted, to derive new or modify existing techniques
for the evaluation of environmental noise in terms
of its effects on man. "
Level: Technical; numerous tables and graphs;
Summary: Dr. Kryter's name has become synonymous
with research into the effects of noise on man and it is
most unusual to find a bibliography in this area that
is not dominated by his work or a national hearing
to which be is not called to provide testimony. With
the publication of this book, he has assimilated much
of the material published in the research journals
(some 4,000 articles) and presented it in a form which
should enable the non-specialist to obtain a good,
scholarly review of research in this area. This is
clearly a book directed at fellow professionals, and
a rather sophisticated science and mathematics back-
ground is assumed.
Part I, "Auditory System Responses to Noise" contains
six chapters dealing with the fundamentals of sound
and hearing: Analysis of Sound by the Ear, Masking
and Speech Communication in Noise, The Aural
Reflex, Audiometry, Damage Risk from Exposure to
Noise, and Proposed Procedures for Estimating Damage
Risk to Hearing. Part II, "Subjective Responses to

Noise", extends the examination of the nature of
sound and the means for its evaluation. There are
five chapters here: Loudness, Perceived Noisiness
(Annoyance), Environmental Noise and Its Evalua-
tion, Summary of Methods of Predicting Certain
Responses to Noise, and Proposed Procedures for the
Evaluation of Environmental Noises. It is in this
latter section that Kryter explains the measuring
scale that he contributed several years back and
which has become a standard in noise measurement,
the Perceived Noise Level (PNL) Finally, Part III
contains am introductory section and two chapters
dealing with man's nonauditory system responses,
including such thugs as work performance, sleep,
feelmgs of pain, vision, and blood circulation
Kryter notes in the preface that: "It is clear that
some of the more complex and perhaps more im-
portant, from a health viewpoint, effects of noise
have to do with these somewhat second-order re-
actions." A three-page summary, Part IV, con-
cludes the book and contains a useful table of "basic
physiological and psychological responses of man
to habitual environmental noise. " It also includes
the following paragraph, which capsulizes Kryter's
evaluation of the data on noise effects to date: "A
possible teaching of much of the data presented in this
book is that, other than as a damaging agent to the ear
and as a masker of auditory information, noise will
not directly harm people or interfere with psycho-motor
performance Man should be able, according to this
concept, to adapt physiologically to his noise environ-
ment, with only transitory interference effects of
physiological and mental and motor behavioral activi-
ties during this period of adaptation. This concept,
or its converse, is difficult to substantiate by sci-
entific research and must be recognized as being hypo-
thical at this time. " An extensive list of references,
one of the best in print, is appended.
Author: W Dixon Ward and James E. Fricke, Editors.
Publisher: Proceedings of the June 13-14, 1968 Con-
ference on Noise as a Public Health Hazard (Washing-
ton: American Speech and Hearing Association)
February 1969. (Available for $5.00 from: Director,
Public Information, American Speech and Hearing
Association, 9030 Old Georgetown Road, Washington,
D C., 20014)
Point of View: "The Conference . . was organized
m an effort to present the best evidence available
bearing on the general question: To what extent
is noise a public health hazard? An attempt was made
to secure speakers who would present a broad picture
of the noise problem: speakers who would not only
summarize the relevant facts and theories dealug with
noise and hearing loss, and discuss psychological reactions
to intense noise and community complaints about sonic
booms, but also explore opinions and prejudices that
influence psychological reactions of individuals to those
noises that could not conceivably affect their hearing. "
Level: Technical; graphs and tables; references.
Summary: This is something of a landmark Conference,
representing the first time that noise, as a health factoz,
was the subject of a national meeting convened by a
governmental agency in partnership with a national asso-
ciation. Noting this in his keynote address, William
Steward, then Surgeon General, compares the 1968
attitude toward noise pollution with that which char -
acterized 1958 thinking about air pollution. In short,
a lot of basic research existed but, for the most part,
people were working independently of each other
and there was no concerted national effort to deal
with noise as a public health hazard. The rationale
behind this Conference was to bring together the re-
search people and the government people and attempt
to assess something about the current state-of-the-art
in noise research and to propose something about
where it was all leading and where future emphasis
should be placed.
As a concession to the non-specialists present at the
Conference, the first paper here, "Primer on Methods
and Scales of Noise Measurement," is a very useful
review of the methods used to measure the physical
and psychological attributed of sound. Careful at-
tention is paid to terminology, concepts, and their
definitions, and the result is a paper which should
prove first priority reading for anyone interested in
understanding the basic acoustics behind research into
noise effects.
The body of the report consists of papers presented
by members of each of six panels: Effects of Noise
on Man, Industrial Noise and the Worker, Noise in

the Community, Special Problems of Recent Tech-
nological Development, Community Noise Control,
and Discussion and Summary. Many of the men
cited in the EPA summaries of noise research are
present as speakers here and the papers delivered are
full of useful data, most of it presented in graphs and
tables. In addition, many of the papers are docu-
mented with lengthy bibliographies. As a reference
document on the health effects of noise pollution,
these Proceedings are invaluable and should head
the reading list of anyone seriously interested in this
aspect of the noise problem.
Author: Compiled by J. C Guignard, University
of Dayton Research Institute.
Publisher: Joint EPA/USAF Study, Prepared for the
EPA and distributed by NTIS (#AMRL-TR-73-90,
EPA-550/9-73-001-A) July 1973 (169 pp.; $3.00).
To purchase copies write: National Technical Infor-
mation Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Virginia 22151.
Point of View: "The goal of this document is three-
fold: (1) it attempts to arrive at a consensus regarding
the effects of noise exposure upon human hearing;
(2) it evaluates the principal factors affecting the in-
cidence of noise-induced hearing loss m various pop-
ulations; and (3) it makes recommendations concerning
noise exposure levels for the purpose of heating con-
servation. "
vided in the five sections which comprise the body
of the report: Introduction, Definitions, Effects of
Noise on Hearing (Continuous Noise and Impulsive
Noise), Factors Influencing Incidence of NIPTS, and
Conclusions and Recommendations. Hearing danger
represented by both occupational and non-occupational
noise exposure is considered and data are included
or cited "which enable quantitative predictions to
be made of the risk to hearing in the American pop-
ulation due to noise exposure in any working or
living context." The remaining one hundred and
forty pages consist of a series of appendices which
provide data on and discussion of relevant aspects
of noise measurement, the physiology of hearing,
and theories explaining the effects of noise on the
ear. An extensive bibliography is included.
Level: Technical; numerous tables, bibliography.
Summary: This is a straight-forward report providing
a compilation of data, with references to published
work, which represents the present state of knowledge
concerning the effects of continuous and impulsive noise
on hearing. Background and summary remarks are pro-
Author: Prepared for issuance by the Administrator
of the EPA under the signature of Alvin F. Meyer, Jr.,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Noise Control Pro-
Publisher: Unpublished; available from the Office
of Noise Abatement and Control, U.S EPA, upon
request. Date of issue, July 27, 1973. To be pub-
lished by USGPG and distributed by IRITIS.
Point of View: "The Noise Control Act of 1972 re-
quires that the Administrator of the EPA develop and
publish criteria with respect to noise. These criteria
are to "reflect the scientific knowledge most useful
in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable ef-
fects of noise on the public health and welfare
which may be expected from differing quantities and
qualities of noise. " This document meets that re -
quirement. "
Level: Semi-technical; numerous tables and graphs;
extensive references.
Summary: Criteria here means "descriptions of
cause and effect relationships" so that what is provided
in this document is an attempt to appraise the available
knowledge relating to the heklth and welfare effects of
noise pollution. In preparing this assimilation, the
EPA searched the general professional literature and
the support documents prepared to accompany the

"Report to the President and Congress on Noise"
such as Ref.iIX-H). In addition, the EPA spon-
sored an International Conference on Public Health
Aspects of Noise and the proceedings of that conference
have been applied to die preparation of this document.
This, then, represents the moct complete EPA state-
ment on the healfhand welfare implications of noise
Information is presented here under twelve headings
Noise and Noise Exposures in Relation to Public Health
and Welfare, Rating Schemes for Environmental Com-
munity Noise, Annoyance and Community Response,
Normal Auditory Function, Noise-Induced Hearing
Loss - Temporary and Permanent, Masking and Speech
Interference, Additional Physiological and Psycholo-
gical Criteria, Effects of Noise on Performance, Inter-
action of Noise and Other Conditions or Influences,
Effects of Noise on Wildlife and Other Animals, and
Effect of Noise on Structures. Within each category,
extensive documentation is provided of existing
studies and the various measurement and standards
scales applied to each aspect of the noise problem
are delineated. Each section is also briefly sum-
marized and extensive references are provided. A
Glossary is appended to the report, as is a brief biblio-
Authors: Edited by Bruce L. Welch and Annemarie S
Welch, Friends of Physchiatric Research, Inc.,
Maryland Psychiatric Center and the Johns Hopkins
University School of Medicine.
Publisher: Plenum Press, New York (365 pp.;
$19.50) 1970.
Point of View. This volume is based upon papers pre-
sented at an international symposium on the Extra -
Audiotry Physiological Effects of Audible Sound,
held m Boston, Mass., December 28-30, 1969, in
conjunction with the annual meeting of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science.
Level: Technical; numerous graphs and tables;
Summary: This symposium was originally titled
"Assessing the Impact of Technology: Example and
Precedent of the SST-Sonic Boom* and was organized
"to fill tJie obvious nead to encourage an adequate
advance evaluation of the probable effects upon
health of this dramatic environmental change. " In
the introduction, provided by an official of the U. S
Public Health Service, the magnitude of the noise
problem is noted and contrasted with the relatively
sparse data as to health effects beyond hearing loss.
The text of 25 pape-s presented at the Symposium
follow, organized under nine major headings: Adapta-
tion, Resistance to Dicease, Endocrine and Metabolic
Function, Cardiovascular, Reproductive, Neurological,
Biochemical and Pharmacological, Sleep, and
Studies of the Effects of Sonic Booms from Supersonic
Aircraft. For the most part, these are highly technical
reports of laboratory experiments done on animals,
although several papers report work done with human
subjects. All are accompanied with extensive data
and citings of related research. This is clearly a
document directed to an audience of non-specialist
and fellow-specialist research scientists and exten-
sive references from the research literature are
provided for those who seek additional information.
The list of contributors to this volume is an impres-
sive one and includes scientists from U.S. universi-
ties, government laboratories and private research
institutes along with representatives from several
foreign countries. A brief summary of the volume
is provided along with additional references of
the various topics, a list that runs to some ten

Author: Volume VII of the Public Hearings on Noise
Abatement and Control, Boston, Mass., October 28
and 29, 1971.
Publisher: U.S. GPO, Washington, D.C. (352 pp;
$1.50; GPO # 5500-0056) 1971.
Point of View: "These hearings are designed to
provide to the Government information regarding
noise in several areas: (1) Public attitudes and
concern relating to the problem; (2) the capabilities
of industry to deal with the problem; and (3) the views
of the professions concerned with noise and acoustics
as to the severity of the problem and what also may be
done about it... . The hearing today and tomorrow
is a scientific hearing dealing primarily with the
problems of physiological and psychological response
to noise."
Level: Varies, for the most part, non-technical,
graphs and tables; some illustrations.
Summary: As with most of the Hearings in this
series, there is a great deal of interesting infor-
mation here, but due to the nature of public
hearings, it is somewhat difficult to get quick access
to it. Often in the midst of testimony, or in response
to a question put by a panelist, someone will offer
the kind of summary statistic that speech writers
are always on the lookout for, but you almost have
to read this volume cover-to-cover to get at those
numbers. And that can be a bit frustrating,, as there
is also a lot of repetitious information here, particularly
in the first day's testimony which consists mostly of
papers provided by the political representatives of the
state, the Mayor, state senators, U.S. senators, etc.
Interspersed with these are the testimonies of several
Boston residents as to the effects of living adjacent to
Logan Airport, testimony which provides needed per-
spective in light of some of the research summaries
which follow later in the Hearings.
Beginning with day two of the Hearings, testimony is
provided by various scientists working m the area of
physiological and psychological response to noise.
For the most part, they simply relate the kind of exper -
lments they are involved in and report the results
they have achieved to date. There is some good ques-
tioning of these experiments by the people on the EPA
panel and most of the researchers testifying have use-
ful data, to provide, often in graph or tabular form.
In addition to this kind of testimony, there are also
several interesting papers submitted for die record.
Three are especially interesting: "Physiological,
Psychological, and Economic Effects of Sonic Booms"
(pp. 144-167); "Special Report on Recent British and
American Noise Surveys" (pp. 185-201) and "Outline
far a Systematic Approach to Noise Abatement and
Control" (pp. 298-352), an impressive offering from
two MIT civil engineers. In short, the value of this
document varies greatly from one testimony to
another, but there is a lot of interesting information
here for anyone who will take the time to weed
through it.
Authors: K. D. Kryter, Stanford Research Institute,
W. Dixon Ward, University of Minnesota, James D
Miller and Donald H. Eldridge, Central Institute for
the Deaf, St. Louis, Missouri.
Publisher: Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America 39: 451-464, 1966.
Point of View: This document was prepared by
Working Group 46 of the NAS-NRC CHABA (Com-
mittee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics)
in response to a request from the Office of the Surgeon
General, U.S. Army, far specific damage-risk
criteria for exposure to sound.
Level: Technical; numerous tables and graphs;
Summary: This is one in a series of papers dealing
with damage-risk criteria prepared by the National
Academy of Sciences in response to a request from die
Armed Services. This particular paper, however,
is something of a classic in the literature and appears
as the primary reference on this subject in several

bibliographies.. A brief introductory section,
outlining the history of this effort and the approach
of the Working Group, is followed by background
information presented under four headings: Damage
Risk Criterion, Bases for Specification of Tolerable
Exposure to Sound, Variability in Susceptibility to
Threshold Shift, and Hearing Conservation and Monitoring
Program. Section five, Graphic Representation of
Dam age-Risk Contours, provides numerous graphs
plotting "Noise Burst Duration in Minutes" against
"Necessary Intervening Recovery in Minutes".
Discussion of this data is provided in section six and
a final section, "Physical Measurement of Sound",
comments on a "general rule of thumb" for determining
whether a sound contains a strong narrow band of
energy of a certain width. An extensive bibliography
is included.
Author: Karl D. Kryter (See Ref. VIII-2)
Publisher: Science 151; 1346-1355, 18 March,
Point of View: "Possible methods of evaluating the
acceptability of the noise from aircraft are presented."
Level: Semi-technical; graphs and tables; references.
Summary: The discussion here focuses on the basic
psychological attributes of sound, behavorial reactions
and auditory fatigue from exposure to noise, and com-
munity reaction to the noise from jet aircraft. Kryter
first briefly reviews what is known about sound and general
behavorial reactions to noise, a discussion that includes
numerous references to the research literature and several
tables and graphs of support data. He then makes
some general observations about the particular
nature of community reaction to jet aircraft noise,
noting that it is a matter of statistics, relative impor-
tance in light of the noise environments as a whole
and, third, a matter of equities, "of opinion con-
cerning the rights of individuals to be protected from
nuisances, and the welfare of the community as a
whole. " The remainder of the paper briefly examines
these three aspects of the noise problem more closely
and looks quickly at several criteria of imacceptability
ofcommunity noise environment, and at one potential
noise problem, the sonic boom.
1.	"Effects of Noise Pollution on Living Things and Property", in "Report to the President and Congress on Noise**(Ref. 1-2)
2.	"Nuisances and Hazards", Chapter 3 in Noise Pollution: The Unquiet Crisis. (Ref. 1-3).
3.	"Deliterious Effects of Noise", in The Noise Aro""d 11«, (Ref. 1-4).
4.	Chapters 7,9,10, 11,36 in "Handbook of Noise Control" (Ref. VIII-1)
5	Chapter 17 in "Noise and Vibration Control" (Ref. VIII-2).
6.	Chapter 4 in "Fundamentals of Noise: Measurement, Rating Schemes and Standards" (Ref. VIII-3).
7.	Chapter IIID in "Noise Assessment Guidelines; Technical Background" (Ref. VIII-6).
8.	"Recommended Standards for Occupational Noise Exposure" (Ref. VIII-11).
9	"Physical and Psychoacoustic Measurements", (Ref. V-6).
10.	"Sonic Boom in Relation to Man", (Ref. VI-5).

Author: Donald F. Anthrop, Assoc. Rrof.
of Environmental Studies at California State
University, San Jose.
Publisher: Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass.
(159 pp.; $12.50) 1973.
Point of View: "The same factors which have
brought us air and water pollution in crisis pro-
portions, namely increasing population, urbani-
zation, industrialization, technological change, and
the usual relegation of environmental considerations
to a position of secondary importance relative to
economic ones, have also brought us a crescendo of
noise. "
Level: Semi-technical; numerous graphs and tables;
Summary: There are several factors to recommend
this text as an excellent resource for the undergrad-
uate student exposed for the first time to acoustics.
To begin with, there has been careful attention to
pedagogy in the preparation of this text and each
equation or calculation which appears has been
brought into the discussion for good reason and is
fully explained through reference in the text and
accompanying graphs or diagrams. The mathema-
tics, it fa at, have been kept to a minimum and
quantitative relationships are rarely described without
an accompanying qualitative description. The
chapters evolve in a logical way, beginning with a
discussion of the dimensions of the noise pollution
problem and the physical nature of noise before moving
on to discuss each of four major noise source problems:
noise in dwellings, construction noise, motor vehicle
noise, and aircraft noise. In each of these latter
chapters, data is provided on the magnitude of the
problem, the scales used to measure noise from that
particular source, legislation which currently sets
regulations on that kind of noise, measure effects
of noise from the particular source, and finally, a
brief look at die potenticmal, technological and
political, of abating the noise, In -short, this
is a well documented, carefully prepared text,
well-suited for use with undergraduate students,
especially those with little mathematical sophisti-
Authors: Lawrence E. Kinsler and Austin R.Frey,
Professors of Physics, U.S. Naval Postgraduate
School, Moneterey, Calif.
Point of View i "One purpose of this book is to
present, in as simple and concise a form as possible, the
fundamental principles underlying the generation,
transmission, and reception of acoustic waves. A
second purpose is to apply these principles to a number
of important fields of applied acoustics. "
Level: Technical; graphs and tables; references.
Summary: This has long 'been a classic among
acoustics texts for use in advanced physics and engi-
neering courses. The following excerpt from the
preface to the second edition provides a summary
which really needs no elaboration.
"One purpose of this book is to present, in as
simple and concise a form as possible, the funda-
mental principles underlying the generation, trans-
mission, and reception of acoustic waves. A second
purpose is to apply these principles to a number of
important fields of applied acoustics....
"	our primary aim has been to familiarize the
student with the fundamental concepts and termi-
nology of the subject and with the analytical methods
that are available for attacking acoustical problems.
The first nine chapters of die book provide an analysis
of the various types of vibration of solid bodies, and
of the propagation of sound waves through fluid media.
These nine chapters will suffice far a one-semester
course in the fundamentals of theoretical acoustics,
and they may also be used
course may omit any one or more of these chapters
and substitute material from the more specialized
textbooks of acoustics.
One factor that has been kept in mind in writing
this book is the close association that exists between
acoustics and electrical engineering...
The book may be studied with equal facility by
advanced undergraduate or graduate students in
Physics, Electrical Engineering, Electronic Engineering,
and similar disciplines. The essential requirements are
a knowledge of the fundamental principles of mechanics
and electricity and an understanding of the methods of
calculus, including partial derivatives. Since this book
is intended primarily as a textbook for classroom use,
rather than as an encyclopedic reference work, no
attempt has been made to include a complete biblio-
graphy, although^ numerous references are given,
either where die treatment is necessarily incomplete
or to provide an interested reader with a source of
mare detailed information. We have attempted to
derive each important equation from the fundamental
laws of physics and to show in some detail not only the
mathematical steps but also the logical processes in-
volved in these derivations. The derivations of aifaw
of the less important equations have been intentionally
omitted and are, instead, included as exercises for
the student among the problems given at the end
of each chapter.
Considerable attention has been paid to the selection
of a comprehensive set of problems, far the ultimate
check an the student's understanding of the subject
is his ability to apply his knowledge to new situations.
In order to assist those engaged in self-study of this
book, answers are provided in the appendix for the
odd-numbered problems. Tables of physical constants
and functions are given in the Appendix.
As fax as possible, the recommended standards of
acoustical terminology of the American Standards
Association have been used throughout this book,
and a glossary of symbols is incorporated in the Appendix
as a further aid in clarifying the confusion that might
result from the multiplicity of physical quantities
represented by certain of the mare commonly used
Publisher; New York , John Wiley and Sons
'(524ppp$15-95) 2nd editioh, 1962.
Author; William Bums, Professor of Physiology at
the University of London at Charing Cross Hospital
Medical School.
Publisher; J. B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia
(336 pp; $11.00) 1968. (Revis^tf 1973).
Point of View; "There is at present growing concern
about the occurrence of unwanted sounds, commonly
called noieg^and their possible effects upon man.
Despite frequent conferences and symposia, and the
existence of an extensive literature on noise, the
necessary information is to same extent elusive. This
introduction to the subject of noise and its effects on
man attempts to provide the basic information and
point the way to fuller treatments of the several aspects
of the subject."
Level: Semi-technical; illustrated; graphs and tables;
Summary; This is a text to which you will see reference
on almost every bibliography of noise literature.
Published in 1968, it is one of the first textbooks to
break away from traditional acoustics and ireat noise
as an environmental problem posing' potential health
hazards to man. As with all "environmental" topics,
the noise pollution literature has mushroomed so
rapidly since the publication of this text that much of
the data included here if now somewhat dated. None-
theless, the discussion of the physical properties of
sound which introduces the text is a good one, although
probably of much mare interest to the science than
the non-science student. "Types of Sounds" examines
frequency, periodic and nan-periodic waveforms,
velocity of sound waves, and standing waves. This
is followe by a chapter on the measurement of sound
which, like the others in this introductory section of
the book, contains good, basic physics and some
fairly sophisticated mathematics. The next three
chapters deal with hearing and the first of these,
"Mechanism of Hearing", is one of the most interesting
offerings in this text. Chapters on the measurement
of hearing and on normal hearing deafness complete
jRevised edition just published.

3. "NOISE AND MAN" (cont'd)
this section. More discussion of physical effects and
an introduction to die physchological effects of noise
exposure are dealt with in die next four chapters:
Annoyance, Measures to Reduce Interference Effects,
Temporary Effects of Noise on Hearing, and Permanent
Effects of Noise on Hearing. Burns then examines hearing
preservation, its objectives and procedures, and discusses
both existing noise standards and those that might come
into effect in the near future. Finally, two major sources
of noise pollution, aircraft noise and impulse noise (sonic
boom) are examined in separate chapters. Some discussion
is also provided in this final section of industrial and com-
munity noise, but it is in these last two sections of die
book, effects and sources, that one is most aware of the
fact that an awful lot of data has been published on all
this since 1968. The turbofan engine, for instance, source
of much of today's aircraft noise problem, had not
even gone into service at the time this book was
published. Despite die need far updating in
much of the "state-of-the-art" material here, how-
ever, the physics and mathematical content is well
done and this should be a useful reference book for
science and engineering students. There is much
helpful technical data in the appendices and the
list of references provides a good guide to pre-1968
technical publications.
Author: Leslie L. Doelle, Acoustical Consultant,
Assoc. Prof., School of Architecture, University
of Montreal.
Publisher: McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York
(246 pp.; $18.50) 1972.
Point of View: "This book .... is based upon several
years of concurrent teaching at three Canadian schools
of architecture and on the large number of acoustical
problems solved in a private practice of oer 20 years.
Although intended for the architect and the archi-
tecture .student, the book also will be useful to en-
gineers, interior designers, builders, contractors,
promoters, developers, and in general anyone whose
occupation involves him in problems of environmental
Level: Semi-technical; illustrated; numerous graphs
and tables.
Summary: This is a most interesting book, with
something on everything from the history of acoustical
ideas to noise control in specific types of buildings
and even rooms. Along the way, Doelle manages
to fit in a remarkable amount of material under four
main divisions: terminology, room or space acoustics,
environmental noise control, and the execution,
supervision, and checking of acoustical works. The
mathematics involved in such calculations as
acoustical phenomena in enclosed spaces is presented
clearly and concisely. Excellent tables, graphs
and illustrations appear throughout the text, not
just as decoration but as actual enhancements to
the discussions they accompany. The focus clearly
is on designing for quiet in buildings, public and
private, but Doelle approaches his main interest
from a broad based dealing with the physics of
sound, the properties of various sound-absorbing
materials, acoustical requirements of various
activities, and existing noise criteria for specific
types of buildings. Three appendices provide
technical data on sound absorption coefficients and
sound-insulation values of floors. A brief biblio-
graphy of architectural texts serves as a fourth
appendix. In short, this is a most i readible, up-
to-date review of the state-of-the-art of archi-
tectural acoustics and should be of interest to
mt^ny readers outside of the architecture profession.

Author: Rupert T ay lor, British noise consultant.
Publisher: Penguin Books, Baltimore, Md. (268 pp.;
$1.815) 1970.
Point of View: "Though not deadly, noise ever
present, ever irritating, can change men's lives
and even their personalities. Probably vastly mare
serious than the measurable physiological effects
of noise are tfie immeasurable psychological effects.
... The priority is without doubt to put an end to
the confusion and lack of knowledge. "
Level:^-Non-Technical. Illustrated; glossary of acoustical
terms, appended.
Summary: This is a refreshingly relaxed and
straightforward little book, with no gimmicks and
a great deal of respect for the capacity of the reader
to interest himself in an area about which he proba-
bly knows very little. Taylor's intended audience
is the interested layman and his approach is exempli-
fied by this from the forward: "I am not an academic.
I have tried to condense the knowledge gained in six
years of controlling noise into a book for fellow non-
academics. .. .1 have tried to say nothing that cannot
be justified in simple English, and have tried to Jus-
tify some things which would normally be done mathe-
matically. " He also notes, and correctly, that there
is not much mathematics here and that, what there is,
6. _
Author: Laurent Hodges, Dept. of Physics, Iowa
State University.
Publisher: Chapter 7 (pp. 112-125) in Environmental
Pollution (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Inf.. ) 1973.(®7.95).
Point of View: "Noise has come to be regarded as an
important type of urban pollution, capable of causing
annoyance and hearing loss, and perhaps even adverse
physiological and physchological effects. "
Level: Semi-technical; aimed at undergraduate
students and educated laymen; illustrated; references.
Summary: This is a<£rief but valuable chapter out of
one of the best "environmental reader" texts cm the
market today. Hodges begins with a quick summary
of ''Sound and Hearing", providing an examination
of sound waves and the logarithmic scale used for
can be overlooked without missing the meaning
of the text. Despite this disclaimer to the academic
approach, however, the density of information here
is quite high and, with the aid of excellent drawings
and diagrams, Taylor is able to explore in an
interesting way topics which can, in the traditional
approach, be deadly1 to the non-science reader
Included here are chapters on air waves and sound, on
the dimensions of sound (based on Taylor's interest
in music), and on the various sound sources and
means for their abatement and control. A glossary
of acoustical terms appears at the end of the book
and a series of six appendices provide some interesting
background data and a short bibliography of acoustics
text books. In short, while it is unlikely that anyone
browsing through a bookstore would settle on this as an
afternoon's reading project, it is quite likely that,
as a textbook in a course for non-science students or
a suggested reference to a student seeking an intro-
duction to acoustics, this would prove most satisfying.
measuring intensity level and sound pressure level. Decibel
readings of various common sounds are provided and con-
trasted to the sorts of extreme noise associated with occupa-
tional noise exposures and hearing damage. "Public Noise
Exposures" looks at the effects of noise on humans,berth
physiological and psychological. The main sources of en-
vironmental noise are described briefly in terms of their
relative importance and several noise abatement and control
mechanisms are briefly noted. A final section deals briefly
with sonic booms, mostly as a physical phenomena, and some
useful illustrations accompany this discussion. A short but
selective list of references is appended to the chapter which,
while not the most complete in the book, nonetheless demon-
strates the same attention to pedagogy which makes this a
useful reader in undergraduate courses.

A"«*»r>T; Melvin A. Benarde, Associate Professor,
Dept. of Community Medicine, Hahnemann Medi-
cal College and Hospital, Philadelphia, Pa.
Publisher: Chapter 12 (pp. 220-243) in Our
Precarious Habitat (New York: W. W. Norton
and Co., lie.) 1970. ($3.95)
Point of View; "Although noise, within limits,
is a necessary and probably unpreventable adjunct
of our machine civilization, it would appear that
unless definite steps are taken to reduce the present
inordinate levels in industry and in the community
generally, increasing numbers of the population may
become auditory cripples."
Level: Popular; illustrtrated; several graphs and
Summary: This is always an intersting book to
turn'to for treatments of the various environrrieatal
problems as Bemarde, being a medical doctor,
takes a slightly different cut through this material
than do most of the traditional authors of environ-
mental literature. Predictably, his main concern
here is with the health hazard aspects of noise pol-
lution, but he approached it through a carefully
developed analysis of the essential characteristics
of sound, interpretations of readings on the various
sound measurement scales, limits of human hearing
and a good, brief description of the workings of the
human ear. With this background, Bemarde moves into
a discussion of noise-induced hearing loss, providing
an examination of threshold levels and the various
kinds of hearing problems that occur in man. Particular
emphasis is placed on hearing loss through exposure to
excessively .higlv"noise;' levels and summaries of
several recent studies in this area are provided. Ex-
tensive data is provided on measured effects of ex-
cessive noise and on the moderating effect of various
abatement techniques, including use of ear plugs,
et. The final paragraphs in this chapter introduce
sonic boom, only in a very qualitative way, and
contain Dr. Bemarde's strong, personal admonitions
against a value system which places development of
the SST above dealing with many of the societal
problems currently faced by this country.
Author: Joseph Priest, Dept. of Physics, Miami
Publisher: Chapter 7 (pp. 266-284) in Problems of
Our Physical Environment (Reading, Mass: Addisan-
Wesley Publishing Company) 1973 .($10. 95).
Points of View: "Noise, though not particularly in
nature, is a by-product of motor vehicle operation
and is increasingly regarded as a pollutant because
of its magnitude and its potential effect on human
health and well being. "
Level; Semi-technical; illustrated; graphs, tables,
references; problems at end of chapter.
Summary: Motor Vehicle noise is really used here
simply as a timely application for a fairly tradi-
tional treatment of the physics of sound. This is,
in fact, a textbook prepared for use in "Physics and
the Environment" a course offered by die Miami
University physics department for students needing
distribution requirements in the physical sciences.
The focus, therefore, is in getting across some of
the basic physical principles involved in the study of
sound and wave phenomenon. The first half of the
chapter deals with the physical properties of sound,
energy and power of a sound wave, the human ear as a
receiver and noise measurement and standards. Num-
erous graphs, tables, and illustrations accompany this
discussion and the mathematics involved is explained
in a straightforward manner with little in the way
of mathematical background assumed. Unfortunately,
as with many so-called "environmental" texts, the
actual discussion of the problan noted in the title,
namely, motor vehicle noise, is left to the final
two paragraphs of the chapter with very little evi-
dence that the author has troubled himself with die
literature in this area at all. In ciiart, this is not a
treatment of motor vehicle noise, rather it is a fairly
traditional introductory level discussion of the physics
of sound aimed at die "non-science" student. It is,
however, a well-done treatment, with useful data
in the accompanying graphs and some of the problems
at the end of the chapter might prove interesting to
students in a general, physical science course.

Author: Theardore Berland, free-lane^ journalist.
Publisher: Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
N.J. (305 pp; $2.95) 1970.
Point of View: "Besides the toll which noise imposes
on our bodies, our emotions, and our hearing, there
is the physical mayhem and destruction it wreaks.
For noise not only shocks us, maddens us, distresses us,
and deafens us, it physically wrecks our surroundings
as well."
Level: Popular.
Summary: There are three parts to this book: What
Noise Is and Does, Where Noise Comes From, and What
You Can Do About It. By far the most interesting section
is the first, where Berland has done a particularly good
job of summarizing in a popular way the nature of sound
artH the effects of noise on man. By comparison, "Where
Noise Comes from", is less useful, although there is
some interesting, catchy data here on noise levels from
various sources and in particular places in the home
and office. Finally, "What You Can Do About It"
records the history of citizen efforts to quiet noise and
evaluates some of the moare touted industry efforts to
produce quieter products. A good, brief summary of
the kind of design features available for quieting
buildings is provided and tribute is paid to those whose
efforts have materially added to suppression of noise
in everything from construction projects to aircraft
engines. Berland ends on a familiar note, calling
for citizens to organize and bring the weight of their
influence to bear on government at all levels. Of the
popular level books available on the subject of noise,
this is by far the best researched and the most in-
clusive. It is in no way a complete treatment of the
noise problem, however, and touches only super-
ficially on some very complex aspects of die nature
of noise and die potential for its control.
Author: Robert Alex Baron, founder, C itizens for
a Quieter City.
Publisher: Harper and Row, New York (294 pp;
$2.75) 1970.
Point of View: "It may be true that the meek shall
inherit the earth, but that will be because it won't be
livable, and the noise maker will be living on other
planets. Whether under geodesic domes or under water,
the goal for our cities must be as quiet an environment as
necessary for human comfort and well-being. This goal
is achievable if we end our passive acceptance of in-
dustry's acoustic waste products."
Level: Popular, bibliography.
Summary: Mr. Baron is an interesting figure in the small
circle of individuals identified with the .fight against,noise pol-
lution. A recent convert to the severity of the problem,
having sustained several months of agony living side-
by-side with a City construction project, he has come
on like the proverbial gang-busters, appearing as a citizen-
witness at numerous government hearings and actively
promoting, through Citizens for a Quieter City, the
cause of noise control in general and, more specifically,
the need for strong controls on the noise emission
levels of manufactured products. He is no way an
"expert" on acoustics, nor does he pretend tonbe.
Leaving die technical explanations to the scientists,
Baron focuses on those aspects of the noise problem
which most impact on the average citizen: the price
in health, the price in dollars, and the price in en-
vironmental quality. Unfortunately, m his missionary
zeal, he makes some rather sweeping judgements as
to the good guys and the bad guys, leading to gen-
eralizations like the following: "Scientists who work
in the field of noise are fatalists. They equate noise
with progress, and the future with noise. They believe
advancing civilizations will create mare noise, not
less." In short, this is a political book, designed for
maximum impact, and it has obvious biases and, at
times, the sorts of generalizations that don't really
lead to an understanding of the problem. It is quite
readable, however, and may bring the problem of noise
pollution to the attention of many readers who would
be turned off by a discussion of the physics of sound or
measurement scales.

Suggested Bibliographies
A General
1	The Environment Index (New York: Environment Information Center) Annual volumes in print, 1971 to date
2	Applied Sciencetand Technology Index (New York: H W Wilson Co. ) Annual volumes in print, 1958
to date (also monthly issue).
3.	Science for Society: A Bibliography (Washington: American Association for the Advancement of
Science) Annual volumes In print, 1970 to date
4	Selected U S Government Publications (Washington: USGPO) Issued bi-monthly at no charge by
the U. S Superintendent of Documents, U.S Government Printing Office, Washington, D C. 2Q402
5.	Books in Print, a Xerox Education Publication (New York: R. R. Bowker and Co ) Published yearly
in two volumes: Title and Publisher Index and Author Index.
B. Noise Pollution
1	"Noise Pollution: An Overview", Ann L Pray, Council of Planning Librarians Exchange Bibliography
#213 (Monticello, 111 : Council of Planning Librarians) August 1971. (Write: Mrs. Mary Vance, Editor,
Post Office Box 229, Monticello, Illinois 61856 Send check or money order for $1. 50 per copy'.)
2	"Noise: Effects and Problems of Control; Selected, Annotated References, 1966-1972", Jewel H Ogonji
and Shirley Loo, Library Services Division, U S Library of Congress, August 18, 1971. (Available by
request through your Congressman or Senator; do not write directly to the Library. )
3	"Noise: Potential Danger to Man, An Indexed Bibliography, 1960-1972,'^Virginia S. DeHaan, December,
1972. Available from: Information Center for Hearing, Speech, and Disorders of Human Communication,
The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, 310 Harriet Lane Home, Baltimore, Md. 21205. Send check or
money order for $3.00.
4.	"National Noise Study: Bibliography, 1956-1969n(Cincinnatil Ohio: U. S Bureau of Occupational Health
and Standards) 1971
5	"Aircraft Noise and Sonic Boom - Selected References, 1966-1969"(Washington: U S Dept of Trans-
portation) 1969. (Bibliographic List #2)
6.	"An Annotated Bibliography on Noise, Its Measurement, Effects and Control" (Pittsburg: Industrial Hygiene
Foundation of America, Inc.) 1955.
7	"Environmental Pollution: Noise Pollution - Airplane Noise" (Alexandria, Va : Defense Documentation
Center) 1970 (AD 724 850; DDC - TAS - 71-21-1) Available'-from NTIS.
8	"Environmental Pollution: Noise Pollution - Noise Effects on Human Performance" (Alexandria, Va :
Defense Documentation Center) 1970 (AD 729 850; DDC-TAS - 71-31-vol I). Available from NTIS.
9. "Noise Control", E. B. Magrab, CRC Critical Reviews in Environmental Control, pages 61-83, August 1972.
10 Noise Facts Digest, U. S. ERA-June 1972.
A -1

Availability of Government Reports
All of the government reports included here should be available for circulation through the Regional Govern-
ment Library in your Congressional district. Should you desire to obtain personal copies of these documents, there
are five main sources:
1 The United States Government Printing Office Orders may be sent by mail or, for faster service,
phoned in to the Order Desk m Washington. When ordering a document, be sure to give the GPO
Stock Number and to include a check or purchase order for the amount required. The Mailing address
Superintendent of Documents
U S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C 20402
In addition to this main office, there are 12 bookstores located outside of Washington (see last page
of this Appendix)
2	National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
Many of the government reports which used to be available free of charge are now distributed through
NTIS When this is the case with documents referenced here, the NTIS order number is provided along
with the price of the document, which i* usually $3 00 to $6". 00. For NT-IS documents, give order
mrmbar and'send ch«ckto:
National Technical Information Service
Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, Virginia 22151
3	Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Numerous pamphlets, workshop reports, and internally prepared documents are available only
from the Office of Noise Abatement and Control Requests should be addressed to:
Publications Director
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
4	Congressional Committees Several of the hearings documents included here were printed solely
for distribution by the Committee concerned and are not available through the GFO. Requests for
these documents should be addressed to the Publications Officer of the Committee noted under "author"
in the write-up
5. Your Representatives to Congress
Requests for Libwy of Congress publications must be made by a representative to Congress; there is
no public access to these internally produced reports As a role, Congressmen are eager to provide
constituents with any assistance possible and they frequently are able to provide free copies of Con-
gressional Hearings and background documents. Requests should be made as specifically as possible
(publication date, order number, etc.) and you should allow several weeks time for response

APPENDIX B (cont'd)
Acoustical Society of America
c/o Mr. Eugene Kone
A. I. P.
335 Ea«t *5th Street
New York, New York 10017
C itizens Against Noise
2729 Wert Lunt
Chicago, Illinois 60615
Citizens for » Quieter City, Inc
P. O. Box 7777, Ansonia Station
New York, New York 10023
ATTN: Mr. Robert A. Bpjoan
M^yr's Co-'rnittee on Noi*e /batement
Philadelphia Department of P"blic Hr-«lth
500 South Bro-d Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19108
Natio^l Organization to In»s.
Sier*a Cl"b Headquarters
J050 Mills Tower
222 B"sh Street
S«n Frpncisco, California 94104
ATTN: Ar^el^s Ch«rjt*>r Nii<-e Committee
Office of Nois« Abatement
U. S. Department of Transportation
Wpshingtnp, D. C. 20533
The following rep 1	docu»»'»»>tj.fTe available frm»i the Nstjcpgl
Technical Information Service. Department of Commerce. 5285 Port Royal Road, SnnpgfieM, Virginia 22151
(Phone; AC 703/321-8523). Tb«*y will pot be p vilphle from EPA d'-^ntly:
* NCR500.1
NTID300. 7.
NT ID 300. 3
NTID300. 4
NT ID300. 5
NT ID300. 6
Report to the President p^d Coneress on Noise
Noise from Conr+ruction Fquipment aM Operations,
Building EnuipniMit, p.rrt Home Appliances
Noi«e f'om Ird"«t-irl Plants
Community Noi«»
Laws RoQfulpto'y Schemes for Noise Abatem~rt
Effects of N«ise on Wildlife and Other Animals
An As«»s«nert of Noise C oncern in Other Nations
Ivn-NT NO.
PB-906721 (Vol. I)
TB-206772 (Vrl. II)
$ 6.00
9 00

APPENDIX B (cont'd)
NTID300. 7
NT ID300. 8
NTID300. 9
NTID300. 11
Effects of Noise on People
State and Municipal Non-Occupational Noise Program
Noise Programs of Professional /Industrial Organizations,
Universities and Colleges
Summary of Noise Programs in the Federal Government
Social Impact of Noise
The Effect of Sonic Boom and Similar Impulsive
Noise on Structures
Transportation Noise and Noise from Equipment
Powered by Internal Combustion Engines
Economic Impact of Noise
Fundamental of Noise: Measurement, Rating
Schemes, and Standards
$ 3 00
Available at CPO Only
PB-206724	3.00
PB-206725	3.00
PB-208660	6.00
PB-206726	3.00
PB-206727	3.00
* May also be obtained from the CPO for $2. 75 (CPO Stock No. 5560-0040)
** CPO Stock No. 5500-0061
HELD IN 1971
Construction Noise - Atlanta, Georgia, July 8-9, 1971
Manufacturing and Transportation Noise (Highway and
Air) - Chicago, Illinois July 28-29, 1971
Urban Planning, Architectural Design; and Noise in the
Home - Dallas, Texas August 18-19, 1971
Standards and Measurement Methods, Legidation and
Enforcement Problems, San Francisco - September
27-29, 1971
Agricultural and Recreational Use Noise, Denver,
Colorado - September 30 - October 1, 1971
Transportation Noise (rail and other); Urban Noise Problems
and Social Behavior, New York, New York - October 21-
2 2, 1971
$ 1.25
2.10 Postpaid
1. 75 GPO
2 25
(Limited Copies)
Available at EPA Only