8
The Role of Government

This chapter provides a review of federal, state, and local government responsibilities for noise emission levels. Although state and local governments do not have the authority to control noise from some sources that have been federally preempted, such as transportation (e.g., aircraft, new motor vehicles, railroads), they play an important role in preparing environmental impact assessments for new transportation projects and other federally funded construction. State and local governments are also responsible for controlling other sources of environmental noise, such as noise from industrial and commercial facilities.

NOISE-RELATED ACTIVITIES BY FEDERAL AGENCIES

Currently, research and other activities related to noise abatement and control by federal agencies are poorly coordinated. Because each agency has its own methodology for dealing with noise problems, there are few uniform descriptors, criteria, or approaches to noise control on the federal level. For example, the Federal Highway Administration, the largest modal agency in the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), has adopted immission criteria based on a single hour of noise exposure, in contrast to the nearly universal use of the day-night average sound level.

A few government organizations, however, meet regularly to coordinate noise research and activities. Perhaps the most notable of these is the Federal Interagency Committee on Aircraft Noise (FICAN), which was chartered in 1993 to “carry out interagency coordination on matters related to aviation noise research in the United States.” FICAN meets quarterly and is chaired by one of its member agencies on a two-year rotating basis.

Another example of an active organization is the National Research Council Transportation Research Board (TRB) Committee ADC40 (Transportation-Related Noise and Vibration), which has subcommittees that focus on noise from aviation, highway, and rail transportation. ADC40, like all other TRB committees and subcommittees, meets annually in January in Washington, D.C., and holds additional meetings elsewhere during the year. TRB committees are not involved in policymaking and generally do not coordinate noise research, but they do provide a venue for the presentation and discussion of research by other organizations. Committee members are drawn from the federal government (primarily DOT), academia, private consulting organizations, and state departments of transportation. In addition, a large number of “friends” are kept informed about ADC40 activities (ADC40, 2009).

Two of the most active organizations involved in the coordination of noise issues on the federal level are the Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) and the Joint Program and Development Office (JPDO). PARTNER’s primary areas of focus are noise, air quality, and climate change. JPDO, which deals with the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), is mainly focused on the capacity of air transportation and only peripherally on noise.

A third organization, a DOT working group chaired by Arnold Konheim of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), meets annually and on an ad hoc basis when urgent noise issues arise. Representatives of all DOT modal agencies attend these meetings.

In the past, noise-related activities on the federal level were better coordinated. In the Noise Control Act of 1972 (NCA 72), Congress assigned the task of coordinating “the programs of all federal agencies relating to noise research and noise control” to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This coordinating function is not being carried out. More details on EPA activities are given in a later section of this chapter.

Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise

Background

Two programs for coordinating federal activities on noise issues—the Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise (FICUN) in the late 1970s and the Federal Interagency



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 113
8 The Role of government This chapter provides a review of federal, state, and local ings elsewhere during the year. TRB committees are not government responsibilities for noise emission levels. Al- involved in policymaking and generally do not coordinate though state and local governments do not have the authority noise research, but they do provide a venue for the presen- to control noise from some sources that have been federally tation and discussion of research by other organizations. preempted, such as transportation (e.g., aircraft, new motor Committee members are drawn from the federal government vehicles, railroads), they play an important role in preparing (primarily DOT), academia, private consulting organiza - environmental impact assessments for new transportation tions, and state departments of transportation. In addition, a projects and other federally funded construction. State and large number of “friends” are kept informed about ADC40 local governments are also responsible for controlling other activities (ADC40, 2009). sources of environmental noise, such as noise from industrial Two of the most active organizations involved in the co- and commercial facilities. ordination of noise issues on the federal level are the Partner- ship for Air Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) and the Joint Program and Development Office NOISE-RELATED ACTIVITIES By FEDERAL AgENCIES (JPDO). PARTNER’s primary areas of focus are noise, air Currently, research and other activities related to noise quality, and climate change. JPDO, which deals with the abatement and control by federal agencies are poorly coor- Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), is dinated. Because each agency has its own methodology for mainly focused on the capacity of air transportation and only dealing with noise problems, there are few uniform descrip- peripherally on noise. tors, criteria, or approaches to noise control on the federal A third organization, a DOT working group chaired by level. For example, the Federal Highway Administration, the Arnold Konheim of the Office of the Secretary of Transpor- largest modal agency in the U.S. Department of Transporta- tation (OST), meets annually and on an ad hoc basis when tion (DOT), has adopted immission criteria based on a single urgent noise issues arise. Representatives of all DOT modal hour of noise exposure, in contrast to the nearly universal use agencies attend these meetings. of the day-night average sound level. In the past, noise-related activities on the federal level A few government organizations, however, meet regularly were better coordinated. In the Noise Control Act of 1972 to coordinate noise research and activities. Perhaps the most (NCA 72), Congress assigned the task of coordinating “the notable of these is the Federal Interagency Committee on programs of all federal agencies relating to noise research Aircraft Noise (FICAN), which was chartered in 1993 to and noise control” to the U.S. Environmental Protection “carry out interagency coordination on matters related to Agency (EPA). This coordinating function is not being car- aviation noise research in the United States.” FICAN meets ried out. More details on EPA activities are given in a later quarterly and is chaired by one of its member agencies on a section of this chapter. two-year rotating basis. Another example of an active organization is the National Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise Research Council Transportation Research Board (TRB) Committee ADC40 (Transportation-Related Noise and Vi- Background bration), which has subcommittees that focus on noise from aviation, highway, and rail transportation. ADC40, like all Two programs for coordinating federal activities on noise other TRB committees and subcommittees, meets annually issues—the Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise in January in Washington, D.C., and holds additional meet- (FICUN) in the late 1970s and the Federal Interagency 

OCR for page 113
4 TECHNOLOGY FOR A QUIETER AMERICA Application of the FICAN Model Committee on Noise (FICON) during the 1980s and early 1990s—preceded the creation of FICAN in November 1993. FICAN was created to study technical issues, not to make FICUN developed land use noise compatibility guidelines policy. Committee participants are qualified in technical for all modes of transportation in 1980, and FICON focused aspects of the field of aviation noise, but participation in FI- on airport noise in a 1992 report, Federal Agency Reiew CAN is peripheral to their jobs. They are appointed by their of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues (FICON, 1992). respective agencies but are not required to report on their Among FICON’s recommendations was that a standing fed- activities, nor do member agencies take any action as a result eral interagency committee be formed to assist agencies in of FICAN’s work. Committee members tend to be less than research and development (R&D) related to aviation noise. enthusiastic and are not given extra credit for their efforts. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) committed itself FICAN is made up entirely of federal agencies. Although to establishing such a committee in its report to Congress in industry participation is not included in the workings of the 1993 (see http://www.fican.org/pdf/FICAN_Charter.pdf). committee, private-sector research is included in FICAN’s reviews. Membership Partnership for Air Transportation Noise FICAN meetings are held quarterly and at the discretion and Emissions Reduction of the chair. Members are appointed by their respective agen- cies, each of which is obligated to send a representative to Background all proceedings. The chair and vice chair are selected by ma- jority vote every two years, with the understanding that the PARTNER, which was established in 2003, is one of the positions will rotate among the agencies. Current members FAA’s eight air transportation centers of excellence, wherein are DOT, OST, FAA, U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), colleges and universities are given grants to conduct research U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Department of on aviation issues considered important to airspace planning the Interior (DOI), National Park Service, U.S. Department and airport design. Centers of excellence, which were estab- of Housing and Urban Development, and EPA. lished through enabling legislation dated November 1990 as an amendment to the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, represent Purpose a strategic research partnership of government, academia, and industry. Elements of the PARTNER program include FICAN is not involved in setting policy related to avia- education, research, and technology transfer in the context tion noise. Its role is to review and comment on technical of an academic setting. PARTNER is the only FAA center issues and make recommendations. FICAN is a focal point of excellence that deals with noise issues (in addition to air for questions on R&D on aviation noise. quality and climate change). Operations Membership Members contribute to a pooled fund to administer the PARTNER is sponsored by the FAA, the National Aero- committee’s activities. FICAN operates on a limited budget, nautics and Space Administration (NASA), and Transport generally about $100,000 per year, most of which goes to- Canada. Consequently, it can be considered an example of ward contracts with outside parties to support its activities, federal coordination of noise research, even if the research including administrative assistance. Harris Miller Miller & is conducted by academic institutions and not by federal Hanson Inc., a private contractor, has provided administra- agencies. Nine collaborating universities conduct PARTNER tive assistance since 1993. research. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Although FICAN conducts studies, it is not a source lead university, provides PARTNER’s program director, Ian of major research contracts. Its efforts are directed toward Waitz, and an administrative office. An extensive advisory reviewing ongoing research on aviation noise with an eye board with 53 member organizations supports PARTNER, toward avoiding duplication. As part of its coordinating role, by giving advice and by directly collaborating in the re- FICAN reviews activities related to research on aviation search program. All federal grant funds allocated through noise by PARTNER, JPDO, and TRB committees and pro- PARTNER must be matched one to one with nonfederal grams. FICAN also prepares position statements on subjects cost sharing (typically from in-kind support provided by of interest suggested by member agencies and on reports it the advisory board and other organizations collaborating on has been asked to review. Public workshops and symposia research programs). are held from time to time. One of PARTNER’s greatest strengths is the diversity and inclusiveness of the advisory board. Members include representatives of aerospace manufacturers; airlines; air-

OCR for page 113
 THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT ports; national, state, and local governments; professional NextGen was enacted in 2003 under VISION 100—Cen- and trade associations; nongovernmental organizations; and tury of Aviation Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-176). As part community groups. of this initiative, JPDO, which is responsible for managing a public/private partnership to bring NextGen online by 2025, is the central organization that coordinates specialized efforts Purpose by DOT, DOD, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security The purpose of PARTNER is to provide a forum for co- (DHS), the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), the FAA, ordinating research in the areas of aviation noise, air quality, NASA, and the White House Office of Science and Technol- and climate change. ogy Policy (OSTP). A further description of JDPO’s task is “to create and car- ry out an integrated plan for NextGen, spearhead planning, Operations and coordinate research, demonstrations and development Recommendations for research topics are solicited from in conjunction with relevant programs of other departments the advisory board, sponsoring organizations, and academic and agencies, and with the private sector.” institutions. The sponsors—FAA, NASA, and Transport Canada—decide which topics should be funded. Projects are Membership reviewed at designated semiannual meetings. JPDO is governed by federal agencies, primarily DOT, but working groups include representatives of private indus- Application of the PARTNER Model try. For example, the working group on aircraft is cochaired PARTNER is a good example of how research can be by the FAA and Boeing. coordinated with input from federal agencies, academia, industry, community, and other organizations. However, Purpose some federal agencies are more active in PARTNER than others, and the centers of excellence have a strong focus on JPDO administers the NextGen program, guided by three academic R&D and the development of the future workforce. planning documents: PARTNER might be more effective with interagency coor- dination of federal research endeavors in a broader range of • “Concept of Operations” describes how NextGen will noise-related topics. work as a system. • “Enterprise Architecture” provides structural details to make NextGen work. Joint Planning and Development Office • “Integrated Work Plan” describes the steps in the tran- sition from existing conditions to the new system. Background Although JPDO is not focused on noise-related activi- Operations ties, its organizational structure provides a potential model for a multiagency cooperative effort to establish policy. The A senior policy committee directs the NextGen initiative. JPDO website (www.jpdo.go) describes the background of The committee is chaired by the secretary of transportation the formation of this office: and includes the DOT undersecretary for policy; admin- istrator of the FAA; administrator of NASA; secretary of By 2025, U.S. air traffic is predicted to increase two to three the U.S. Air Force, representing DOD; deputy secretary of times. The traditional air traffic control system will not be DOC; deputy secretary of DHS; and the director of OSTP. able to manage this growth. The Next Generation Air Trans- A board made up of senior personnel from each member portation System (NextGen) is the solution. NextGen is an agency reports to the senior policy committee. JDPO has example of active networking technology that updates itself six divisions, each headed by a division director from fed- with real-time shared information and tailors itself to the individual needs of all U.S. aircraft. NextGen’s computerized eral agencies (JPDO, NASA, and FAA). Finally, working air transportation network stresses adaptability by enabling groups consisting of teams of representatives from federal aircraft to immediately adjust to ever-changing factors such agencies and industry work to solve problems and make as weather, traffic congestion, aircraft position via GPS, recommendations. flight trajectory patterns, and security issues. By 2025, all Working groups have the following features: aircraft and airports in U.S. airspace will be connected to the NextGen network and will continually share information • a documented mission statement, terms of reference, in real time to improve efficiency, safety, and absorb the structure definition—all guided by “Framework of predicted increase in air transportation. NextGen”

OCR for page 113
6 TECHNOLOGY FOR A QUIETER AMERICA • an executive committee cochaired by one person from noise control program within EPA. This is described in the government and one from industry next section. • standing committees that handle long-term issues and ongoing tasks Noise Legislation • study teams that address short-term tasks and can draw on expertise from other working groups and study EPA’s responsibilities, under the NCA 72 and QCA 78, teams, as needed are codified in 42 USC 65 4901-4918. In the early 1970s the program was tilted toward regulatory activity (imposed by Congress), but the “Levels Document” was an outstand- Application of the JPDO Model ing contribution both for its definition of what constitutes Noise research is not the main focus of JPDO (as it is for acceptable community noise levels and at what point noise FICAN). However, the Environmental Working Group is exposure becomes hazardous (EPA, 1974). In later years charged with “thinking green” and providing environmental (1976 to 1981) the program was oriented more toward protection while sustaining aviation growth. According to the outreach, support of state and local activities, research, and JPDO website, the Environmental Working Group considers technical assistance. four key areas: aviation noise, air quality, water quality, and EPA activities were carried out by ONAC and have been fuel consumption. reviewed by Maling (2003). President Reagan ordered that JPDO is an example of a successful multidisciplinary the EPA noise program be phased out by the end of fiscal organization that establishes policy, coordinates research, year 1982. This action effectively disestablished ONAC. and encourages noise control. Some noise regulations still remain in the Code of Federal Regulations, and EPA’s responsibilities are still spelled out in the Code. ONAC still exists on paper in the Code. Despite the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health 1982 phase-out, there is currently some EPA activity related Partnerships on Occupational Noise to noise—as described below. The following statement is taken from an internal Na- tional Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Current Activities document: A brief history of very early activities can be found on Partnerships are an important element of many aspects of the EPA website (EPA, 2009a); there is also a section on the NIOSH Hearing Loss Research (HLR) program, from frequently asked questions (EPA, 2009b). Current EPA planning to research activity to transfer of outputs. NIOSH activities related to noise include a revision of the current considers an external organization to be a partner when they regulation on hearing protectors, implementation of a con- are involved in the inputs and activities of our program. gressional earmark related to railroad noise, and a modest In partnership we have a joint effort to conduct research, develop technology, define best practices, and promulgate public information program. the knowledge gained from our research. The HLR program has an active interaction with many external partners across The Shapiro Study a wide variety of organizations and collaborations. . . . Our partners come from many organizations, including other Even though funding for the EPA noise program was cut governmental agencies. . . . The HLR program has active off in 1981, many regulatory actions are still “on the books,” collaborations with sister agencies like the Mine Safety and and the laws have not been rescinded. EPA regulations still Health Administration, the OSHA, and the Environmental in place can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations Protection Agency (EPA), who use or could use program (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.go/cgi/t/text/text-idx?sid=eeb7c outputs for regulatory actions. HLR program outputs are also 887bcef40888b78486e&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/ used by non-regulatory sister agencies such as the DOD and Title40/40cfr4_0.tpl). the Federal Railway Administration. In 1991 a critical analysis of the program was conducted by Sidney Shapiro on behalf of the Administrative Confer- Environmental Protection Agency ence of the United States (ACUS); many of the conclusions EPA’s responsibilities (according to current law) must be of that report are on the Internet (http://www.law.fsu.edu/ reviewed as part of any analysis of the federal government’s library/admin/acus/06.html). As of 1995, the ACUS activities related to noise. The Clean Air Act established no longer exists. the Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) in the Because laws and regulations are still in place but ad- EPA, and then the Noise Control Act of 1972 and the Quiet equate funding has not been provided for EPA to carry Communities Act of 1978 (QCA 78) resulted in an active out its responsibilities, the situation regarding government

OCR for page 113
7 THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT Public information on the benefits of low-noise products noise-related activities is complicated, especially with regard and the adverse effects of excessive noise: “…(a) develop to preemption, which limits the ability of state and local and disseminate information and educational materials to governments to set noise emission standards. Among other all segments of the public on the public health and other ef- things, the Shapiro report recommended that the following fects of noise and the most effective means for noise control, items be reviewed: through the use of materials for school curricula, volunteer organizations, radio and television programs, publication, • scientific and technical developments since 1981 and other means. . . .” • the methodology for measurement and assessment of Assistance to state and local community noise control noise programs: “(c) administer a nationwide Quiet Communi- • the allocation of responsibility among federal agen- ties Program which shall include, but not be limited to . . . cies (1) grants to States, local governments, and authorized re- • federal participation in voluntary standards activities gional planning agencies for the purpose of . . .” To the committee’s knowledge, the full set of ACUS recom- The Vér Proposal mendations has never been accepted by EPA. Nevertheless, the recommendations are still valid. In “Proposal for a Long Range Noise Control Policy Based on Cooperation Among Government, Industry and Congressional Action the Research Community,” Vér (1991) proposed that noise control research be jointly sponsored by the government and Several attempts have been made to reestablish ONAC at industry and trade associations. The former would ensure EPA. Bills were introduced into the 107th, 108th, and 109th that the research topics are in line with long-range govern- Congresses, but Congress has taken no action. ment noise policies. The latter would ensure that the research projects undertaken are relevant to the needs of industry and that the results are presented in a form and at a level most u.S. Code useful to design engineers. Sections in the U.S. Code on federal programs (42 USC 4903) and quiet communities, research, and public informa- Organizational Structure for Implementing a Noise Policy tion (42 USC 65 4913) are important for the present study.1,2 These sections are reproduced in Appendix D, parts A and B, None of the examples described above has an ideal orga- respectively. Portions are reprinted below: nizational structure for implementing a comprehensive noise policy in the United States. Perhaps the JDPO model comes Coordination of noise control activities of federal and state agencies. Section 4903 states: “(1) The Administra- closest. However, each model has ideas worth considering. tor shall coordinate the programs of all Federal agencies A new organization to determine noise policy would relating to noise research and noise control. Each Federal require enabling legislation by Congress to provide author- agency shall, upon request, furnish to the Administrator such ity and funding. The legislation would also have to rescind information as he may reasonably require to determine the some of the responsibilities of the EPA under the U.S. Code. nature, scope, and results of the noise-research and noise- Such an organization should have the following character- control programs of the agency.” istics. The organization should be supervised by a govern- Portions of Section 4913, 24 USC 65. Section 4913 states: ment agency or a consortium of agencies, but a lead agency “. . . the Administrator shall, in cooperation with other Fed- would have to be identified for funding purposes. Assuming eral agencies and through the use of grants, contracts, and that several agencies would be tasked in the legislation to direct Federal actions. . .” participate, a “senior policy committee” would be required to perform several tasks. These include preparation of a mis- Cost-benefit analysis of noise control technologies. “. . . (4) investigation of the economic impact of noise on sion statement, a roadmap for future activities, and a work property and human activities…” plan to implement the roadmap. Given the complexity of the noise problem and the wide variety of activities affected, it is likely that the organization would have to be organized as 1 42USC65 4903. The Public Health and Welfare, Chapter 65, Noise several divisions, each with a director and several working Control: Sec. 4903, Federal Programs. Available online at http://frwebgate. groups within each division. Participants in a working group access.gpo.go/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+4 would include both government and industry, and the work- USC40. ing groups would be concerned with occupational noise; 2 42USC65 4913. The Public Health and Welfare, Chapter 65, Noise Control: Sec. 4913, Quiet communities, research, and public informa- community noise, including annoyance issues; health effects tion. Available online at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.go/cgi-bin/getdoc. of noise; and criteria for noise. Many of the policy recom- cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+4USC4.

OCR for page 113
8 TECHNOLOGY FOR A QUIETER AMERICA mendations in this report could be considered by such an chusetts, Minnesota, New York, and Oregon are administered organization. However, it will take time for such an organi- in the general environmental permitting process. zation to be established, and many of the recommendations, Although there is no requirement that state noise regu- especially concerning EPA, could be implemented now given lations be identical, it would be helpful if requirements, funding by Congress. including measurement procedures, were compatible from state to state. The absence of well-defined standards creates uncertainty in the minds of developers of industrial facilities NOISE-RELATED ACTIVITIES By STATES and can cause delays in the approval process. Thus, most In Chapters 5 and 7 of this report, the activities of state developers of industrial facilities would welcome consis- tent, well-written standards for noise emissions.4 EPA has a governments on controlling highway noise are described. Research and development of pavements designed to reduce mandate to promote the development of effective state and tire/road interaction noise has been a cooperative effort with local noise programs (42 USC 65, Section 4913) but is not significant results. currently funded to do so. Transportation systems are generally operated by state agencies (e.g., airport commissions, highway departments, LOCAL NOISE CONTROL PROgRAMS commuter rail agencies), and residents and community leaders look to them to control noise from sources in their Control of noise at the local level presents several chal- jurisdictions. However, Congress considers that “primary lenges. First, cities and towns in the United States have responsibility for control of noise rests with state and local d ifferent needs. Second, many noise problems do not governments [although] Federal action is essential to deal have engineering solutions. Third, local officials often do with major noise sources in commerce, control of which not have the information they need to find the best methods requires national uniformity of treatment.”3 of solving local problems. Thus, state transportation agencies are caught in a bind. Some large cities do have the resources to study noise They are powerless to control noise directly from major problems and issue appropriate regulations. New York City, transportation sources, such as airplanes, new motor ve - for example, has a modern noise law (NYC, 2009a,b; Maling, hicles, and railroads, yet citizens expect them to reduce noise 2007) which states that “the making, creation or maintenance that adversely affects them. of excessive and unreasonable and prohibited noises within For federally funded projects, including transportation, the city affects and is a menace to public health, comfort, state agencies are required to prepare environmental impact convenience, safety, welfare and the prosperity of the people assessments before construction begins. These assessments of the city.” The new law mandates that all construction be must include the noise impact of proposed projects. Many conducted in accordance with individual noise mitigation states require similar assessments for major projects even plans and prescribes ways to lessen the noise from each type when no federal funds are involved. of construction equipment. The code also sets standards for Many states have laws and regulations covering a variety noise levels created by handling containers and construc- of situations related to environmental noise and noise abate- tion material on public streets and restricts the noise levels ment in general. State laws and regulations may address created by air conditioners and circulation devices. Some noise from industrial plants, commercial facilities, and con- portions of the New York law may not be applicable to other struction sites. The Noise Pollution Clearinghouse lists 12 large cities, but the law is a good starting point for upgrading states that have general noise regulations and nine that have existing laws or creating new ones. Chicago was one of the watercraft noise regulations (http://www.nonoise.org/lawlib/ first cities to establish comprehensive regulations for noise states/states.htm); however, these lists and a survey of state from industrial and commercial facilities. Boston has ad- regulations need to be updated. opted a comprehensive construction noise regulation as part Maine has a comprehensive well-written statute with of the Central Artery/Tunnel project; this regulation is also a regulations that have been described as the most complex in model for other communities (Thalheimer, 2000; 2001). the country (Doyle, 2001). Connecticut and Illinois also have Smaller cities, suburban towns, and rural villages have carefully written regulations (Brooks, 2001, 2003). A sum- different problems. They rarely have the resources to make mary of New Jersey’s noise regulations and related activities extensive use of professional advice in drafting local noise has been published (Zwerling, 2005). Other states with com- ordinances. Many towns and villages have common prob- prehensive environmental noise regulations are California, lems. At one time the EPA had a program called Each Com- Minnesota, and Oregon. The noise requirements in Massa- munity Helps Others (ECHO) that helped communities with common problems communicate with each other. Although 3 42 USC 65, Section 4901(a)(3). Congressional Findings and Statement 4Wood, E.W. 2005. Community noise from new industrial plants—engi - of Policy re Chapter 65, The Public Health and Welfare. Available online at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.go/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_us neering and regulatory challenges. Presentation at the NAE Technology for c&docid=Cite:+4USC40. a Quieter America Workshop, Washington, D.C., September 13–15.

OCR for page 113
 THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT EPA produced a model noise ordinance in 1975, it is out of 2000, 2003, 2006). CRS should be asked to prepare a new date today. report to Congress outlining policy options and encouraging The American National Standards Institute’s Accredited congressional action to develop a new noise policy. Standards Committee S12 Noise is working to produce a Recommendation 8-1: T he Environmental Protection standard with guidelines for developing community noise ordinances or regulations to inform communities (ANSI, Agency should carry out its coordinating function under 2009). The sponsor of this effort, the Acoustical Society 42 USC 65, Section 4903. The agencies with noise-related of America (ASA) Committee on Standards S12 Working activities include the U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. De- Group 41, has a draft document for comments from work- partment of Transportation, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. ing group members before it is submitted for voting as an Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Health and ANSI standard. If it is adopted, this standard will provide a Human Services, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban menu of options to guide local communities in establishing Development, and the National Science Foundation. enforceable, practical noise ordinances. The draft standard Recommendation 8-2: Congress should pass legislation is expected to be voted on in 2010. Thanks to corporate sponsorship, ASA has made ANSI and provide the necessary funds to establish the Environmen- S12.60 available for free download; this standard pertains to tal Protection Agency as the lead agency in the development acoustics in classrooms (ASA, 2009). ASA would perform a of a cooperative effort on noise measurement, abatement, public service if it could also provide free guidance on com- and control involving federal agencies, state governments, munity noise ordinances. industry, consulting firms, and academia. An EPA office should implement 42 USC 65, Section 4903, and the legisla- tion should expand the authority already given by Congress SuMMARy to ensure that the agency can effectively manage a program The noise-related activities of many federal government to meet the following objectives: agencies are described elsewhere in this report. With respect to the federal government, the emphasis in this chapter is on • coordination and cooperation among existing inter- current mechanisms of federal interagency cooperation and agency groups concerned with noise the characteristics of a new organization that would require • clear delineation of the roles of federal agencies, as congressional action to create. Less emphasis has been placed well as state and local governments on the role of state and local governments; these activities are • assisting American industry in lowering noise levels difficult to describe briefly and, with the exception of work in the U.S. workplace and developing industrial and on highway pavement, do not generally involve technology. consumer products with noise emissions that are com- Under current law, there are opportunities for EPA to provide petitive with foreign products assistance to state and local governments, which could help • development of international standards for the mea- in the coordination of noise-related activities. surement and labeling of noise emissions • active U.S. participation in the harmonization of noise emission requirements worldwide FINDINgS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • development of metrics for environmental noise that Although EPA currently has a small program related to truly represent community response to noise noise, the agency has the authority under the U.S. Code to • ongoing assessment of the costs and benefits of noise do much more. It appears that if new tasks are assigned to control another department in the federal government, the law will • increased research on the health effects of noise, espe- have to be changed. EPA, however, could carry out these cially nonauditory effects tasks if Congress appropriated the necessary funds. Of several models of federal cooperation related to noise REFERENCES activities, the existing model most suitable for a new orga- ADC40 (Transportation Research Board Committee on Transportation nization in EPA is JPDO, which is involved in policy, R&D, Noise and Vibration). 2009. ADC40 Membership List. Available online and cooperation with industry. As noted by the Administra- at http://www.adc40.org/adc40membershiplist.pdf. tive Conference of the United States (see Shapiro, 1991) ANSI (American National Standards Institute). 2009. Accredited Standards and reports by others, many items related to noise regulation Committee S12, Noise. Working Group 41 (ANSI S12/WG41), Model could be addressed. Until these items are addressed, it will Community Noise Ordinances. Available online at http://www.acosoc. org/standards/S/ASCS.htm. be difficult to make progress on noise control. ASA (Acoustical Society of America). 2009. American National Standard The Congressional Research Service (CRS) provides Acoustical Performance Criteria, Design Requirements, and Guidelines regular reports to Congress in a series titled Noise Abatement for Schools. Available online at http://asastore.aip.org/. and Control: An Oeriew of Federal Standards and Regula- Brooks, B.M. 2001. The Need for a Unified Community Noise Policy. Pro- tions; in addition, three annual reports are available (CRS, ceedings of NOISE-CON 01, The 2001 National Conference on Noise

OCR for page 113
0 TECHNOLOGY FOR A QUIETER AMERICA Control Engineering, Portland, Maine. Available online at http://www. FICON (Federal Interagency Committee on Noise). 1992. Federal Agency bookmasters.com/marktplc/0076.htm. Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. Available online at Brooks, B.M. 2003. The need for a unified community noise policy. Noise http://www.fican.org/pdf/nai-8-.pdf. Control Engineering Journal 51(3):160–161. Maling, G.C. 2003. An editor’s view of the EPA Noise Program. Noise CRS (Congressional Research Service). 2000. Noise Abatement and Con- Control Engineering Journal 51:143–150. trol: An Overview of Federal Standards and Regulations. CRS Report Maling, G.C. 2007. Pan-American news: New York noise code goes into for Congress by D.M. Bearden. Updated April 7, 2000. Available online effect. Noise/News International (Sept.):106–109. Available online at at http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Risk/rsk-.cfm?&CFID=746 http://www.noisenewsinternational.net/archies_idx.htm. NYC (New York City). 2009a. Local Laws of the City of New York for the &CFTOKEN=784. CRS. 2003. Noise Abatement and Control: An Overview of Federal Stan- Year 2005. No. 113. Available online at http://www.lowermanhattan. dards and Regulations. CRS Report for Congress by D.M. Bearden. info/extras/pdf/law0.pdf. Updated January 13, 2003. Available online at http://digital.library.unt. NYC. 2009b. Air and Noise: Noise Code (Local Law 113 of 2005). Available online at http://nyc.go/html/dep/html/air_and_noise/index.shtml. edu/godocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-4:. CRS. 2006. Noise Abatement and Control: An Overview of Federal Shapiro, S.A. 1991. The Dormant Noise Control Act and Options to Abate S tandards and Regulations. CRS Report for Congress by D.M. Noise Pollution. Report for the Administrative Conference of the United Bearden. January 23, 2006. Available online at http://www.cnie.org/nle/ States. Available online at http://www.barkingdogs.net/actamshap head.shtml. crsreports/06Feb/RS0.pdf. Doyle, T. 2001. Twelve years with the most complex noise regulations in Thalheimer, E. 2001. Proactive Construction Noise Control Policies De- the United States. Proceedings NOISE-CON 01, The 2001 National veloped for the Central Artery/Tunnel Project’s C17A6 Contract. Pro - Conference on Noise Control Engineering, Portland, Maine. Available ceedings of NOISE-CON 01, The 2001 National Conference on Noise online at http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/0076.htm. Control Engineering, Portland, Maine, October 29–31. Available online EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1974. Information on Levels at http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/0076.htm. of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare Thalheimer, E. 2000. Construction noise control program and mitigation with an Adequate Margin of Safety. EPA Report 550/9-74-004. Wash- strategy at the Central Artery/Tunnel project. Noise Control Engineering ington, DC: Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Available online Journal 48(5):157–165. at www.nonoise.org/library/leels74/leels74.htm. Vér, István L. 1991. Proposal for a Long Range Noise Control Policy EPA. 1975. Model Community Noise Control Ordinance. Report EPA Based on Cooperation Among Government, Industry and the Research 550/9-76-003. Washington, DC: Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Community. Distinguished lecture presented at NOISE-CON 91 in Available online at http://www.nonoise.org/epa/roll/rolldoc7.pdf. Tarrytown, New York. Reprinted in Noise Control Engineering Journal EPA. 2009a. History: Noise Control Act. Available online at http://www. 51(3):176–181. Available online at http://www.noisenewsinternational. epa.go/history/topics/nca/index.htm. net/docs/er-.pdf. EPA. 2009b. Frequent Questions: EPA Web Page on Noise. Available on- Zwerling, E.M. 2005. Regulatory Scheme for Noise Enforcement in New line at http://publicaccess.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/publicaccess.cfg/php/ Jersey. Proceedings of NOISE-CON 05, The 2005 National Conference enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=76. on Noise Control Engineering. Minneapolis, MN, October 15–17. Avail- able online at http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/0076.htm.