and closely coordinating local efforts with
such programs as the Aircraft Noise Al-
leviation Program established under the
F.A.A. in 1961.

For examples of innovative noise control
efforts I recommended such programs as that
taken in the Los Angeles area in which com-
munity efforts and pilot programs have been
established to abate noise at the Los An-
geles International Airport. The Port of New
York Authority has also carried out exten-
sions costing several million dollars to the
three runways at New York's Kennedy In-
ternational Airport solely out of noise abate-
ment considerations. Dulles International
Airport in Washington is a good example
of how zoning laws and design can be
effectively employed to control noise levels
emanating from aircraft.

But despite these examples, the fact re-
mains that there is much left to do before
you can successfully cope with aircraft noise.
Your recognition of this fact has brought
you here today. There are many questions
which must be answered before actual work
can even begin. The most important of these
is funding of noise abatement efforts. Who
is responsible? Should we ever obtain an op-
erational "quiet" engine, the estimated cost
of retrofitting our four engine commercial
jets has been upwards of $300 million. This
is perhaps the most touchy issue which will
face you in your efforts to combat jet noise
for the costs are formidable and the responsi-
bility ill-defined.

Another problem of considerable concern
is that of the sonic boom. Until recently the
shock waves from the sonic boom was con-
fined to occasional military flights scheduled
to fly over unpopulated areas of the United
States. However, since President Nixon's re-
quest for $96 million for the current fiscal
year ending June 30, 1970 in order to finance
the start of construction of two SST proto-
type aircraft it now apepars that within the
next 10 years we will be subjected to the

just beginnings. What is needed are guaran-
teed standards for the man on the street,
on his job, or in his home. In this category I
would like to mention the Walsh-Healey Pub-
lic Contracts Act which was signed into
effect by Secretary of Labor Shultz on May 17,
1969. This Act provides for a limit of on-
the-job noise levels at 90 decibels at any
frequency. This regulation only applies to
firms that have a $10,000 or better contract
with the Federal government during the
course of one year. The Walsh-Healey Act is
a step in the right direction but again it is
only a beginning. It only affects certain seg-
ments of workers and sets as a standard a
noise level which is of debatable safety for
an occupational level.

The real question at hand in the consid-
eration of the noise level of our society is
whether we are going to preserve the basic
amenities of civilized life in the onslaught
of technological advance.

As one noted figure in the noise abate-
ment field, William H. Ferry, once said: "We
have been neither interested nor successful
in controlling noise because we have been
neither interested nor successful in coping
with technology."

Some 60 years ago Robert Koch, a bacteri-
ologist and Nobel Laureate predicted: "The
day will come when man will have to fight
merciless noise as the worst enemy to his
health."

That day is not so far away. The problem
must be faced now before it is beyond our
control. So I offer a few suggestions from
my meager knowledge of the problem of
what may prevent a continuation of the
insult of noise on the future sensibilities
of our nation. The problem of our "ca-
cophonic republic" requires education, public
awareness, increased research and greater
application of economical acoustical ma-
terials, and a great deal of cooperation and
coalition of effort between industry, busi-
ness, government, health officials and com-

of pollution which has been shown to be very
harmful yet has received little public atten-
tion: noise.

Recently the Environmental Protection
Agency was formed in which the various
problems of our environment could be fo-
cused and possible solutions recommended.
However, there was no provision made to
deal with noise abatement with this agency.
Today, consequently, I am introducing legis-
lation which would create an Office of Noise
Abatement within the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. This office would help co-
ordinate research on Federal, State, and local
levels, provide grants for such research, help
provide information regarding noise abate-
ment to interested parties, and make recom-
mendations regarding the promulgation of
standards.

Mr. President, I am confident that the leg-
islation I am introducing today will receive
close scrutiny by the various Federal agen-
cies which are already directing their at-
tention to the problems of noise as well as
the Environmental Protection Agency. And I
am assured that we will be able to make an
Office of Noise Abatement a reality through
our mutual effort.

There is a bumper sticker now circulating
which says:

Pollution

"Eliminate
Eliminates You."

Before Pollution

Immediately we will think of studies which
threaten a lack of water by 1980 and conjure
up the words of California scientists stating
that within 50 years their State will be un-
inhabitable for any form of life. Or we hold
our breath for a moment remembering that
142 million tons of smoke and noxious fumes
are dumped into the atmosphere each year.
Momentarily we feel brief panic and then
for one reason or another, we forget the
threatening words of the bumper sticker and
go about our daily duties in a comfortable
shield of self-deception and false security.
Unfortunately such an attitude has now

sound of commercial sonic booms. I am
opposed to the development of this aircraft.
Aside from the obvious criticism of low cost-
benefit considerations, I find it difficult to
justify the vast noise disturbance of this
aircraft in light of the small domestic value
derived. The plane has no defense value, will
cost the government a total of $1.29 billion,
out of a total development cost of $1.51 bil-
lion, and its flights have been estimated to
disturb 20 million groundlings every time the
SST flies from coast to coast.

The repercussions of the noise problem
have just begun to be understood and much
has been done to alleviate the noise on-
slaught on our environment. For instance,
New York City has a law requiring walls
soundproof enough to reduce any airborne
noise passing through by 45 decibels. Some
construction companies have proved that
buildings can be constructed quietly, by
muffling blasting by special steel mesh blan-
kets, welding instead of using the hor-
rendous racket of riveting or bolting.
New machines have been offered on the
market which have a vast reduction in
decibel rating over their old predecessors
such as a new compressor which reduces the
decibel level from 110' to 85 decibels
and a new paving breaker that has had its
sound reduced by 23.

New York, California, New Jersey, Minne-
sota, and other states have voted or have
pending various legislation on noise abate-
ment particularly in the realm of vehicular
noise. Numerous local ordinances deal with
specific noise problems of their area offer-
ing such things as prevention of transistor
playing in public areas, zoning laws, etc.
Some states have legislation which prohibits
vehicles on its public highways that exceed
certain established noise levels for that par-
ticular vehicle.

All of these are good beginnings but they
cannot be assessed as anything more than

munity groups in order to find and carry out
solutions to local, regional and national
noise problems.

We need a uniform noise control standards
for all industrial and office workers
... a
Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act of more
encompassing and more rigorous standards.

We need to educate consumer demand
that will call for quieter jobs and products
in order to make it desirable for industry to
compete to produce both at less cost.

We need the City Code level to handle
such noise sources as garbage collection,
construction, loud speakers, and motor ve-
hicles. We need a regional approach to the
research and development or programs di-
rected toward the alleviation of the noises
that plague particular areas of the United
States. Lastly we need the full cooperation
of the Federal government in assisting, co-
ordinating and financing these efforts to pro-
vide a quieter environment.

As Dr. William H. Steward of the Public
Health Service once stated: "Those things
within man's power to control which impact
upon an individual in a negative way, which
infringe upon his integrity, and interrupt
his pursuit of fulfillment, are hazards to the
public health.”

Noise can and must be controlled as a
danger to the public health and economy,
but above all else we must commit our-
selves to the control of the noise in our
society on the basis of civilized standards.

[From the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD,
Nov. 24, 1970]

S. 4538-INTRODUCTION OF THE NOISE
ABATEMENT ACT OF 1970

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, as the coun-
try has become increasingly aware of the
growing threat to our environment, atten-
tion has been primarily focused on air and
water pollution. But there is another form

brought us to a situation in which the rapidly
deteriorating quality of our environment is
the most hazardous challenge to not only
our health and well-being but to our very
lives and those of our children and grand-
children.

Environmental pollution may not pose the
immediate destruction that nuclear war does,
but I might remind you that the effects are
the same and just as lasting. And I might
remind you that destruction at the hands of
our environment is as immediate as your
and my lifetime. And finally, I might remind
you that lack of inhabitable land, lack of
food, lack of good water to drink and good
air to breathe are the very conditions under
which men become desparate and resort to
any and all means to preserve their survival.
It is with these thoughts in mind that I state
my firm conviction that pollution-all forms
of pollution: air, water, and noise pollution,
overpopulation, land and soil pollution-is
the most challenging and the most crucial
problem facing the man of the 20th century.
And it is with these thoughts in mind that
I firmly believe that if we do not meet this
problem with all the creativity and ingenuity
of our age, then within a very short time
nothing else will matter, for there will be
nothing else to worry about.

Your concern with environmental pollu-
tion has brought you here today in order to
form an effective citizen's group to combat
this onslaught on our planet before it is in-
deed too late. Your special concern is with
the assault of noise pollution on our society
and in your recognition of noise as a pollut-
ant you have established yourselves as some-
what pioneers in combating the effects of
noise on our society. It was, therefore, an ́
honor to be invited to speak at this organi-
zational meeting of the Noise Abatement
Council of America. Had such groups been
instrumental in educating the public to

[p. S17779]

appreciate the inevitable results of uncon-
trolled air and water pollution and in affect-
ing remedial action to combat these prob-
lems even 10 years ago then we would not
be faced with the present national crisis in
these areas. Today let us pledge ourselves to
the task of preventing noise becoming
another uncontrolled threat to our existence.

The effects of noise, although long a prob-
lem, have only begun to receive the well-
founded concerns of government, health, in-
dustrial, and community organizations. We
are already far behind the rest of the world
in appreciating the scope of the problem. For
our backwardness in the field of noise abate-
ment the United States is now the noisiest
country on this planet, and frankly, I hate to
think that we are now carrying this lack of
respect for civilized standards to other plane-
tary bodies. Basically, noise pollution is
reaching crisis proportions in the United
States and I think that it is time that all of
us wake up to this fact.

We should be concerned with noise as a
problem because for over a century noise ex-
posure of sufficient intensity and duration
has been recognized to produce sensorineural
hearing loss. But in spite of this knowledge,
an overexposure to excessive noise is the ma-
jor cause of hearing loss in the United States
today. In fact it is estimated that 10 to 20
million people in the United States have
some degree of hearing impairment.

Everyone realizes that if he is exposed to a
very loud noise such as an explosion he may
very likely wind up deaf-at least tempo-
rarily. What is not so apparent is that the
effect of noise is cumulative; it produces as
Dr. Leo Beranek, whose work is acoustics is
international in scope, an "acoustic fatigue."
Repeated moderate noise builds up to pro-
duce the same effect as would a single loud
noise. And even more important is the fact
that repeated noise is the only type, short
of a shattering explosion, that produces per-
manent hearing loss. The importance of this

compensation payments, lost production and
decreased efficiency due to noise is estimated
at well over $4 billion per year. In relation
to business a World Health Organization re-
port states that before 1939 office noise was
costing U.S. business $2 million per day
through inefficient work. Today that figure is
$4 million. The psychological and physiologi-
cal effects of noise are difficult to assess but
the correlation between noise and such
things as sleep disturbances, hypertension
due to the constant response of hormonal
and neurological mechanisms to noise stress,
interference with basic communication, the
loss in efficient performance and even dam-
age to property must be counted as a very real
and a very enormous threat to our wellbeing,
not to mention the economic repercussions.

The effects of noise cannot be fully ap-
preciated until we have more thorough stu-
dies in the field. One effect which needs to
be especially explored by sociologists and
criminologists is referred to in a recent For-
tune magazine article. As related by Fortune:

"In the Bronx borough of New York City
one evening last spring, four boys were at
play, shouting and racing in and out of an
apartment building. Suddenly from a sec-
ond-floor window came the crack of a pistol.
One of the boys sprawled dead on the pave-
ment. The victim happened to be Roy Innis,
Jr., 13, son of a prominent Negro leader, but
there was no political implication in the
tragedy. The killer, also a Negro, confessed
to police that he was a nightworker who
had lost control of himself because the noise
from the boys prevented him from sleeping."

This incident is extreme but worthy of
our careful attention due to the implications
it has on the worsening human problems
which we are now experiencing in our cities.
Until recently the most authoritative
voices about noise have come from within
the industrial occupations due to the mere
fact that noise has been a problem much
longer in this area than in any other. Indus-

tional noise levels. The American Academy of
Ophthalmology and Otolarynglology states
that our present knowledge of the relation of
noise exposure and hearing loss is much too
limited to propose safe amounts of exposure.
However, the academy recommends noise-
exposure control and tests of hearing if
there is habitual exposure to continuous
noise at 85 decibels at a frequency of 300-
1,200 cycles per second. Noise is measured in
a dimensionless unit called the decibel which
is used to describe the levels of acoustical
pressure, power, and intensity.

The decibel expresses a logarithmic ratio
between two sounds. In other words, the
difference between a noise with a decibel rat-
ing of 60 and that with a rating of 70 is a
relative increase of 10 times the lower level.
The frequency of noise expressed in cycles
per second is useful for rating noise hazards
since some frequencies are more likely to
cause hearing damage than others, with high
pitched sounds more annoying than low
pitched sounds. The British Medical Society
recommends hearing conservation measures
when noise exceeds 85 decibels in the 250-
4,000-cycles-per-second range.

The U.S. Air Force recommends ear defend-
ers when personnel are exposed to 85 decibels
in the 300-4,800 frequency range. The Amer-
ican Standards Association has suggested per-
missible daily quotas of exposure to noise
which they suggest should protect the worker
from hearing loss. Over an 8-hour working
day they suggest a limit of 85 decibels at any.
frequency range above 700 cycles per second.
In the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act
the Federal Government has adopted 90 deci-
bels at any frequency range as a permissible
safe occupational noise level.

Only recently has there been concern about
the entire realm of urban and community
noise although millions of Americans are af-
fected each day by the repercussions of this
type of noise. As Dougherty and Welsh com-
mented in "Community Noise and Hearing

is readily seen when one is considering the harmful effects of exposure to daily occupational noise.

Another matter of some concern is that
the noise level of the United States is in-
creasing at an astonishing rate. Over the past
25 years the average increase in noise level
has been at one decibel per year. When one
considers that damage to the ears can occur
at sustained exposure to the ranges around
85 decibels and over, and given our present
noise levels, it will not be too many years be-
fore noise levels in the United States become
lethal. To quote Dr. Vern O. Knudsen, physi-
cist and former chancellor of the University
of California:

"If the noise we make keeps increasing at
the present rate, it will be as deadly in
thirty years in some of our downtown cities

were the ancient Chinese tortures for
executing condemned prisoners."

We know, of course, that the most pro-
nounced physical effect of noise is damage
to the ear. Exposure to intense noise over
varying durations causes partial and in some
cases permanent hearing loss due to actual
cell damage in the organ of the Corti located
within the cochlea of the inner ear.

But noise has much farther reaching ef-
fects than just hearing damage. As Paul E.
Sabine stated even back as far as the March
1944 issue of the American Journal of Public
Health:

"There is a wealth of reliable data from
medical sourcs in support of the Statement
that sustained exposure to noise is a contrib-
uting factor in impaired hearing, chronic
fatigue that lowers bodily resistance, neu-
rasthemia, increased blood pressure, and de-
creased working and mental efficiency and
that noise should rightfully be classified as
an occupational hazard along with gases,
fumes, dust, toxic liquids, and bacteria."

To put this into, if nothing else, economic perspective, the total cost to industry in

trial management has become increasingly
concerned with the adverse effects of noise
on those persons who work under constant
exposure to intense levels of noise-and, I
might add, with due reason.

According to Dr. Glorig, director of the
Callier Hearing & Speech Center in Dallas,
Tex.:

"Industrial noise is now the most impor-
tant single cause of hearing loss."

Despite numerous research, training, and
regulatory programs now underway in some
industries and in various Federal agencies,
and despite the great strides accomplished
in responsible noise abatement efforts in
the occupational fields, there is still need for
a vast amount of education in the field of
Occupational noise. For instance, B. F.
Goodrich estimated that the total market
for acoustical goods and products would
reach $875 million by 1970, which if one takes
into account all that this comprises is a
very paltry sum.

Another example of the need for increased
emphasis placed on occupational noise is the
fact that permanent hearing loss caused by
excessive exposure to noise is now a recog-
nized occupation hazard and is compensable
in only 35 States. I am always reminded of
the basic lack of awareness in this field by an
unfortunately true story which occurred
when one of my aides was touring a textile
factory in the South. When he commented on
the high level of noise to which the workers
were subjected, the manager hastened to as-
sure him that immediate efforts were being
made to correct the unpleasant conditions.

"Next week the factory is playing country-
western music over the loudspeakers at a
level which will block out the noise of the
factory.'

The noise of our industries is put into further perspective when one considers them in light of "safe' noise levels. There are differences of opinion about permissible occupa

Loss":

"The savings quality heretofore has been
that community noise has been a short-term
exposure as compared to an 8-hour day pe-
riod in industry. As the power use of both
home and street increase, steps must be taken
to limit the noise output. Otherwise, total
timed exposure will exceed industrial stand-
ards that actually rely on regular audiograms
to prevent severe hearing loss."

Indeed the din in the cities at times far
exceeds the noise levels considered safe for
an occupational situation. A noise level of
100 decibels was once recorded on the Ave-
nue of the Americas in New York City where
the transit authority was building the exten-
sion of the Sixth Avenue subway. Construc-
tion is perhaps the most irritating source of
noise to the urbanite and the problem is in-
tensified when once we realize that there are
virtually no legal controls on the amount of
noise that can emanate from a construction
site. In the absence of any forms of control
the consequences are logical-existing knowl-
edge for noise control is not even applied.

Noise control costs money, and it is not
reasonable to ask sympathetic construction
firms to invest in noise control only to let
unsympathetic firms underbid them of jobs
by avoiding the noise control costs. Air com-
pressors, pneumatic drills, power saws, con-
crete mixers and other machines involved in
the construction or demolition of buildings
are permitted in some urban areas between
7 a.m. and 6 p.m., 6 days a week and at night
with special permit. Combined with the poor
soundproofing in modern apartments, the
sounds of congested traffic which can reach
upwards of 90 decibels, and the multitudi-
nous other sounds of civilized living, the city
dweller is caught in the midst of a caco-
phonic catastrophe.

Europe and such countries as Russia and
Japan have for some time had strictly en-

[p. S17780]

525-314 O-73 - 16

forced noise abatement laws, including zon-
ing and construction measures and national
councils like the Swiss Anti-Noise Commis-
sion which deals with the basic medical,
acoustic, and technical questions of road,
rail, and water traffic; aircraft noise, noise in
industry, building construction, homes, et
cetera; and legal questions.

The United States by contrast has few
laws regarding noise abatement and even
those that it has are barely enforced. For
example, New York City is one of the cities
that has strict noise laws against horn blow-
ing and even has a legal noise limit for the
city of 88 decibels at 150 feet. If you have
ever been to New York, I am sure that these
laws will come as surprising news.

The final assault on the Nation's well-being
due to noise and the one which brings you
here today is that of aircraft noise. Of all
the fields of noise abatement that of air
transportation has received the most atten-
tion by industry and Government due to the
obvious severity of the problem. The possible
adverse effects of aircraft noise have been
recognized for several years. In 1952 the
Doolittle report pointed out that:

"Positive efforts should be continued by
both government and industry to reduce or
control aircraft noise nuisance to people on
the ground and that substantial reduction of
such noise is practicable."

Such firms as Pratt & Whitney, General
Electric, and Boeing have been involved for
some years in the research and development
of a quiet engine. According to sources with-
in the field, we are 5 years away from a pro-
totype which when operational will only re-
duce the perceived noise level at takeoff and
landing by 10 percent. The problem in this
area is not so much a matter of money as
lack of available technology. The sound of a
jet talking off is approximately 130 decibels
which is also the estimated maximum noise
bearable to human ears. A reduction of 10
percent will barely scratch the surface of the

even begin. The most important of these is
funding of noise abatement efforts. Who is
responsible? Should we ever obtain an oper-
ational "quiet" engine, the estimated cost
of retrofitting our four engine commercial
jets has been upwards of $300 million. This
is perhaps the most touchy issue which will
face you in your efforts to combat jet noise
for the costs are formidable and the responsi-
bility ill defined.

Another problem of considerable concern
is that of the sonic boom. Until recently the
shock waves from the sonic boom was con-
fined to occasional military flights scheduled
to fly over unpopulated areas of the United
States. However, since President Nixon's re-
quest for $96 million for the current fiscal
year ending June 30, 1970, in order to finance
the start of construction of two SST proto-
type aircraft it now appears that within the
next 10 years we will be subjected to the
sound of commercial sonic booms. I am op-
posed to the development of this aircraft.
Aside from the obvious criticism of low cost-
benefit considerations, I find it difficult to
justify the vast noise disturbance of this air-
craft in light of the small domestic value
derived. The plane has no defense value,
will cost the Government a total of $1.29
billion, out of a total development cost of
$1.51 billion, and its flights have been esti-
mated to disturb 20 million groundlings
every time the SST flies from coast to coast.

The repercussions of the noise problem
have just begun to be understood and much
has been done to alleviate the noise on-
slaught on our environment. For instance,
New York City has a law requiring walls
soundproof enough to reduce any airborne
noise passing through by 45 decibels. Some
construction companies have proved that
buildings can be constructed quietly, by
muffing blasting by special mesh blankets,
welding instead of using the horrendous
racket of riveting or bolting. New machines
have been offered on the market which have

neither interested nor successful in coping
with technology."

Some 60 years ago Robert Koch, a bacteri-
ologist and Nobel Laureate predicted:
"The day will come when man will have to
fight merciless noise as the worst enemy to
his health."

That day is not so far away. The problem
must be faced now before it is beyond our
control. So I offer a few suggestions from my
meager knowledge of the problem of what
may prevent a continuation of the insult of
noise on the future sensibilities of our Na-
tion. The problem of our "cacophonic re-
public" requires education, public awareness,
increased research and greater application of
economical acoustical materials, and a great
deal of cooperation and coalition of effort
between industry, business, government,
health officials and community groups in
order to find and carry out solutions to local,
regional, and national noise problems.

We need a uniform noise control stand-
ard for all industrial and office workers-a
Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act of more
encompassing and more rigorous standards.

We need to educate consumer demand that
will call for quieter jobs and products in
order to make it desirable for industry to
complete to produce both at less cost.

We need the city code level to handle such
noise sources as garbage collection, construc-
tion, loud speakers, and motor vehicles. We
need a regional approach to the research
and development of programs directed to-
ward the alleviation of the noise that plague
particular areas of the United States. Last-
ly we need the full cooperation of the Fed-
eral Government in assisting, coordinating
and financing these efforts to provide a
quieter environment.

As Dr. William H. Steward of the Public
Health Service once stated:

"Those things within man's power to con
trol which impact upon an individual in a
negative way, which infringe upon his integ-