Discussion of Noise Regulations
Contents
Most counties and cities in Washington follow two basic approaches to control noise problems: (1) adoption of noise control provisions based upon the state Noise Control Act, chapter 70.107 RCW, utilizing decibel-based standards; (2) adoption of subjective "public disturbance noise" standards which do not require the use of decibel meters for enforcement; (3) or a combination of these two approaches. Many smaller cities and towns have chosen the "public disturbance" approach.
Decibel-Based Ordinances
Using the decibel-based standards approach is the most difficult to enforce, from a practical standpoint. This method requires the adoption and/or enforcement of noise control provisions enacted pursuant to the state Noise Control Act. This Act empowers the Department of Ecology (DOE) to establish maximum noise levels in identified areas or environments. See RCW 70.107.030(1). Local governments may enact similar provisions establishing noise limitations for areas within their jurisdictions. Any difference between the local regulations and those provided for by the state must be approved by DOE. See RCW 70.107.060(3) . If DOE has not acted within 90 days after a local ordinance has been submitted to it, the local provision is automatically approved.
The rules adopted by DOE establishing maximum permissible noise levels are contained in chapter 173-60 WAC, relating to maximum environmental noise levels, and chapter 173-62 WAC, relating to motor vehicle noise performance standards. Chapter 173-60 WAC establishes three classes of environmental designations for noise abatement (EDNA), which are the areas or zones within which the maximum permissible noise levels are set. These EDNA zones are defined with respect to land usage and can usually be transferred to previously-established classifications in existing zoning ordinances or comprehensive plans. Chapter 173-62 WAC, relating to motor vehicle noise performance standards, establishes maximum permissible sound levels for motor vehicles on all public highways. The chief problem with enforcing the state Act (or an equivalent local ordinance) is the focus on decibel readings. Not all communities have the equipment or the necessary training to enforce such provisions. One benefit to the decibel approach, though, is that there is less likelihood of a successful constitutional challenge under it than under other methods of noise control enforcement.
Public Nuisance/Disturbance Noise Ordinances
Another possible approach to the problem of noise control is through the enforcement of "public disturbance" noise ordinances. Public disturbance noise ordinances are based upon a subjective standard as opposed to measures of maximum decibel readings. Public disturbance noise provisions, while perhaps easier to enforce, may raise some constitutional questions. Provisions must be sufficiently detailed to place a person on notice. Prohibitions cannot be so broad as to prohibit free speech.
Legal Issues
There have been four state appellate court cases reviewing public disturbance noise provisions. In Holland v. City of Tacoma, 90 Wn. App. 533, 954 P.2d 290 (1998), Seattle v. Eze, 111 Wn.2d 22, 759 P.2d 366 (1988), and Everett v. O'Brien, 31 Wn. App. 319, 641 P.2d 714 (1982), public disturbance type noise ordinances have been upheld; however, in Spokane v. Fischer, 110 Wn.2d 541, 754 P.2d 1241 (1988), an ordinance prohibiting frequent and habitual dog barking that disturbs or annoys any person in the neighborhood was found unconstitutionally vague.
See also MRSC's Noise Control Web page.