ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS:
UNITED STATES
March, 1977
Prepared By:
Department of City Planning
Graduate Program
College of Architecture
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia 30332
Prepared For:
Office of Noise Abatement
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
-------
<5V»3
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS:
UNITED STATES
March, 1977
INTRODUCTION
The recognition of environmental noise continues to increase. Public
attitudes toward the environment suggest that noise is a leading neighborhood
problem facing residents within the United States. Public concern about
environmental noise has been translated into increasing governmental activity. A
growing amount of legislation is appearing as part of the process in establishing
noise control programs.
U S EPA LIBRARY REGION 10 MATERIALS
710
-2-
-------
PURPOSE
The purpose of this investigation is to assess the status of environmental
noise control programs in the U. S. This assessment involves:
1. Determining the type of noise legislation enacted at the state level.
2. Administrative programs established to implement noise legislation.
3. Fiscal and organizational structure of state enacted programs.
4. Technical guidance, including model noise ordinances, prepared by
states to assist local governments.
5. The status of local and state governments in developing noise control
programs, including legislation, and problems associated with imple-
mentation.
The ultimate purpose of this survey is to assess the effectiveness of state
and local programs and the need for technical assistance.
METHODOLOGY
A survey was developed as part of the investigation to obtain information
regarding the status of state noise control programs. Essentially this brief question-
naire (Figure I) inquired as to the type of legislative and administrative organ-
ization for environmental noise control. These questionnaires were submitted
to each of the 50 states and designated noise contact when known.
Information concerning local or municipal noise programs was based upon
an annual survey conducted by Dr. Clifford Bragdon which is maintained in the
Department of City Planning, College of Architecture, Georgia Institute of Tech-
nology.
Determination of actual problems with either the promulgation or imple-
mentation of noise control programs involved inventorying selected local news-
papers in the United States. These newspaper articles compiled on the subject
of noise were prepared under contract to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Noise Abatement and Control by Informatics, Inc. The clippings re-
printed in a publication entitled Soundings covered the years 1974-1975. The pro-
blems reported in the newspaper articles were coded by municipality and tabu-
lated.
FINDINGS
A. Noise Control Regulations
I. Legislation - State
a. Enabling
Of the total 46% or 23 states had enacted enabling legislation
for noise control (Figure 2). Such legislation was not necessary
in all states to legally authorize the state or its political sub-
divisions to enact noise regulations.
-3-
-------
ngure l
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30332
GRADUATE
CITY PLANNING PROGRAM
ROOM tOO. OLD C.E. BUILDING
In collecting data on noise regulations for the Environmental Protection
Agency we are compiling the latest information on existing and proposed
state, county, and local noise ordinances. In addition we are assembling
data on the organization of governmental noise programs in the United
States. It would be extremely helpful if you could provide information
on the present (1976) administrative organization for noise management
as follows:
1. Do you have a noise management budget? Yes No
If yes, how much is spent on salaries , operating
equipment ?
2. What is your staff size, full time or equivalent ?
3. Include an organizational chart if available.
4. Do you have existing model guidelines for counties, and
localities to use in formulative their own ordinances,
Yes No ?
5. Are there any municipalities in addition to the ones listed
on the enclosure with noise ordinances?
Your assistance in these requests is greatly appreciated, and this
information will aid the E.P.A. in developing an expanded technical
assistance program for local and state governments.
Sincerely,
Clifford R. Bragdon, Ph.D.
Professor
CRB/rc
-------
STATE
noise
"w""" ««««„,
VES (23)
NO (27)
C,r: ' IB c -)
-------
b. Regulations
The predominant form of state enacted legislation dealt with
motor vehicles (automobiles, trucks-buses, and motorcycles),
followed by recreation vehicles (all/terrain vehicles, snowmo-
biles, and motorboats), land use, aircraft, and building codes
(Figures 3-4).
i. Motor Vehicles
The most common type of legislation incorporated acous-
tical provisions which established quantitative noise emis-
sion limits expressed in decibles - A scale (dBA). Some
16 different states utilized this approach (Figure 5) with
an additional 9 states relying upon nuisance ("unnecessarily
loud noise") for enforcing their provisions.
ii. Recreational Vehicles
Regulating various types of recreational vehicles consti-
tuted the second leading source of noise control. In all
12 states (Figure 6) had enacted a quantitative type low,
with the permissible noise limit expressed in decibels -
A scale (dBA). The majority of these provisions involved
snowmobile related noise.
iii. Land Use
In several states stationary or point type noise sources
were regulated using land use provisions (Figure 7). Max-
imum permissible boundary line noise limits in these states
were applied to essentially three classes of land use:
residential-institutional, commercial- business, and in-
dustrial-manufacturing.
2. Legislation - Local
a. Nuisance
Common laws classifying noise as a nuisance historically has.
been the most popular method of legislation. Some 567 muni-
cipalities rely upon nuisance for legally supporting their noise
control program (Figure 8).
b. Land Use
The most common type of quantitative noise ordinance is based
upon local land use provisions, usually involving either the com-
prehensive or master plan, or the zoning ordinance ( Figure 8).
Noise sources regulated in this manner are generally stationary
or point type sources.
c. Vehicle
Vehicle type ordinances are the second leading category of noise
control (Figure 8). Generally these provisions apply to all auto-
mobiles, trucks, buses, and motorcycles.
d. Recreation Vehicle
Recreation vehicles are becoming an increasing object of regula-
tion because of their access to a variety of land uses, consequently
population settlements (Figure 8). The majority of local ordin-
ances apply to snowmobiles.
-4-
-------
STATE
Figure 3
NOISE LEGISLATION:
SUMMARY
TYPES OF REGULATIONS
Regulatory Motor
Status Vehicles
Recreation
Vehicles
Land Aircraft
Usage
Building
Code
Acoustical Provisions 16
12
7 2
1
Non-Acoustical Provisions 9
3
2 0
0
No Legislation 25
35
41 48
49
-------
Figure 4
STATE NOISE LEGISLATION: VEHICLES
Motor Vehicles Recreation Vehicles
Regulator/ Automobiles Trucks Motorcycles Off-Road Snowmobile Motorboat
Status
Acoustical
Provisions 14 16 13 7 16 2
Non-Acoustical
Provisions 9 9 9 0 0 0
No Legislation 27 25 28 43 34 45
-------
STATE NOISE LEGISLATION! MOTOR VEHICLES
NON-ACOUSTICAL-9
'V
-v\;
LAW-25
ACOUSTICAL-16
cin idc i;
-------
STATE NOISE LEGISLATION! RECREATION
VEHICLES
NO LAW-35
NON-ACOUSTIC A L-3
ACOUSTIC AL-12
FIGURE 6
-------
state
Noise
legislation:
Und
i^AW-42
ED NON-ACOUSTICAL
H ACOUSTICAL-7
figure
7
-------
e. Railroad
Railroad activity is not a common source of regulation, although
because of efforts by EPA to establish emission limits other
political jurisdictions will adopt similar noise limits ( Figure
8).
f. Aircraft
Although many municipalities experience aircraft noise, they
have generally refrained from enacting laws, because of federal
pre-emption. Those communities with such laws (Figure 8) gen-
erally apply their provisions to ground related operations (aircraft-
maintenance and testing).
g. Construction
Although construction noise is usually a transient activity a
sizeable number of municipalities are enacting laws with quanti-
tative provision (Figure 8). Under most circumstances individual
pieces of construction equipment are regulated, rather than
the site in general.
h. Building
Building codes rarely contain quantitative noise emission pro-
vision (Figure 8). Those codes that do exist apply to a select
type or portion of a building structure and its associated accessory
equipment. To date there are very few comprehensive building
codes.
B. Noise Control Administration
I. State Programs
a. Organization
Most states have a specific agency designated as the lead agency
or department for coordinating their noise program. Environ-
mental (21) and Health Departments (20) are the most commonly
designated administrative agencies (Figure 9). In many instances
the Health Departments are designated because of their respons-
ibility for occupationally related noise as well as environmental
of community noise. A summary of administrative character-
istics are presented in Figure 10.
b. Budget
Currently there are I I states with authorized budgets specific-
ally for environmental noise control ( Figure I I). The largest
annual state expenditure is Illinois ( $334,000) followed by California
( $185,000) as indicated in Figure 12. State per capita expendi-
tures for noise control indicate that Hawaii ranks first with
an expenditure of 20 cents per capita (Figure 13). Both California
and New York are under I cent, primarily due to their large
population. Among the I I state budgeted programs the average
expenditure for 1976 has been $101,508 (Figure 14). The average
per capita amount for these states in 1976 was l.2£.
c. Personnel
The number of personnel assigned by the state agencies varies
considerably (Figure 10). Illinois has the largest staff of 18 full-
-5-
-------
Figure 8
MUNICIPAL NOISE LEGISLATION: SUMMARY
Types of Regulations
Regulatory Recreation
Status Nuisance Zoning Vehicle Vehicle Railroad Aircraft Const. Building
Acoustical
Provisions 157 219 138 50 16 26 44 26
Non-Acoustical
Provisions 410 22 115 20 9 9 71
No Legislation 85 411 399 582 627 617 537 617
-------
ADMINISTRATION OF
STATE NOISE PROGRAMS
LEGEND
ID HEALTH DEPtT(20)
ENVIRONMENTAL (21)
3 TRANSPORTATION (1)
M PLANNING (1)
CD NO RESPONSE (7)
FIGURE 9
-------
Figure 10
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ADMINISTRATION
STATE 1970 STAFF MODEL AGENCY
POPULATION BUDGET AMOUNT SIZE GUIDELINES RESPONSIBLE
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
3,444,165
302,173
I,772,482
I,923,295
19,953,134
2,207,259
3,032,217
548,104
6,789,443
4,589,575
769,913
713,008
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
1u*
$ 185,000
$ 96,000
-*
$ 153,000
4
2h*
9
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Department of Public Health
Environmental Ad. Lab.
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Department of Health
Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology
Department of Public Health
Department of Health
Department of Natural Resc.
& Environmental Control
Department of Environmental
Regulation
Department of Human
Resources
Department of Health
Department of Health,Welfare
& Environmental Services
-------
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ADMINISTRATION
STATE 1970 STAFF MODEL AGENCY
POPULATION BUDGET AMOUNT SIZE GUIDELINES RESPONSIBLE
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
11,113,976
5,193,669
2,825,041
2,249,071
3,219,311
3,643,180
993,663
3,992,399
5,689,170
8,875,083
3,805,069
2,216,912
4,677,399
694,409
I,483,791
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
$ 334,800
$ 83,000
$ 20,000
$ 10,000
It*
_*
_*
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes (EPA)
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
Department of Health
Department of Environmental
Quality
Department of Environmental
Quality
Department of Natural Resc.
& Environmental Protection
Bureau of Environmental
Health
Department of Health and
Welfare
Department of Health
Department of Public Health
Department of Natural Resc.
Pollution Control Division
Department of Natural Resc.
Occupational Health Bureau
Department of Environmental
Control
-------
Page 3
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ADMINISTRATION
STATE 1970 STAFF MODEL AGENCY
POPULATION BUDGET AMOUNT SIZE GUIDELINES RESPONSIBLE
Nevada 488,738
New Hampshire 737,681
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Tennessee
7,168,164
I,016,000
18,246,266
North Carolina 5,082,059
North Dakota 617,761
Ohio
10,652,017
2,559,253
2,091,385
11,793,909
Rhode Island 949,723
South Carolina 2,590,516
666,257
3,924,164
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Ik*
2*
$ 35,000
$ 85,000
$ 91,350
_*
y**
5
3*
No
Yes (EPA)
Yes
Yes (EPA)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Nevada Highway Patrol
Department of Occupational
Health
Department of Environmental
Protection
Environ. Improvement Agency
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Office of State Planning
Department of Health
Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency
State Department of Health
Department of Environmental
Quality
Department of Environmental
Resources
Department of Health
Department of Health &
Environmental Control
-------
Page 4
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ADMINISTRATION
STATE
1970
POPULATION
BUDGET
AMOUNT
STAFF
SIZE
MODEL
GUIDELINES
AGENCY
RESPONSIBLE
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
I 1,196,730
I,059,273
444,732
4,648,494
3,409,169
I,744,237
4,417,933
332,416
No
No
Yes
No
No
$ 23,440
No
No
_*
Yes
No
No
Division of Health
Agency of Environmental
Conservation
Department of Ecology
Department of Natural
Resources
Department of Occupational
Health and Safety
* These states have indicated that although they do not have independent environmental noise management budgets they do
utilize personnel from other departments when needed.
-------
STATE NOISE BUDGETS
FIGURE
-------
ENViRONlM
NOISF
T $ - jp r? T*
- tK CAPl
pLORiDA L
4-C
newSHINGTon 7C
__ -
OREGON 4.4C
new
vork
• sc
, 1lEIJVois ¦?
ma«vland'.3sc
KENTUCKY 2.
6C
cAL1PORjvia
• 9«
* A
F'GURf /3
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE BUDGETS
ILLINOIS $334,000
NEW YORK
$85,OOO
MINNESOTA
$10,000
FLORIDA
$96,OOO
OREGON
$91,350
WASHINGTON
$23,4-40
KENTUCKY
$83,OOO
HAWAII
$153,000
NEW JERSEY
$35,000
MARYLAND
$20,000
CALIFORNIA $185,000
FIGURE 12
-------
Figure 14
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE MANAGEMENT BUDGET
MAY 1976
STATE
AMOUNT
% of TOTAL
PER CAPITA
EXPENDITURE
% of TOTAL
1, California
$
185,000
16.5%
.9$
2.8%
2. Florida
$
96,000
8.6%
1.4$
4.4%
3. Hawaii
$
153,000
13.7%
20.0$
63.2%
4. Illinois
$
334,800
30.0%
3.0$
.9%
5. Kentucky
$
83,000
7.5%
2.6$
8.2%
6. Maryland
$
20,000
1.8%
.5$
1.6%
7. Minnesota
$
10,000
.9%
.3$
.9%
8. New Jersey
$
35,000
3.1%
.5$
1.6%
9. New York
$
85,000
7.6%
.5$
.3%
10. Oregon
$
91,350
8.2%
4.4$
13.9%
1 1. Washington
$
23,440
2.1%
.7$
2.2%
TOTAL
$
1,116,590
100.0%
100.0%
Average/State
$
101,508
1.2$
-------
time equivalent personnel, while Maryland and Minnesota have
I individual each. In many states the personnel are shared with
other programs, resulting in fractional employees. Maine, Oklahoma,
North Dakota, and Alabama have % of a person assigned to environmental
noise.
d. Model Noise Guidelines
Many states are developing programs to assist municipalities
within their own states. A major stimulant has been the Model
Noise Ordinance the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
developed jointly with the National Institute of Municipal Law
Officials. Currently 17 different states have adopted guidelines,
oftentimes modeled after this EPA-NIMLO publication (Figure
15).
C. Problems of State and Local Programs
1. State
a. Budget
Although 25 states have enacted laws there are currently only
10 states with designated line item budgets for environmental
noise control. Consequently 60% of the states with noise laws
(15) do not have any enforcement capability. These laws can
therefore be classified as "paper regulations". Under present
conditions because of inadequate fiscal resources these states
have marginal programs.
b. Noise guidelines
In an effort to provide technical assistance many states have
developed noise guidelines that represent model type ordinances.
Even though many states have minimal funding by providing
guidelines, communities oftentimes having local resources, can
establish noise programs.
2. Local
a. General
Existing or proposed noise programs encounter a variety of pro-
blems at the local level. An inventory of Soundings prepared
for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise
Abatement and Control, suggests a general classification of
nine problem areas. These nine problem areas described in Figure
16 relate to the ordinance, enforcement, and litigation. The
most common problems are associated with the ordinance ranging
from vagueness, therefore making interpretation and enforcement
difficult, to restrictiveness which causes an undue burden on
the offender. Necessary acoustical instrumentation for enforcing
existing programs is also considered a major problem area.
-6-
-------
state model noise
GUIDELINES
yes (17)
13 NO(33)
figure 15
-------
Figure 16
STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS: SUMMARY
CODE
No. Description
1 Ordinance vague, difficult to interpret and enforce
2 Ordinance too restrictive, causing undue burden
3 Insufficient acoustical instrumentation
4 Insufficient number and/or type of personnel
5 Inadequate budget to support necessary program
6 Ordinance not being enforced
7 Insufficient technical guidance in ordinance formation
8 Litigation initiated by public agency
9 Litigation initiated by private party
-------
Specific
Based upon the survey of newspaper articles appearing in Soundings,
79 municipalities have encountered specific problems either
in the development or operation of their environmental noise
programs. Such problems are not geographical 1/ unique since
these municipalities are located in 21 different states. The actual
number of municipalities encountering problems is significantly
larger than what is presented, however these results appearing in
Figure 17 are representative of typical problem areas.
-------
Figure 17
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM: SUMMARY
ENTRY
CODE NUMBER SOURCE
CITY/STATE
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM WITH NOISE ORDINANCE
EPA.'s Philadelphia,
Soundings PA.
May 27, 1977
Lawsuit was brought against the noise ordinance saying it violated the Hare
Krishna's freedom of religion. Settled with compromise that Krishna can
continue to chant, drum and cymbal, but not where it interferes with court.
EPA's Coral Gables,
Soundings FL.
May 27, 1975
Fraternities felt noise ordinance was too strict after I I p.m. so the town
commission extended daytime standards to midnight.
3,4,7, 3
EPA's New Haven,
Soundings CT.
May 12, 1975
EPA. 's Grand Rapids,
Soundings Ml.
May 12, 1975
Law is unenforceable for it bears no relationship to the way present equipment
measures sound and the city has no sound measuring devices.
Couldn't enforce their ordinance until they had sound level meters to measure
the noise.
2,7,
EPA. 's Comstock and
Soundings Charlestown,
April 28, 1975 Ml.
EPA.'s Memphis,
Soundings TN
March 3, 1975
EPA.'s Evansville,
Soundings IN
March 3, 1975
The two towns combined to purchase a noise level meter so they could enforce
their noise ordinance.
With new sound level meters they can now begin to enforce their noise ordinance.
Complaints from motorcycle shop owners and garage owners that the noise
ordinance is too strict and will discriminate against them. Industry leaders
want same daytime standards at night.
-------
Figure 17
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM: SUMMARY
ENTRY
CODE NUMBER SOURCE CITY/STATE
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM WITH NOISE ORDINANCE
8
1,7,8
3,4
2,8
2,7,8
3,4
10
12
13
14
EPA. 's Escalon,
Soundings CA
March 3, 1975
EPA. 's Ewing Twship.
Soundings NJ.
March 17, 1975
E PA. 's West Palm
Soundings Beach FL
March 17, 1975
EPA. 's Hammond, IN
Soundings
March 17, 1975
EPA. 's Troy, Ml
Soundings
June 9, 1975
EPA. 's Oconee, FL
Soundings
June 23, 1975
EPA. 's Savannah, GA
Soundings
June 23, 1975
EPA. 's Gladstone, MO
Soundings
June 23, 1975
Motorcycle groups opposed the ordinance saying it was too strict and
discriminitory.
Town's noise ordinance was declared unconstitutional by judge who said it
was too vague. It is again under judicial consideration.
City's ordinance is unenforceable for they lack trained personnel and noise
level meters to measure sound.
Rock band is challenging the constitutionality of the noise ordinance that
makes them in violation while practicing in their garage.
Court suit from " Good Humor" man who is prohibited from ringing his bells
by the noise ordinance.
Town bought sound measuring meters and trained two policemen so they could
enforce their ordinance.
City lacks the money for proper enforcement of a noise ordinance.
Complaint that town was not enforcing their ordinance by councilman who
felt they were too lax.
-2-
-------
Figure 17
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM: SUMMARY
ENTRY
CODE NUMBER SOURCE CITY/STATE
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM WITH NOISE ORDINANCE
3,4
3,7
3,4,7
5,9
4,7
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
EPA.'s Eugene, OR.
Soundings
June 23, 1975
EPA.'s Albuquerque,
Soundings NM.
August 9, 1975
EPA. 's New York, NY
Soundings
March 31, 1975
EPA. 's Miami Springs,
Soundings FL.
March 31, 1975
EPA. 's Cannon Falls,
Soundings MI.
March 31, 1975
EPA. 's Los Angeles,
Soundings CA.
March 31, 1975
EPA. 's St. Louis,
Soundings MO.
April 14, 1975
EPA.'s Bedford, PN
Soundings
July, 7, 1975
They now have trained personnel necessary to enforce their noise ordinance.
Lot of complaints but they can't enforce their ordinance until I they get a noise
level meter which is ordered.
Ordinance was too strict on garbage trucks so they had to amend the law
because the trucks could not get under the 70dB limit.
Ordinance was too strict for a church's bells were in violation so they amended
the law to allow the church to continue.
Can't enforce the ordinance without trained personnel to operate the newly
arrived sound measuring devices.
They need federal money to counter noise related litigation, over court suits
about the airport.
Did not want to make thier noise law and enforcement more strict for fear
that industry would be discouraged by additional expenses.
They have a manpower problem for the police have completely become involved
in enforcing other more serious crimes.
-3-
-------
Figure 17
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM: SUMMARY
ENTRY
CODE NUMBER SOURCE CITY/STATE
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM WITH NOISE ORDINANCE
3,7
24
E.P.A.'s Pompano Beach, They will begin enforcement of their ordinance when noise level meters
Soundings FL. arrive.
July 7, 1975
2,6,8
2,7
1,3,4
25
26
27
28
EPA.'s Palm Beach, FL.
Soundings
July 21, 1975
EPA.'s West Covina,
Soundings CA.
July 21, 1975
EPA.'s St. Petersburg,
Soundings FL.
Jan. 13, 1975
E.P.A.'s Detroit, Ml
Soundings
January 13,1975
A woman sued the town for not enforcing their ordinance when there was a clear
violation. That was children playing at an elementary school.
Complaints from citizens that the ordinance was too strict in that even
commonplace noises like swimming pool filters were in violation.
Police can now enforce their noise ordinance armed with noise meters, and
trained personnel and db limits. There are complaints of lax enforcement
still.
Their ordinance prohibits the sale of noisy motorcycles but it does not prevent
them from entering the city. Considering more effective legislation.
5,6
3,6,7
29
30
E. P. A.'s Englewood, NJ
Soundings
Sept. 11, 1974
E.P.A.'s Berkeley Heights,
Soundings N.J.
December, I, 1974
Town's police felt health department should enforce noise law and the health
department felt the opposite which resulted in no enforcement.
Town's noise meter measured in octave bands and it was inadequate to enforce
their ordinance which was in different terms.
-4-
-------
Figure 17
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM: SUMMARY
ENTRY
CODE NUMBER SOURCE
CITY/STATE
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM WITH NOISE ORDINANCE
31
EPA.'s Hightstown, NJ
Soundings
Nov. 14, 1974
Town borrowed a noise meter from the state so they could begin to enforce
their ordinance.
1,2,6,7 32
5,6
4,6
1,8
2,3
33
34
35
36
37
EPA.'s Arlington, VA.
Soundings
Nov. 15, 1974
EPA.'s Ramona, CA.
Soundings
Nov. 15, 1974
EPA.'s Chicago, IL.
Soundings
Nov. I, 1974
EPA.'s Rochester, MN.
Soundings
Nov. I, 1974
EPA.'s Grand Rapids,
Soundings Ml
Nov. 1, 1974
EPA.'s Melbourne, FL.
Soundings
Oct. I, 1974
Town's ordinance is arbitrary and unenforceable requiring two policemen
to verify the noise meter and being so strict, normal operations are against
the law. It also does not cover the major noise source problems of airplanes,
highway noise.
Health department which is entrusted with enforcement needs money to
accomplish the same.
Despite having a noise ordinance and well publisized anti-noise campaign,
the D.E.C. has done very little enforcement, not many people working at enforce-
ment and no noticeable signs of compliance.
City's noise ordinance was taken to court as being too vague, violating due
process and thus unconstitutional. Eventually it was upheld as constitutional.
The city enforcement is delayed while they wait for decible meters. Many
residents are upset and angry that motorcycles they have bought and not
altered are violating the limits of the law.
Town rescinded their noise ordinance limiting aircraft noise for they were unable
to enforce the ordinance inside the airport vicinity, the jurisdiction of the FAA.
-5-
-------
Figure 17
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM: SUMMARY
ENTRY
CODE NUMBER SOURCE CITY/STATE
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM WITH NOISE ORDINANCE
1,7,8
38
39
40
41
42
EPA.'s Fresno, CA.
Soundings
May 31, 1974
EPA.'s Cincinnati, OH.
Soundings
Sept. 3, 1974
EPA.'s Boca Raton, FL
Soundings
Aug. 15, 1974
EPA.'s Portland, Or.
Soundings
August 15, 1974
EPA.'s Clarkstown, NY.
Soundings
Aug. I, 1974
City is being sued by homeowners near the airport for damages resulting from
aircraft noise.
City's noise ordinance was repealed when it was enforced against sound trucks
that were campaigning.
Citizen complaints that the noise ordinance was not being enforced.
Tavern owner has sued the city to halt enforcement of the noise ordinance
against him which is being used here in terms of "nuisance".
Town is planning on buying noise measurement devices so they can enforce
their ordinance.
6,7
43
44
EPA.'s Prairie Village,
Soundings MO
July 15, 1974
EPA.'s St. Petersburg,
Soundings FL.
July I, 1974
City Council member accusses the police department of not enforcing
the noise ordinance. The evidence seems to be that he is right.
Police are enforcing the ordinance but are having a hard time with
motorcycle's whose license tags are usually out of sight by the time they
decide they are violators.
-6-
-------
Figure 17
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM: SUMMARY
ENTRY
CODE NUMBER SOURCE
CITY/STATE
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM WITH NOISE ORDINANCE
1,2,8
1,6,7
1,8
1,6,7
1,6,7
1,8
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
EPA.'s Hickory, NC
Soundings
Oct. 13, 1975
EPA.'s Las Vegas, Nev.
Soundings
Oct. 13, 1975
EPA.'s Tarpon Springs,
Soundings FL.
May 15, 1974
EPA.'s Clearwater, FL.
Soundings
May 15, 1974
EPA.'s San Bruno, CA
Soundings
April, 29, 1974.
EPA.'s Evansville, IN
Soundings
June 14,1974
EPA.'s St. Louis, MO
Soundings
June 14, 1974
EPA.'s Sacramento, CA
Soundings
June 14,1974
City plans to purchase decibel meters so they can enforce their noise ordinance.
Two city ordinances are being taken to court as being unconstitutional.
City's ordinance is not felt to be applicable to the source of citizen complaints
for it is not enough of a nuisance.
Ten persons accussed of violating the noise ordinance have taken it to court as
being unconstitutional and vague for their are no definitions of noise in the
ordinance.
City's ordinance is fine but it doesn't deal with the largest source of noise
pollution mainly aircraft flying overhead.
Town's Air Pollution Control Board has recommended revising the ordinance
because it's outdated and doesn't control excessive noise levels.
Efforts are underway to replace their old ordinance with a new more enforceable
one expressed in decibles.
Ordinance is being sued in court as being unconstitutional, vague and
discriminitory against night clubs that operate late at night.
-7-
-------
Figure 17
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM: SUMMARY
ENTRY
CODE NUMBER SOURCE
CITY/STATE
3,4,7
6,7
1,2,7
1,7,8
1,3,4
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
EPA.'s Salt Lake City,
Soundings UT.
March I I, 1974
E.P.A.'s Nyack, NY
Soundings
Aug. I, 1974
EPA.'s Milwaukee, Wl
Soundings
August 1, 1974
EPA.'s Canton, IL
Soundings
Feb. 25, 1974
EPA.'s Harbor Springs,
Soundings Ml
Feb. 25, 1974
EPA.'s Putnam Twnship,
Soundings Ml
Feb. 25, 1974
EPA.'s Palos Hills, IL
Soundings
Feb. 25, 1974
EPA.'s Birmingham, Ml
Soundings
Feb. 25, 1974
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM WITH NOISE ORDINANCE
Officials have finished ironing out details of the law and acquainting themselves
with the equipment so enforcement can begin.
Town has plans to authorize purchase of a sound measureing device so police
can enforce their ordinance.
DB levels of the ordinance were ruled a matter of state concern by a judge
and with the state's standards unclear at present enforcement has been impossible.
Anti-noise bill was enforced on a whistle in the town but the residents were
so used to and dependent on the whistle that they campaigned until they
repealed the ordinance.
Town now has a new decibel meter so they can begin to enforce their new
ordinance.
Some residents are angry because roosters they keep qualify as violators of the
noise ordinance.
Civil Liberties Union claims the noise ordinance is unconstitutional because of its
vagueness. It has no decibel definitions of noise, only nuisance qualities which makes
enforcement a matter of discretion.
Officials have couched their law in decibels so it will be enforceable and not
vague and now are in the process of ordering sound meters and training personnel
so they can begin enforcement.
-8-
-------
Figure 17
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM: SUMMARY
CODE
1,7,8
2,7
1,7
1,3
1,7
1,6
ENTRY
NUMBER SOURCE
61
62
63
64
65
66
2,3,6,7 67
CITY/STATE
Muskegon, Ml
68
EPA.'s
Soundings
Feb. 15, 1974
EPA.'s New York, NY
Soundings
Feb. I I, 1974
EPA.'s Savannah, GA
Soundings
Feb. I I, 1974
EPA.'s Hampton, NJ
Soundings
Dec. 15, 1974
EPA.'s San Francisco,
Soundings CA
Dec. 15, 1974
EPA.'s Orangetown, NY
Soundings
Oct. 13, 1975
EPA.'s Pittsfield, MA
Soundings
Oct. 27, 1975
EPA.'s Ithaca, NY
Soundings
Oct. 27, 1975
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM WITH NOISE ORDINANCE
Noise ordinance was declared unconstitutional in that it was too vague in defining
offenders. No decibel levels.
Private ambulance has been issued six summonses even though the sirens pass
inspection before the city's Bureau of Noise Abatement.
Noise ordinance is not in decibels and it is too vague to be adequately
enforceable.
Town threw out their old ordinance and are working on a new one expressed in
decibels so that along with sound meter they must purchase , they will be able
to enforce it.
Jurrors refused to convict street mucicians because they felt busses are
worse violators but not prosecuted and the noise measurement is too technical
for police to adequately do.
Resident persuaded County Health Department to measure noise levels or
trucks on local highway. They were over the limit and she is now pressuring the
town to enforce its ordinance which is in decibels.
Tests have uncovered repeated unenforceable violations of their noise ordinance.
Town has never enforced it lacking the proper equipment and feel it should be
amended because it is too strict.
City is considering revising their noise ordinance which is vague after citizen
complaints about noise from college activities.
-9-
-------
Figure 17
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM: SUMMARY
ENTRY
CODE NUMBER SOURCE CITY/STATE
3,4,5
1,7
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
16
EPA.'s Gladwin, Ml
Soundings
Oct. 27, 1975
EPA.'s Muskegon, Ml
Soundings
Aug. 15, 1974
EPA.'s San Diego, CA
Soundings
March 31, 1975
EPA.'s Los Angeles, CA
Soundings
Oct. 27, 1975
EPA.'s San Jose, CA
Soundings
Oct 27, 1975
EPA.'s Belmont, CA.
Soundings
Oct. 27, 1975
EPA.'s Reno, NV.
Soundings
Oct. 17, 1975
EPA.'s Sioux City, IA
Soundings
July 7, 1975
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM WITH NOISE ORDINANCE
Town now has a noise level meter so they can enforce their noise ordinance.
Court struck down their ordinance with no db usage to be too vague to be fairly
enforceable.
San Diego Port District is being sued by San Diego Board of Education for losses
resulting from aircraft noise.
L. A. has to implement far reaching regulations to protect communities from
jet noise despite having no precedents to follow being caught between what
the state and F.A.A. feel should be done.
A prep school sued the city for damages from aircraft noise from the
city's airport but they lost.
City has adopted a noise ordinance as required by the state but lacks the money
to enforce it.
City is currently facing a noise suit over aircraft noise damages from their
airport.
They have an ordinance which is unenforceable because of a lack of
specific descriptions of noise violations expressed in decibels.
-10-
-------
Figure 17
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM: SUMMARY
ENTRY
CODE NUMBER SOURCE
8,9
CITY/STATE
77
78
EPA.'s
Soundings
May 27, 1975
Rochester, N.Y.
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM WITH NOISE ORDINANCE
City has had a noise ordinance since Oct. 1973, but it has been unenforceable
because permissible levels were too high and with problems in administering
the measurements.
EPA.'s Santa Monica, CA City has been sued for noise damages from aircraft and by the F.A.A. which
Soundings seeks to nullify their ordinance's enforcement within the jurisdiction of the
May 27, 1975 F.A.A.
-1 I-
------- |