Interagency coordination with regard to aircraft noise standards (10) by directing the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to consult with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in prescribing noise control standards and regulations under the applicable provisions of the Federal Aviation Act; by authorizing the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to request the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to review any standard or regulation which the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has reason to believe does not adequately protect the public from aircraft noise or sonic boom, and to submit a report to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on the results of such review; and by prohibiting the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration from issuing an original type certificate for any aircraft for which substantial noise abatement can be achieved through regulations, unless he prescribes noise or sonic boom regulations applicable to the aircraft (sec. 7); Informative labeling of new products (11) by requiring the Administrator to issue regulations requiring informative labeling (or other suitable methods of informing prospective users) with respect to any product (or class thereof) which emits noise capable of adversely affecting the public health or welfare, or which is sold wholly or in part on the basis of its effectiveness in reducing noise (sec. 8); Imports (12) by requiring the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the Administrator to carry out the provisions of this legislation with regard to imports (sec. 9); Enforcement (13) by authorizing the Administrator (and a State under an agreement with the Administrator) to assess and to collect in a civil action, civil penalties of not more than $25,000 for each violation of any of the prohibitions of this legislation relating to the sale of any new product which does not conform with a noise emission standard; the removal or rendering inoperative of any device incorporated in any product in compliance with such standard; the use thereafter of any such product; the removal prior to sale to an ultimate purchaser of any informative labeling attached to any new product; the importation of any new product in violation of this legislation; or the failure to maintain records or furnish any report or information required by this legislation (sections 10 and 11); Citizen suits (14) by authorizing the institution of a citizen suit against any violator of a noise control requirement under the bill or against the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency or the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration for an alleged failure to perform any act under this legislation which is not discretionary with such Administrator (sec. 12); Records, reports, and information (15) by requiring manufacturers to maintain records or to furnish reports and information reasonably required by the Administrator to secure compliance with this legislation, and by requiring manufacturers to make new products available for testing by the Administrator (sec. 13); Research (16) by authorizing the Administrator to conduct research or to finance research by others to determine the effects, measurement and control of noise as well as acceptable levels of noise; to provide technical assistance to States and local governments in training enforcement personnel and in preparing model State or local noise control legislation (sec. 14); Low-noise-emission products (17) by directing the Administrator to determine which products qualify as low noise emission products and to certify such products as suitable for use as substitutes for other products in use at that time by federal agencies, and by directing such agencies to use any such certified product if the Administrator of General Services determines that the procurement costs of such certified product are not more than 125 per centum of the retail price of the least expensive type of product for which such certified product is to serve as a substitute; and by authorizing $1 million for fiscal year 1972 and $2 million for each of the two succeeding fiscal years for paying the additional costs of such certified products (sec. 15); Authorization of appropriations (18) by authorizing for purposes of carrying out the provisions of this legislation the appropriation of the following sums: $3 million for fiscal year 1972; $6 million for fiscal year 1973; and $12 million for fiscal year 1974 (sec. 16). HEARINGS ON THE LEGISLATION Your Committee, acting through its Subcommittee on Public Health and Environment, conducted a series of hearings on the problems of noise pollution. Hearings focused on the Administration bill, H.R. 5275, which was introduced on March 1, 1971, by Chairman Staggers and Congressman Springer, and several other bills introduced by various Members of Congress which would provide for a comprehensive program for the control of noise. Hearings were held on June 16, 17, 22, 23, and 24, 1971, and testimony was received from a variety of witnesses representing government, industry, and professions concerned with noise and its effects on human health and welfare. The Committee also received extensive written material involving the subject of noise abatement as an aspect of environmental quality. Following the hearings and Subcommittee consideration, a clean bill, H.R. 11021, was introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Rogers and seven other members of the Subcommittee. On February 8, 1972 the bill was ordered reported by voice vote. REPORT ON NOISE REQUIRED BY TITLE IV OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT Title IV of the Clean Air Act (the "Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1970") required the Environmental Protection Agency to undertake a complete investigation of noise and its effect on the public health and welfare, to identify and classify the sources of noise, and to determine projected growth levels of the problem to the year 2000. The Agency was required to undertake research, conduct public hearings, and to report to the President and Congress within one year the results of such investigations along with recommendations as to legislation or any other action. The EPA "Report to the President and the Congress on Noise" was submitted to the Congress on January 26, 1972. In the opinion of your Committee, the report substantiates the urgent need for a coordinated Federal, State and local effort to control and abate noise in order to protect the public health and welfare and demonstrates the need for legislation such as that recommended in the reported bill. MAJOR ISSUES PRESENTED The Committee in examining the proposed legislation for noise control, was concerned with the following major issues: (1) The nature and extent of noise as an element of environmental concern. (2) The adequacy of technology to deal with the problem of noise abatement. (3) The extent and effectiveness of present Federal programs for noise control and the cost of noise control. (4) The responsibilities of the Federal Government, the States and their political subdivisions in abating and controlling noise. (5) The proper roles of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Aviation Administration with respect to aircraft noise. THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF NOISE AS AN ELEMENT OF Effects of noise pollution As brought out by the witnesses testifying before the Committee, and as described in detail in the EPA "Report to the President and Congress on Noise", the effects of noise on people takes many forms, and can be psysiological or psychological in nature. These effects include permanent hearing loss, interference with speech communication, stress reactions which could have significant long term health implications, interference with communication and disturbance of sleep. Moreover, noise may have sociological impacts within families and in communities. In addition, it has been demonstrated that acoustical energy can cause damage to buildings and structures. The particular effects which may occur as a result of a given noise environment are a function of the intensity of the noise and the total exposure time. For example, except in the case of severe acoustic trauma (such as an exposure to the sound from an explosion) only daily exposure to a very high noise intensity for several hours over a period of months will cause a permanent hearing loss. Much lower noise intensities and brief exposure periods can and do produce irritation and annoyance effects. The testimony of Dr. David Lipscomb, Director of the Noise Study Laboratory, University of Tennessee, concerning the implications of non-occupational noise as a hazard to the health and welfare of the population of the nation was especially disturbing to the Committee. Dr. Lipscomb presented to the Committee certain data obtained during a four-year research study by the noise laboratory which indicated a trend toward an inordinately high prevalence of high frequency hearing reductions in young persons. For example, a survey of 3000 freshmen between the ages of 16 and 21 entering the University of Tennessee in the Fall of 1968 indicated that 32.9 percent experienced loss of high frequency hearing acuity. To confirm that striking finding, a portion of the incoming class was screened for hearing in the Fall of 1969. The second survey produced an even more striking finding; it yielded an incidence indication of 60.7 percent. Most of these hearing disorders probably were attributable to exposure to music played at intense levels. This study clearly indicated to the Committee that hearing acuity of young persons is being reduced many years before such reductions should be expected. Studies cited in the Agency's Report to Congress verify that the University of Tennessee study did not depict a localized phenomenon. Indeed, there is ample evidence that the current population of young persons will have much more serious hearing problems in their middle years than the present population. The number of citizens affected by noise pollution According to the Environmental Protection Agency, as many as 44 million persons in the United States have the utility of their dwellings adversely affected by noise from traffic and aircraft, and 21 million persons are similarly affected by noise associated with construction activity. 40 million persons are exposed to noise potentially capable of producing hearing impairment due to the operation of noisy devices and the number of such devices and the intensity of exposure is steadily rising. Although obviously these figures are not additive, noise appears to affect to a measurable degree of impact at least 80 million persons or approximately 40 percent of the present population of the United States. Of that number, roughly one-half are risking potential health hazards in terms of long duration exposures resulting in hearing impairment. There is a long history of occupational noise causing various degrees of hearing impairment in some of the working population. Reports available to the Committee indicate that the number of persons engaged in occupations in which there exists a definite risk of hearing impairment may be as high as 16 million. The legal structure for the protection of workers now exists through the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Coal Mine Safety and Health Act. Although it has been estimated that nonoccupational noise hearing impairment of sufficient severity to require the use of a hearing aid for adequate comprehension of speech affects almost 3 million persons in the United States at the present time, these persons receive virtually no protection from such noise by federal law. Taking into account the growth and numbers of sources of noise and the increase in energy associated therewith, residual noise levels in urban areas is predicted to rise from 46 dBA to 50 dBA by the year 2000, according to EPA reports. Of more concern is the fact that without more vigorous control methods, the acoustical energy disseminated into the environment from highway vehicles alone will double by the year 2000. Moreover, the number of person hours of exposure to hearing impairment risks from home appliances will increase approximately 2.25 times the 1970 exposures. The Committee notes that most of the information relating to noise exposures is concerned with specific sources rather than typical cumulative exposures, to which urban and suburban dwellers commonly are exposed. There is a need for much greater effort to determine the magnitude and extent of such exposures and the Committee expects the EPA to promote studies on this subject and consider development of methods of uniform measurement of the impact of noise on communities. In the opinion of the Committee, there is also a demonstrated need for further research leading to better information on the non auditory physiological and psychological effects of noise, and it is expected that the EPA will conduct and promote research in this area. THE ADEQUACY OF TECHNOLOGY TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND THE COST OF NOISE CONTROL The testimony received from a variety of witnesses indicated that most major sources of noise affecting the population of the United States have noise reduction potential that can be attained with application of today's technology. The Administration bill contained no specific time schedules for the development of criteria documents and for the setting of standards. Because of its finding that technology is available for the control within adequate limits of noise emission of the majority of products which constitute major noise sources, the Committee determined that a time limit for the initiation of the standard setting process was proper and indeed essential to prevent the growth of the noise problem beyond reasonable limits. Accordingly, the bill establishes time schedules within which the Administrator of EPA must develop standards. The Committee expects that in considering whether it is feasible to propose standards for noise sources, primary emphasis should be placed on protection of the public health and welfare. The Committee recognizes that different industries operate according to different general patterns, and regulations may vary as between particular products to take this into account. For example, the automobile industry makes changes in its products on a well-defined model year basis. Therefore, a standard applying to automobiles should include an effective date related to the start-up of a new model year production. The Committee found that there is a lack of adequate information regarding the cost of noise control for some products and thus included in the bill the requirement that in establishing final standards for noise sources, appropriate consideration must be given to the economic costs of such standards. The Committee also fully expects that adequate consideration be given to the technical capability of industry to meet noise control requirements. THE EXTENT AND EFFECTIVENESS OF PRESENT FEDERAL PROGRAMS FOR NOISE CONTROL Noise responsibilities are vested in a number of Federal departments and agencies as a collateral activity to their primary missions. Those with significant involvement include the Environmental Protection Agency; the Department of Defense; the Department of Transportation; the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; the Depart 74-423 O 72-2 |