Loading...
Resolution No. 4296 . ,. "'>.- ,... !" - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 RESOLUTION NO. 4296 A RESOLUTION OF THE CrTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON REQUESTING THAT" THE FEDERAL, HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION REVISE THEIR STANDARDS AND PR()CEDURESONNOISE U:VEL ~QUlREMENTS ON FEDERAL-AID SYSTEM ' PROJECTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: , . WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Engineering Board (MTEB) including the City of Vernon in Los Angeles County is com- posed of administrators, planners and engineers representing 147 cities and 6 counties in southern California with a combined popu- lation greater than each of 44 states; and WHEREAS, the MTEB is a technical transportation advisory committee for the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and has, since its inception in'1950, been the'coordinating and transportation advisory committee in developing the streets, 10 11 12 13 14 15 highways, and freeway systems within the MTEB area; and 16 17 WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has deve- <'< . .'v loped revised NOISE STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES for noise studies and 18 noise abatemenfmea.sures and design 'hoise level requirements for 19 urban highway improvements; and 20 WHEREAS, these regulations apply to all Federal-aid urban 21 highways;' 'and 22 WHEREAS, conventional surface streets and highways serve a 23 dual purpose of carrying traffic and providing direct access to 24 25 adjoining properties; and WHEREAS, compliance with these Federal noise level require- 26 ments wot11drequire housing setbacks of up to 300 feet along those 27 28 29 30 31 32 urban highways carrying 25,000 vehicles a day at 35 m.p.h., or 70-foot setbacks in combination with noise barriers that would effectively prevent access to adjacent property; and WHEREAS, the concept of providing noise barrier~ or exten- sive housing setbacks is untenable and meaningless when applied to conventional urban streets; and -1- . . . -.. ."""- ".. .- .: - 1 WHEREAS, the only alternative permitted by these NOISE 2 STANDARDS'A:ND PROCEDURES would be to seek a waiver fromtheFHWA 3 on a proJect-by-f>roj ectbasis; and 4 WHEREAS, past experience with Federal review and involvement 5 indicates that these exceptions will result in costly time-consumin 6 studies, red tape and delay in improvements needed to alleviate 7 congestion and meet the traffic needs of the community; and 8 WHEREAS, there is no known practical and economical method to 9 meet tnese standards along conventional urban streets and highways 10 other than control the noise at its sources; 11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 12 SECTION'!: That the City of Vernon strongly urges the FHWA 13 to revise its highway noise regulations, and 14 SECTION, 2: That the FHWA acknowledge state source control 15 noise laws arid exempt all states that have laws that will control 16 vehicle noise at or below the federally established design noise 17 levels from complying with these regulations prior ~o the design 18 year of the project, and 19 SECTION 3: That copies of this Resolution be forwarded to 20 the League of California Cities, County Supervisors Association of 21 California, SCAG, and Subregional Transportation Planning Agencies 22 in the MTEB area, requesting that they take similar action by re- 23 questing the FHWA to revise their noise regulations accordingly; 24 and so advise tneir Congressional delegation, Senator~ Cranston 25 and Tunney, and the Secretary of Transportation. 26 SECTION 4: That the City Clerk of the City of Vernon shall 27 certifj7'to the passage of this Resolution and thereupon and there- 28 after the same shall be in full force and effect. 29 30 31 32 ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 1974. A~........ F.--~ . - R. ;tY Clerk -2- . -'f ',. 'I>-" II I " I I 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 .. i I 1 II I, 111 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 211 3;1 411 I 5. ) ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SSe I, F. A. ZIEMER, City Clerk of the City of Vernon, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution 6 No. II 71 8 4296 , was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Vernon, and approved by the Mayor of said City, ata regular meeting of the City Council held on November 19, 1974 City Clerk U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C, 20590 " IlEC 4 1974 IN REPLY REFER TO'.HEV_l 0 - Honorable Leonis C. Malburg Mayor of Vernon ' City Hall Los Angeles, California 90052 Dear Mayor Malburg: We have received a copy of the resolution adopted by your city <;ouncil. The resol uti on concerns the proposed revi si ons to the Federa 1 H,ighway Administration (FHWA) Noise Standards andProc~dures. .' FHWA has been in the process of revising the noise standards for the past several months. During this period of tim~, a large number of comments and suggestions on the proposed revisions has been received. We are currently assembling and categorizing the comments for con- ' sideration before promulgation of the fina'lstandards. We are including the resolution adopted by your city with other c()Il1IDents received on the proposed standards. Before any final decision is reached, each provision in your resolution will be given full con- sideration. ' We appreciate,;your interest and comments concerning this matter.' Sincerely yours, r2. r,~,,-.ti.- :J,v Rex I. Wells, Chief .~. (, Eh\'fl'OJIIIlElntal neve 1 oplllent Di vi 5i on ~,.~, ~ ;".f U.S. HOUSE QF RoIOlsENTATlVES WASHIN'GTQN. D.C. 20515 (202) 22lI-15464 GEORGE E. DANIELSON 30TH DISTRICT. CALIFORNIA COMMITTEES: .JUDICIARY VETERANS' AFFAIRS DISTRICT OFFICE: 879 SouTH ATLANTIC Be>uLEVARD MONI'EREY PARK. CAUFORNIA 917154 (213) 1570-8216 ~ongrt~~ of tljt Wnittb ~tatt~ J}ou~e of l\epre~entatibe~ UlUf)iugtou, )B.C. 20515 ASSISTANT MAJORITY WHIP MEMBER: SPECIAL COMMISSION ON MODERNIZATION OF HOUSE GALLERY FACILITIES January 13, 1975 lf~ r to Honorable Leonis C. Malburg Mayor City of Vernon 4305 Santa Fe Avenue Vernon, California 90058 Dear Mayor Malburg: I have enclosed'.a copy of a letter I received from the Department of Transportation in response to my inquiry on your behalf concerning the resolution adopted by the Cit nonts City Council with regard to noise level sta ards. ration has not made hat your recommendations inal decision is made. ighway Adminis this matter s yet. I trust every consid ration before a if I can be of government. GED:slm Enclosure THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FIBERS ~ . . ' .~. . U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 OEC2 '71974 IN REPLY REFER TO: HE:V....10 Honorable George E. ,;anielson House 'Of ~ep"sentatives Washington. 11.t.. ,'QS15 Dear Mr. ,Iuti e boo~, Your illqu1ryof ttov~,.. '1.1.1914. te the CongJ'@ssionaltiabofh U.S.. ~artmfmt of Trtnsportatfon. has been referred to this office for "ply. 'tovr .rJ"E!S;!MJIldence,wh1ch wu acknOWledged on ~ber 11, 1974. transtft1tted a eOP1 of a ~solutic.m ad.ted by the C1tyCouneil of Vernon. rne resolution a40pted by V~mOft h blsica.Uy the same resolution which was,repa~d and adopted by the~~tfG,011tan Transportationfng1neer1ng Board (MTEll) of los Mgel~s., Th~ MEBadopted its "solution on Oetober 24., 1914. ~ndsinQ that time, we hev& received several letters t8ftc:eminlthe. resolution fmm e~n1tie5Iffil1l!tted with the ~rrEB. _ny 01 thecfttes. s~dl, 8sV$rnon.adopted sindlar resolutions and others $1~lY 8l'ldOned the one a.pted by the MTEB. On Oee~r 4. 1974. ue S1lnt a lette-r ccnte""inDtn. resolution to the :/iayor of V.rntm. 1'1r. LeGnis (.'illburg.. ftl'le sentsim11ar letters to other communities which have written to ~$. In cur letters. we explainedtbattheF~deral Hig.tMay J\dministratinn has .~ in tnefll"Oe9SS of "v1s1n9 the noise stan4ards for the f)astsevera' months an<i. (~uring that ~ri()d of time. I lartJe numbe..of ecmmentsand suggest1onson the proposed revisions has bean~e8ived.. W~ pointed out tnat we aroeeurrently assembling and categorizing theeommenU for consideration before promulgathm of the final stalidards. We further indicated that we included their resoluUon w1tb other C::omlents received on tnep~sed standards. and before any final deebion is reached. '[llen provls.1. in therfst)lutfon will DQ given full CG'nsi de rati en. YOUt" transm1ttedcoM'&$pondence is retur'ned ft@f'eW'th. Sincerely yours, · !Ill O'Connor J. IVI. .Joseph M.. COOnM' Associate Administrator for Ri~ht"'of-\;lay an4 Env1rof'nllent bclo$ure Senator Alan Cranston Room 542, Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. Senator John Tunney Room 1415, Senate Office Building Washington, D. C. Rept. Augustus F. Hawkins 2350 Rayburn House Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 2U5l5 Hept. George E. Danielson' 318 Cannon House Office B~dg. Washington,D. C.205l5 Secretary Claude S. Brinegar Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.N. Washington, D.C. 20590 League of California Cities 1108 "0" Street Sacramento, California 95814 County Supervisors Association of California 11th and L Bldgs. Suite 201 Sacramento, California 95814 Southern California Association of Governments 1111 West Sixth Street Suite 400 Los Angeles, Californla 90017 East Central Area Planning Council 6330 Pine BelL, California Attn: Mr. Maellero 1-HORNTbN PIERSALL , CHAIRMAN L, MC C9NVIl...LE /", _. VIJ:E C:HAIRMAN ~ .. REGIONAL VICE CHAIRMEN B, DOUGLAS POWELL RIVERSIDE: COUNTY L. MC CONVILLE ORANGE COUNTY /' JOHN R. SHONE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY D. E. PIERSON IMPERIAL COUNTY A. p, STOKES VENTURA COUNTY I. L.MORHAR LOS ANGELES COUNTY EDWARD E. TUFTE NW REGION ALFRED W. SERENO NE REGION M. GLENN WEAVER SW REGION ERVIN SPINDEL SE REGION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE L. MC CONVILLE. CHAIRMAN WILLI'AM ACKERMANN OIR. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SCAG HAIG AVANIAN DISTRICT DIRECTOR. DIST. 7 DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION W. E. CAMERON OIR. PUBLIC WORKS CITV OF GLENOALE R. E. OEFFESACH DISTRICT DIRECTOR, DIST. 8 DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION WM, M. GLICKMAN DIR. PUBLIC WORKS CITV OF EL SEGUNDO CALVIN HAMILTON DIR. PLANNING CITV OF LOS ANGELES PURDY HICKS CITV ENGINEER CITV OF SAN BERNARDINO ,JOHN S, LATHROP OIR. PUBLIC WORKS CITV OF BELL G. MARCHESE , CITV ENGINEER CITV OF LONG BEACH ,J. F. MARTINEK DIR, PUBLIC WORKS CITV OF RIVERSIDE E. DOUGLAS MC ATEER DIR. PUBLIC WORKS CITV OF SANTA MONICA WM. O. MC CONNELL DIR. PUBLIC WORKS CITV OF BELLFLOWER L. MC CONVILLE ROAD COMMISSIONER COUNTY OF ORANGE I. L, MORHAR ROAD COMMISSIONER COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES THORNTON PIERSALL OIR. PUBLIC WORKS CITV OF ANAHEIM DAVID E. PIERSON ROAD COMMISSIONER IMPERIAL COUNTY .. DOUGLAS POWELL ROAD <':OMMISSIONER COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ALFRED W. SERENO DIR. PUBLIC WORKS CITV OF MONROVIA ,JOHN R, SHONE COUNTY ENGINEER CO, OF SAN BERNARDINO ERVIN SPINDEL DIR. COMMUNITY DEV. CITY OF OOWNEV A. P. STOKES ROAD COMMISSIONER COUNTY OF VENTURA STEVEN R. THURSTON CITV ENGINEER ,CITY OF OXNARD DONALD C. TILLMAN CITY ENGINEER CITV OF LOS ANGELES EDWARD E. TUFTE DIR. PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS M. GLI!:NN WEAVER CITV ENGINEER CITY OF TORRANCE FRITZ ZAPF OIR. PUBLIC WORKS CITV OF PASADENA GEORGE P. ZIMMERMAN PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR CITY OF WEST COVINA METRO~OLITAN TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING ,BOARD Q~." c,~, ""., '. '.. 1111 WEST SIXTH, STREET - SUITE 400 --; ,. . LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 /, ~~ ". 481-0095 /ld .."... .......'..,. October 30, 1974 ~. .' 'VI&~> RECEIVED 11-t.f-7t F. A ZIEMER CITY CLERK All City Councils in the MTEB Area Atop I jJ _,'. . .9 {9q ~ 'r-~h . FEDERA~ANDARDS AND REGULATIONS On October 24, 1974, the Executive Committee of the Metropolitan Transportation Engineering Board adopted the attached resolution requesting the FHWA revise their Standards and Regulations on Noise Level Requirements on all Federal-aid system projects and exempt from complying with these regulations, all states that have laws which will control vehicle noise at or below the federally established design noise levels. This resolution reflects our concern for the inappropriateness of the Federal regulations when applied to projects on conventional surface streets in our urban area. Compliance with these noise level regulations, for example, will require either the construction of costly noise barriers that will deny access to adjoining property or housing setbacks of 300 feet along a typical street carrying 25,000 Cars a day at 35 m.p.h. or some combination of the two. Since the purpose of the surface street system is not only to carry traffic, but is also to provide access to the adjoining properties, these current Federal regulations are untenable and inappropriate when applied to these surface routes. Furthermore, the Federal regulations are based o~ methods of projecting future noise levels without any consideration for California I s existing laws which will attain a more desirable effect by controlling the vehicle noise at its source.. At the present time, the only alternative allowed by these Federal' procedures is to ask the FHWA for a waiver of this requirement on each and every project. 'Justif~ingand obtainin9. this waiver,; of course, will de19Y our proposed projects as well as add to the red tape and paperwork in proceSSing the projects through the State and the Federal agencies. '-"-'-~ , ,r .. - 2 - October 30, 1974 The Executive Committee of the MTEB, therefore, believes it is essential that these regulations be revised and requests your agency take similar action and so advise the League of Cities, County Supervisors Association of California, SCAG, your congressional delegation, Senators Cranston and Tunney , Caltrans and the Secretary of Transportation. .", Very truly yours, ~r.~. THORNTON PIERSALL Chairman TP:vw ' Attach. v. r \ RESOLUTION OF THE METROPOUTAN TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING BOARD REQUESTING THE FHWA REVISE THEIR STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES ON NOISE LEVEL REQUIREMENTS ON FEDERAL-AID SYSTEM PROJECTS WHEREAS, the M'fEB is composed of administrators, planners and engineers representing 147 cities and 6 counties in southern California with a combined population greater than each of 44 states; and WHEREAS, the MTEB is a technical transportation advisory committee for the Southern California Association of Governments, and has since its inception in 1950, been the coordinating and transportation advisory committee in developing the streets, highways and freeway systems within the MTEB area; and WHEREAS, the FHWA has developed revised NOISE STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES for noise Istudies and noise abatement measures and design noise level requirements for urban hi9rway improvements; and WHEREAS, these regulations apply to all Federal-aid urban highways; and WHEREAS, conventional surface streets and highways serve a dual purpose of carrying traffic and providing direct access to adjoining properties; and WHEREAS, compliance with these Federal noise level requirements would require housin;1 setbacks of up to 300 feet along those urban highways carrying 25,000 vehicles a day at 35 m.p.h. or 70-foot setbacks in combination with noise barriers that would effectively prevent access to adjacent property; and VfHEREAS, the concept of providing noise barriers or extensive housing setbacks is untenaJble and meaningless when applied to conventional urban streets; and WHEREAS, the only alternative permitted by these NOISE STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES would be to seek a waiver from the FHWA on a project" by project basis; and WHEREAS, past experience with Federal review and involvement indicates that these exceptions will result in costly time-consuming studies, red tape and delay in improvements needed to alleviate congestion and meet the traffic needs of the community; and WHEREAS, there is no known practical economical method to meet these standards along conventional urban streets and highways other than control the noise at its source: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , that the Executive Committee of the Metropolitan Transportation Engineering Board strongly urges FHWA to revise its highway noise regulations; and r - 2 - BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the FHWA acknowledge state source control noise laws and exempt from complying with these regulations all states that have laws that will control vehicle noise at or below the federally established deSign noise levels prior to the design year of the project; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the League of California Cities, County Supervisors Association of California, each city and county, SCAG and Subregional Transportation Planning Agencies in the MTEB area requesting they take similar action requesting the FHWA revise their noise regulations accordingly and so advise their Congressional delegation, Senators Cranston and Tunney, and the Secretary of Transportation. 32616r-' , proposed rules ThiS. section of. the. FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of the proposed Issuance or rules and regulations. The purpose of these notices Is to Slve anterested persons an opportunity to participate In the rulemaklns prior to the adoption or the flna' rules. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, reliable noise analysis techniques which Agricultura.l Marketing Service EDUCATION, AND WELFARE are best suited for highway use. Since the matters affected relate to [ 7 CFR Part 966 ] Food and Drug Administration grants, benefits or contracts within the TOMATOES GROWN IN FLORIDA [21CFR Parts 1, 100, 102] purview of 5 U.s,C. 553(a) (2), general Proposed Expenses and Rate of FOOD AND LABELING notice of proposed rulemaking is notre- quired, However, because of itS desire Assessment Correction that 'these regulations respond to the Consideration is being given to au- public needs to the greatest possible ex- thorizing the Florida Tomato Committee In the correction appearing on page tent, the FEW A wishes to offer an oppor- to spend not more than $112,500 for its 282.91 in the issue for Tuesday, August 6, ttulity to interested persons to submit operations during the fiscal periOd end- 1974, in the third line, the document written comments, suggestions or objec- illg July 31, 1975, and to collect one-half number listed as "FR Doc. 74-13479", tions. cent per 30 -potuldequi valent on assess- should be changed to read "FR Doc. 74- All, comments submitted should ref~e able tomatoes handled by first handlers 13467". to the docket number appearing at the tulder the program. top of this document and should be sub- The committee is the administrative DEPARTMENT OF mitted to the omce of Environmental agency established tulder Marketing TRANSPORTATION Policy <HEV-I>, Federal Highway Ad- I Agreement No. 125 and Order No. 966, . . ministration, Washington, D.C. 20590. ; both as amended, regulating the han- Federal Highway Administration All comm.ents received before the close of I dling of tomatoes grown in designated [ 23 CFR Part 772 ] Q.usi11ess on October 7,1.fl4, Will be con- \ cotulties in the State of Florida. This 'rDocke~n 74-61 ' sidered before flinner-action is taken on !'" program is effective under the Agricul-l"": ~ :1 this proposal. Comments will be aVail- tural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, L NOISa;; STANDARD AND PROCEDURE~-t able for examination in the omce of the \ as amended (7 U.s.C. 601 et seq.) , Proposed Amendments Chief of ~nvironmental Development i All persons who desire to submit writ- The Admini t t F d 1 Hi h Division, Room 3246, 400 Seventh Street I ten data, views, or arguments in con- , s ra or, e era g way SW.. Washington, D.C., both before and nection with this proposal should file the Admi~stration (FEW A), is considering after the Closing date for comments. same in duplicate with the Hearing amendmg the noise standards and proce- These proposed amendments are issued Cl k R 112 A' T dures contained in 23 CFR Part 772. d th th .t of 2 S er, oom -, U.S. Department of Pursuant to ti 136(b) f th Fed tul er e au on y ~ U. .C. 315 and Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250, not eral-Aid High see ~n t f 19~0 ~b L: the delegation of authority by the Soore- later than ~eptember 25, 1974. All writ- No, 91-605 (th~al970 c AC~) whiclt added tary of Transportation in 49 cm 1.48 ten sub~isslons made pursuant to tIllS section 109 (1) to Titl 23 f th ,U S (b). / notice will be made available for pUblic eo. e " IdS te b 5 1974 inspection at the office of the Hearing COde, the FHW A developed noose stand.. ssue on ep m er, . Clerk during regular business hours (7 ards for use in the planning and design NORBERT T. TIEM~N, cm 1.27(b)). of new highway projects, The standards Federal Highway Administrator. Th I f 11 .. ~ promulgated on February 8, 1973, e proposa s are as 0 o\\s. ~nd published on Jtule 19. 1973 (38FR Chapter I of Title 23 CPR would be ~ 966.211 'EXl)Cnl'.'~ and raIl' of as..e..". 15953) amendIng 23 CFR by the addition amended by revising Part 772 to read mt'JlI. of ?arl7.12. as follows: (a) The reasonable expenses that are Section 114 of the Federal-Aid High- PART 772-NOISE STANDARDS AND likely to be incurred during the fiscal way Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-87 (the PROCEDURES period ending July 31, 1975, by the Flor- 1973 Act) , rev1sed 23 U.S.C. 109(1) to per- Sec. ida Tomato Committee for its main- mit the FEW A to develop and promul- 772.1 tenance and functioning and for such gate "standards" for the control of traffic 772.2 other pw'poses as the Secretary may de- noise on previously constructed highways ~~~:: termine to be appropriate will amount to on any of the Federal-aid systems. In- 772.5 $112,500. terim regulations providing guidelines (b) The rate of assessment to be pc,id for the submission and approval of noise 772.6 by each handler ill accordance with this abatement ~oiects.,on ~tf"Ilnll!:'v ...Q,on- '772.7 part shall be one-half cent ($0.005) per structea hi, ways were promulgated on 30-pound container or equivalent quan- ~bluary ~, 1974, and published on tity, of tomatoes handled by him as the February 22, 1974 (39 FR 6696) amend- 772.8 first handler thereof during the fiscal ing 23, CFR Part 772 by the addition of 772,9 period. '~ 772.30. IC) Unexpended income in excess of The proposed regulations published expenses for the fiscal periOd mllY be herein represent an integration of the carried over as a reserve. mandatory requirements of the 1970 Act (d) Terms used in this section have the and the permissive authority granted by same meaning as when used in the mar- the 1973 Act. These regulations are de- keting agreement and tlus pa.rt. sigiled to establish 'comprehensive poll- Dated: September 4,1974. cies and procedureS for dealing with the abatement of highway traffic noise CHARLES R. BRADER, and highway-related construction noise. Deputy Director, Fruit and Veg- Greater consideration has been given to etable Division, Agricu.ztural projects on previously constructed high- Marketing Service. ways, and every attempt has been made [FR Doc.74,.20809 Filed 9-9-74;8:45 am] to incorporate the most up-to-date and . Purpose. Definitions. Retroactivity. Appl1cabll1ty. AnoJ.ysis of noise impacts and abate- ment measures. Design noise levels. ~ocedure for requesting exceptions to the achievement of the design noise levels. Coordination with local officials. Noise abatement measures for lands which are undeveloped a.t the timeo! public knowledge of the highway project. 772.10 Federal participation. 772.11 Construction noise. 772.12 Traffic 110ise prediction method. A1JTHOBlTY: 23 U.S.C. 109(h) and 109(1); to CFR 1.48 (b) . ' 6772.1 Purpose.. (a) The purpose of this part 18 to promulgate for proposed Federal-aid system projects the following: (1) Policies and procedures for noise studies and noise abatement measures, FfDfRAl REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO, 176--TUESDAY, SfPTEMBER 10, 1974 " (2) Design noise levels, (3) Procedures for requesting excep- tion to design noise levels, and (4) Coordination with local omclals, (b) The highway tramc noise abate- ment procedures, coordination require- ments, and design noise levels in this part constitute the noise standards mandated by section 109(1), Title 23, United states Code. All highway projects which are developed in conformance with this part shall be deemed in con- formance with 'the F'HW A noise stand- ards, ti 772.2 Definitions. (a) Date of Public Knowledge of a Proposed Highway Project-the date that the highway agency holds the first pUblic hearing for the highway sections. If a hearing is not held, it shall be the date the first notice of opportunity for a public hearing is published in a news- paper, The highway agency may; if It prefers, adopt as a "date of public knowl- edge of a proposed highway project" an alternate processing action which occurs later in the highway section development process than the date of the public hear- ing or date of notice of the opportunity for a public hearing indicated above. Such alternate processing action must be concurred in by, the FHW A and made available to the public in the form of a pUblic notice. (b) Type 1 project. A proposed Federal or Federal-aid highway project for con- struction or reconstruction of a section of highway for which the highway loca- tion is approved after July I, 1972,-01' the authorization to advertise for bids for the major grade and drain elements is given after July 1,1975. ' (c) Type II project, A proposed proj- ect for noise abatement on an existing section of a Federal-aid system highway for which construction or reconstruction of the roadway is not proposed, (d) Design noise level, The noise levels established by this part for various activities or land uses. The design noise levels are used to determine the degree of impact of tramc noise on people's activities and for the evaluation of noise abatement measures. (e) Design year. The future year used to estimate the probable traffic volume which is one of the primary bases for the roadway design.. A time 20 years from construction is common for multi- lane and other major projects. Periods of 5 or 10 years are not uncommon for low volume roads. (f) Developed activities or land uses. Those tracts of land or portions thereof which contain improvements or activi- ties devoted to frequent human use or habitation, For improvements under construction or SUbsequently added, the date of issue of a building permit estab- lishes the date of existence. (g) L.,. The equivalent steady sound level which in a stated period of time would contain the same acoustic energy as the time-varying sound level during the same time period. (h) L... The sound level that is ex- ceeded 10 percent of the time (the 90th PROPOSED RULES 32617 writing for those activities and land uses where the design noise levels can- not. be reasonably achieTed. (c) Exceptions to the Achievement of Design Noile Levels for Type 1 Projects, An exception to the achievement of the specified design noise level may be re- quested by the highway agency for an activity or land use or for a speCific length or land use along Type I projects. Such requests may be made where the study and analysis required by tills part demonstrate that abatement measureS'- for such areas are not practicable or \; prudent (that is, the soeial, economic, I and- environmental consequences exceed I noise abatement measure benefits) . j (d) Type 11 projects, The develapment ,and implementation of Type II projects is not a requirement of 23 U.S.b.109m and is therefore not a requirement of this part. The noise analysis procedure out- lined in ~ 7'72.5(0.) (1), (2) and (5) as well as provisians af U 772,5 (b) and (c), 772.10 (a), (b). (e), and (f). and 772.12 af this part, however, shall apply to the development and implementation of Type II projects when such projects are pro- posed for Federal-aid highway fund partiCipation at the option af the high- way agency. ti 772,5 Analysis 01 noise impacts and abatement measures. percentile) for the period under con- sideration. This value is 'an indicatorjof both the magnitude and frequency of oc- currence of the loudest noise events. (1) Level of Service C, Tramc condi- tions (used and described in the High- way Capacity Manual-Highway Re- search Board, Special Report 87) 'where speed and maneuverability are closely controlled by high volumes, and where vehicles are restricted in their freedom to select speed, change lanes, or pass. (j) Location approval. The approval given in the early 1970's by FHWA (at the request of a State highway agency) based upon a location study report and a corridor public hearing or opportunity therefor. This action established a par- ticular location for a highway section and was prerequisite to authorization to proceed with design. (k) Noise level. The weighted Eiound pressure level obtained by the use of a metering characteristic and weighting A as specified in American National Stand- ard Institute Specification S1.4-1971. The abbreviation herein used is d.b.a. (1) Operating speed. The highest overall speed at which a driver can travel on a given highway under favor- able weather conditions and under pre- vailing trafiic conditions, without at any time exceeding the safe speed as deter- mined by the design speed on a section- by-section basis, (a) For all Type I projects, the high- (m) Proiect development. Studies, way agency shall conduct a noise analysis surveys, coordination, reviews, ap- during the project develapment stage. provals, or other activities and steps The level of analysis will need to vary normally engaged in to determine the from simple calculations to evaluate the location and to design a highway project. significance of the noise impact far rural (n) Truck. A motor vehicle having a and low' volume highways to extensive gross vehicle weight greater than 10,000 analysis for high volume controlled pounds and buses having a capacity ex- access highways in urban areas. The ceeding 15 passengers. noise analysis is to be conducted in the following manner: ti 772.3 Retroactivity. (1) Identify existing activities or land The requirements of this part are not uses which may be affected by noise retroactive. Approval actions taken in from the highway section. The tramc conformance with 23 CFR Part 772 as noise analysis may be terminated if it is pUblished on June 19, 1973 (38 FR 15953) analytically determined 'that activities and 23 CFR ~ 772.30 as published on or developed land uses are not sufliciently February 22, 1974 (39 FR 6696) and with close to the proposed highway improve- applicable F'HW A directives in effect ment to be adversely affected by noise. prior to publication of Part 772 shall re-' (2) Predict the highway generated main in effect. noise level as described in ~ 772.12 (a) R 772 4 A I' b'l' and (b) for each alternative under de- ~ ' pp Ica I tty. tailed study. (a) Type 1 projects. All requirements (3) Determine (by measurement) the of this part apply to all Type I projects existing noise levels for activities or unless it is specifically indicated that a developed land uses. Measurements will section applies only to Type II projecla not normally be necessary where it is tiC W' (b) The plans and specificatians for clear tllat the existing levels can be satis- Type I projects shall not be approved factorily estimated using approved noise unless: prediction methods. The purpose of (1) The specifications include meas- these existing noise levels is to quantify ures needed in accordance with ~ 772.11 the existing acoustic environment and (b) to m1n1m1ze construction noise im- provide a base for assessing the impact pacts, of noise level increases from the pro"" (2) The project has been developed in posed highway. , acoordance with the requirements of (4) Compare the predicted noise levels this part,and for each alternative under detailed study (3) Noise abatement measures are in- with existing noise levels and with the corpora.ted to attain reductions to or design noise levels in Table I. (It would below the design noise levels in Table I also be desirable to predict noise levels (1772.6) or incremental noise abate- for the "do nothing" alternative in the Nt: i{ ment measures (described in 1 7'12.7(0.)) design year. Such infarmation should not' ',' are incorporated and exceptions to the be used as a basis for requesting excep- des:I.gn noise levels have been approved in t1ons. but will be useful in describing the No. 176-Pl;.I---& FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 176-TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1974 .. :~2618 noise impact of proposed highway im~ provements in contrast with noise levels likely to be reached in the same area if no highway improvement is undertaken.> (5) Evaluate alternative noise abate- ment measures for reducing 01' eliminat- ing the noise impact for activities on de- veloped lands. (6) Identify those lengths of highway (separately for each side of the highway) and individual land uses where noise abatement measures appear impracti- cable or imprudent and which may qual- ify under the exception procedures (* 772.7 (a) and (b) ). (7) Prepare a noise study report in- cluding proposed noise abatement meas- ures and recommended exceptions to the design noise levels. FHW A concurrence in the noise report will constitute its de- termination that adequate noise abate- ment mea.'lures have been taken to achieve the design noise levels. (1)) Highway agencies proposing to use Federal-aid highway funds for Type n projects shall perform a noise analysis similar to fi 772.5(a) (1), (2) and (5) and shall prepare a report with recommendations. (c) In requesting Federal funding for a Type n project, the highway agency shall indicate the crttical nature of the proposed Type II project and its relation- ship with other crttical noise problem highway sections. Some of the suggested factors which may be considered in the development of this relationship are: (1) Applicable state law; (2) Type of development to be protected; (3) Magnitude of the traffic noise impact: (4) Cost-benefits; (5) Population density of the affected area; (6) Day-night use of the property; (7) Feasibility and practicability of noise abatement at the site; (8) Availability of funds; (9) Existing noise levels: (10) Achievable noise reduction; (11) Intrusiveness of highway noise (L,.--L.o) ; (12) Public's attitude; (13) Local governments' efforts to con- trolland use adjacent to the highway; (14) Date of construction of adjoining development; (15) Increase in traffic noise since the development was constructed. ~ 772.6 Design noi~f' levels. (110) In Type I project development the highway agency is to seek a balance be- tween the benefits achieved by noise abatement measures and other social, economic and environmental costs, The design noise levels in Table 1 represent an upper limit of desirable noise level conditions. Lower noise levels (below the design noise levels) may often be achieved with minimal increase in the social, economic and environmental cost, Every reasonable effort is to be used to achieve substantial noise reductions when predicted noise levels exceed these design noise levels. However, any slgn11'1- cant reduction 111 the eXisting or pre- dieted noise level will be a benefit. and not be significantly affected by the noise, abatement measures to achieve such re- but the intertor activities will. ctuctions shall be included in the project (e) The intertor design noise level in development where they are consistent Ca.tegOl'Y E may be considered as a basis with other social, economic, and environ- .' for "sound-proofing" public use institu- mental considerations. On the other tionaJ structures in special situations hand, the social, economic and environ- when, in the judgment of the highway mental cost of providing abatement agency and concurred in by the FHW A, measures may be too high. For these such consideration is in the best interes$ cases, this pa.rt provides for the approval of the pubUc (see fi 772.10 (c) ). by FHWA of design noise level (f) In the absence of noise insulating exceptions. values for specific structures, interior (b) The design noise levels in Table 1 noise level predictions may be estimated are not to be applied to areas having from the predicted outdoor noise level limited human use 01' where lowered by using the fOllowing noise reduction noise levels would produce Uttle benefit. factors: Such areas would include but not be limited to junkyards, industrtal areas, railroad yards, parking lots, and storage ya.rds. (c) The exterior design noise levels apply to outdoor areas which have regu- lar human use and in which a lowered noise level would be of benefit to the public. These design noise level values are to be applied at those points within the sphere of human activity (at approxi- mate ear level height) where outdoor activities actually occur. The values do I The open/elose window detenn1natlon IbaII eonsldm not apply to an entire tract upon which a. the position of the window for mended periods of the activity is based, but only to that time, portion in which such activity normally an~ ~:h~~~~~~ ~::.n~e opm window position occurs. c. the strueture nse during the open window pm<Itlon/ high noise period. (d) The interior design noise level in Stroctures In eold climates where windows are open CategOry E applies to: only a few days a year and structures with air- conditioning will normally be considered lIS a closed- (1) indoor activities for those situa- window condition. LIkewise, structures In climates tions where no exterior noise sensitive where wludows are open for only a few hours a day during the summer months and situations where the land use or activity is ident11ied; open window oerIod does not coincide with a high noise (2) those situations where the extertor ~~~t~ the highway may qualify for a dosed-window activities on a tract are either remote I Noise reduction factors higher than those shown f th hi h shi Id d in abon may be used when fteld measummen1.ll In the rom e g w~y or e e some structure In question Indicate that a btghtr 'valuo Is manner so that the extertor activities will JusWled. TABLE 1.-DeElgu noise level/activity relationships PROPOSED RULES Bnlldlng type Window ool1(lil1on I Nol"" redu<'(\on due to exterior fllthe structure I AU....._. .... Open........ ........._.... Light frame._ OrdillllfY sasb (closed)____ With storm wlndows..._._ MllSOnrYm_.. Single glazed____________.. Do.____._ Donbhi glaled..___________ 10lln 20 2;; 26 as Activity category Design noise Ievels-dBAI L'Q LJt De.'erlption of activity CIItcgOry A ,.........__ 57 (exterior)__. 60 (exterlor).._ Tmcts of land In which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary !!Ig. ni1lcanoo and serve an Important public need, and where the preser- vaUoll oUhose quail ties Is essential If tbe area Is to continue to serve its Intended purpose. Such areas oonld Include amphitheaters, particular parks or portions of parks, or open spaces which are dedicated or recognized by approllriate local ollloials for ootlv lties requ1rlng special qualltles 01 serenity and quiet. B 1.......__... 67 (exkrlor)._. 70 (exterior)... R"...dences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools. ehurch6$, libraries, hospitals, picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, acUve sports areas, and parks. c.... _ _.. _... 72 (exterior) _ _. 75 (exterior)... Developed lands, properties or activities not Included In categories A and B above. D..._~.~_.__.._..__......;;..._......~~._.__. F:or requirements on undeveloped lands. see section 77h2.101(a)'1 I E ......_...__ 52 (Interlor).._ 55 (tntorl'{r)... Residences. motels, hotels, publlc meetmg rooms, so 00 S, C mr,.los, libraries, bospltals, and auditoriums. I Eltber Ll0 or L.. design noise levels mllY be used. I Parl<s In categories A and B Include all such lands (publle or private) which are actually used as parks 11.< well R8 those pUblic lands officially set asldeor designated by agovemlllental agency liS parks on the date ofpubhc knowl<'dgec01 the proposcd highway proied. I See soetlon 772.6 (d) and (e) for method of application, ~ 772,7 Procedure for re(lucsling excep- lions 10 Ihe achie,'enwnl of Ihe de- sign noise lewls. (a) There may be situations alOng Type I highway projects where the exist- ing or predicted noise level exceeds the design noise level specified for a par- ticular activity or land use and where social, economic and environmental ef- fects associa.ted with the application of noise abatement measures exceed the benefits of abatement. In such situations, the noLse analYsis is to include evalua.- tions of the effects and benefits of incre- mental reductions of the noise level, The purpose of this evaluation is to determine U a lesser level of noise abatement can be achieved and can correspondingly lessen the adverse noise impact. (b) The highwa.y agency may l'CqUestl an exception to the achievement of the specified design noise levels where it can. be demonstrated that the adverse effect8 of achieving the spec1:fled design nol8e levels for specific activities or land uses along the highway exceed the 'benefits. FfDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 176-TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1974 ~L/.. f7'-. & PROPOSED RULES The highway agency shall include the ~ 772.8 Coordination w.ith local offidals. results of the following in the report re- (a) Highway agencies have the re- quired by fi 772.5(0.) (7) : . th t (1) Identification of the individual sponslb1l1ty for taking measures a are noise sensitive activities or groupe 01 prudent and feasible to assure that the activities along the sections of highway. location and. design of highWaYto~~ which are experiencing existing traflic compatible wlth existing land use. noise levels or are expected to experience gover~e~ts, on the other hand, have future highway traffic noise levels In respons1bility for land develop~ent con- excess of the design levels. trol an~ zoning. Highway agencles can be (2) An evaluation of the benefits and ~~ cons1derable assistance to local oarfli- adverse effects of incremental noise cmls in these effort:s ~th a view tow d abatement measures promoting compatlb1lity between land (3) A weighing oi the costs or effects development and highways. Therefore, of the noise abatement measures con-' for undeveloped lands or .properties llf- sidered against the benefits which can be sociated with Type I prOJects, highwl:l.Y achiaved as well as against other con- l.',genc:es shall cooperate with local of- fiicting values such as economic reason- ficials (with~n ,!hose jurisdiction the ableness. esthetic impact, air quality, J:Ug~way project 18 located> by furnish- highway safety, or other similar values. mg. . Such weighing should establish that re- ~ 1) Approx1mate generalized future duction of noise levels to more desirable n018e levels ~or various distances from levels is not in the best overall publiC in- the highway lDlProvement, terest for the particular highway sec- (2) Informatio~ that may be useful tion. These decisions must ultimately be to local commumties to protect fut~e based upon case-by-case judgment. How- land d~velopment from becoming - ever every effort should be made to ob- compat1ble with anticipated highway ta. 'd noise levels, and 1n etailed information on the costs, (3) The FHWA poliCY rega.rdlng land benefits and effects ~volved to assure use development or changes which are that final decisions ut1lize a systematic, initiated after issuance of thJs part, as and factually based assessment, outlined in section 772 10(e) (4) Recommendations for incorpora- . . tion in the project of the incremental ~ 772.9 Noise abatement m~asures for noise abatement measures (described in lands which are undeveloped at time paragraph (a) of this section) deter- of public knowledge of the proposed mined to have benefits consistent \\1th highway project. adverse effects. (a.) Noise abatement measures are not (c) In reviewing requests for excep- required for lands which are undeveloped tiGns, the FHW A will give consideration at the time of public knowledge of the to the type of highway and the width of proposed highway project. \ the right-of-way, New freeway projects (b) A highway agency may request and most projects for the major recon- Federal-aid participation in the cost of struction or upgrading of freeways allow providing noise aba.tement measures for for the use of noise control measures. Type I projects adjoining undeveloped Noise control measures are progressively lands when the noise analysis demon- more difficult to applJ' on other highways, strates a need in the following situations: particularly on local roads and streets (1) Development occurs between the because of: time of public knowledge of the pro- (1) Numerous points of access; posed highway project and the actual (2) At-grade intersections; construction of the project, or (3) Limited ability to acquire addi- (2) Development is expected to occur tional right-of-way as buffer zones; within a few years and a strong case can (4,) The impossibility of altering road- be made in favor of providing noise way grades; abatement measures as part of the high- (5) Difliculty of constructing noise way project based on consideration of barriers; need. expected long-term benefits to the (6) The impossibility of taking advan- public interest, and the dl.fticulty and in- tage of the terrain and other natural creased cost of later incorporating abate- features. ment measures. (d) Except in the most unusual situa- (c) For lands which are undeveloped tions, exceptions will be approved when at the time of public knowledge of the the predicted traffic noise level from the highway project, it is recommended that highway improvement does not exceed the highway agency consider the activity the existing noise level (originating from or land use as if it were in existence in sources other than the highway being the following situations: improved or replaced) for the activity or (1) The development is planned at the land use in question. same time as the highway project. or . . . (2) The development was planned be- (~) ImtiatlOn of Ty~e U projects is fore the highway studies but the develop- optiOnal. Therefore spec1fied design noise ment has been delayed. levels are not established and the pro- II 772 10 F d I .. . posed noise abatement measures are not l:I . e era partiCipation. required to achieve the design noise (a) The use of noise abatement meas- I ls . urea shall be limited to those situations eve . Exceptions are not reqmred where where: . the proposed abatement measures do not (1) A tra.ffic noise impact baa been achieve the design noise levels. identified, 32619 (2) The noise abatement measures will provide a significant noise reduction, and (3) The overall noise abatement bene- fits are judged to outweigh the overall social, economic, ,and environmental costs of the noise abatement measures. (b) Traffic management measures (such as limitations on types of vehicles, limitations on time of travel for certain types of vehicles, or combinations of such measures) and noise impact reduc- ing horizontal and vertieal alignments and grades can be used as noise abate- ment measures. The following noise abatement measures :ma.y a.1lKl be incor- porated in either Type I 0F1I projects to reduce highway-generated noise Im- pacts and the costs of such measures may be Included In Federal-aid pll-rticipating project costs: (1) The acquisition of property rights (either in fee or lesser interest) for in- stallation or construction of noise abate- ment barriers or devices. (2) The installation or construction of noise barriers or devices (including land- scaping), whether within the highway right-of-way or on an easement ob- tained for that purpose. (c) In some specific cases, there may be compelling reasons to consider meas- ures to "lJOUD.d-proof" public use insti- tutional struetures. Situations of this kind may be considered on a case-by- case basis for Type I projects when only a few buildings are Involved and when other abatement mea.sures are not phy- sically possible or when the alternatives are unreasonably expensive. Proposals of this type, together with the State's rec- ommendation for approVal, shall be sub- mitted to FHW A for consideration. (d) In other specific cases, the FHWA Division Engineer may authorize the ac- quisition 01 unimproved property for buifer zones on Type I projects only. Ac- qlifsition of occastona1improved parcels may be included in such buffer zone acquisitions, Acquisition of other im- proved parcels may be authorized when it can be demonstra.ted tha.t noise reduc- tion benefits will accrue to activities or land uses other than those acquired. In authorizing any buffer zone acquisition, consideration shall be given to the needs and desires of 'the community and the overall public interest. (e) FHWA encourages development of compatible activities and land uses in the vicinity of heavily traveled roadways, Consequently, for Type n projects, noise abatement measures will not nonnalIy be a.pproved for activities and land uses whl.eh come into existence after the effective date of this part. Noise abate- ment measures may be provided, how- ever, in those Instances where local a.uthortties have taken measures to exer- cise land use control over the remain- ing lUldeveloped lands adjacent to high- ways in the local jurisdictions to prevent further development of incompatible ac- tivities, (f) The Federal share on Type II projects sha.ll be the same as that for FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO, 176-TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1974 ",. ~2620 PROPOSED RULES the automobile volume. Whel'e the aver- age hOU1'ly volume for the highest 3 hours on an average day was used for automobile traffiC, comparable truck vol- umes should be used. (e) As an optional altel'11ative to para- graph (d) of this section, traffic charac- teristics may be selected to correspond \'11th the critical times of day and night which will assess the most adverse traf- fic noise impacts upon the nearbY activi- ties and land uses. (FR ;loc.74-20858 PUed 9-9-74:8:45 am] the Federal-aid system on which the pl~jectislocated. ~ 772.11 Construction noise. The following general steps al'e to be performed for all Type I projects after the effective date of this part: (a) Identify land uses or activities which may be affected by noise from con- struction of the highway. The identi- fication is to be performed during the project development studies; (b) Determine the special provisions which are needed in the contract docu- ments to minimize or eliminate adverse construct.ion noise impacts; [ 49 CFR Part 395 ] (c) Incorporate the needed special (ket No. MC-47: Notice No. 74-2OJ provisions in the contract documents. ~ 772,12 Traffic noj,'e le,'cl prediction DRIVE 'DAILY LOGS; USE OF 7.DAY methods. LOG FORM . (,a) Noise levels to be used in assess- Advance No e of Proposed Rule Making ing noise impacts shall be ob'ained from The Directo of the Bureau of Motor a predictive method approved by FHWA.Carrier Safety considering an amend- (b) The predictive method and the ment to Part 39 of the Federal Motor noise level predictions shall account for Carrier Safety Re ations which would variations in: permit drivers of mercial motor ve- (1) Traffic characteristics (volume, hicles engaged in in rsta.te or foreign speed, and truck traffic) ; operations of motor c ers to make logs (2) Topography (vegetation, barriers, of the!>. time on a new orm. The major heigth, and distance) ; and featwt . of the new fa is that seven (3) Roadway characteristics (canfig- days' of driver activities would be re- uration and grades). corded on a single sheet 0. per. (c) The noise prediction method con- This rulemaking proc ng stems tained in National Caaperative Highway from an experimental progr of using Research Program <NCHRP) Report 117, a 7-day driver's dally log s t which ~(asmodified in NCHRP Report 144), the took place from April I, 1973 prill, Barrier Nomograph (form FHWA 1443), 1974. The program was anno by a and the methad cantained in Depart- Notice which the Director issued a Jan- ment of Transportation, Transportatian uary 31, 1973 (38 FR 4010). As Di Systems Center Repart DOT-TSC- rector indicated in the Natice, the FHWA-72-l, are approved for use in reau had been petitianed by the Ame - applying the noise standards. Other can Trucking Associations, Inc, to ad noise prediction methods or variations a new farm of daily log which w of the above shall be furnished to the permit much af the information no re- FHWA Office of Environmental Policy quired to be entered on a separate arm, together with supparting and validation each OCCUpying a single sheet of aper, infarmation far approval. to be compressed into seven fa oc- (d) In predicting the naise leveLo; and cupying ane sheet. The motlv on far t h f 11' the petition, accarding to AT. was to assessing noise impac s. t e 0 owmg produce' a saving in recard tention traffic characteristics shall be used: space and paperw9rk ban g, ATA (1) Automotive volume. The futu1'e pointed aut that the existing les, which volume (adjusted for truck traffic) ob- require a motor carrier to r in a dally tained from the lesser of the design log for at least one year fo. each driver haurly volume ar the maximum volume bs ti I b d which can be handled under traffic level he emplays, create a su n a ur en particularly far large ca rs. It argued of service C conditions. Far automobiles, that the lag form could redesigned so level of service C is considered to be the that seven days of driver: activities cauld combination of speed and volume which be recorded an a single ocument with- creates the worst noise canditio~s. The out seriously detracti fram the abllity average hourly volume far the hlghest 3 af drivers. carriers. d the Bureau to hOUTS on an average day for. the design monitor compliance th the substantive year may be used f~r those hlghwa.y sec- :hours-af-service rul ,therebY produc- tions where the d~~ngn hour~ .volume or ing a cansiderable sing in space, maney the level af sel'Vlce C condition is not and manpawer. ant~cipated to. occur an a regular basis Having reviewe the petitian the Di- dunng the deSlgn year. ' (2) Speed. The operating speed which rector concluded that the ATA request corresponds with the design year traffic may have vi s in the abstract, but valume selected in paragraph (d) (1) of its merits and eaknesses could nat be this section and the truck traffic pre- assessed with t a field trial involving dicted from paragraph (d) (3) of this the use of a day drivers' log format in section. The aperating speed must be the actual rations af motor' carriers. consistent with the volume used. Accordingl ,on January 31, 1973 he a.u- tr~~~ ~~f~evo;~~~. tih~~~i~r h~~~ thorized selected motor carriers (all cases where either the design haurly of who. were valunteers) and their volume 0.1' level of service C was used far drivers use the new farmat in lieu af the one prescribed in ~ 395.8 of e regu- latians (38 FR 3984). As n ed above, the authoi'izatian became ective on April I, 1973 and expi on April 1, 1974. During the progra ,the Bureau monitored the selected rriers and re- viewed the logs sub tted by their drivers on a continuin basis. Appraxi- mately 3,000 drivers p rticipated in the experiment, The Bu u also solicited the infarmal comm ts of drivers and officials of carriers . volved in the pro- gram to secure thei views on the utility of the new farmat d their suggestions or changes in it In additian to e fact that the Pl'O- posed 7-day logalled far 7 days' activi- ties to be reca ed on a single sheet of paper, the ne farm differed from the present form f driver's log in the fal- lawing prine al respects: 1. The l' uirements for the driver to nate his to mileage, his hame terminal address, his starting paint and final destinat were eliminated. Also elim- inated space far a co-driver's name. 2. number af lines an the log "chart' was reduced from fOUl' to two.. The a remaining lines were labelled for depiction of driving time and on- dut time, Instructions accompanying the arm told drivers to nate time spent in ff-duty status and time spent in a sl per berth in the sectian of the farm elled "Remarks," found under the rt. 3. Instructional material, dealing with the proper way to fill out a lag, was moved from the face af the form to the cover af the log book. 4. The right-hand margin of each lang contained spaces far drivers to. campute their hours af service expended and the remaining eligible haul'S at the close of ach working day. There was also space r carriers to audit the driver's ruMing aunt af his hours of service. the process af monitoring and ev ating the results of the expel'imen- tal p gram. the Bureau examined thou- sands f logs, talked with many drivers and c riel' officials, and secured the views of s field enforcement staff. While the pro m did clearly demonstrate that a red tian in paperwark resulted from use of e 7-day log, it also showed that there we seriaus deficiencies re- sulting from us of the new format. The most prevent prablem was the inability of drivers use the space pra- vided on the right- nd margin of the form to campute tli! eligible hours. About half the logs ex ined contained errors in the camputati ,errors that were detectable merely 1) comparing the figures with the driver' eport of how he spent his time each . The prevalence of these types af errors is in sharp contrast with drivers' general ability to handle the task of carrectly filling out the recapitulation sectian that appears on the right-hand side af the daily log form in general use today. The farm of log used during the ex- periment sharply reduced the size of the "Remarks" sectian, in which drivel's must enter the locatian of each change of duty status. The result was that many fEDERAL REGIS R, VOL. 39, NO. 176-TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1974 CC ~.~ CkJ CITY COUNCIL ROBERT J. FURLONG, MAYOR GENEVIEVE H. ANDERSON CHARLES H. MAILLIARD THOMAS A. YBARRA LEONIS C, MALBURG TELEPHONES CITY CLERK _ - _ POLICE DEPT. . - - - FIRE DEPT. . . . - - BUILDING DEPT. . . - PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. - HEALTH DEPT.. . . . 583-1666 587-8135 583.4821 583-1666 583-1666 583-1666 OFFICERS F. A. ZIEMER. CITY CLERK .- DIRECTOR OF FINANCE L. R. BURCH, CITY TREASURER C. H. McGOVERN, CITY ATTORNEY R. H. KING, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ARTHUR E. NELSON, JR., CITY ENGINEER DR. C. E. NEMETHI, HEALTH OFFICER VINCENT R. BUSH, SUPERINTENDENT OF BUILDING ROBERT M. EATHERLY, FIRE CHIEF R. H. BOCKHACKER, POLICE CHIEF N 0 VI 9 1974 rRm ' lfJ- 9}; ~ CITY HALL 4305 SANTA FE AVENUE, VERNON, CALIF. 90058 November 12, 1974 Honorable City Council City of Vernon Vernon, California Gentlemen: IN REPLY REFER TO: M-2 By letter dated October 30, 1974 the Metropolitan Transportation Engineering Board that is composed of administrators, planners and engineers representing 147ci ties and 6 counties in southern California . transmitted a Resolution of their Executive Committee requesting the Federal Highway Administration to revise their Standards and Regulations on Noise Level Requirements on all Federal-aid system projects. It is recommended that the City of Vernon adopt a similar resolution. (Sample resolution is enclosed.) Respectfully submitted, ~~ '7~ Arthur E. Nelson, Jr. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AEN:ek encl. cc: City Attorney wjenc1.