THE STATUS OF
NOISE CONTROL
IN THE UNITED STATES=
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
APRIL ,1978
III
P^vivSVrS
;i kv.,,X%XvV«viv!jjii
lIVAvlvlj;
¦hi
11111
:-x
:::::::::
tip:#:
)!v
m
mm
mi*#!
£>
PREPARED FOR
OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT & CONTROL
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, DC. 20460
PRE FARED BY'
DR. CUFFORD R. BRAGDON
COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE
DEPT. OF CITY PLANNING
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30322
-------
THE STATUS OF
NOISE CONTROL
IN THE UNITED STATES:
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
APRIL, 1978
PREPARED FOR:
OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT & CONTROL
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460
PREPARED BY:
DR. CLIFFORD R. BRAGDON
COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE
DEPT. OF CITY PLANNING
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30322
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
LIST OF FIGURES iv
LIST OF TABLES vi
SECTION Is INTRODUCTION 1
A. BACKGROUND 1
1. Public Awareness 1
2. Legislation 2
3. Noise Control Program 3
4. Recommendations 4
B. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 5
C. PERSONNEL 5
SECTION lis PUBLIC AWARENESS 7
SECTION III: LEGISLATION 18
A. STATE 18
1. Recreation Vehicles 21
2. Motor Vehicles 24
3. Zoning/Land Use 27
a. Residential and Institutional . . 29
b. Commercial and Business 29
c. Manufacturing and Industry .... 29
4. Aircraft 30
5. Construction 32
6. Building Code 34
B. MUNICIPALITIES 36
1. Zoning/Land Use 40
2. Motor Vehicles 44
3. Recreation Vehicles 45
4. Construction 49
5. Aircraft 51
6. Building Codes 52
7. Railroads 55
8. Nuisance 57
ii
-------
SECTION IV: NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS 60
A. STATE 61
B. MUNICIPALITIES 77
C. FEDERAL 83
1. PRODUCT NOISE EMISSION PARAMETERS ... 83
a. Source Maintenance and Use .... 83
b. Source Replacement 85
c. Source Growth 85
d. Source Power 86
e. Source Mobility 86
f. Population Growth and
Distribution 86
2. GOVERNMENTAL PARTNERSHIP 87
3. IDENTIFICATION OF PRODUCT NOISE
EMISSION PARAMETER CONTROLS 87
SECTION V: RECOMMENDATIONS 91
iii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1. 1976 Undesirable Neiqhborhood Conditions:
United States Comparative Rankinq 10
2. 1973-1976 Undesirable Neighborhood Conditions:
United States 11
3. 1971-1976 State and Municipal Noise
Legislation 19
4. 1971-1977 U.S. Population Affected by Noise
Legislation: State Laws 20
5. 1977 States with Noise Control Legislation 23
6. 1971-1977 State Noise Regulations: Recreation
Vehicles 25
7. 1971-1977 State Noise Regulations: Motor
Vehicles 26
8. State Noise Regulations: Zoning 28
9. 1971-1977 State Noise Regulations: Aircraft 31
10. 1971-1977 State Noise Regulations:
Construction 33
11. 1971-1977 State Noise Regulations:
Building Code 35
12. 1971-1977 Municipalities with Noise
Legislation and Percentage of Municipal
Population Affected 39
13. 1971-1977 Municipal Population Affected by
Noise Legislation: Municipal Laws 41
14. 1971-1977 U.S. Municipal Noise Regulations:
Zoning 43
15. 1971-1977 U.S. Municipal Noise Regulations:
Motor Vehicles 46
16. 1971-1977 U.S. Municipal Noise Regulations:
Recreation Vehicles 48
iv
-------
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
50
53
54
56
59
62
64
66
67
68
70
71
73
84
1971-1977 U.S. Municipal Noise Regulations:
Construction
1971-1977 U.S. Municipal Noise Regulations:
Aircraft. . ..
1971-1977 U.S. Municipal Noise Regulations:
Building Code
1971-1977 U.S. Municipal Noise Regulations:
Railroads
1971-1977 U.S. Municipal Noise Regulations:
General Nuisance
1977 States with Budgeted Noise Control
Programs
1973-1977 U.S. Population Protected by
State Noise Control Legislation and
Budgeted Programs
1977 State Noise Control Programs:
Budget Characteristics
1973-1977 State Noise Legislation and
Programs
1973-1977 State Noise Control Budgets:
Per Capita and Total U.S. Expenditures
1977 State Noise Control Budgets:
Total Expenditures
1977 State Noise Control Budgets:
A Comparison
1977 State Noise Control Budgets:
Per Capita Expenditures
Product Noise Emission Parameters
v
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Undesirable Neighborhood
Conditions: United States, 1973-1976 9
2. Undesirable Conditions and
Desire to Move: 1976-1976 13
3. Public Awareness 15
4. Public Health and Welfare 16
5. State Noise Regulations:
1971-1977 Acoustical Provisions 22
6. Municipal Noise Regulations, 1971-1977
Acoustical and Non-Acoustical Provisions 38
7. Noise Program Evaluation 74
8. Technical Assistance to States 76
9. Municipal Noise Control Budgets:
1970-1975 78
10. Technical Assistance to Municipalities 81
11. Identification of Product Noise Emission
Parameter Control 89
vi
-------
SECTION I» INTRODUCTION
-------
A. BACKGROUND
The purpose of this investigation is to analyze the status
of state and local noise control programs in the United States.
To achieve this objective involves examining four elements.
1. Public Awareness
A primary incentive to develop an interest
in environmental noise legislation, and a subsequent noise
program, is public awareness. Such awareness channeled by a
constitutency to elected officials is often the catalyst for public
action, Furthermore, public awareness, if it is sustained, provides
potential continuity to any noise program.
This section of the investigation focuses
in on the degree of public awareness in the public sector. To
what extent is noise recognized as a problem area? On a com-
parative basis, how does this issue relate to other issues facing
the general public? In addition to the public at large or citizenry,
another sector of the public has to be queried. This public is the
1
-------
professional public or governmental official, responsible for the
operation of the government agency. How is noise considered com-
pared to other environmental issues facing an agency of the
government? What appears to be the problem areas in establishing
legislation, initiating and implementing a noise control program?
2. Legislation
Although the legislative history of noise
at the Federal level is a rather brief seven years, states and
particularly municipalities have an extensive history. Municipal
noise legislation dates back to at least 1852 with the passage of
the city of Boston peace and tranquility ordinance. Experiencing
a rather slow initial start, the second century of municipal
noise legislation has been very active. States started con-
siderably later than municipalities with the passage of the
vehicle noise law for the New York State Thruway in 1964.
This section analyzes the development of
municipal and state noise legislation. A thorough review of all
-------
legislative aspects of noise is examined, including each noise
source provision. Both quantitative (acoustical) and non-quantitative
(non-acoustical) noise laws are discussed. Attention is placed
upon the extent to which the population is being regulated by
noise. The examination of legislation offers an overview of
governmental activity, including legislative emphasis.
3. Noise Control Program
The ultimate payoff in noise control is a
financial commitment to a noise control program. This means
assigning an administrative agency to implement the enacted legis-
lation, and establishing a fiscal budget. Without budgetary
support, these state and municipalities have only "paper regula-
tions," regulatory programs that have legal standing and statutory
authority, but no resources for their necessary implementation.
In this section, these issues are addressed
and a comprehensive analysis of noise control programs are re-
viewed. These various budgets are compared to populations which
-------
they are supporting. In addition, the role of Federal, state,
and local programs to initiate source regulations are examined,
and the need for an intergovernmental partnership to combat noise.
4. Recommendations
Based on the findings in these previous three
sections, a series of recommendations are presented. These recom-
mendations, although general in nature, are developed to assist
and protect the general population, the previously established
environmental noise legislation, and the significant expenditures
to date.
There appear to be several problem areas
that should be addressed before the public's perceived concern
for noise is adequately protected. Such protection involves
intergovernmental cooperation and coordination to insure that a
comprehensive and efficient program is established. Additionally,
this requires strong cooperation and support from the private
sector, an area which needs to be considerably strengthened in
the future.
4
-------
B. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The preparation of this status report required the com-
pilation, review, and analysis of materials never previously
examined. Considerable support was received from the Office of
Noise Abatement and Control, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, including preliminary data from the EPA Environmental
Noise Control Program Survey.
In addition, a comprehensive inventory of the Municipal
and State Noise Legislative Data Base maintained by the Depart-
ment of City Planning, Georgia Institute of Technology was per-
formed. This data base is the largest repository of environmental
noise legislation within the United States.
C. PERSONNEL
The principal investigator for this report was Dr. Clifford
R. Bragdon, Professor, Department of City Planning, College of
Architecture, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.
There were several other resources that contributed heavily to
5
-------
the preparation of this document. This included a team of four
graduate city planning students, Mark Cameron, Steve Chipok,
Gregory Fritts and Howard Osofsky. Additionally, David and Linda
Lackey and Carol Cameron were responsible for coordinating the
final manuscript.
6
-------
SECTION I s PUBLIC AWARENESS
-------
Noise as a perceived environmental problem has been well-
documented in attitudinal surveys conducted at both the local
and national level. The most comprehensive environmental survey
involving a national sample has been sponsored by the U.S. Housing
and Urban Development, with technical support from the U.S. Bureau
of Census.
Since 197 3 HUD has performed an Annual Housing Survey in
an effort to determine the quality of housing. Included has been
a series of questions concerning local neighborhood conditions
throughout the United States. Each sample has ranged between
69,337 and 74,005 residences during the years 1973-1976.
As part of this survey, a specific question has dealt with
neighborhood conditions including:
1. Noise
2. Heavy Traffic
3. Street Lighting
4. Street Repair
5. Crime
7
-------
6. Commercial and Industrial Development
7. Litter
8. Odor
9. Deteriorating Housing
10. Abandoned Buildings
Noise has ranked consistently number one as the most
frequently mentioned undesirable condition in residential neigh-
borhoods. In every year of the survey, approximately one-fourth
of the respondents have mentioned noise (Table 1) as the leading
problem. This environmental factor has ranked well ahead of
the remaining nine. Noise, for example, was mentioned three
times as often as crime during the 1976 Annual Housing Survey
(Figure 1). In all four years, noise has obtained nearly the
same number of responses as the combined total for the second
and third mentioned problems (Figure 2).
Beginning in 1975, additional replies were tabulated
concerning the degree to which these neighborhood conditions
influenced the respondent's desire to move. Based on these
8
-------
TABLE li UNDESIRABLE NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITIONS: UNITED STATES, 1973 - 1976
NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITION (IN PERCENT)
YEAR
NOISE
HEAVY
TRAFFIC
STREET
LIGHTING
STREET
REPAIR
CRIME
COMM.,
IND. DE-
VELOPMENT
LITTER
ODOR
DETERIORA-
TING
HOUSING
ABANDONED
BUILDINGS
1973
26
17
12
8
8
8
7
7
5
3
1974
25
16
11
10
9
9
7
5
5
3
1975
2k
lk
12
13
9
8
7
k
4
3
1976
2k
lk
11
13
8
9
7
k
5
3
Notesi
1) 1973 sample 69,337
2) 197^ sample 70,830
3) 1975 sample 72,523
k) 1976 sample 7^*005
-------
NOISE 24%
HEAVY TRAFFIC 14%
STREET REPAIR 3%
STREET LIGHTING 9%
CRIME 8%
COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 8%
LITTER 7%
RATING HOUSING 5
ODOR 4%
ABANDONED BUILDINGS 3*
FIGURE 1 1976
UNDESIRABLE NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITIONS' UNITED STATES
COMPARATIVE RANKING HUD ANNUAL HOUSING SURVEY (SAMPLE SIZE 74,005)
-------
FIGURE 2 1973-1976
UNDESIRABLE NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITIONS: UNITED STATES
HUD ANNUAL HOUSING SURVEY (SAMPLE SIZE 69,337-74,005)
-------
surveys (Table 2) noise was given as the leading reason for moving
from their neighborhood, if airplane and street noise is combined.
Crime also was considered a major factor for moving, second only
to noise. Approximately one-fifth of the respondents were
bothered by noise to the extent they wanted to leave their pre-
sent neighborhood.
In summary, noise appears to be a major environmental
factor influencing the quality of the neighborhood. It ranks
as the singular neighborhood condition, surpassing crime, street
condition, traffic, litter, and deteriorating housing, among
others. Noise is not only the most commonly mentioned neighborhood
problem, but it is given as the leading reason for residents
desiring to leave their neighborhood.
Beside the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Annual
Housing Survey, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has
initiated a survey which contains questions addressing public
awareness. Administered by the Office of Noise Abatement and
12
-------
TABLE 2i UNDESIRABLE CONDITIONS AND DESIRE
TO WOVEi 1975 - 1976
DESCRIPTION
1975
1976
NUMBER
%
NUMBER
%
TOTAL SAMPLE
72,523
74,005
NO UNDESIRABLE CONDITIONS
16,609
23
16,844
23
YES UNDESIRABLE CONDITIONS
55.634
76
56,95^
76
HOUSEHOLDS WOULD NOT LIKE
TO MOVE
47,396
85
48,406
85
HOUSEHOLDS WOULD LIKE TO
MOVE
8,050
14
8 ,445
14
BECAUSE OFi
AIRPLANE NOISE
701
4
858
4
STREET NOISE
2,751
16
2,864
15
HEAVY TRAFFIC
2,358
13
2,590
13
STREET REPAIRS
1,283
7
1,418
7
ROADS IMPASSABLE
899
5
928
5
POOR STREET LIGHTING
920
5
1,042
5
CRIME
2,933
17
3,113
16
LITTER
2,034
12
2,243
11
ABANDONED BUILDINGS
670
4
723
4
DETERIORATING HOUSING
1,411
8
1,648
8
COMMERCIAL OR INDUS-
TRIAL DEVELOPMENT
780
4
767
4
ODOR
736
4
1,461
7
-------
Control, this survey has been sent to all municipalities containing
a population in excess of 25,000. Mailed to 870 jurisdictions
(state and local governments) the Environmental Noise Control
Program Survey has received 356 replies, as of March, 197 8.
Two particular questions address the issue of public
awareness, even though these questions were posed to govern-
mental agencies. It appears as though noise is an issue of
growing concern, particularly in states where 79% replied affir-
matively (Table 3). Even though the municipal percentage is
less, 57%, noise appears to be a recognizable and growing issue
perceived by the public.
One reason for such recognition is the fact the public
usually associates noise with the issue of health and welfare.
In other words, noise represents an issue of concern because the
citizenry believes that environmental noise affects their health
and welfare. Again, the State percentage was highest with 89%
responding yes, with the municipalities responding yes 52%
(Table 4).
14
-------
TABLE 3» PUBLIC AWARENESS
"Is The Noise Issue A Growing Concern In Your
Community?"
JURISDICTION
RESPONSES
YES
%
NO
%
State
26
20
79
6
21
Municipal
330
188
57
1^2
kj
Sourcei E.P.A., Environmental Noise Control Program Survey,
1978 (Preliminary Data, March, 1978).
-------
TABLE 4i PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
"Is The Noise Issue Viewed As A Problem Affecting
The Health And Welfare of The Citizens In The
Community?"
JURISDICTION
RESPONSES
YES
%
NO
*
State
26
19
89
7
11
Municipal
330
172
52
158
48
Sourcet E.P.A., Environmental Noise Control Program Survey,
1978 (Preliminary Data, March, 1978).
-------
In summary, noise has gained strong recognition among the
general population. It is a leading neighborhood problem area
that strongly influences residents to relocate into a quieter
neighborhood environment. It appears that noise consistently
remains to be a leading neighborhood problem. Among govern-
ment agencies, they also see expressed public concern for noise
with a higher degree of concern expressed to state agencies than
local agencies.
17
-------
SECTION m- LEGISLATION
-------
A. STATE
The recognition of noise and legislative activity is
relatively new among state governments. Although there are
recorded examples of nuisance type noise laws associated with
vehicle mufflers dating back to the 1940's, the first quanti-
tative law was enacted in New York. In 1964, New York passed
the first motor vehicle law with acoustical emission provisons.
It was applied only to trucks, operating at speeds above 35 miles
per hour, on the New York State Thruway. State legislative acti-
vity did not begin to grow until this decade, with California
initiating the first major noise control program in 1971.
The tempo in legislative activity grew rapidly, doubling
each year from 1971 to 1974 (Figure 3). Since 1974 this earlier
growth has been leveling off. Today 27 states have quantitative
noise laws representing 65.5%, or 132,625,867 of the total U.S.
population (U.S. Census, 1970), as shown in Figure 4. Although
this clearly represents the majority of the population and existing
18
-------
STATES
MUNICIPALITI
MUNICIPAL
STATE
FIGURE 3 1971 "1977
STATE & MUNICIPAL NOISE LEGISLATION
TOTALS
-------
m
FIGURE 4 1971-1977
U.S. POPULATION AFFECTED BY NOISE LEGISLATION
STATE LAWS
-------
states, a sizable minority of legislatures have chosen not to
enact state laws. These states are principally located in three
areas of the United States, the southeast, southwest, and to a
lesser extent, the middle west (Figure 5).
Although there are 27 state governments involved in
regulating noise, most states regulate only a select number of
noise sources. Typically, a state has provisions regulating
one or possibly two categories of sources (e.g., motor vehicles
and recreation vehicles) as illustrated in Table 5. Today,
there are only four states containing provisions regulating
three or more noise source categories (California, Maryland,
Oregon, and Washington).
1. Recreation Vehicles
More states have decided to enact recrea-
tional vehicle noise limits than any other single category (Table 5).
The initial interest in establishing recreational vehicle limits
was in response to the purchase and use of snowmobiles. Consequently,
21
-------
TABLE 5t STATE NOISE REGULATIONSi 1971 - 197? ACOUSTICAL PROVISIONS
YEAR
NUMBER
CATEGORIES OF REGULATIONS
OF
STATES
POPULATION
ZONING/
LAND USE
VEHICLES
RECREATION
VEHICLES
RAIL-
ROADS
AIR-
CRAFT
CONSTRUCT.
SITES
BUILDING
CODES
1971
2
18,565.947
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1972
4
19.917.M7
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
1973
8
56,224,003
2
5
5
0
0
0
0
1974
15
82,108,037
3
10
9
0
0
1
0
1975
20
102,664,653
3
14
12
0
1
1
1
1976
26
128,701,703
7
16
18
0
1
1
1
1977
27
132,625,867
7
17
22
0
1
1
1
-------
WITHOUT (23)
FIGURE 5 1977
STATES WITH NOISE CONTROL LEGISLATION
-------
the snowbelt states were the first to begin regulating recreational
vehicles. Additional recreational equipment subsequently appeared,
including all-terrain vehicles, dune buggies, and engine powered
water skis. Motor boats have been the object of regulation most
recently. Currently there are 22 different states with quantita-
tive noise emission provisions {Figure 6). In most instances,
the levels are expressed as a maximum pass-by, in decibels A-scale
(dBA), measured at a perpendicular distance of 50 feet from the
source.
2. Motor Vehicles
Motor vehicles were the first source to be
state regulated. In most situations, the states regulate three
classes of vehicles: trucks, automobiles, and motorcycles, which
are generally classified by weight, rather than by name. Since
1973, there have been significant increases in motor vehicle
activity (Figure 7) .
Today, 17 states have enacted some form of
24
-------
FIGURE 6
1971-1977
STATE NOISE REGULATIONS1
RECREATION VEHICLES (acoustic >
-------
*v
I
FIGURE 7 1971-1977
STATE NOISE REGULATIONS1
MOTOR VEHICLES (ACOUSTIC)
YEARLY
CUMULATIVE
-------
quantitative noise emission provision. The permissible limits
are generally uniform among states regulating trucks. This has
been heavily influenced by the EPA enacted Interstate Motor
Carrier Regulation. All states with truck regulations (8,000
lbs., gvw or more) have adopted the same noise emission limits
as EPA. There is considerable variation among the noise emission
levels for sources other than trucks, however.
Similar to recreational vehicles, the per-
missible noise emission levels are expressed in decibles A-scale
(dBA). States regulate these vehicles in terms of point or sta-
tionary, and line or mobile noise sources. For moving vehicles,
the distance for measurement varies with the permissible noise
emission limit. However, all measurements occur from the path
of the centerline of the vehicle.
3. Zoning/Land Use
States specifically establishing noise
emission levels for categories of land use were first enacted
in 1973 (Figure 8). Since that year there has been a slow
27
-------
FIGURE 8
1971-1977
STATE NOISE REGULATIONS'
ZONING (ACOUSTIC)
YEARLY
CUMULATIVE
-------
but continuous growth until 1976. Currently there are seven states
with a zoning or land use provision for noise. In all instances,
the states have established three basic categories of land use,
which include:
a. Residential and Institution
That land containing residences in
varying densities from single-family detached to high rise apart-
ment, and institutional related uses defined as education, health,
and religious in character fall into this category.
b. Commercial and Business
Permitted uses include commercial and
business enterprises such as retail facilities. In addition,
office related uses would be included.
c. Manufacturing and Industry
This category of use includes those
activities where there is a production process involving mechanical
equipment. Typical examples would be metal fabricating, wood
working or extractive industries.
29
-------
Generally, the maximum permissible noise levels are enforced
at the property line, or receiver location. In most instances,
these levels apply to stationary or point type noise sources.
These states usually apply the A-weighting scale (dBA) as the unit
of decibel measurement, however, in certain states, they also
include frequency analysis by octave or third-octave band. The
permitted level in the majority of states varies with time, the
evening and nighttime conditions being the most restrictive period
of the day.
4. Aircraft
Only California has established aircraft
noise limits (Figure 9). The initial law contained two provisions.
One provision established a maximum noise level for each single
aircraft flyover, referred to as a single event noise level.
The second provision is aimed at regulating the airport, rather
than each aircraft flight. This part of the California law
establishes a 24-hour maximum noise level for certain sized
30
-------
FIGURE?
977
STATE NOISE REGULATIONS1
AIRCRAFT (ACOUSTIC)
YEARLY
CUMULATIVE
-------
airports, based on aircraft operations. Referred to as the
Community Noise Equivalent level (CNEL), the airport is required
not to exceed a noise ceiling for any given 24-hour period.
Recent court interpretation has upheld the
state's legal right to establish and enforce this second provi-
sion. However, there is a question concerning the legality of
California and the Department of Aeronautics tc establish noise
emission levels for individual aircraft. This provision has
been observed as being in conflict with the F.A.A. Act and the
Federal responsibility to regulate navigable airspace. Such a
provision may be in conflict with interstate commerce.
Today, those airports operating in California
that must comply with the state requirement have established air-
port noise monitoring systems at selected on and off-airport
locations.
5. Construction
Construction site activity can be a major
contributor to the overall community noise level (Figure 10).
32
-------
FIGURE 10
STATE NOISE REGULATIONS1
CONSTRUCTION (ACOUSTIC)
YEARLY
CUMULATIVE
-------
Although the level of this noise is a function of construction
activity phase, project size, and construction cycle, only
Maryland has a noise provision. The Maryland state law is based
on classifying construction as an industrial activity. Any
construction occurring is subject to the permissible noise
limits for industrial land use.
6. Building Code
California is the only state that has
established (Figure 11) a building code with noise limits. This
code applies to public buildings that may be affected by instrusive
environmental noise sources. Maximum interior noise levels are
measured within the receiving building, using the descriptor
CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level). If the level measured
from the external environment exceeds 4 5 CNEL, then an incompatible
condition exists. Under such circumstances, ameliorative action
is necessary to reduce the interior level transmitted through
the building.
34
-------
FIGURE 111971-1977
STATE NOISE REGULATIONS1
BUILDING CODE (ACOUSTIC)
YEARLY
CUMULATIVE
-------
A major inventory has been conducted in
California to determine the number of presently sited public
buildings that may not be in compliance with this code. Most
incompatible environments have been particularly concentrated
around transportation generators, highways and airports.
B. MUNICIPALITIES
Legislative efforts to control noise first occurred at the
municipal level. The earliest municipal experiences in the United
States date back to the 1860's. Activity during this time dealt
with common law issues of nuisance. This generally concerned
peace and tranquility or the personal right for the individual
to have privacy from the cacophony of the city. Disturbance of
the peace, still a legally supportable concept, gave way to more
definable and quantitative measures of noise with advancing
technology.
Two major scientific institutions heavily influenced the
introduction of quantifiable measures of noise. Bell Telephone
36
-------
Laboratories advanced technological developments in sound measure
ment and the Armour Research Institute in the application of
quantifiable noise measurements to a municipality. Beginning
with the New York City noise survey in 1929, where actual
physical measurements of noise were first recorded, the founda-
tion for a comprehensive noise law was established. The final
report recommendations became a mode for other jurisdictions
to emulate. Over a decade later, the Armour Research Institute
began to examine the issue of land use activity and permissible
emission limits. This research became a standard for comparison
by which other jurisdictions were judged and compared.
Despite all these efforts, even up to 1960, few munici-
palities (less than 50) had adopted quantitative noise emission
provisions. As late as 1971, ]ust 59 local governments had .
enacted any type of law (Table 6 and Figure 12). However, this
decade has experienced a major development of noise legislation,
from 59 municipalities in 1971 to 1,067 by 1977. Several key cities
37
-------
TABLE 6 i MUNICIPAL NOISE REGULATIONS, 1971 - 1977
ACOUSTICAL AND NON-ACOUSTICAL PROVISIONS
Year
Number
of
Munici-
palities
Population
CATEGORIES OF REGULATIONS
Nuisance
Zoning/
Land use
Vehicle
Rec.
Vehicle
Rail-
road
Air-
craft
Const.
Site
Eldg.
Cede
Acoustical Criteria
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
1971
59
17,745,099
2
48
19
4
7
6
0
1
1
3
2
3
5
10
2
2
1972
175
47,208,593
24
124
53
9
15
27
0
1
1
3
7
6
7
23
8
4
1973
659
52,401,919
24
229
466
14
29
57
1
1
1
3
7
7
9
33
11
4
1974
808
62,;25,517
66
322
509
17
64
57
2
2
1
J
20
8
11
36
23
4
1975
905
66,294,095
113
359
563
18
117
93
45
17
12
6
26
8
42
55
23
8
1976
1028
67»383,^78
158
410
594
22
139
115
50
20
16
9
26
9
45
71
26
9
1977
1067
67,972,178
163
443
602
23
153
129
59
22
16
11
26
9
51
76
29
13
-------
% MUN POPULATION
m#
^ NO MUN w/ LAWS (ACOUSTIC)
FIGURE 12 1971 " 1977
MUNICIfALITIES WITH NOISE LEGISLATION & PERCENTAGE OF
MUNICIfAL POPULATION AFFECTED
-------
stimulated this rapid development in legislative noise activity
including Chicago, Inglewood, California, and Boulder,
Colorado. In addition, the National Institute of Municipal
Law Enforcement Official (NIMLO) and EPA, Office of Noise Abatement
and Control (ONAC) have provided major guidance. Today, there are
now over 50% of the U.S. municipal population regulated by
noise, 67,972,178 (50.6%) in contrast to 17,745,099 (13.2%) in
1971 (Figure 13).
Despite this apparent large number, it is important to
recognize that very few cities appear to have comprehensive noise
programs, where at least three different categories of noise
sources are regulated. For example, there are less than 80
cities that appear to have established limits regulating land
use, motor vehicles, and construction noise using quantitative
or acoustical limits. This figure, therefore, represents
approximately 7% of all cities having noise laws.
1. Zoning/Land Use
Land use controls were the first form of
40
-------
MM
FIGURE 13 19711977
MUNICIBM POPULATION AFF
MUNICIBM LAWS
-------
municipal noise legislation incorporating quantitative provisions.
This use of the police power represents the most popular form of
noise control today. Presently, there are 602 municipalities
which utilize this quantitative approach (Figure 14). These
provisions are usually contained either in the zoning ordinance,
or in the master or in the comprehensive plan. Similar to the
state statutes, these provisions generally apply to stationary
or point sources, that is, sources fixed to the land such as
industries.
The basic categories of land addressed
generally include residential and institutional uses, commer-
cial and business, and manufacturing and industrial. Often a
more definitive breakdown of land uses are contained in the
ordinance which corresponds to the Standard Land Use Classi-
fication Manual (SLUCM) or Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) .
A major reason for the marked growth of
municipal activity between 1972 and 1973 is the State of Illinois
42
-------
700
YEAR
ACOUSTIC
NON-ACOUSTIC
FIGURE 14 1971*1977
U.S. MUNICIPAL NOISE REGULATIONS
ZONING
-------
Environmental Protection Agency, Noise Regulation, adopted July 26,
1973. This land use provision has been interpreted to be appli-
cable to all municipalities in Illinois, which number over 300.
Additionally, the Model Community Noise Control Ordinance,
developed by EPA in conjunction with the National Institute of
Municipal Law Enforcement Officers (NIMLO) has attracted considerable
national interest. This in turn has stimulated states to develop
model noise guidelines for their respective municipalities.
The majority of these provisions establish
a maximum noise level (usually expressed in dBA), without regard
for time duration. Typically, these emission limits are enforced
at the property boundary of the offending source.
2. Motor Vehicles
Municipal regulation of motor vehicle noise
is the second largest category of noise control. Generally,
cities regulate three distinctive types of motor vehicles,
described in terms of weight, automobiles, trucks, and motor-
cycles. Currently, there are 153 municipalities which use
44
-------
acoustic provisions (Figure 15). The rather large number of
non-acoustic laws generally apply to mufflers and their performance
(e.g., vehicles equipped with unnecessarily loud mufflers are
prohibited by law).
Many localities are adopting emission levels
comparable to those contained in the EPA Interstate Motor Carrier
Regulation. Others, however, remain inconsistent with these Federal
noise provisions.
Similar to the States, all these cities
utilize the decibel A-weighted scale (dBA) as their noise descriptor.
The noise measurement location is usually 50 feet from the center-
line of the path of the moving vehicle, although in many instances
there are corrections for changing the distance. In a few
instances, municipalities are beginning to adopt a stationary
test procedure for vehicle noise enforcement.
3. Recreation Vehicles
The interest of cities in regulating recrea-
tional type vehicles is decidedly smaller than for over-the-road
45
-------
YEAR
ACOUSTIC
NON-ACOUSTIC
FIGURE 15 1971*1977
U.S. MUNICIPAL NOISE REGULATIONS:
MOTOR VEHICLES
-------
vehicles. Today 59, or 39% of the municipalities establishing
vehicle laws have some acoustic provision regulating such vehicles
as snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, trail bikes, dune buggies,
and motor boats (Figure 16). Snowmobiles and motor boats with
outboard engines, are the most common municipally regulated sources.
In most instances, the A-weighted scale,
expressed in decibels (dBA), is selected by the local juris-
dictions for enforcement purposes. Most of these laws are
enforced in the field with the source operating in a mobile
rather than a stationary manner. Usually, the provision contains
a minimum distance of 50 feet between the source and the receiver
(i.e. acoustical instrumentation). It is interesting to note
the lack of legislative activity prior to 1975 (Figure 16).
There have been several reasons for this rapid rise since 1974.
The reasons include the EPA-NIMLO Model Community Noise Control
Ordinance, state legislation, the U.S. Forest Service and the
National Park Service, and self-imposed industrial noise limits.
-------
'71 '72 '73
'74
YEAR
'75 '76
ACOUSTIC
NON-ACOUSTIC
FIGURE 16 1971-1977
U.S. MUNICIPAL NOISE REGULATIONS:
RECREATION VEHICLES
-------
It is anticipated that activity in this area will expand rapidly.
Beside establishing source specific levels, many jurisdictions
are beginning to examine controls over the area where and when
recreational vehicles are permitted to travel and operate.
4. Construction
Municipalities have consistently regulated
construction noise activity. However, most of these provisions
are based on non-acoustic criteria (Figure 17). Usually, they
regulate the construction hours of a site, restricting construc-
tion to daytime hours (7:00 - 6:00 p.m.).
The types of acoustical criteria vary con-
siderably among municipalities. Often specific pieces of equipment
have maximum permissible levels, operating under normal conditions.
Typically, the equipment levels expressed in dBA, are measured at
a distance of 50 feet. Another group of communities do not
restrict the limits of specific equipment, but rather address
aggregate or area construction site noise. Some utilize the
49
-------
YEAR
ACOUSTIC
NON-ACOUSTIC
FIGURE 17 1971-1977
U.S. MUNICIPAL NOISE REGULATIONS:
CONSTRUCTION
-------
property boundary of impact while other municipalities specify
a distance from the construction site which in some instances
measures 1,000 feet.
It appears that the EPA Compressor noise
emission regulation is beginning to be referenced in several laws
of the more populated cities. This regulation is expected to
increase the total number of municipalities having acoustic pro-
visions. Compressor noise is only one of many construction
site noise problems.
5. Aircraft
Aircraft noise, although a municipal noise
problem, is not commonly regulated at the local government level.
Usually cities have refrained from enacting legislation because
of possible Federal pre-emption and the question of interference
with interstate commerce. The area of greatest local interest
has involved regulating fixed based operator activities. Speci-
fically, this concerns restricting nuise generated by maintenance
51
-------
and repair of aircraft. This narrow involvement by local govern-
ments may be changing as the courts interpret the role of pro-
prietor in airport noise liability.
Today, just 26 municipalities have any type of
quantitative aircraft noise emission requirements (Figure 18). A
new category of concern are various type of rotary wing aircraft
(i.e., police and traffic surveillance helicopters), that use
considerable latitude in their height restrictions, thereby
impacting residential areas. The only area of anticipated
growth in aircraft legislation will involve runup and maintenance,
and associated airport land use compatibility planning.
6. Building Codes
Building codes rarely contain quantitative
noise emission provisions (Figure 19). Those codes that do exist
apply to a select type or portion of a building structure and its
associated accessory equipment. To date, there are very few com-
prehensive building codes. This appears to be changing, since some
52
-------
26 26
mii;m
YEAR
ACOUSTIC
NON-ACOUSTIC
FIGURE 18 1971-1977
U.S. MUNICIPAL NOISE REGULATIONS:
AIRCRAFT
-------
YEAR
ACOUSTIC
NON-ACOUSTIC
FIGURE 19 1971-1977
U.S. MUNICIPAL NOISE REGULATIONS:
BUILDING CODE
-------
municipalities are establishing energy requirements for building
construction which have added benefits of reducing sound trans-
mission. Furthermore, model building codes are being revised to
incorporate noise provisions.
EPA, in conjunction with the National Bureau
of Standards, is developing a model building code that will give
considerable impetus to municipally adopted quantitative codes.
It is anticipated that a major increase in building code activity
will appear.
7. Railroads
Railroad activity is not a usual source of
regulation at the municipal level. Only 16 cities have quanti-
tative provisions, as shown in Figure 20. Such laws generally
apply to mainline track rather than railroad or switching yards.
Cities in increasing numbers are adopting the noise levels
established by the EPA for railroads. Occasionally limits are
established for particular railroad related sources such as train
whistle, refrigerator car and locomotive engine exhaust noise.
55
-------
ACOUSTIC
NON-ACOUSTIC
FIGURE 20 ¦r, H977
U.S. MUNICIPAL NOISE REGULATIONS:
RAILROADS
-------
Some cities are regulating railroad activity
that EPA arid the courts have identified as involving interstate
commerce. It is anticipated that municipalities will in growing
numbers adopt the Interstate Railroad Regulation by legal refer-
ence, thereby reducing their local responsibility for enforcement.
8. Nuisance
The common law classification of noise as a
nuisance has been a popular form of noise control. Today, 4 43
cities have non-quantitative provisons for nuisance defining
noise in such general and vague terms as "unnecessarily loud"
or that which is "disturbing" (Figure 21).
Despite these limitations, the use of
nuisance in noise legislation continues to grow, in part as a
way in which an individual's health and welfare can be legally
protected. This type of provision has considerable appeal because
it can be so broadly applied to any noise source, thereby being a
catch-all or non-exclusionary provision. The difficulty comes
57
-------
where enforcement becomes necessary and it is legally challenged
in the courts. Legal proof of a noise nuisance is difficult, due
to the lack of a precise definition that can be quantitatively
measured. Provisions of this type are not expected to grow
relative to the other municipal noise control legislation.
58
-------
FIGURE 2)
Z 200-
YEAR
ACOUSTIC
NON-ACOUSTIC
-1977
U.S. MUNICIPAL NOISE REGULATIONS:
GENERAL NUISANCE
-------
SECTION 12= NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS
-------
The initiation of legislation represents only one step in
the process of controlling noise. A subsequent step, once noise
legislation is enacted, is the development of a noise control
program. Such a program requires establishing a fiscal budget
for the necessary resources, including personnel and equipment.
An administrative structure must also be developed for organiza-
tion and management of the program.
The following is a discussion of state and local noise
control programs, with primary emphasis on state governments.
An analysis of various governmental noise budgets are discussed
along with problems that have been identified by state and local
officials questioned in the EPA Environmental Noise Control
Program Survey. The data presented on budgets refers to only
those classified as line item budgets. This means a budget
specifically designated for environmental noise control and is
not part of any other program area. Furthermore, the figures
that are presented are estimates of budgets covering personnel,
equipment but not physical capital improvement expenditures
60
-------
(e.g., the construction of a highway noise barrier). This •
budgetary data has been gathered from four basic sources, including
1973-1974 EPA Non-Occupational Noise Survey, 1978 EPA Environmental
Noise Control Program Survey, 1975-1976 State and Municipal Noise
Survey conducted by Dr. Bragdon for Sound and Vibration, and
personal communication with state noise control directors.
A. STATE
Although the development and enactment of noise legisla-
tion represents a major hurdle (27 out of 50 states currently
have noise laws), even a more difficult step is establishment
of a specific noise control budget. This appears to be the
biggest obstacle facing state governments, and therefore jeo-
pardizes the entire legislative intent and enforcement objectives.
Despite the fact that 27 states do have some law with quantitative
provisions, only 12 states currently have budgets to support this
legislation (Figure 22).
This means that 15 states or 55% of those with laws have
no fiscal resources committed. These 15 states could therefore
-------
gill WITH (12)
| WITHOUT (38)
line item only
"*** Ses with budgeted-nobe control programs
-------
be classed as having "paper regulations," or those without any
capability of being enforced. If these 15 states are added to
those without any enacted noise legislation then there are 38
states or nearly 75% of the total without the necessary monebary
support for controlling noise.
This lack of support can be also translated into popu-
lation impacted. The legislation enacted in 27 states in the U.S.
encompasses approximately 140,000,000 persons (Figure 23). Since
only 12 states do have budgets for noise control, there are just
80,000,000 persons protected in their respective states. This
means that a very significant population of 60,000,000, or 43%,
are presently unprotected (Figure 23) .
The failure to provide these dollars has resulted in giving
the population in 15 states a false sense of security. Despite
enacted legislation addressing specific ncise sources within
these states, no program has been instituted for enforcement.
The state budgetary track record is a poor one for environmental
63
-------
Mm
LEGISLATION
BUDGETED' PROGRAMS
LINE ITEM ONLY
FIGURE 23 1973-1977
US POPULATION PROTECTED BY STATE NOISE CONTROL
LEGISLATION & BUDGETED* PROGRAMS
-------
noise control, as evidenced in Figure 24. Based on this fiscal
year 1977-1978, there have been seven states which have eliminated
budgets, four others ar reduced while only one new budget exists,
and eight represent an increase over 1976-1977.
Historically, when states did pass noise legislation, there
was a similar commitment to fund them. However, since 1974,
there has been a growing deficit between enacted laws and adopted
budgets (Figure 2 5). The current trend line does not suggest any
positive change with either the elimination or reduction in the num-
ber of paper budgets. Consequently, the number of unenforceable
programs remains alarmingly high.
The noise expenditure curve has not matched the growth in
the number of enacted state laws. Since 1973, there has been an
increase of 20 state laws, from 7 to 27, or 28%. In contrast,
the total state expenditure has risen only $900,000, from $1.7
million to $2.7 million, or 53% (Figure 26). A conserable amount
of this $900,000 increase has been offset by inflation.
65
-------
ELIMINATED BUDGET
INITIATED BUDGET
REDUCED BUDGET
INCREASED BUDGET
NO BUDGET
x
+
t
o
7^s|7
i swi
4 STATES
8 STATES
38 STATES
FIGURE 24 1977
STATE NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS =
BUDGET* CHARACTERISTICS
LINE ITEM ONLY
-------
ENACTED LEGISLATION
FUNDED PROGRAMS
FIGURE 25 1973-1977
STATE NOISE
LEGISLATION
AND PROGRAMS
LINE ITEM BUDGETS
-------
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES
FIGURE 26 1973-1977
STATE NOISE CONTROL BUDGETS1
PER CAPITA & TOTAL US EXPENDITURES
-------
Per capita increases have nearly matched the expenditure
curve (Figure 26). In the year 1973, approximately 0.8C was being
spent on state noise control compared to 1.3C in 1977. An expen-
diture of this amount is considered very marginal. To establish
an effective program, this per capita figure would need to be
raised to 3.0C in all delinquent or deficient states as a minimum.
Although there are 12 states with noise control budgets,
the actual amount is not distributed equally among the states
(Figure 27). There are just four states (California, Illinois,
Oregon, and Hawaii) having budgets over $100,000 while the
remaining eight are as low as $24,000 (Connecticut and Maryland).
The lion's share of this $2.74 million is being spent in three
states (California, Illinois, and Oregon). These three repre-
sent 78.4% or $2.14 million, of total line item budgeted noise
programs for 1977 (Figure 28). The remaining small sum of
$694,000 is being spent by the other nine state governments.
Total expenditures in themselves can be misleading with-
out comparing the budget to a population base. The total U.S.
per capita budget for state programs is 1.39C, however, Hawaii
69
-------
CONNECTICUT.
MARYLAND $24000"
$2*000 V^SHINGTON.
$30,000
NEW JERSE
$75000
MINNESOTA
$8Q000
FLORIDA
$saooo
ALIFORNIA
$1645,000
TOIAL
$2 74
MILLION
ILLINOIS
$304,000
KENTUCKY.
$94,0
OREGON
$200,000
L HAWAII
$134,000
FIGURE 27
1977
STATE NOISE CONTROL BUDGETS*1
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
LINE ITEM ONLY
-------
OTHER
FIGURE 28 1977
STATE NOISE CONTROL BUDGETS*
A COMPARISON
LINE ITEM ONLY
-------
leads the country with an expenditure of 17.4C per person followed
by Oregon (9.56C) and California (8.24C), as shown in Figure 29.
In contrast to California, New York, the second most populated
state, spends 0.27$ per capita. Based on program effectiveness,
it appears that as a minimum a figure of approximately 3.0C is
needed to insure the necessary monetary support that would
translate enacted legislation into enforcement action.
These findings are supported by opinions of governmental
agencies which have encountered numerous problems due to unavail-
able resources. Among the states, 46% indicated that the most
important problem(s) facing their noise control efforts was
"inadequate operational budget" (Table 7). Even more common was
the lack of personnel (65%) and lack of political support (58%)
which all relate to budgetary problems.
The recognition of and the need for Federal resources to
state and local programs is very apparent, if such programs are to
continue operating. Technical assistance by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency is one such strategy. This question
"which of the following areas of EPA assistance would be of
significant value to your noise control effort in meeting
72
-------
HAWAII
1Z40C
NEW YORK
.2 7c
MARYLAND.
.60<
CONNECTICUT
,79c
WASHINGTON
.88<
NEW JERSEY,
105C
FLORIDA
122C
MINNESOTA
2J0C
TOTAL
US
139c
PER CAPITA
OREGON
956c
ILUNOI
274C
KENTUCKY
2.90C
CALIFORNIA
a24c
FIGURE 29 1977
STATE NOISE CONTROL BUDGETS*'
PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES
LINE ITEM ONLY
-------
TABLE 7, NOISE PROGRAM EVALUATION
"Please Indicate The Major Problems Facine Your
Noise Control Effortsi Fost Important".
JURISDICTION
PROBLEM AREA
YES
%
State
Lack of personnel
17
65
Lack of political support
15
58
Inadequate operational
budeet
12
Sample (26)
Municipal
Inadequate operational
budget
158
48
Lack of effective
legislation
122
37
Sample (330)
Untrained personnel
115
35
Sourcei E.P.A., Environmental Noise Control Program Survey,
1978 (Preliminary Data, March, 1978).
-------
legislative and programmatic needs?", was asked among the state
officials (Table 8). There were six responses where the
percentage was 50% or above.
Personnel training and workshops ranked as the number one
response (77%) , followed by a tie between effective noise control
methods (58%) and noise measurement instrumentation (58%). The
remaining three, need for personnel or manpower (54%), public
information materials (54%) and noise control program guidelines
(50%) all related to assisting in enforcing enacted legislation.
This questionnaire developed for EPA did not ask if the political
jurisdiction wanted or needed direct Federal support in the
terms of dollars. Had such a question appe-ared, the response
would have approached unanimity.
It appears from this analysis that state governments need
both direct and indirect assistance. Direct in the sense of fiscal
dollars to help fund these programs, and indirect in the sense of
technical assistance in all phases of a noise control program to
be responsive to their legislative mandates.
75
-------
TABLE 8i TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES
"Which Of The Following Areas Of E.P.A. Assistance
'Vould Be Of Significant Value To Your Noise Control
Effort In Meeting Legislative And Programmatic
Needsi Most Important" .
JURISDICTION
ASSISTANCE AREA
YES
%
State
Personnel training/
workshops
20
77
Effective noise con-
trol methods
15
58
Noise measurement
instrumentation
15
58
Personnel
14
5^
Public information
materials
5^
Noise control program
guidelines
13
50
Sample Size (26)
Sourcei E.P.A., Environmental Noise Control Program Survey,
1978 (Preliminary Data, March, 1978).
-------
B. MUNICIPALITIES
The statistical base for analyzing the municipal noise
control programs is not as fully developed as the State data.
At present, the most current information is for the year 1975,
gathered by EPA as part of a Non-occupational Noise Survey
and 1970-1973 assessed by Dr. Bragdon in a questionnaire for an
article in Sound and Vibration, December, 1973. Neither survey
can be considered comprehensive; however, they do give some
indication of municipal noise programs and the level of financial
resources.
The relative proportion of municipalities with and with-
out noise budgets historically has been lower than state govern-
ments. Despite the number of enacted municipal laws containing
acoustical provisions (691), it is estimated that less than 10%
have line item budgets for noise. In the compilation of muni-
cipalities where they have responded to surveys (Table 9), the
highest number occurred in 1973 when 46 had specific noise budgets
-------
TABLE 9i MUNICIPAL NOISE CONTROL BUDGETSi 1970-1975
YEAR
NUMBER OF MUNICIPALITIES
AMOUNT
1970
10
167,000
1971
14
500,000
1972
16
684,000
1973
46
1,904,099
1974
39
1,003.335
1975
33
1,032,582
-------
Approximately $1.03 million had been spent on municipal
control for the most current year surveyed, 1975. The total
amount today may be slightly higher. However, there has been a
major increase in the number of enacted programs (539, 1975 com-
pared to 691, 1977). This means that the expenditure by city
has dropped, even though the total number of budgeted programs
may have risen.
Municipal support for noise control is therefore financially
deficient, more so than at the state level, which is also very
inadequate. Even the largest programs, New York, Chicago, and
Inglewood (California), have significantly reduced their noise
budget. New York, for example, had budgeted $950,000 in 1973 has
now an amount under $100,000. There are also more extreme
cases such as Baltimore which had budgeted $178,000 in 1973 and
today has eliminated their budget.
This unhealthy condition is reflected in the EPA Noise
Control Program Survey. The leading problem facing municipalities
is the response "inadequate operational budget" (Table 7). Some
79
-------
48% of the 330 cities listed this answer as the most important
problem. The remaining areas frequently mentioned included
"lack of effective legislation," due to the common reliance on
nuisance type provisions, and "untrained personnel" largely
because of insufficient fiscal resources.
Cities felt there were many areas of potential assis-
tance from EPA that could strengthen their local problems.
The list is very similar to the state officials responses (Table 10)
Education via personnel training and workshops appeared as the
number one assistance area (54%). Finishing a close second (52%)
was technical assistance in developing effective noise control
methods. Other areas of assistance were closely grouped in-
cluding noise control program guidelines, noise measurement
instrumentation, noise assessment guidelines and enforcement
procedures.
It is very apparent from these replies that a broad
based, large scale technical assistance effort is needed to
translate municipal legislation into an action plan. Again,
-------
TABLE lOi TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TC MUNICIPALITIES
"Which Of The Following Areas Of E.P.A. Assistance
V/ould Be Of Significant Value To Your Noise Control
Effort In Meeting Legislative And Programmatic
Needs: fl'ost Important".
JURISDICTION
ASSISTANCE AREA
YES
%
Funicipal
Personnel training/
workshops
178
5^
Effective noise con-
trol methods
172
52
Noise control program
guidelines
158
k8
Noise measurement
instrumentation
155
47
Enforcement procedures
1^9
^5
Sample Size (330)
Sourcei E.P.A., Environmental Noise Control Program Survey,
1978 (Preliminary Data, March, 1978).
-------
had a question been asked concerning possible direct financial
support, the municipalities would have eagerly responded in an
affirmative manner.
Despite these financial deficiencies at both the state
and local level, it is important to mention the very innovative
plans that have been shaped by many noise control administrators.
These administrators frequently have relied on all types of
atypical methods to support their programs. Their resourceful-
ness should be admired and in part emulated by the more finan-
cially secure and sometimes less dynamic governmental programs.
As a rule, these personnel feel like crusaders who are using all
their physical and emotional resources to achieve some improvement
in the acoustical quality of their community environment. These
individuals are consequently enthusiastic and personally committed
to their charge. It is important that this spark be carefully
and sensitively supported and the end product will be a strong
and enduring effort that will work cooperatively to improve the
quality of the acoustical environment.
82
-------
C. FEDERAL
The primary strateqy for controlling noise as part of the
Noise Control Act is the regulation of new products which are
deemed as potential hazards to health and well-being. There
are a minimum of six product noise emission parameters that will
significantly influence the achievement of this primary strategy.
Unless these six parameters are fully considered, the
primary strategy for controlling noise at the Federal level
could be significantly affected. As a consequence, the reduction
in urban noise levels would not be achieved. (Figure 30).
1. PRODUCT NOISE EMISSION PARAMETERS
a. Source Maintenance and Use
Although initiating new product noise limits
is an essential first step, this alone does not assure that the
product will be properly maintained. Without a proper maintenance
program through the product's life-use cycle, the intitially noise-
controlled product may become increasingly a noise emitter. Com-
parisons between newly manufactured products and similar products
83
-------
SOURCE
MAINTENANCE
&USE
SOURCE
REPLACEMENT
SOURCE
GROWTH
SOURCE
MOBILITY
PO
GROWTH &
DISTRIBUTION
SOURCE
POWER
figure x PRODUCT NOISE EMISSION PARAMETERS
-------
and similar products tested after periods of extended use
indicate reduced effectiveness of the noise abatement technique.
b. Source Replacement
Replacement of existing noise generating
equipment with a quieter new product is heavily dependent upon
the product's life use cycle. Large scale, high capital cost
equipment have an extended life cycle which may interfere with
the introduction of a quieter noise product. A product's life
use cycle is dependent upon additional factors including: tax
depreciation incentives, corporate sales and corporate profits
and the general economy.
c. Source Growth
Noise emission requirements are designed to
apply to each individual product as manufactured. However, the
net benefit can be offset by the absolute growth in numbers of
the product or the numbers in use in a particular location. For
example, the level of environmental noise can be raised by the
increase in the number of registered vehicles.
85
-------
d. Source Power
The United States is producing and consuming
increasing amounts of power and energy. Product noise abatement
can be offset by increasing the power output. Between 1940 and
1970, for example, there has been a 900% rise in the total horse-
power of all prime movers. Such gains have notably appeared among
construction, agricultural, and aircraft.
e. Source Mobility
Although noise emission limits may be applied
to a class of products, product use can offset the reduced noise
level. Changing patterns of mobility, particularly day/night,
may change the level of environmental noise • Greater
non-peak hour transportation activity is increasingly a charac-
teristic of the urban life style.
f. Population Growth and Distribution
The predominant choice of human settlement
is urban living. Even though product levels may lower increasing
population density and encroachment in the vicinity of noise
86
-------
generators, urban settlement may increase population exposure.
Current trends indicate that by 1980, 75% of the U.S. popula-
tion will be living on 2% of the land area compared with 70%
today.
2. GOVERNMENTAL PARTNERSHIP
An effective noise control strateqy requires that
these product noise emission parameters be recognized and a
program initiated to minimize their influence. Such a program
is necessary and it must involve local and state participation.
The Technical Assistance Division provides the organizational
mechanism to involve non-Federal governments, as well as other
Federal agencies. Without this essential intergovernmental
coordination and cooperation, the overall noise program objec-
tives will not be achieved.
3. IDENTIFICATION OF PRODUCT NOISE EMISSION PARAMETER
CONTROLS
Each parameter should be investigated in terms of
the applicable governmental control, legal authority and degree
of effectiveness. A general matrix can then be prepared (Table
87
-------
(1.) Source Maintenance and Use
(2.) Source Replacement
(3.) Source Growth
(4.) Source Power
(5.) Population Growth and Distribution
(6.) Source Mobility
88
-------
TABLE i1! IDENTIFICATION OP PRODUCT NOISE EMISSION PARAMETER CONTROLS
PARAMETER
CONTROL (S)
FEDERAL
STATE
LOCAL
Source
Maintenance
and Use
1) Inspections
2) Permit
3) Retrofit
b) Recall Program
5) Operational Use
Monitoring
Source
Replacement
1) Tax Incentives
2) Operational Use
Monitoring
3) Specifications
4) Others
Source
Growth
1) Area Restrictions
2) Licensing/Registration
3) Taxation
h) User Restrictions (Time)
5) Other
Source
Power
1) Taxation
2) Licensing/Registration
3) Conservation/Consumption
h) Area Restrictions
5) User Restrictions
6) Operational Use Monitoring
7) Other
-------
TABLE 11 i (CONTINUED)
PARAMETER
CONTROL (S)
FEDERAL
STATE
LOCAL
Population
Growth/
Distribution
1) Land Use Planning
2) Zoning
3) Capital Improve-
ments
U) Land Capacity
5) Bldg. Code
6) Construction
Incentives
7) Other
Source
Mobility
1) Transportation
Management
2) Land Use Planning
3) Zoning
h) Operational
Controls
-------
SECTION 2 v RECOMMENDATIONS
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
Noise, particularly at the Federal level has been per-
ceived as the step child of the environmental movement. It has
been generally neglected in terms of financial support, despite the
fact that the public has regarded noise as a leading residential
problem. Citizen concern and awareness for noise has not up to
this time been translated to the governmental official (Federal,
state and local) so that a concerted intergovernmental program
with adequate resources can be initiated.
At the core of this problem is the need for a strong
technical assistance program that can adequately represent the
public's interest in comprehensively addressing the issue of en-
vironmental noise. The initiative has been taken by both the states
and cities unlike any other nationally identified environmental
problem (e.g., water, air quality, solid waste). It is now time
that the Federal government participates more actively, recog-
nizing the excellent intergovernmental framework (i.e., local
91
-------
county and state) presently established. If a strong technical
assistance is not established, the previous legislative and program
development advancements occurring at the local and state levels
will be severely eroded. Such advancements provide the platform
for launching more effective efforts in controlling environmental
noise.
GENERAL
1. Provide Federal support to insure continuity in the
development and enforcement of environmental noise
regulations at the local and state level.
2. Develop a strong intergovernmental program, using
technical assistance from EPA, that links together
local, state and Federal noise control efforts.
3. Establish stronger non-governmental ties with the
private sector to support the movement to control
environmental noise control. Such ties should include
educational institutions, private enterprise, and
professional associations.
92
------- |