1
Introduction

In 2005 the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) held a workshop to review the present state of technology in noise control engineering. The workshop was organized by a steering committee charged with developing a prospectus for further studies of noise-related issues in the United States and to investigate how current technologies could be used to reduce exposures to noise. The issues framed by the steering committee were subsequently considered in a series of workshops held by NAE in 2007 and 2008.

These issues included a review of community noise and metrics for measuring community noise; new technologies for a quieter America; engineering controls and common descriptors for hazardous noise; the impact of noise on the competitiveness of U.S. products; a cost-benefit analysis of noise control technologies; the gap between industry demand for noise control specialists and the supply coming through the education pipeline; noise control activities at the federal and state levels; state and local community noise control programs; dissemination of information to the public on the benefits of low-noise products; and the adverse effects of excessive noise.

This report attempts to address these issues in the following ways:

  • by summarizing the current state of the practice in noise control engineering;

  • by recommending how existing knowledge can be applied to address current challenges;

  • by presenting a research and education agenda that promotes the generation of new knowledge in fields that can provide the greatest benefit to society (ranging from employees to corporations and manufacturers to the public at large); and

  • by recommending policies that agencies can develop and adopt to improve the American “soundscape” and to promote quieter products and living environments.

The following sections introduce the broad categories under which these issues are grouped in the body of the report.

A TAXONOMY OF NOISE

Americans are exposed to noise from many sources and in many environments. Almost anything or anyone can generate noise, but the major sources/categories of interest and/or concern include community noise in urban, suburban, and rural areas, as well as in workplaces, recreation areas, and classrooms; aircraft noise; noise from road traffic and other modes of surface transportation; hazardous noise; and consumer product noise.

As discussed in Appendix A, a common measure of noise is the sound pressure level in decibels. This level is almost always weighted according to the A-frequency weighting curve. The resulting value is expressed in dB(A).1 Table 1-1 gives the reader an idea of sound pressure levels generated by various sources. Figure 1-1 shows the range of environmental sound pressure levels encountered outdoors. Metrics for assessment of noise are more complicated than this description indicates and are discussed in detail in Chapter 3.

Community Noise

Communities are made up of buildings and outdoor spaces of various types and uses, all of which are affected by exterior environmental sources over which an individual has little or no control. Some major sources of environmental noise in communities include aircraft, road and rail transportation systems, construction that for some large civil works projects may last for decades, outdoor stationary building air-conditioning units, electrical transformer substations and other equipment associated with individual buildings or utilities, and noise from nearby industrial plants.

Unlike occupational noise, which can cause hearing loss, community noise is usually an annoyance and a “quality-of-life” issue. In contrast to emissions of noise from the sources

1

It is not the decibel that is A weighted but the level. However, the (A) is attached to the decibel for clarity and brevity and is widely used. Rather than say 50 dB(A), it is more correct to say the A-weighted sound pressure level is 50 dB.



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 5
1 Introduction A TAXONOMy OF NOISE In 2005 the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) held a workshop to review the present state of technology in Americans are exposed to noise from many sources and in noise control engineering. The workshop was organized by many environments. Almost anything or anyone can gener- a steering committee charged with developing a prospectus ate noise, but the major sources/categories of interest and/or for further studies of noise-related issues in the United States concern include community noise in urban, suburban, and and to investigate how current technologies could be used to rural areas, as well as in workplaces, recreation areas, reduce exposures to noise. The issues framed by the steer- and classrooms; aircraft noise; noise from road traffic and ing committee were subsequently considered in a series of other modes of surface transportation; hazardous noise; workshops held by NAE in 2007 and 2008. and consumer product noise. These issues included a review of community noise and As discussed in Appendix A, a common measure of noise metrics for measuring community noise; new technologies is the sound pressure level in decibels. This level is almost for a quieter America; engineering controls and common always weighted according to the A-frequency weighting descriptors for hazardous noise; the impact of noise on the curve. The resulting value is expressed in dB(A).1 Table 1-1 competitiveness of U.S. products; a cost-benefit analysis of gives the reader an idea of sound pressure levels generated by noise control technologies; the gap between industry demand various sources. Figure 1-1 shows the range of environmental for noise control specialists and the supply coming through sound pressure levels encountered outdoors. Metrics for as- the education pipeline; noise control activities at the federal sessment of noise are more complicated than this description and state levels; state and local community noise control indicates and are discussed in detail in Chapter 3. programs; dissemination of information to the public on the benefits of low-noise products; and the adverse effects of Community Noise excessive noise. This report attempts to address these issues in the fol- Communities are made up of buildings and outdoor spaces lowing ways: of various types and uses, all of which are affected by exterior environmental sources over which an individual has little • by summarizing the current state of the practice in or no control. Some major sources of environmental noise noise control engineering; in communities include aircraft, road and rail transporta- • by recommending how existing knowledge can be ap- tion systems, construction that for some large civil works plied to address current challenges; projects may last for decades, outdoor stationary building • by presenting a research and education agenda that air-conditioning units, electrical transformer substations and promotes the generation of new knowledge in fields other equipment associated with individual buildings or utili- that can provide the greatest benefit to society (ranging ties, and noise from nearby industrial plants. from employees to corporations and manufacturers to Unlike occupational noise, which can cause hearing loss, the public at large); and community noise is usually an annoyance and a “quality-of- • by recommending policies that agencies can develop life” issue. In contrast to emissions of noise from the sources and adopt to improve the American “soundscape” and to promote quieter products and living environments. 1 It is not the decibel that is A weighted but the level. However, the (A) is attached to the decibel for clarity and brevity and is widely used. Rather The following sections introduce the broad categories under than say 50 dB(A), it is more correct to say the A-weighted sound pressure which these issues are grouped in the body of the report. level is 50 dB. 

OCR for page 5
6 TECHNOLOGY FOR A QUIETER AMERICA TABLE 1-1 Sound Pressure Levels Generated by Various A-Weighted Typical Sound Level Outdoor Noise Sources (decibels) Setting Sound Pressure Level dB(A) 80 Quiet library, soft whispers 30 Noisy Urban Area (daytime) Living room, refrigerator 40 70 Light traffic, normal conversation, quiet office 50 Commercial Retail Area Non-Park Air conditioner at 20 feet, sewing machine 60 60 Vacuum cleaner, hair dryer, noisy restaurant 70 Suburban Area (daytime) Average city traffic, garbage disposals, alarm clock at 2 feet 80 50 Subway, motorcycle, truck traffic, lawn mower 90 Suburban Area (nighttime) Garbage truck, chain saw, pneumatic drill 100 40 Rock band concert in front of speakers, thunderclap 120 Gunshot blast, jet plane 140 Grand Canyon (along river) Rocket launching pad 180 30 Hawaiian volcanoes (crater overlook) SOURCE: http://www.nidcd.nih.go/health/hearing/ruler.asp. Park 20 Grand Canyon (remote trail) noted below, community noise is an immission problem (i.e., 10 what people hear).2 Haleakala (in crater, no wind) 0 Today, the widely used criterion for assessing community noise levels in the United States is the day-night average FIGURE 1-1 Comparison of A-weighted sound levels in common outdoor environments. Source: Miller (2003). sound level, or DNL (see Appendix A for definition). It is the sound pressure level averaged over 24 hours with the Figure_1-1.eps amplification of the measuring systems increased by 10 decibels during the nighttime hours. Since 1974, when the Aircraft Noise U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “Levels Document” and related documents were published, DNL Complaints about aviation noise have a long history. and an exposure-effect relationship showing the percentage In an introduction to a review of current activities by the of respondents on social surveys who say they are “highly Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) related to aircraft annoyed” by noise from various sources have generally been noise, Burleson (2005) points out that 2003 was the 100th accepted as overall indicators of the impact of community anniversary of flight and the 92nd anniversary of the first noise. This exposure-effect relationship was first described editorial complaining about aircraft noise.3 The most serious in a classic analysis by Schultz (1978), who synthesized 12 problems arose in the late 1950s when commercial jet aircraft major social surveys of reactions to transportation noise. The came into service. Schultz curve, which describes the results, essentially illus- In the past 50 years, considerable progress has been made trates the percentage of the population predicted to be highly in reducing noise emissions from aircraft—mainly through annoyed as a function of noise level (see Chapter 2 for further the introduction of high bypass ratio engines, which were discussions of community and building noise criteria). driven by a desire to reduce noise emissions and increase fuel efficiency. A 2001 U.S. General Accountability Office (GAO) report stated: “We currently estimate that the airlines’ Noise in Quiet Areas costs directly attributable to complying with the transition Areas in the United States that are relatively free of to quieter aircraft noise standards ranged from $3.8 billion to transportation noise and noise from most other sources are $4.9 billion in 2000 dollars” (GAO, 2001). The transition, often used for recreation and are places where people value over a period of 35 years, led to a 95 percent reduction in the the absence of noise and the opportunity to hear “natural” number of people impacted by aircraft noise in the United sounds, such as the flapping of a bird’s wings or wind rus- States (PARTNER, 2004). tling through trees. However, noise from aircraft, off-road Despite this progress, there are still noise issues around vehicles, and other sources sometimes intrudes on these quiet most of the nation’s commercial airports. In a report to Con- environments. The DNL metric is generally inadequate to gress in 2000, a survey of the nation’s 50 busiest commercial describe the “soundscape” in such areas. airports indicated that noise was the number one concern for 33 airports and was of some degree of concern in areas around 49 of the 50 airports (GAO, 2000). 2 Emission and immission are defined in Appendix A. Briefly, emission is the sound directly emitted from a noise source essentially unaffected by 3 Burleson, C. Aviation and the Environment: Navigating the Future. the immediate environment around the source. Immission is the sound the receiver hears after it has traveled along a sound transmission path and has Presentation at an NAE-sponsored workshop, Technology for a Quieter been affected by it. America. Washington, DC., September 1, 2005.

OCR for page 5
7 INTRODUCTION Traffic Noise the U.S. military (IOM, 2005; Lang and Maling, 2007). The United States has no national surveillance program for re- No recent studies have been done in the United States on porting or monitoring the amount of compensation for costs the extent of exposure to highway traffic noise, but in 1981 related to treatment of occupational NIHL. As a result, no EPA estimated that 19.3 million people were exposed to comprehensive data are available on the economic impact of “annoying” DNLs greater than 65 dB (Waitz et al., 2007).4 noise exposure and hearing loss (NIOSH, 2001). Recent research has revealed that the interaction between Children’s toys, music conveyed through earphones or road surfaces and tires is the main source of noise from ve- similar devices, loud music at concerts, the recreational firing hicles traveling at highway speeds now that emitted engine of weapons, and similar sources also can be sources of haz- and exhaust noise has been effectively reduced for most ardous noise. The National Institute on Deafness and Other automotive vehicles. Research has also shown that this Communication Disorders has estimated that more than 30 noise can be reduced by the proper design of highway road million people in the United States are exposed to hazardous surfaces. Several states have initiated programs to determine noise on a regular basis (NIH, 2009b). the extent of noise reduction and the feasibility of building The U.S. Department of Labor, through the Occupational new road surfaces. Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Mine For the present, the primary solution has been to construct Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), has promulgated noise barriers in areas considered “noise impacted” by the regulations to limit exposures to hazardous noise; the limits Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The federal established by these agencies are similar but not identical. government cooperates with state departments of transporta- Although in theory engineering controls are the preferred tion in the construction of these barriers, the costs of which way to reduce noise levels, personal hearing protective de- depend on the materials used, their height, and the terrain. vices (HPDs) are widely used. EPA’s regulation for labeling FHWA (2009) has reported that as of the end of 2004 more the performance of HPDs is currently being updated. than 3,500 kilometers of barriers had been constructed in 45 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico at a cost of TECHNOLOgIES more than $2.6 billion ($3.4 billion in 2004 dollars). Despite the high cost of roadside barriers, they are likely to remain Noise control engineering and technology include a wide an effective element in highway noise control. Reduction variety of measurement techniques and standards, engineer- of tire/road interaction noise, however, generally provides ing designs, and manufacturing techniques to control noise more people with a smaller noise reduction—which is why emissions, engineering controls and HPDs to mitigate ex- cost-benefit analyses are needed. In some severe cases, both posures to hazardous noise in the workplace and elsewhere, methods of noise reduction may be needed. and analysis techniques for determining the impact of noise Nevertheless, traffic noise remains an issue both along the over large areas. nation’s highways and in urban areas. For example, in recent Noise is measured in decibels (dB), designated as dB(A) reports on noise by the New York City Council on the Envi- when A-frequency weighting5 is applied to the signal to make ronment, traffic noise in the city was rated high on the list of it more representative of the noise perceived by a listener. noise complaints (Bronzaft and Van Ryzin, 2006, 2007). The basic quantities used in acoustics and noise control are described in considerable detail in Appendix A. Generally Consumer Product Noise speaking, the level of noise (i.e., the sound pressure level in decibels) ranges from near 0 to 140 dB. For the most Americans are exposed to noise from consumer products part, however, the public has little or no understanding of both indoors and out. Although manufacturers have made the decibel or A-frequency weighting and thus is unable considerable progress in reducing noise from dishwashers to appreciate or participate in a discussion of quantitative and other appliances, these and other product noises can be levels of noise. a source of annoyance. Outdoors, noise from lawnmowers, Efforts to control community noise frequently depend on leaf blowers, and other lawn and yard care equipment is per- controlling emissions of offensive noise from noise sources. vasive. Snowmobiles and other off-road vehicles also create For example, the National Aeronautics and Space Admin- noise problems, especially in wilderness areas. istration (NASA) Advanced Subsonic Transport Noise Re- duction Program was a seven-year effort begun in 1994 to Industrial and Other Potentially Hazardous Noise Sources develop technology to reduce jet transport noise by 10 dB relative to 1992 levels. This program provided for reductions High levels of noise can cause noise-induced hearing loss in engine source noise, improvements in nacelle acoustic (NIHL), and occupational exposure to hazardous noise is treatments, reductions in noise generated by airframes, and widespread (NIH, 2009a). In fact, NIHL is one of the most modifications in the way aircraft operate in airport environs. common occupation-related disorders in workplaces and in 4The 5A-frequency decibel is a unit of sound level (see Appendix A for definition). weighting is defined in Appendix A.

OCR for page 5
8 TECHNOLOGY FOR A QUIETER AMERICA The NASA Glenn Research Center also significantly reduced that benefit must be considered worth the cost of reducing aircraft fan noise using active noise control methodologies. the impact of noise. Therefore, the study committee has By the end of 2001, when the program ended, most of its attempted to determine how economic analysis techniques objectives had been met. could inform decisions about allocating scarce resources to Other technologies address the noise source/receiver as achieving the greatest aggregate benefit for society. a system. The FAA’s PARTNER (Partnership for Air Trans- In the case of environmental policy, using resources in a portation Noise and Emissions Reduction) Program, founded socially optimal way may mean limiting how one entity can in 2003, uses a systems approach to reducing noise from use its resources in order to protect another entity from the aircraft and its impact on airport environs. NASA and Trans- consequences (e.g., a curfew on noisy flights from certain port Canada are cosponsors of PARTNER. The PARTNER airports places limits on airlines, and ultimately on travelers, Center of Excellence, located at the Massachusetts Institute to protect people who live around the airports). Alternatively, of Technology (MIT), has undertaken the following projects: it may mean deciding to invest public resources to mitigate development of metrics to improve understanding of human the undesirable effects of others’ activities (e.g., installing response to aircraft noise; studies of land use around airports; pavements that reduce traffic noise). analysis of the socioeconomic effects of noise and noise miti- In both cases the study committee attempts to clarify gation; cost-benefit analyses of technologies, operations, and the trade-offs involved. Chapter 7 provides an overview of policy alternatives for mitigating noise impacts; and develop- cost-benefit analyses, a brief description of how they affect ment and testing of noise abatement flight procedures. FAA decisions, and attempts to reduce tire/road noise on the Technologies for controlling noise from road traffic are nation’s highways. The emphasis is on the need for cost- less well developed. In general, regulations to control noise benefit analysis with respect to highway traffic noise. emitted by vehicles have not been very effective in reducing community noise (Sandberg, 2001). Because many studies THE ROLE OF gOVERNMENT have shown that the major source of noise is the interaction between tires and road surfaces, several states have initi- For many years the federal government has been in- ated programs to study how much noise reduction could be volved with controlling noise, as have the European Union achieved by porous road surfaces (see Chapters 5 and 7). and the governments of most other industrialized nations. A variety of methods can be used to control noise from In the United States the control of occupational noise is rail-bound vehicles. If the United States embarks on an ex- the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). pansion of the rail system, planning for noise control, predic- Within DOL, OSHA and MSHA have regulatory authority tion tools, and the application of noise control technologies with respect to noise. Under the Noise Control Act of 1972 will become increasingly important (see Chapter 5). and subsequent legislation, EPA was made responsible for addressing noise issues that included both regulatory au- thority and research. Activities were carried out through the COMPETITIVENESS Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC). Funding Noise control engineering can affect manufacturing com- for ONAC was discontinued in 1982, but many EPA respon- petitiveness because, as the market for many industrial and sibilities with respect to noise are still in the U.S. Code. The consumer products becomes more globalized, U.S.-based role of EPA is described in more detail in Chapter 8. firms must compete in both domestic and foreign markets. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop- The latter are subject to noise standards and regulations that ment, the Federal Housing Administration, the General can impact competitiveness in two ways: (1) they can impose Services Administration, and other federal government de- additional costs on U.S. manufacturers who want to enter partments and agencies have promulgated policies and regu- foreign markets and (2) competitors’ products that meet the lations for site selection for federally subsidized housing and more rigorous noise limits may enter the U.S. market with for exterior building construction to meet minimum acousti- a competitive advantage over domestic producers. This ad- cal standards. The federal government also sets standards for vantage is evidenced in a growing trend by consumers who noise in federal office buildings and leased spaces in com- identify low noise as a desirable feature. In a 1999 survey, mercially owned buildings used by federal agencies. for example, 84 percent of consumers said that “ultra- The U.S. Department of Transportation and its modal quiet” operation was an important feature of a dishwasher agencies (FAA, FHWA, Federal Railroad Administration, (KBDN, 1999). and Federal Transit Administration), have broad regulatory authority regarding noise issues. The U.S. Department of De- fense and all of the armed services have noise programs and COST-BENEFIT ANALySIS regulate noise. The U.S. Department of Health and Human As a practical matter, especially when large expenditures Services, National Institutes of Health, National Science of public funds are involved, solutions to noise-related chal- Foundation, and NASA all have noise programs related to lenges must have a positive benefit for quality of life, and the mission of each agency. In addition, the National Park

OCR for page 5
 INTRODUCTION Service addresses noise issues in national parks and has the information. Many organizations that provide public infor- authority to both set noise limits and do research. However, mation are identified in this report, and the committee sug- noise-related activities by federal agencies are not well co- gests how government might play a larger role in providing ordinated. (More details can be found in Chapter 8.) Reduc- information to the public. ing environmental noise will require that the development and support of noise control technologies be shared among SuMMARy government agencies and industry. State and local governments can promulgate noise regula- All of these subjects are discussed in more detail in the tions as long as they do not conflict with federal government following chapters of this report. In Chapter 11, findings are regulations. EPA still has some noise emission regulations summarized, and a number of recommendations are given “on the books” and has broad powers with respect to inter- that the study committee believes will lead to the reduction state commerce. Despite this, many states and municipalities of noise in the United States. have no noise regulations at all. Others have regulations, but The decibel and other terms used in acoustics to describe they are poorly written or outdated. According to Hanson noise are briefly described in Appendix A. A more complete (2002), states and local municipalities would welcome better description can be found in handbooks on acoustics and noise information and guidance, as well as financial and technical control, such as Rossing (2007), Vér and Beranek (2006), support, in enacting reasonable and effective environmental and Crocker (2007). noise regulations. Sources of the many technical articles and Internet resources cited in this report include professional society journals and conference proceedings. Several are from a EDuCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 2007 special issue of The Bridge (NAE, 2007). Others are Although acoustics—the science of sound—has a long from Noise Control Engineering Journal and the proceed- history (Rossing, 2007), noise control engineering is a ings of national conferences (NOISE-CON) and interna- relatively new field. Noise problems emerged after World tional congresses (INTER-NOISE). Referenced papers War II, with the building of the interstate highway system, from these sources are available on the Internet (http://www. the advent of jet airplanes, and the postwar building boom. bookmasters.com/marktplc/0076.htm) and through the Sci- MIT was a pioneer in noise control education (in the depart- tation platform hosted by the American Institute of Physics ments of aeronautics, architecture, electrical engineering, (http://scitation.aip.org/) and maintained by the Institute and physics), but even today not a single university in the of Noise Control Engineering of the USA (http://www. United States has a department (or academic unit), nor inceusa.org). There are also references to papers published is there a widely agreed-on curriculum, for noise control in Noise/News International (NNI), and these are available engineering. on the NNI website, http://www.noisenewsinternational.net. Because noise control engineering is inherently a mul- Reports from the International Institute of Noise Control tidisciplinary field, noise control engineers must be knowl- Engineering are available on its website, http://www.i-ince. edgeable in several subjects, including acoustics, aerody - org. namics, mechanical vibration, measurement, electronics, physiology, psychology, statistics, physics, and architecture. REFERENCES Today the demand for such individuals far exceeds the sup- ASHA (American Speech Language-Hearing Association). 1991. Combat - ply. Meeting this demand will require an emphasis on noise ting Noise in the 90s: A National Strategy for the United States. Rock- control engineering in the undergraduate curriculum as well ville, MD: American Speech Language-Hearing Association. Available as well-funded graduate programs. online at http://www.nonoise.org/epa/Roll6/roll6doc0.pdf. Bronzaft, A., and Van Ryzin, G. 2006. Neighborhood Noise and Its Conse- quences: A Survey in Collaboration with the Council on the Environ- The Public ment of New York City. Special Report #9. New York: Council on the Environment. Available online at http://www.noiseoff.org/media/cenyc. Although people are quick to inform public officials when noise.report.pdf. they are inconvenienced or oppressed by noise, they are Bronzaft, A., and G. Van Ryzin. 2007. Neighborhood Noise and Its Conse- poorly informed about how, or even if, noise can be mitigated quences: Implications for Tracking Effectiveness of the NYC Revised in practical, cost-effective ways. It would be beneficial for Noise Code. Special Report #14. New York: Council on the Environ - ment. Available online at http://www.noiseoff.org/media/cenyc.noise. people to have a better understanding of, for example, how report.4.pdf. noise is measured, so they could participate in informed Crocker, M.J., ed. 2007. Handbook of Noise and Vibration Control. Hobo- debate on problems that affect them and recognize when ken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. sound pressure levels are likely to cause permanent hearing EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1974. Information on Levels damage. Two studies in the 1990s included information re- of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Document 550/9-74-004. Available lated to public awareness of noise problems (ASHA, 1991; online at http://www.nonoise.org/library/leels74/leels74.htm. OECD, 1991); the Internet can also provide a great deal of

OCR for page 5
0 TECHNOLOGY FOR A QUIETER AMERICA FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2009. Summary of Noise Barri - NIH (National Institutes of Health). 2009a. Noise Induced Hearing Loss. ers Constructed by December 31, 2004. Available online at http://www. Available online at http://www.nidcd.nih.go/health/hearing/noise.asp. fhwa.dot.go/enironment/noise/barrier/sintro.htm. NIH. 2009b. Statistics on Noise Induced Hearing Loss. Available online at GAO (Government Accountability Office). 2000. Aviation and the Environ- http://www.nlm.nih.go/medlineplus/noise.html. ment: Results from a Survey of the Nation’s 50 Busiest Commercial NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). 2001. Service Airports. GAO/RCED-00-222. Available online at http://www. Work-Related Hearing Loss. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2001- gao.go/archie/000/rc00.pdf. 103. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH. GAO. 2001. Aviation and the Environment: Transition to Quieter Aircraft OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 1991. Occurred as Planned, but Concerns About Noise Persist. GAO-01-1053. Fighting Noise in the 90s. Paris: OECD. Available online at http://gao.go/new.items/d00.pdf. PARTNER (Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and Emissions Re- Hanson, C.E. 2002. The Roles of State and Local Government Agencies in duction). 2004. Report to Congress: Aviation and the Environment, A Noise Abatement and Control. Proceedings of INTER-NOISE 02, The National Vision Statement, Framework for Goals and Recommended 2002 International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engi - Actions. Available online at http://www.faa.go/library/reports/media/ neering, Dearborn, MI, August 19–21. Available online at http://www. congrept_aiation_enirn.pdf. bookmasters.com/marktplc/0076.htm. Rossing, T. 2007. Springer Handbook of Acoustics. New York: Springer IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2005. Noise and Military Service: Implications Science+Business Media LLC. for Hearing Loss and Tinnitus. L.E. Humes, L.M. Joellenbeck, and J.S. Sandberg, U. 2001. Noise Emissions of Road Vehicles—Effectiveness of Durch, eds. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Regulations. Final Report from the Working Party on Noise Emissions KBDN (Kitchen and Bath Design News). 1999. New Survey Pinpoints of Road Vehicles. International Institute of Noise Control Engineering. Dishwasher Usage Trends. Available online at http://www.kitchenbath Available online at http://www.i-ince.org/data/iince0.pdf. Schultz, T.J. 1978. Synthesis of social surveys on noise annoyance. Journal design.com/print/Kitchen-and-Bath-Design-News/New-Surey-Pin- points-Dishwasher-Usage-Trends/$8. of the Acoustic Society of America 64(1):377–405. Lang, W.W., and G.C. Maling. 2007. Noise as a technological and policy Vér, I.L., and L.L. Beranek, eds. 2006. Basic Acoustical Quantities: Levels challenge. The Bridge 37(3):4–10. and Decibels. Chapter 1 in Noise and Vibration Control Engineering. Miller, N.P. 2003. Transportation Noise and Recreational Lands. Proceed- Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. ings of INTER-NOISE 2002, Dearborn, MI, August 19–21, 2002. Waitz, I., J. Bernhard, and C.E. Hanson. 2007. Challenges and promises in NAE (National Academy of Engineering). 2007. Special Issue on Noise mitigating transportation noise. The Bridge 37(3):25–32. Engineering. The Bridge 37(3).