STATE AND LOCAL
NOISE CONTROL ACTIVITIES
1977-1978
APRIL 1979
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460

-------
Ob
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
By passing the Noise Control Act of 1972, Congress responded to an
increasing concern for "an environment for all Americans free from noise that
jeopardizes their health and welfare." Section 14 of the Act authorizes EPA
to provide technical assistance to facilitate the development of State and
local noise control programs. In the interest of speeding up and increasing
the level and effectiveness of this assistance, Congress passed the Quiet
Communities Act of 1978 which gave the EPA additional authority to assist
States and communities in developing noise control programs. As a result EPA's
technical assistance program has been expanded to include authority to develop
a financial assistance program for State and local noise control programs.
EPA conducted a comprehensive assessment of the State and local noise
programs in 1977 and early 1978 to obtain a better understanding of State and
local requirements. The major element of the assessment was a survey ques-
tionnaire mailed to officials in the 50 States and 2 territories, and to all
824 communities with a population greater than 25,000. This was supplemented
with information obtained from other studies and surveys. The goal of the
assessment was to:
Examine critically the status of State and local noise
control programs,
Ascertain the problems these programs are encountering
and technical assistance needed to overcome them, and
1

-------
Assess State and local progress in developing noise control
legislation and in reducing specific noise problems.
Thirty-eight States, 2 territories and 562 communities returned
completed questionnaires for an overall response rate of 69%. In contrast
to two earlier State and local surveys (1971 and 1973), the 1977-78 survey
was expanded to include more questions and additional communities. For
example, the 1973 survey was mailed to all communities with a population
greater than 75,000.
The findings and conclusions of the 1977-78 assessment have been
arranged in six categories:
Public Awareness
Legislation
Implementation
State and Local Resources
Program Progress
Technical Assistance
PUBLIC AWARENESS
Environmental noise is perceived by the majority of both State and
local government officials as a problem of growing concern. The survey asked
State and local officials to rate 14 different noise sources as to the
significance of each as a problem in their State or community. Motorcycle
noise was rated the most significant problem (58% for State officials and
68% for local officials). For communities the next most frequently designated
noise problems are in order: trucks, automobiles, railroad operations, and buses.
Table 1 lists the frequency with which the fourteen noise sources were iden-
tified by community officials. These findings agree with those of previous
surveys.
Government officials at both State and local levels obtain an under-
standing of the seriousness of their noise problems principally through formal
complaints (38%) and noise surveys (24%-28%). Since the number of complaints
filed in a community represents only a fraction of the people bothered by noise,
complaints should not be viewed as an accurate barometer of the extensiveness
2

-------
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF COMMUNITY NOISE CONTROL ACTIVITIES FROM THE IDENTIFICATION
OF A PROBLEM SOURCE TO ITS REDUCTION THROUGH COMMUNITY EFFORT
UMBER OF COMMUNITIES
SPECIFIC
NOISE
SOURCES
IDENTIFIED AS A
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM
NOISE LEGISLATION
FOR SOURCE WITH PER-
FORMANCE PROVISIONS
FULL SCOPE IMPLEMENTATION
OF NOISE PROGRAMS
MOTORCYCLES
369
165
55
TRUCKS
353
158
46
AUTOS
315
164
48
RAILROAD OPERATIONS
226
49
19
BUSES
188
142
16
AIRCRAFT
188
40
9
ANIMALS
170
102
57
CONSTRUCTION
151
129
44
ENTERTAINMENT
147
149
59
INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES
145
166
77
GARBAGE COMPACTORS
124
66
27
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES
79
91
16
HOME POWER EQUIPMENT
69
109
36
PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES
63
68
15

-------
Of a community's noise problems. In recent years, social-attitudinal and
noise monitoring surveys have provided a more accurate assessment of the
noise climate. The results of these surveys have been used as guidance in
the enactment of recent State and local laws and ordinances, (e.g., Allentown,
PA).
LEGISLATION
In discussing types of noise control legislation, tr.^re is an
important distinct.on between those that incorporate quantitative criteria
(performance standards) as a basis for determining permissible sound levels
and those which describe illegal noise in qualitative terms. By 1978, 19
States and 166 communities had adoH'ed quantitatively described noise source
legislation. Recreational vehicles are most frequently mentioned sources in
such State legislation. Other sources mentioned, in order, are motorcycles,
trucks, automobiles, and buses.
At the community level the noise source category covered by the
largest amount of legislation having performance standards is industrial
activities (166). Following closely behind are: motorcycles, automobiles,
trucks, and entertainment equipment.
Approximately one-half of the communities which reported significant
vehicular noise problems (Table S-l) have developed legislation with perfor-
mance standards in an attempt to control such problems. Thus, there is a sub-
stantial gap between the number of communities which reported significant
noise problems and those which have developed quantitative legislation to
counteract such problems. Furthermore, only about 20% of the communities with
significant aircraft and railroad problems have attempted to develop noise
legislation in the hopes of reducing these problems. Federal preemption in
these areas may have discouraged localities from attempting to handle these
sources. However, in cases such as ground operation noise from aircraft, the
problem can be dealt with through airport cooperation and operational restric-
tions.
4

-------
IMPLEMENTATION
Noise control laws are fully implemented in very few of the 31 States
responding to this portion of the survey. The implementing agencies are most
often police/safety (33%) followed by a growing number of environmental pol-
lution control agencies (30%). Inadequate manpower and lack of priority are
the two major problems which limit the extent and effectiveness of noise
control implementation efforts at the State level.
Noise control ordinances also are not fully implemented in all the
responding communities. The type of legislation most often implemented (52%)
is a municipal ordinance containing a range of specifically prohibited noise
offenses, followed by zoning ordinances (17%), and vehicular ordinances (10%).
As with State noise control efforts, implementation at the local level is
accomplished most often by police/safety personnel. Lack of priority, inade-
quate manpower, and inadequate instrumentation are the problems frequently
identified as causing failure to carry out the intent of legislation.
STATE AND LOCAL RESOURCES
State Noise Control Budgets
Nineteen States and Puerto Rico budgeted funds for noise control
activities in 1977-78. Thus, 31 States and the Virgin Islands (including
the eight States which did not respond to the survey) did not have any line
items in their budget for noise, which is a serious deficiency in a noise
control effort. The total amount budgeted by the States was $3.6 million.
Seven States budgeted in excess of $100,000, led by California's $1.6 million.
On a per capita basis, Hawaii ranks first in planned expenditures at 17.6
cents per resident. Using the $2 million figure for State budgets in 1973
as a baseline amount, noise budgets have been increasing, on the average at
16% per year over the last four years. However, in comparing the individual
State budgets for 1977-78 to those of 1973, budgets for seven States decreased
while those of ten States increased.
5

-------
Local Noise Control Budgets
Noise control budgets were reported by 140 communities. This is a
threefold increase in the number of communites since 1973 having noise con-
trol budgets. However, the number of communities sampled in the present survey
is much larger than the earlier one. The total reported local expenditures
have increased from $1.9 million in 1973 to approximately $2.7 million in 1977-78.
In the earlier survey 20 communities reported budgets for noise control of
$10,000 or more. In the last survey, this figure increased to 55 communities.
Overall, for commimities responding to both surveys, noise control expenditures
increased in 20 communities while decreasing in 16.
Adequacy of Budgets
The total reported State and community budgets for noise control
activities increased by 59% in four years, i.e., to $6.2 million in 1977-78
compared to $3.9 million in 1973. The obvious lack of adequate funds still
remains a major obstacle to the development and implementation of successful
noise control programs. Only two-thirds of the States with noise legislation
have funds budgeted for noise control. Nearly 300 communities with noise
control ordinances lack a noise control budget. In addition, over 150 com-
munities identifying noise as a growing community concern do not have funds
budgeted for noise. Here again, there is a serious deficiency between the
growth of noise programs and the necessary fiscal commitment to implement
meaningful programs.
Personnel
Twenty-eight States reported having personnel working in noise
control. However, of these only 16 have personnel spending at least 20
percent of their time on noise control. Since 1973 the number of States
reporting noise control personnel increased from 19 to 28.
The total number of noise control personnel working in State pro-
grams in 1977-78 was 275. Of these, 54 persons spend at least 20 percent
of their time and 221 persons spend less than 20 percent of their time on
noise control activities. Thus, many States apparently view noise control
as a part-time activity to be added to an employee's existing duties. The
6

-------
kinds of personnel employed by State noise control programs may be an indi-
cation of the direction State programs are taking. The sharp decline in
inspection positions and the increase in pollution control positions since
1973 may point to a greater emphasis by States in providing technical assis-
tance to local governments, as opposed to direct involvement with noise issues
at the local level.
At the local level, only 67 communities of 562 responding have per-
sonnel working 20% or more of their time on noise control activities. Public
health specialists, engineers and environmental technicians/inspectors filled
most of the program positions. There are another 218 communities with nearly
5500 part-time staff members working less than 20% of their time on noise
related activities. By far, the largest number of these 5500 are police
officers. They are enforcing motor vehicle noise laws and responding to
nuisance complaints as a part of their normal police duties.
Most State and local programs, therefore, are staffed by a larger
number of part-time than full-time people. These part-time people have their
major responsibility in areas other than noise control. Also, another sizable
related problem is the number of personnel enforcing noise laws without train-
ing in acoustics. Although over half of the State and local noise control
personnel are either engineers or environmental scientists, only 10 percent
have experience in acoustics. This may impede their effectiveness unless
supplementary training is provided.
EQUIPMENT
Only 24 States and 174 communities possess one or more sound level
meters, the basic instrument for making noise measurements. More States and
communities are purchasing, however, sophisticated pieces of equipment such
as outdoor monitoring systems, frequency analyzers, and graphic level recorders.
Such equipment is being used for noise monitoring surveys and to substantiate
enforcement cases in court.
7

-------
Although a number of communities have noise legislation, many of
these lack noise measurement equipment for enforcement. Analysis of survey
responses in 1977-78 also reveals 133 communities enforcing their noise
legislation without any noise measurement equipment. Without measurement
capability, enforcement efforts remain minimal. The 1977-78 survey results
clearly demonstrate that unless existing legislation is supported by measure-
ment capability, current programs cannot be effectively carried out.
PROGRAM PROGRESS
Progress toward achieving noise abatement and control is not easily
defined. Before community noise can be noticeably reduced, legislation must
be enacted, resources appropriated, and implementation and enforcement carried
out. Although there is no single evaluation system for rating program pro-
gress, the main program elements must at least be in place before there can
be any significant reduction in environmental noise.
Enforcement emphasis at the State or local level depends on government
jurisdiction at that level. States, for example, concentrate enforcement
actions against motor vehicles of all types, since they control the licensing
of such vehicles. On the other hand, many communities have noise ordinances
aimed at controlling animals, an area of obvious local jurisdiction. This
segregation of enforcement by jurisdiction also involves the Federal•govern-
ment. For example, there is often confusion as to whether Federal laws preempt
the jurisdiction of local ordinances regulating airport/aircraft noise. Noise
from commercial aircraft accessing an airport is controlled by FAA; but noise
from equipment and operations at the airport itself is the responsibility of
the airport proprietor, which, in many cases, is the local government.
The importance of obstacles facing noise control efforts was ranked
by State respondents as:
•	Lack of manpower,
•	Inadequate budget,
•	Lack of political support, and
•	Lack of effective legislation.
8

-------
Community respondents ranked their obstacles as:
•	Inadequate budget,
•	Lack of manpower,
•	Untrained personnel, and
•	Lack of effective legislation.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Responses to the 1977-78 noise control program assessment confirm
the need of States and communities to have comprehensive technical assistance
programs. The Quiet Communities Act of 1978 authorizes EPA to develop assis-
tance programs in a more comprehensive manner than was permitted by the
Noise Control Act of 1972.
When asked which areas of EPA assistance would be of significant
value in meeting legislative and programmatic needs, the number of replies
was:
(a)	at the State level:
•	Personnel Training/Workshop (25)
•	Noise Measurement Instrumentation (21)
t Effective Noise Control Methods (21)
•	Manpower (19)
•	Public Information Materials (18)
(b)	at the community level:
•	Effective Noise Control Methods (303)
•	Personnel Training/Workshops (300)
•	Noise Control Program Guidelines (285)
•	Noise Measurement Instrumentation (277)
In summary, both State and local noise control programs require:
• Comprehensive in-depth Federal assistance, and
9

-------
• The development of and access to Federally developed
technical and research data, tools, and information
relating to noise abatement and control.
A comparison of the results of the 1973 survey and the 1977-78 surveys
reveals that there has been little significant change in these requirements.
However, EPA anticipates that significant progress in noise reduction will be
made In the immediate future. The added authority which the Quiet Communities
Act gives to EPA in the area of financial and technical assistance should help
to achieve this objective.
10

-------