STATE OF OREGON:
CASE HISTORIES OF THREE COOPERATIVE AND CONCILIATORY
NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS
Naomi C. Booker
April 1930
Prepared Under
EPA Contract No. 68-01-3S45
For
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Ncbsc Abatement and Control
Washington, Q.C. 2046Q
research corporation
W I W UniBank BUILDING*51 MONROE STREET'ROCKVILLE MD
-------
STATE OF OREGON:
CASE HISTORIES OF THREE COOPERATIVE AND CONCILIATORY
NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS
Naomi C. Booker
April 1980
Prepared Under
EPA Contract No. 68-01-3845
For
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Washington, D.C. 20460
VS-48
-------
PREFACE
This case study of noise control activities in the State of Oregon is one of a series
prepared under a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contract with Verve
Research Corporation. EPA sees case studies of established, on-going noise abate-
ment and control activities as valuable tools for transferring noise control program
experience and expertise from one local community to another. States, cities, and
other local jurisdictions interested in starting or improving noise control efforts can
obtain these reports directly from EPA headquarters or regional offices.
Active noise control programs having quantitative standards operate in three
scenarios in Oregon:
The state as a whole,
The city of Portland, and
• The city of Eugene.
The state program and that in the city of Portland are both comprehensive;
Eugene is only enforcing the noise control provisions of the state motor vehicle
code. This report documents these activities and includes illustrative case examples
to show how the programs actually work. Case examples are usually enforcement-
related.
Data used to develop this report were collected through personal interviews, a
review of literature on Oregon noise control activities, and an analysis of documents
from each program's files. Relevant materials catalogued in EPA's Office of Noise
Abatement and Control (ONAC) headquarters were also examined. A list of repre-
sentative data sources and a list of persons interviewed may be found in Appendix F.
An executive summary provides an overview of the entire report. Formulation
and enactment of the Oregon noise control statute are discussed in Chapter 1, while
Chapter 2 deals with regulations that shape state program implementation. Chapter
3 details program operations at the central office, in field offices, and through the
State Motor Vehicle Inspection Division. Motor vehicle noise control enforcement in
Eugene is also covered in this chapter. Portland's program is described in its
entirety in Chapter 4. The final chapter, 5, summarizes the Oregon experiences in the
form of lessons other states and cities may build on. Benchmark program materials
are included as appendices to this report.
iii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author expresses her appreciation to Cosimo Caccavari, Chief, Technical
Assistance Branch, and Chester J. Shura, Technical Assistance Branch, both of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Noise Abatement and Control
(ONAC), for their guidance and support in defining project orientation and scope for
this case study of noise control programs in Oregon. A special acknowledgement is
expressed to Francine Ely Cannon, Project Manager from EPA for the ECHO Case
Studies, and to her successor Kathleen Sheehan. Their continuous support greatly
aided in the preparation of this document. The Region X Office of EPA generously
made Mr. Chester Beason of its ONAC available to assist the site visit team. His
work helped the team maintain its itinerary.
Special appreciation is extended to John Hector, Chief of the Noise Pollution
Control Section, Department of Environmental Quality, and his associate, Gerald
Wilson; and to Dr. Paul Herman, Project Director for the Bureau of Neighborhood
Environment, for their generous assistance throughout the project team's five days in
Oregon. We would also like to express our gratitude to the following individuals for
taking the time to share their experiences and knowledge on noise control in their
respective cities in Oregon: James Close and Tom Bispham, Portland Regional Office,
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ); David St. Louis, Salem Field Office, DEQ;
Sergeant Robert Laws, City of Eugene noise control program; Joseph Richards,
Chairman of the DEQ Commission; Commissioner Charles Jordan, Edward Daly, David
Sweet, and Sterling Bennett, City of Portland noise control program; Don Miller and
George Morton, Association of General Contractors; Don Barney and his colleagues
from the Port of Portland; Gary Sandburg, first noise control coordinator for DEQ,
who gave an historical perspective on program development and implementation; Stan
Sumich, Motor Vehicle Inspection Program; Keith Skelton, Esq., who co-sponsored
the noise control ordinance; Tom Donaca, Associated Oregon Industry. The author
also appreciates the information offered by the Noise Review Board, City of Portland,
and by Mr. and Mrs. William Morse.
Lonnie Robbins and Nanci Banks, Research Analysts at Verve Research Corpora-
tion, served as technical assistants in this project at various times, easing the
author's burden of collecting, organizing, and transcribing material.
Finally, plaudits go to Richard Peters, Adonagos Rael, and Irene Feldstein for their
studious attention to editing, typing, and proofreading this manuscript.
iv
-------
PREFACE
This case study of noise control activities in the State of Oregon is one of a series
prepared under a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contract with Verve
Research Corporation. EPA sees case studies of established, on-going noise abate-
ment and control activities as valuable tools for transferring noise control program
experience and expertise from one local community to another. States, cities, and
other local jurisdictions interested in starting or improving noise control efforts can
obtain these reports directly from EPA headquarters or regional offices.
Active noise control programs having quantitative standards operate in three
scenarios in Oregon:
• The state as a whole,
The city of Portland, and
The city of Eugene.
The state program and that in the city of Portland are both comprehensive;
Eugene is only enforcing the noise control provisions of the state motor vehicle
code. This report documents these activities and includes illustrative case examples
to show how the programs actually work. Case examples are usually enforcement-
related .
Data used to develop this report were collected through personal interviews, a
review of literature on Oregon noise control activities, and an analysis of documents
from each program's files. Relevant materials catalogued in EPA's Office of Noise
Abatement and Control (ONAC) headquarters were also examined. A list of repre-
sentative data sources and a list of persons interviewed may be found in Appendix F.
An executive summary provides an overview of the entire report. Formulation
and enactment of the Oregon noise control statute are discussed in Chapter 1, while
Chapter 2 deals with regulations that shape state program implementation. Chapter
3 details program operations at the central office, in field offices, and through the
State Motor Vehicle Inspection Division. Motor vehicle noise control enforcement in
Eugene is also covered in this chapter. Portland's program is described in its
entirety in Chapter 4. The final chapter, 5, summarizes the Oregon experiences in the
form of lessons other states and cities may build on. Benchmark program materials
are included as appendices to this report.
iii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors express their appreciation to Cosimo Caccavari, Chief, Technical
Assistance Branch, and Chester J. Shura, Technical Assistance Branch, both of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Noise Abatement and Control
(ONAC), for their guidance and support in defining project orientation and scope for
this case study of noise control programs in Oregon. A special acknowledgement is
expressed to Francine Ely Cannon, Project Manager from EPA for the ECHO Case
Studies, and to her successor Kathleen Sheehan. Their continuous support greatly
aided in the preparation of this document. The Region X Office of EPA generously
made Mr. Chester Beason of its ONAC available to assist the site visit team. His
work helped the team maintain its itinerary.
Special appreciation is extended to John Hector, Chief of the Noise Pollution
Control Section, Department of Environmental Quality, and his associate, Gerald
Wilson; and to Dr. Paul Herman, Project Director for the Bureau of Neighborhood
Environment, for their generous assistance throughout the project team's five days in
Oregon. We would also like to express our gratitude to the following individuals for
taking the time to share their experiences and knowledge on noise control in their
respective cities in Oregon: James Close and Tom Bispham, Portland Regional Office,
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ); David St. Louis, Salem Field Office, DEQ;
Sergeant Robert Laws, City of Eugene noise control program; Joseph Richards,
Chairman of the DEQ Commission; Commissioner Charles Jordan, Edward Daly, David
Sweet, and Sterling Bennett, City of Portland noise control program; Don Miller and
George Morton, Association of General Contractors; Don Barney and his colleagues
from the Port of Portland; Gary Sandburg, first noise control coordinator for DEQ,
who gave an historical perspective on program development and implementation; Stan
Sumich, Motor Vehicle Inspection Program; Keith Skelton, Esq., who co-sponsored
the noise control ordinance; Tom Donaca, Associated Oregon Industry. The authors
also appreciate the information offered by the Noise Review Board, City of Portland,
and by Mr. and Mrs. William Morse.
Lonnie Robbins and Nanci Banks, Research Analysts at Verve Research Corpora-
tion, served as technical assistants in this project at various times, easing the
author's burden of collecting, organizing, and transcribing material.
Finally, plaudits go to Richard Peters, Adonagos Rael, and Irene Feldstein for their
studious attention to editing, typing, and proofreading this manuscript.
iv
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ten years after it began its initial programmatic foray into noise abatement and
control, the State of Oregon and its major subdivisions can enumerate several signi-
ficant achievements:
(1) Control of noise has been woven into the state government fabric as an
operational unit of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Air
Quality Division.
(2) There is a full-scale program operating out of the Bureau of Neighbor-
hood Environment (BNE) in Portland—Oregon's largest city.
(3) The city of Eugene is vigorously enforcing the motor vehicle noise stan-
dards of the state motor vehicle code.
(4) There has been noteworthy collaboration among these programs, coordi-
nation, and sharing of expertise and resources without any program
having to unduly compromise its obligations and commitments to its
primary constituents.
(5) Parallel efforts are underway to expand and improve noise control in all
three programs.
(6) Other jurisdictions in the state are expressing interest in attacking noise
problems.
A statewide program such as Oregon's requires local jurisdiction involvement for
broad implementation. Local jurisdictions may develop programs fitting their pecu-
liar needs and covering all noise sources except those preempted under federal law,
as long as these local noise standards are at least as stringent as the state's, and
technical competence in noise measurement technology and enforcement techniques
can be locally demonstrated.
Oregon's state program evolved in two stages:
(1) A broad law passed in 1971, and
(2) A noise control rule developed over several years and passed in 1974.
v
-------
The Portland program emerged from a comprehensive 1976 ordinance that simultane-
ously established a statutory basis and the enforcement standards. Eugene is work-
ing to expand its vehicular noise control program, instituted in 1978, into a
comprehensive one. Public interest was high In both state and Portland program
development, especially from environmental groups and business and industry
interests. Framers of the DEQ and the Portland programs actively sought such
involvement and worked conjointly with elements at odds over many issues to
formulate compromise program positions to which all parties could subscribe.
Public education, public hearings, noise surveys, and systematic analysis were
important activities during these stages.
Excluding control of motor vehicle noise, all programs operate on a complaint
basis: complaints filed by citizens are investigated by noise control personnel, who
take noise level measurements and discuss the complaint with the alleged violator if
measurements document a violation of standards. Violators cited are required to
correct the offending situation or to apply for a variance permit. The state's
program allows industrial violators the opportunity to apply for a tax credit if
engineering or structural changes are required to bring a noise source into compli-
ance. Portland, however, did not have a financial relief mechanism like this when
the site visit was made.
Motor vehicle noise is controlled mainly by source monitoring. Police officers in
Eugene stop vehicles they subjectively judge to be in violation of the state's moving
standards. An objective stationary test is then applied. Noise citations are issued
if vehicles fail. Motorists receiving noise citations in Eugene may have the citation
set aside if they obtain a certificate of compliance from one of the state's Motor
Vehicle Inspection Stations in advance of their scheduled hearing. DEQ is now
pushing to make the voluntary noise test included in Portland's annual vehicle
inspection program mandatory for all vehicles. Under the voluntary program, DEQ
issues "Certificates of Noncompliance" to vehicles failing the noise inspection.
DEQ accepts citizen complaints about individual vehicle noise, but it can only
send the owner an advisory letter informing them of the complaint lodged and sug-
gesting that the vehicle be inspected for noise problems (free of charge) at a state
test station. Portland's police force is not yet involved in enforcing motor vehicle
noise standards.
DEQ uses a decentralized structure, with enforcement activities housed in its
field offices, and administration, research, training, and coordination functions in the
central office. The noise program for the state operates on a biennial budget of
$408,000, covering 8.3 full time equivalent (FTE) staff and capital expenses of approxi-
mately $25,000. Central office staff do most of the training for local jurisdictions,
provide technical assistance, and conduct special studies. Local jurisdictions may
borrow DEQ equipment as well. Portland's program is centralized. The director,
two deputy noise control officers, and a secretary constitute its staff. Approxi-
mately half of the $70,000 annual budget for noise control in Portland comes from
vi
-------
general city funds; Comprehensive Employment Training Act (CETA) funds support
the two deputies. Eugene estimates it absorbs $14,800 in direct costs for its
vehicular noise control activities.
Type II sound level meters and a community noise analyzer seem to be basic
equipment to all three programs. Hand-held meters are also used frequently. In
addition, vehicular noise testing requires the use of tachometers.
Cooperation and conciliation are hallmarks of enforcement throughout the state.
Staff intimately involved in enforcement are committed to this approach. They feel
that the noise control programs have progressed and have gained acceptance as a
result. Public education—for other government agencies and for industries, as well
as for the general citizenry—remains a need. People active in noise control in
Oregon were unanimous in their observation that noise control requires significant
investments of time, technical expertise, and willingness to find acceptable middle
grounds.
vii
-------
CONTENTS
PREFACE iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v
LIST OF EXHIBITS xi
1. EARLY DAYS OF NOISE CONTROL IN OREGON 1
History of Oregon 1
Geography of the State 1
Socioeconomic Profile 2
Oregon's Noise Law is Passed 3
Program Planning 4
Overview of Oregon's Noise Control Law 6
Exhibits 1-1 through 1-4 7-14
2. FORMULATION OF NOISE CONTROL REGULATIONS 15
Input from Public Hearings 15
Adoption of Noise Control Rules 16
Refinement of Motor Vehicle Rules 17
The Statistical Noise Level Concept 18
Summary of Oregon's Noise Regulations 19
Conclusion 23
Exhibits 2-1 through 2-13 25-34
3. STATE NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM OPERATIONS 35
Overview 36
Central Office Operations 38
Field Office Operations 41
Control of Motor Vehicle Noise 46
Noise Control in Eugene 48
Unresolved Noise Problems 51
Exhibits 3-1 through 3-6(B) 55-61
4. NOISE CONTROL IN PORTLAND 63
Ordinance Development 63
Program Implementation 67
Summary 72
Exhibits 4-1 through 4-8 75-88
ix
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
5. WHAT CAN BE LEARNED
Lesson 1:
Determine Your Needs and Formulate an Action Plan
Lesson 2:
Determine Suitable Law
Lesson 3:
Design the Program to Suit Your Needs
Lesson 4:
Enforce Your Noise Control Provisions
APPENDIX A
Oregon House Bill 1669
DEQ Memorandum:
Proposed State-wide Noise Control Program
DEQ Noise Pollution Control Program Implementation Plan
APPENDIX B
DEQ Proposed Noise Control Regulations
Oregon Noise Control Regulations, as amended
Chapter 467, 1977 Replacement Part:
Noise Control
Oregon Motor Vehicle Noise Control Law
APPENDIX C
Documents Pertinent to Development of
Procedures Manual and Noise Rules
DEQ White Paper:
Proposed DEQ Noise Standards
APPENDIX D
Noise Goals, 1977-79
APPENDIX E
City of Portland Proposed Noise Ordinance (July 1974)
City of Portland Title 18:
Noise (June 1976)
APPENDIX F
Persons Interviewed
Representative Data Sources
89
89
91
92
94
97
101
113
131
153
165
169
173
175
187
201
241
255
263
x
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS
(Exhibits Appear at the End of Their Respective Chapters)
1-1 State of Oregon 7
1-2(A) Oregon State Government 9
1 —2(B) Natural Resources Program 10
1-3 Statewide Summary of Citizen Input 11
1-4 Noise Control—Proposed Regulations Fact Sheet 12
2-1 Excerpts From DEQ Status Memorandum 25
2-2 Industry Commerce Noise Regulations 26
2-3 Summary and Conclusions Statements 27
2-A New Motor Vehicle Standards 29
2-5 In-Use Road Vehicle Standards—Stationary Test 30
2-6 In-Use Road Vehicle Standards—Moving Test 31
2-7 Off-Road Recreational Vehicle Standards 32
2-8 Ambient Standards—Vehicle Near Sensitive Property 33
2-9 Auxiliary Equipment—Primary Engine Driven Standards 33
2-10 Existing Industrial and Commercial Source Standards 33
2-11 New Industrial and Commercial Source Standards 34
2-12 Industrial/Commercial Standards for Quiet Areas 34
2-13 Median Octave Band Standards—Industrial/Commercial 34
3-1 Audio and/or Accoustical Engineers 55
3-2 Vehicle Noise Compliance Form 56
3-3 Vehicle Noise Noncompliance Form 57
3-4 "Stop All That Noise" 58
3-5 Noise Complaints Between January 1 and August 31, 1977 59
3-6(A) "Noise Law Enforcement Set" 60
3-6(B) "Eugene Cracks Down on Noisy Cars" 61
4-1 Code Development 75
4-2 July 1974 Ordinance Proposal 76
4-3 "Maximum Levels of Noise Set in Decibels" 77
4-4 "Portland's 'Noise Boys' to Check on Decibels" 78
4-5 June 1976 Compromise Ordinance 80
4-6 Comparison of Original and Final Ordinance Provisions 81
4-7 Bureau of Neighborhood Environment General Form 87
4-8 Sample Noise Variance Application 88
xi
-------
1
EARLY DAYS OF NOISE CONTROL IN OREGON
The scenario in which the noise control program of the State of Oregon was first
envisioned and initially formulated is described in this chapter. A brief history of
the state and a broad characterization of Oregon as a place to live and work provide
a general backdrop for a pointed discussion of the program's precursors and early
beginnings.
HISTORY OF OREGON
The State of Oregon was first claimed by the United States in 1792 when Captain
Robert Gary discovered the Columbia River. Thirteen years later, in 1805, Lewis and
Clark reached the lower Columbia, ending their expedition. Fort Astor, the first
commercial outpost in Oregon, was settled in 1811 by a party of the John Jacob
Astor Pacific Fur Company; Fort Astor later became Astoria. The War of 1812
prompted the fur company to pull out of Astoria, which was turned over to the
Canadian North West Company.
Oregon City became the first permanent settlement in 1829; however, Oregon
remained an isolated area until the 1840's. In 1849, two important events occurred
in Oregon's history—its boundary was fixed at the 49th parallel, and the Territory of
Oregon, with Oregon City as its capital, was recognized by the Union. Ten years
later, in 1859, Oregon was admitted into the Union. Even with the great influx of
settlers in the 1840's, Oregon did not truly begin to prosper until the Northern
Pacific Railroad linked it with the rest of the nation in 1883. At the turn of the
century, Oregon began to develop the lumber and power resources that have been
instrumental in making it the industrial complex it is today, with Portland emerging
as its major port and distribution center.
GEOGRAPHY OF THE STATE
In terms of geographic size, Oregon ranks tenth in the nation. Located on the
Northwestern Coast of the United States between Washington and California, the
State of Oregon currently spans 96,981 square miles; 666 of which are water.
1
-------
Geographically, Oregon has something for everyone. The Cascade Range, whose
highest point is Mt. Hood at 11,245 feet, divides the state into two climatic
regions—lush vegetation in the west and semi-arid continental in the east. The
Coast Range parallels the seashore, supplying Oregon with several natural harbors.
The Blue, Wallowa, and Umatilla Ranges extend from the northeastern corner of the
state to its central plateau; the highest point of these ranges, at 10,000 feet, is a
stone's throw from the 6,000-foot-deep Hells Canyon of the Snake River. The Snake
River marks the northeastern boundary between Oregon and Idaho; the Columbia
River delineates all but about 100 miles of the northern border. Exhibit 1-1 is a map
of Oregon showing its topography.
A decided majority of Oregon's 2.3 million residents (1974 data) live along the
ocean border of the state, west of the Cascades: all of the metropolitan develop-
ments are found here. The population is very scattered in the eastern part of the
state. Across the state, many acres of natural water and woodlands are reserved as
state parks.
SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE
Between 1964 and 1974, Oregon's population grew at a rate of two percent per
annum, almost double the national trend, increasing the number of residents from
1.9 million to 2.3 million. Although the state's economic situation has progressed
tremendously in the past ten to fifteen years, this progression is seen by many local
economists as a ncatching-up period" after a post-World War II decline. Per capita
income, having decreased steadily from 1950 to 1969, has shown an increasing trend
since 1971. In fact, by 1974, per capita income (in constant 1967 dollars) had
increased 35 percent over the 1964 level of $2,756 to $3,720. Still, Oregon's per
capita income is below the national average, and 75 percent of its 36 counties have
per capita incomes below the state average.
Since 1970 unemployment has been consistently above the national average.
Nonetheless, personal income increased 62 percent, from 5.2 billion dollars to 8.4
billion dollars in the ten year period 1964-1974, while the nonagricultural employment
level rose from 573,000 to 837,600, or 46 percent.
Oregon leads the nation in lumber production; over half its land is forest. Wood
product industries produce plywood, pulp, paper, particle board, hardboard, and
shingles in great quantities. The state is a leading wheat center and a producer of
fruits and vegetables. Dairying contributes over one fourth of Oregon's farm
income. Other enterprises Important to the state's industrial profile are fruit and
vegetable canning and freezing, flour milting, meat packing, and textiles (largely
wool). Within the last 10 years, nonmanufacturing industries substantially
outperformed almost all other segments of Oregon's economy in terms of growth of
output, income, and employment. Between 1964 and 1974, nonmanufacturing
employment increased 52 percent to 640,200 while manufacturing employment
increased 30 percent to 197,400.
2
-------
Politically, Oregon is primarily Democratic; the Democrats currently enjoy a
two-to-one voter edge over Republicans. However, although both the House of
Delegates and the State Senate were entirely Democratic in 1978, both Senators and
the newly elected Governor are Republican. Exhibit 1-2 shows how the state
government is organized. The two highest areas of Democratic concentration are
Multnomah County (Portland) and Lane County (Eugene). Environmentally, Oregon is
one of the nation's leaders. It was the first state to pass a "bottle bill" concerning
nonreturnable bottles. Oregon also has a strong land-use bill.
OREGON'S NOISE LAW IS PASSED
Entering the 1970's, Oregon had become known across the nation as an
nenvironmentalistn state, second only to California. It had been in the forefront of
formulating and enforcing rather stringent environmental protection laws, especially
with regard to air and water pollution. In 1970, the State Committee on Environment
heard a complex noise control law proposed by Representative Nancy Fadeley. This
law would have required an oversight and regulatory authority separate from the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). City government and special
jurisdictions in the state (like the Port of Portland) lobbied against its passage. A
substitute bill, giving the state authority to act to control noise after it had
developed noise control regulations, was introduced by then Representative Keith
Skelton. Authorizing DEQ to adopt noise standards, including standards relating to
vehicles and aircraft, this simpler bill gathered support from Representatives Fadeley
and Willits, along with Senators Ouderkirk and Hallock and the Oregon Environmental
Council. It passed both legislative houses and became law, effective July 1, 1971.
DEQ was given broad authority to promulgate administrative rules relating to noise
control, to include:
(1) Establishing categories of noise emission sources, including the two
categories of motor vehicles and aircraft;
(2) Establishing requirements and specifications for equipment to be used in
the monitoring of noise emissions;
(3) Adopting procedures for the collection, reporting, interpretation, and use
of data obtained from noise monitoring activities;
(4) Investigating and, after appropriate public notice and hearing, establishing
maximum permissible levels of noise emission for each category
established, as measured by units of perceived noise, in decibels
(EPNdB); and
(5) Adopting, after appropriate public notice and hearing, standards for the
control of noise emissions, which shall be enforceable by order of the
commission.
3
-------
In addition, DEQ was given full power to implement and enforce the rules it devised,
including power to bring civil abatement proceedings. A copy of the original bill
passed by the legislature can be found in Appendix A.
PROGRAM PLANNING
The noise program was placed in the Air Quality Division of the Department of
Environmental Quality. On the same day that the bill took effect, H. M. Patterson,
the Air Quality Director, wrote to the Region X EPA office apprising them of
Oregon's actions and requesting assistance with program design and implementation.
Although the legislature had passed the law, they had not concurrently provided
operating funds, so in-depth work on formulating rules did not begin right away.
The State Emergency Board authorized two staff members in early 1972, and work
implementing the new legislation was begun.
Public hearings were organized across the state to determine which noise sources
Oregonians were most concerned about. Thirteen of these public information
hearings, co-sponsored by the League of Women Voters, were held between late
winter 1971 and midsummer, 1972. A DEQ-prepared questionnaire was distributed to
citizens attending these meetings; this questionnaire was also printed in local
newspapers. Concerns voiced at the hearings were summarized and analyzed, along
with direct complaints filed with DEQ and mail responses stimulated by noise
pollution articles in newspapers. The statewide summary of citizen input, together
with DEQ conclusions based on this input, is reprinted as Exhibit 1-3.
While DEQ staff were busy in their work, environmentalists in the state were also
working on the noise issue. The Oregon Environmental Council, a coalition of 80
environmental, conservation, sports, and planning groups with more than 2,000
individual members across the state, had its Committee on Noise hard at work, too.
This committee, formed in 1972, continued to be very active throughout the time
regulations were being developed, testifying at all hearings on proposed regulations,
and analyzing and comparing various draft proposals. The Oregon Environmental
Council provided a good foil for industry and business lobbying, making judicious
use of local professionals in audiology, psychology, law, physics, acoustics, and
engineering, and calling upon outside experts as needs dictated.
During these earliest program days, the newly-hired DEQ staff were also kept busy
with their efforts to determine practicable ways of measuring and describing noise,
as the first step in developing noise control regulations. An outline and
implementation plan for Oregon's noise control program that have guided its
development was presented to the Environmental Quality Commission in October 1972
(See Appendix A).
Measurements were taken all over the state using a variety of techniques including
Robinson's "Noise Pollution Indicator," judged easy to use for a noise novice, though
not particularly accurate on estimations of transient noise contributions. A decision
4
-------
was made to use a statistical noise measure as the basis for Oregon's noise rules;
that is, "the noise level which is equalled or exceeded a stated percentage of the
time." (This concept will be discussed fully in the next chapter.)
Carl Sandburg, the program's first director, and Cliff Sroka, began collecting data
that were to provide the technical data base for proposing rules governing noise
emissions from trucks, automobiles, and industry. In the initial rules effort in 1973,
five sources were addressed:
Motor vehicles (autos, trucks),
Public roads,
Racing and raceways,
Industry and commerce, and
Schools.
A Background Fact Sheet (Exhibit 1-4) from a September 13, 1973, DEQ press
release summarizes the proposed rules.
The program's current Director, John Hector, continued the data collection
process when he assumed leadership of the program in 1973. At hearings held on
these initial rules, input from industry and commerce, motor vehicle interests, and
the citizenry strongly suggested that work should continue in a narrower funnel.
Development of rules for motor vehicles became the focus of activity. Vehicles were
separated into two categories for regulatory purposes: new vehicles and in-use
vehicles. The department developed a stationary vehicle noise emissions test
procedure that could be included in the ongoing vehicle inspection program in the
state, along with air quality and safety inspections.
New regulations, based largely on California's, were drafted for motor vehicles
and for industry and commerce. Motor vehicle regulations were approved by the DEQ
Commission in July 1974; industry and commerce standards passed a few months
later. In the hearings for these regulations, DEQ had to deal with the issue of
infrasonic and ultrasonic (inaudible) sound. People living in Bethel, near Salem, and
in Harborton, near Portland, were concerned about vibrations from newly installed
turbine electric generating plants located there. Prior to construction of these
plants, Portland General Electric cooperated with DEQ in some studies that suggested
there would be no problems of this type. DEQ approved Portland General Electric1 s
construction of these installations with the proviso that they act to abate noise if
problems arose. After the plants began to operate, however, residents in the area
complained of disturbing vibrations. Nonetheless, inaudible sound was not
addressed in the initial industry and commerce regulations; an attempt to amend the
regulations to cover these vibrations also failed. However, problems generated by
these gas turbine plants did lead to the inclusion of octave band standards in the
noise rules.
5
-------
OVERVIEW OF OREGON'S NOISE CONTROL LAW
Except for three 1977 amendments removing inconsistencies between state and
local jurisdiction domain and standards, Oregon's noise law remains substantially
unchanged. Copies of the amended law and noise regulations now in force may be
found in Appendix B. These regulations will be discussed in some detail in the next
chapter.
The noise control program of the State of Oregon prevails in the entire state,
unless a local subdivision is granted an exemption by the Environmental Quality
Commission. All applications for exemptions are evaluated by DEQ to assure that
local standards are at least as stringent as the state's. Services at the local level
must also be equivalent to the state's; i.e., local staff must be competent, and
procedures for handling of complaints, violations, and variances must be specific,
well-defined, and practicable. Local jurisdictions may be exempted from certain state
noise provisions, but not from others.
At the writing of this report, Portland is the only local jurisdiction with a
functioning noise control program (i.e., an ordinance with quantitative standards and
trained staff). Eugene, Lake Oswego, Beaverton, and Klamath Falls all have noise
ordinances using specific noise standards, but none has an active program similar to
Portland's. Eugene is vigorously enforcing the motor vehicle noise standards and
drawing on provisions of the state program in land-use planning. Some thought is
being given to the feasibility and desirability of developing a broader local program
there.
6
-------
Exhibit 1-1
STATE OF OREGON
WASHINGTON
Lincoln City'
o> Bay
CALIFORNIA
NEVADA
-------
Exhibit 1 —2 (A)
OREGON STATE GOVERNMENT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OREGON
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH EXECUTIVE BRANCH JUDICIAL BRANCH
[
J SHADING OL'PICIS fcLtCTlVE Of-KICES
-------
Exhibit 1—2 (B)
NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAMS
•SOIUH ^IdUi.U
S |.V( HUH) M4,X.U.I W XI
(oi/w/sv/nv
•l i>t UMUl 1 til I Hi
(.oiu.t (OMu
•SiHt J h'.UIfi
(OX\il(t WON
(<>WtJ/VS/aV
•HOl'lK.X'Xi; BHD
IdH i.HtlUl.Y 4
MIX! Hit tNH
•ROi.Uf HliiK
ClHHiniNAllUN
tiOMtli
•st.mist no \uu
-------
Exhibit 1-3
STATEWIDE SUMMARY OF CITIZEN INPUT
The major complaint throughout the state was excessive noise from motor
vehicles. Motorcycles, trucks, sports cars, and modified passenger cars drew criticism
in public meetings, in questionnaire response, and in telephone compU!nts« Many
people also pointed out the role of highway design and location as a means of
reducing the impact of noise in residential areas*
Many people stated that they especially want quiet residential areas. The noise
sources near residential areas about which they complained were racing events,
industry, and mechanical equipment such as air conditioners. Some of these people
claim to lose sleep or lose the use of part or ail of their property because of these
noises. A graphical representation of the noise questionnaire survey results is
attached to this report. The following conclusions by the Department of
Environmental Quality summarize both citizen concerns for noise and opinions about
control activities.
1. Most people object only to occasional loud noise, some object to all noise,
but few have no objection to noise.
2. Most people want to reduce noise now, some want to restrict future
increases, and a few want no control.
3. Most people want controls on equipment already in use, as well as new
equipment*
4. Almost 90ft of those responding feit there should bo some standard to
insure acoustic privacy in apartments.
5. Large aircraft should be controlled by the Federal government. SmaJI aircraft
and helicopters should be under Federal and state control*
6. Motor venicle regulations should be written by the state and enforced by
state and local governments*
7. Races, construction, and engine-powered equipment should be controlled by
state and local governments.
3* Industry snoutd be under state control.
9. The use of yard and garden equipment should be under local control.
10. Home appliances should have Federal regulation, if any.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
The Department of Environmental Quality has rsached the following conclusions
from public input:
1. Noise pollution is a significant problem in Oregon, and citizens want
immediate action.
2. Noise associated with motor vehicles is the maior problem.
3. Many residential noise problems are a result of Inadequate land-use planning.
4. Many people, especially In local government, are looking to the Department of
Environmental Quality for leadership in noise control*
5* State control of industrial noise is necessary to prevent jurisdictional
problems*
6. Existing state and local noise regulations have not been adequately enforced.
However, clarification of those laws would aid enforcement*
7. Local government has not been sufficiently responsive to noise problems.
People said that the state
-------
Exhibit 1-4
NOISE CONTROL - PROPOSED REGULATIONS
BACKGROUND FACT SHEET
METHOD: Regulations Will Affect
1. Sales
a. New noisy motorcycles and snowmobiles
b. New noisy exhaust systems or mufflers
2. Modifications of vehicles by owners to Increase noise
3. Use of noisy vehicles
4. Where and when certain types of noise are permitted
J. What people can hear In their own back yard.
NOISE SOURCES COVERED:
1. Automobiles, buses, and trucks—Most regulations can be met with adequate
mufflers.
1. Motorcycles—Must achieve quietness levels equal to capability of vehicle when
purchased, plus install improved mufflers as they became available.
3. Snowmobiles.
4. Mufflers or exhaust systems for any vehicle.
5. Racing events:
a. After 9:00 p.m.—Regulated effective January 1974.
b. 9:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m.—Submit compliance schedule to DEQ by June 1974;
achieve compliance by end of 197S.
c. DEQ authorization required for ill races after June 1974.
d. Must be within specified noise levels it nearest residential property line.
6. Public roads—New roads must meet OEQ standards when built; DEQ will work
with responsible agencies to improve existing roads where feasible.
12
-------
Exhibit 1-4 (Continued)
NOISE CONTROL - PROPOSED REGULATIONS
BACKGROUND FACT SHEET
7. 1 ndu5trial and commercial sources:
a. Sliding scale used depending on duration, but not to exceed 70 dBA at
noise sensitive property line as defined (70 decibels Is described as "no
louder than the inside of most cars traveling on a freeway with the
windows closed").
b. Special restrictions In effect for sounds In single octave bands that
stand out from others.
c. + 10 dBA variation depending on zoning: limits could be increased up
to 10 dBA if noise sensitive property Is in an industrial or commercial
zone; limits could be reduced up to 10 dBA If noise source was in
residential zone.
8. Schools (guidelines for voluntary compliance):
a. No amplified music permitted louder than 85 dBA (described as
equivalent to someone shouting across a desk, 3 feet from the listener).
b. Hearing protectors required where equipment noise in shop classes
exceeds 85 dBA.
c. No noise allowed loud enough to interfere with speech in Instructional
areas.
d. Ambient noise on school grounds limited to specified levels during
school hours.
ENFORCBCNT
1. Penalties in effect for sale of vehicles which exceed standards; police can
stop vehicles, test noise, ticket If in violation.
1. DEQ motor vehicle inspections would include noise. Trucks can be checked
at weigh stations.
EXAMPLES OF IMPACT:
1. Not only will It continue to be illegal to remove a muffler from a car or
truck, it will now also be illegal to add on any device to make vehicles
noisier.
Some cars and trucks will be required to get new mufflers or remove
noisemaking equipment already installed.
13
-------
Exhibit 1-4 (Continued)
NOISE CONTROL - PROPOSED REGULATIONS
BACKGROUND FACT SHEET
3. Sound barriers may be required along some heavily traveled
roads—responsible agencies will be given a deadline for presenting plans for
Improvement: average 50 decibels, maximum 70.
4. Mo motorcycles can be sold without compliance certificates showing they
meet standards.
5. Police will be armed with sound measuring equipment and will ticket vehicles
that do not comply.
6. Vehicle racetrack operators will have to present plans for meeting standards
or they will not get permission to operate races.
COMPARABLE STANDARDS ELSEWHERE
1. California has had similar motor vehicle standards in effect for S years.
2. Oregon's standards are more stringent than Chicago's because Chicago has
a higher noise level to begin with.
3. Oregon's proposed standards dovetail with proposed Federal standards for
trucks in Interstate commerce, including retrofit on older trucks, with time
allowed for compliance.
OTHER I (FORMAT ION
Not included now are: railroads, aircraft, and household appliances, all scheduled
for Federal enforcement. Construction noise levels in industrial areas, guidelines for
land-use planning, and model ordinances for local governments will be developed at a
later date. Previous DEQ noise standards were limited to wilderness ireas (30 d8A
maximum without permit, 73 dBA maximum with DEQ permit).
In summary, Oregon's proposed standards are intended to be the most stringent
that can realistically be proposed and will provide a means to control most sources
of complaints received within the last two years.
14
-------
2
FORMULATION OF NOISE CONTROL REGULATIONS
Prior to the noise control law passed in 1971, noise control had been addressed in
Oregon as part of the motor vehicle code, with noise provisions being made more
explicit in the sixties and early seventies for both on-road vehicles and off-road
recreational vehicles. The passage of HB 1669 in mid-1971 represented the state's
first attempt to address noise pollution in a direct and integrated, programmatic way,
and gave rise to a flurry of noise-related activity that would continue for several
years.
INPUT FROM PUBLIC HEARINGS
OEQ's first round of public hearings, along with its technological explorations of
noise measurement, led to the first set of proposed regulations In 1973. Central to
these standards was DEQ's premise that noise levels should be set to protect
outdoor speech in the daytime and to prevent sleep interference at night in
residential areas. The regulations initially proposed sought to contain environmental
noise below 60 dBA during the day and below 45 dBA at night. These limits had
been chosen based on limited research findings available at that time, including EPA
studies and guidelines. This first set of regulations was broad in scope, covering
not only motor vehicles, industry, and commerce, but also roads (new and in-use),
racing events, raceways, and schools. A copy of this initial rules proposal may be
found in Appendix B.
Hearings were held in seven locations around the state in late 1973. Public
comments and ensuing work with industry and commerce representatives and
environmentalists led the DEQ noise staff to make substantial changes in the
proposed regulations, mainly:
(1) The addition of sources to be controlled,
(2) More detailed exemptions for sources that could not reasonably be
controlled,
(3) Adjustments (up and down) of allowable noise levels, and
(4) Broadening of variance procedures.
15
-------
Organized groups like the League of Oregon Cities and the Associated Oregon
Industries offered input and worked with DEQ to develop revised rules. Many other
groups participated as well, representing racing, motorcycle sales, solid waste
management, traffic management and vehicle safety equipment. Exhibit 2-1 is a
summary of the results of these collaborative efforts excerpted from a DEQ status
memorandum to its Commission dated February 22, 1974.
The Environmental Quality Commission granted the noise program's request for
two additional hearings to receive public comment.
ADOPTION OF NOISE CONTROL RULES
As a result of these hearings, work on motor vehicle rules and industry and
commerce rules proceeded along separate paths. It seemed that there were many
issues to be resolved on the industry and commerce rules. Opinions in some
quarters labeled the standards as too restrictive, while others found them too
lenient. A study committee of industrialists and environmentalists was reconstituted
and asked to complete their work in 90 days, so that rules could be passed.
Meanwhile, in an effort to diffuse some of the polarity between supporters and
opponents and to emphasize the goal of the proposed standards, DEQ prepared a
statement setting forth the rationale, intent, and impact of the noise regulations.
Paul Stolpman of EPA, on assignment to DEQ, was instrumental in this work. DEQ
also completed work on procedures manuals on:
(1) Requirements and specifications for equipment to be used in monitoring
noise emissions; and
(2) Procedures for collection, reporting, interpretation and use of data
obtained from noise monitoring activities.
As required by the enabling legislation, these specifications had to be adopted prior
to the adoption of noise control regulations. Reference materials used by DEQ in the
development of these manuals are listed in Appendix C.
Work on the motor vehicle rules continued while the industry and commerce study
group pressed ahead to find an acceptable middle ground. Motor vehicle rules were
proposed for adoption at the May 1974 meeting of the Commission. DEQ was
authorized to hold a hearing in June to adopt the noise procedures manuals and
motor vehicle rules.
At a public hearing in July 1974, the sound measurement procedures manual for
motor vehicles and the motor vehicle noise regulations were adopted. Final
testimony was taken on the sound measurement procedures manual, equipment and
personnel requirements manual, and the industry and commerce rules. At that
hearing, the Oregon Environmental Council again offered testimony that the industry
and commerce standards being proposed were too lenient. It offered a comparative
analysis of the various standards that had been advocated in four successive rules
proposals. That analysis is reproduced here as Exhibit 2-2 for the summary insights
it provides to that developmental process.
16
-------
Written and oral testimony from this hearing, along with that received during the
10 days after the hearing, were reviewed by DEQ as it prepared the final draft of the
industry and commerce rules. Changes in this final version included:
(1) Modification of the policy section to encourage uniformity between statewide
rules and local ordinances;
(2) Revised definitions;
(3) Clarification of octave band and audible discrete tone standards; and
(4) Modifications to the procedures manuals.
The manuals and the industry and commerce standards were adopted in September
1974.
REFINEMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE RULES
When the DEQ rules were adopted in 1974, Federal standards for motorcycles,
automobiles, trucks, and buses had not been promulgated. DEQ recognized,
however, that Federal standards, when established, would be preemptive. DEQ had
almost two years' experience with its motor vehicle standards before it was
petitioned to amend them. In May 1976, the Department received a petition from the
Motorcycle Industry Council, an organization of motorcycle manufacturers, to amend
DEQ rules regarding the sale and operation of motorcycles. The petition asked for
modification of the:
(1) Noise level standards to be met by new motorcycles, and
(2) Classification scheme for motorcycles.
Specifically, the petition asked for less stringent noise standards for motorcycles and
for a new sub-category for off-road cycles which would then be subject to standards
less restrictive than those then in force.
A petition from General Motors, received in June 1976, asked that the noise
standards for new automobiles and light trucks, medium and heavy trucks, and buses
be modified. General Motors wanted:
(1) The 75 dBA standard applicable for 1979 and subsequent model automobiles
and light trucks deleted.
(2) The definition of "truck" in terms of gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)
modified to conform to the recently adopted Federal definition.
17
-------
(3) Manufacture date, rather than model year, to be used as the basis for rule
applicability.
(4) The 80 dBA truck standard scheduled to go into effect in model year 1979
to be postponed until model year 1982.
(5) Buses to be a separate category from trucks.
(6) The effectiveness of the 80 dBA standard for buses in model year 1979
to be postponed.
These concerns were all being addressed by DEQ staff for possible amendment when
the General Motors petition was received. General Motors, therefore, agreed to have
their petition held in abeyance until the Commission had held hearings and made its
rule changes.
The Commission received written and verbal testimony at a hearing held in August
1976. Citizens as well as special interest groups testified on the amendments as
proposed by DEQ. The Director of Portland's Noise Control Program (Dr. Paul
Herman), the Motorcycle Industry Council, motorcycle manufacturers and motorcycle
dealers all offered extensive testimony. Naturally, General Motors supported its
earlier petition. American Motors, Ford Motor Company, and International Harvester
also gave testimony aligning with General Motor's petition on one or more points.
Car dealers testified, too.
When all testimony was in (written testimony was accepted by mail before and
after the hearing), the amendment proposals and the housekeeping rule and manual
revisions presented to the Commission by DEQ were adopted virtually intact.
DEQ staff had carefully analyzed the petitions in the context of their own rules
and assessment activities. State-of-the-art technology parameters as well as evolving
Federal standards work and research findings were considered. DEQ gave the
Commission a full explanation of its conclusions and recommendations, including
relevant background information and point-by-point analyses of petition and
testimony issues. DEQ summarized its recommendations and supporting
justifications in a Summary and Conclusions Statement (excerpted from a DEQ
memorandum prepared for the August 27, 1976 Environmental Quality Control
meeting), included here as Exhibit 2-3.
THE STATISTICAL NOISE LEVEL CONCEPT
Noise regulations for the state are based on "statistical noise levels." According
to the Oregon noise regulations, statistical noise level means "the noise level which is
equalled or exceeded a stated percentage of the time. An L|q = 65 dBA can be
equalled or exceeded only 10 percent of the time, or for 6 minutes." Guidelines for
public roads published by the Federal Highway Administration in the early 1970's
used this kind of measure in defining road noise limits, but few other states and
cities employ such an approach.
18
-------
The statistical noise level was viewed by its critics as too lenient: it does not
establish a maximum noise level. Theoretically, then, with an Liq = 65 dBA, a noise
source could exceed 65 dBA by an unlimited amount for six minutes out of every
hour of the day. In practice, however, it is unlikely that this would happen. After
research and review of other states' rules and activities, hearings, and noise
measurements throughout the state, Paul Stolpman, on loan from EPA to DEQ,
prepared a departmental white paper, "Proposed DEQ Noise Standards" (April 1974),
summarizing the intent and impact of Oregon's standards. His conclusion was that
the standards were neither lenient nor stringent, but reasonable, enforceable, and
sufficiently protective. (See Appendix C for the complete document.)
Noise standards for industrial and commercial noise sources (existing, new, or
already operating near quiet areas) are all stated in terms of "allowable statistical
noise levels in any one hour." Motor vehicle standards are stated in terms of
maximum noise levels (dBA); there are both stationary and moving standards for
in-use vehicles and off-road recreational vehicles. New vehicles are subject only to
a moving test standard; auxiliary equipment driven by the primary motor vehicle
engine (e.g., refrigeration units, compressors, compactors, pumps, blowers) is
subject only to a stationary test.
SUMMARY OF OREGON'S NOISE REGULATIONS
This section contains a summary of Oregon's noise regulations, which were last
revised in early 1978. The full text of these regulations is provided in Appendix 3.
Objectives
(1) To provide a coordinated statewide noise control program to protect
health, welfare, and quality of life.
(2) To facilitate cooperation among state and local governments in initiating
and operating local programs consistent with the state program.
(3) To develop a progressive systematic program that includes cooperation
among all parties for the control of excessive noise sources.
Measurement
Sound measurements are required either to conform to DEQ test procedures as
specified in two procedures manuals,
Sound Measurement Procedures Manual (NPCS-1), and
Motor Vehicle Sound Measurement Procedures Manual (NPCS-21),
or to standard methods approved in writing by DEQ.
19
-------
Exceptions
DEQ may grant exceptions to its noise rules upon written request from the owner
or controller of a noise source. In considering such requests the Department must
take into account the following factors:
(1) Protection of health, safety, and welfare of Oregon citizens,
(2) Feasibility and cost of noise abatement,
(3) Past, present, and future patterns of land use,
(4) Relative timing of land use changes, and
(5) Other legal constraints.
DEQ must specify parameters of any exceptions it authorizes, including times the
noise rules can be exceeded, and quantity and quality of noise being generated. It
may also specify progress increments the noise source must meet in order to satisfy
the noise rules at some future date.
Motor Vehicle Rules
New Vehicles. All vehicles sold or offered for sale must meet the standards
specified in Exhibit 2-4. Standards are progressively more stringent. Manufacturers
of covered vehicles must certify prior to sale that vehicles satisfy these noise limits.
Noise measurements must conform to procedures adopted in Motor Vehicle Sound
Measurement Procedures Manual (NPC-S-21) or to other departmentally approved
standard methods, and are generally the responsibility of the manufacturer. Under
certain circumstances, exceptions may be granted upon written request; racing
vehicles, including racing motorcycles (subject to clear provisos), are exempt.
ln-use Vehicles. Automobiles; heavy trucks, including those engaged in
interstate commerce; light trucks; buses; and all other road vehicles must meet either
a stationary test standard or a moving test standard. Generally, standards are most
lenient for vehicles manufactured before 1976, and become progressively more
stringent thereafter. "Classic" and other "special interest" vehicles not conforming to
these standards may be granted an exception for the sole purpose of maintaining
their authenticity. Exhibit 2-5 gives the stationary test standards, while moving test
standards are shown in Exhibit 2-6.
Off-road Recreational Vehicles. All motor vehicles, including water craft,
operated off public roads for recreational purposes are included in this category.
Both stationary and moving test standards are specified for motorcycles,
snowmobiles, boats, and all other off-road recreational vehicles. Exhibit 2-7 shows
the test standards.
20
-------
Exhaust Systems. No person may operate a road vehicle or off-road recreational
vehicle with an exhaust system having:
(a) no muffler,
(b) leaks in the exhaust system, or
(c) a pinched outlet pipe.
Ambient Noise Limits. Owners of property are required to control vehicle noise
levels on their property. Operators of vehicles near noise sensitive properties or
near the boundary of a quiet area cannot cause the ambient noise levels to exceed
the limits specified in Exhibit 2-8 when the vehicle is being operated within 1,000
feet of such areas or property. Excluded from this coverage are motor vehicles
operating in racing events, operating off-road for nonrecreational purposes, operating
on public roads, or initially entering or leaving a property more than 1,000 feet from
the nearest noise sensitive property.
Auxiliary Equipment. Auxiliary equipment powered by a road vehicle's primary
power source is bound by the limits shown in Exhibit 2-9. Auxiliary equipment
powered by a secondary source was not covered by the noise rules at the time data
for this report were collected (August-October 1978).
Industry and Commerce Rules
Industrial and commmercial noise sources are divided into three categories:
(1) Existing noise sources,
(2) New noise sources located on a previously used site, and
(3) New noise sources located on a previously unused site.
The statistical noise levels of these noise sources may not exceed the levels stated in
Exhibits 2-10 and 2-11. The measurement point for these noise sources is the
further of the following two:
(1) Twenty-five feet toward the noise source from that point on the noise
sensitive building nearest the noise source, or
(2) That point on the noise sensitive property line nearest the noise source.
The ambient statistical noise level of a new noise source on a previously unused
site must include all noise indirectly caused or attributable to the source, including
related activities. By January 1, 1978, all existing industrial and commercial noise
sources had to come into compliance with the applicable noise standards in Exhibit
2-11.
21
-------
Quiet Areas. The standards and noise levels for industrial and commercial noise
sources located in or just outside quiet areas can be found in Exhibit 2-12. The
sound measurement must take place within the quiet area and be not less than 400
feet from the noise source.
Octave Bands. Upon the discretion of the Director of the DEQ, an industrial and
commercial noise source may be tested for octave band sound pressure levels; the
applicable levels can be found in Exhibit 2-13. The sound measurement occurs at the
same point described for existing and new noise sources. (For a more detailed
description, the reader may see section 35-035 (1 )(f)(A)(B)(i)(ii) of the regulations
reproduced in Appendix B.)
Monitoring and Reporting. Upon written notification by the DEQ, the owner of
the noise source must monitor the statistical noise levels and operating times of
equipment, facilities, operations, and activities as described in the "Sound
Measurement Procedures Manual."
Exemptions. The following noise sources are generally exempted from the
Industrial and Commercial Noise Source Standards:
• Irregularly operated emergency equipment,
• Warning devices,
• Tires and motors of road vehicles in compliance with motor vehicle
noise standards,
• Equipment of a surface rail carrier,
• Bells, chimes, or carillons,
Nonelectronically amplified sounds at recreational events,
• Construction sites,
• Maintenance of capital equipment,
• Lawn care maintenance and snow removal equipment,
• Aircraft operation, and
• Agricultural activities.
Variances. If persons operating or controlling a noise source feel they should be
exempt from the rules and regulations, they may file a written request with the DEQ
for a specific variance from the particular rule or regulation. A granted variance can
be modified or revoked by the Environmental Quality Commission after a public
hearing. All variances may contain a time limit.
22
-------
CONCLUSION
Oregon's noise regulations have been revised periodically in the four years since
they were first passed (at this writing, Oregon's noise regulations were last revised
in early 1978). Continuous monitoring of noise problems in the state, technological
developments, and enforcement help the DEQ staff anticipate necessary or desirable
changes. Working in concert with sources being regulated, Noise Pollution Control
Program staff have been able to formulate coverage definitions and noise level
limitations that the state is willing and able to live with. So far, noise regulations
have caused no economic hardship to business and commerce, and individual citizens
are generally satisfied with the protection they have.
In the next chapter, program operations will be discussed, including enforcement
strategies. Attention will be given to both motor vehicular noise control and
industrial and commercial noise control.
23/24
-------
Exhibit 2-1
EXCERPTS FROM DEQ STATUS MEMORANDUM
TO ITS COMMISSION
PROPOSTD NOISE RULES, GENERAL
The proposed noise standards (hat limit noise levels at noise sensitive property
are based on the need to protect outdoor speech communication and Indoor sleep on
residential property* The noise level goals adopted to achieve this protection are:
1* Levels of less than 45 dBA for 54 minutes of the noisiest hour of the night
Inside a bedroom with open windows.
2. Levels of less than 60 dBA for 54 minutes of the noisiest hour of the day
outside on residential property.
The proposed noise control standards for motor vehicles are similar to
California's motor vehicle noise laws, which are based on the use of present muffler
technology with the assumption that Improved muffler technology can be developed
given sufficient lead tline*
NFW MOfOR VEHICLES
These rules will prohibit the sales of new cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles,
snowmobiles, and other road vehicles and off road recreational vehicles that do not
meet the staled noise levels. Ihe Initial standards are not prohibitive, but future
standards will require the development of Improved vehicle noise control equipment.
Enforcement of these rules will be carried out primarily by DEQ staff who will rely
on the noise tests of vehicle manufacturers.
IN-USE MOTOR VEHICLES
These rules will:
1. Prohibit the use of road and off-road recreational vehicles exceeding a
specified noise limit. That noise llinlt is directly related to the noise
permitted for new vehicles.
2. Prohibit certain modifications to muffler systems.
3. Require property owners to control the use of vehicles on their land while
not closing down needed recreational areas to motor vehicles.
RACING EVENTS
The strong negative response to the proposed rules and a general tack of data on
the nature and scope of the racing noise problem have led us to propose a delay In
the Implementation of racing standards until 1976. This delay will permit more
extensive research Into this noise problem by the DEQ staff while giving the racers of
Oregon time to develop the necessary noise control technology.
PUBLIC ROADS
These rules will:
1. Control the noise levels generated by major new roads not yet constructed.
2. Control the Increase in noise of existing roads being modified to handle a
larger traffic capacity.
3. Allow the DEQ to request that noise abatement measures be taken by the
appropriate public agencies on existing roads that the DEQ noise stalf has
Identified as noise problems.
These standards will be enforced by the DEQ noise staff with cooperation from
other state and local government agencies involved In the construction of public
roads.
INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE
These rules will:
1. Control the noise levels of existing noise sources by providing allowable
noise levels for day and nlghl operations.
2. Control the Increase in noise levels at noise sensitive property resulting from
the Introduction of a new Industrial or commercial activity.
3. Control the emissions of pure tones.
Enforcement Is expected primarily by Department field staff.
Enforcement of these rules will be through the local and state police and through
the DEQ vehicle emissions testing staff. The noise staff will soon begin working on
In-use vehicle standards applicable to vehicles tested in an emissions testing station.
-------
Exhibit 2-2
INDUSTRY COMMERCE NOISE REGULATIONS
Coaparisoa of Iatrisslc Ciaases - Sept,, 1973 - July, 197^
2CL2
j i::zzn:: ssrr 1 , ,
SITT. '73 1 sis.. '73 ~ ."J.HCE '74
jtrr,Y, 1974
-L37513:
Ir-90
L-50
L-lO
Ir-1
L-IIAX
(3a/-^i£h-0
50
55
60
70
O37) (Sight)
Cropped. — ...
55 5? *
60 55
Eropped.....
75 60
• ••« t
Sane as 12/73
MUM
Saaa as 12/73
(jJay) (Ifisht;)
•*••••«••« ) TO
60 55 )'7S>
65 50 )
80 65 )
Dropped )
?IX2 20rTZ3
12-Hour
niche Zone
3 TA - 3 Ali
(hotels,=otels)
9 PH - 9AH
(racias; 027*3)
10-Hour 1 9-Hour
' Sicht Zone J Sight Zoae
9 TA - 7 AH 1 10 ?H - 7 AZI
'or all 2-Is a (weekend Haclag
Sensitive ?rep~ to 11 j?!I)
i
a ^as as .-a: ,, '7^*
K3KI. PS.
Property Lisa
25' froa i 25* froa
res'l 'bids. | Inhabited bid5.
Saaa as iior., '7^.
ZZCZrxICJS
ZXZMFIIO'JS
7.'.2IA£C3
3 outright
Mono-
Hons
11 outright
5 by written
request
(teraiaol. rsvarsed)
11 exeaptioas
4 exceptions by
¦written request
13 exceptions
5 written/
request excspt'as
(It consists of 2)
3JS IS ?•-•*» uoa-
C0I-7LLU>'C3
F.eais: ";?o
persca shall
causa...30Ise
levels (spec.)
...to be
exceeded*"
3 as a- as 9/73
Sacs as 9/73
COKSLAl-T basis
for eslstias 1-C
sources; ao chaage
for aev, aodified1-
QUIZ? A2S4S
Hot specified
!~2i£ dg~ * ~ Stroager def.:
•"ZTSay-IMght). i Iacludea aature
L-50 3 60 d2A. ! trails la paris;
L-10 3 45 d3A ; requires laad-use
IrKiZ 3 50 Av.A. » aceacy to desig-
1 aate areas •
SAMS LITSLS
Sef. ca.aaged.
(Cay) (ITicrht
L-50 2 50 SA5
L-10 2 55 330
L-l 3 6Q 3=5
L-KJJC - Dropped
SCAL3
.A, 5 4 C-
, scales spec.
(d2A; d33;
dac)
dropped 3-
scale li. C-
scales
Saaa as 12/73
A-5caia pl-s
adds liaear for
pure tones aad
Iapulse Kols a
. 12-27133 ;:oi3 3
irot specified (Sace as 9/73 t Sans as 9/73
i i
raits:
(3ay): 100 i3
(Sight): 30 d3
Orcr-S^ZADA-
•zios)
, ^ n. so
oased oa
, sonlag
5 2-2 Laval
Prohibits rare
than £5 d2Arise
'ia csaiaa a»-
bieat 1 2 5 yr.
New sources
oaly.
. Dropped
' Saae. Also ^
raauiras -ev
li C soureas
to do all
aabieat arsats .
Property aust 'zz/z
beea "prevlc-jsly
unoccupied..." ?.lr;
alloved to / 10 d3.-.
(L-10, L-50^ :.'o ==--
req. bv source.
liait oa hov oftaa.
022G05 zS72?.QVXZZ?XL ~Post-1973 - alaus 5 d2A
corrrcrt JUi.r 19,197* 26 JCe"'r I_c " " "
?H23 2112) xo ICC: SAL2X
-------
Exhibit 2-3
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS STATEMENTS
EXCERPTED FROM A DEQ MEMORANDUM
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Motor vehicle] continue to present the State of Oregon with its most severe and
most common environmental noise problems. To deal with these problems,
comprehensive motor vehicle noise control regulations were adopted by the
Commission in 1974. These regulations set standards In all -notor vehicle categories
at both the manufacturing level, as new products, and it the user level, as in-use
products. A final noise standard was also identified at a level where overall vehicle
noise would be generated almost entirely by tire noise. These standards for new
vehicles in the 1975 model year were adlusted for the state-of-the-art technical
capabilities then available, with subsequent years becoming gradually more stringent
until the final standard could finally be reached in model year 1979. In-use
standards were patterned after these new vehicle standards, with a slight adjustment
allowed for product deterioration.
Testimony in favor of a petition which proposed deleting the final 75 d3A
standard was offered by parties claiming that major motor vehicle noise problems are
caused entirely by in-use vehicles with either defective or modified exhaust systems.
The Department agrees that these vehicles are easily identifiable and are almost
always in violation of the In-use standards. However, the fact remains that new
vehicles have not yet reached the final level identified by the Department as being
acceptable, and therefore the noise emissions from these vehicles must be considered
excessive. Until final standards are met, the entire motor vehicle noise problem
cannot be blamed exclusively on in-use vehicles with defective or modified exhausts.
Other factors brought out in testimony indicated, however, that a postponement
of the standards might be advisable. Increased costs, inadequate testing procedures
and possible Federal preemption present reasonable grounds for postponing this
standard for cars and light trucks until model year 1981, notwithstanding the fact
that technology is available now to build these vehicles to the 75 dBA standard in
1979. The time gained by postponement could then be used to develop new testing
procedures and ascertain the intentions of the Federal government in this area.
It is therefore the recommendation of the Department that the petition requesting
the deletion of the 75 dBA standard be rejected, but that implementation of the
standard be postponed until 1981 for automobiles and light trucks.
The EPA has recently adopted standards for medium and heavy trucks. Like
present state regulations, they set standards for new and in-use vehicles. However,
the standards they have set are not consistent with those that have been adopted by
the State of Oregon.
Because the Federal regulations are preemptive, it is the recommendation of the
Department that its regulations be amended to conform to the new Federal
regulations. In this regard, the Department also recommends that the definition of
"truck" be amended to mean those vehicles with a GVWR In excess of 10,000 pounds,
rather than the current 8,000 pounds. This change Is also In keeping with the new
Federal regulations.
27
-------
Exhibit 2-3 (Continued)
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS STATEMENTS
EXCERPTED FROM A DEQ MEMORANDUM
Testimony was received supporting a proposal to rescind present bus standards.
Although the EPA has Identified buses as a major noise source category, they have
not yet promulgated standards for bus noise or indicated that they will eventually do
so. Because buses exceed all other motor vehicle noise sources in residential urban
areas, because the technology exists for building quieter buses, and because American
manufacturers have refused to recognize the need for implementing this technology,
the Department feels the state must maintain its present standards as adopted.
Therefore, the Department recommends that the proposal :o rescind the present
bus standards be rejected.
Off-road motor vehicles, especially motorcycles, have been a major source of
citizen complaints received by the Department. Because road and off-road
motorcycles have essentially the same propulsion systems, with the same muffling
technology available to each, and because motorcycles operating offload near noise
sensitive areas are such a major problem, it was the view of the Department at the
time of initial rule adoption—concurred with by the Commission'—that identical
standards for the two types of machines were both necessary and possible. This
conclusion has been strongly reinforced and supported In the brief period of time
that the rule has been in effect.
Testimony has been received from the motorcycle industry supporting an
amendment that would end identical regulations of road and off-road motorcycles.
However, based on our previous findings and the field experiences mentioned above,
the Department firmly recommends that this proposed amendment be rejected.
Although the effect of this rule may preclude the tale of some off-road motorcycles
in the state, manufacturers are producing a large number of vehicles in compliance
with the standards and no major hardships should follow.
Testimony was llso offered by the motorcycle industry in support of a petition
requesting the delay of the 80 dBA and 75 dBA standards set to go into effect in 1977
and 1979 respectively. It was claimed that implementation of these standards could
result in economic hardship to the industry. Upon investigation, it is the
recommendation of the Department, first, that the programmed reduction between the
1976 and 1977 model years be reduced from 3 dBA to 2 dBA for a standard of 31
dBA; second, that this standard be extended through the 1982 model year instead of
the 1978 model year, at. which time an intermediate step of 73 dSA would apply; and
third, that the final 75 dBA standard be postponed until model year 1987.
These changes should eliminate any major problems that may arise with 1977
model certification. They are also believed to be consistent with the actions of
other jurisdictions in controlling motorcycle noise.
The Department's housekeeping amendments are made up of both organizational
and substantive revisions, and include several minor changes suggested by public
testimony. It Is the Department's recommendation that these amendments to the
motor vehicle rules ana procedure manuals be approved.
DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION
It is the Director's recommendation that the Commission adopt the recommended
revisions to the motor vehicle noise rules and the procedure manuals as attached to
this report.
28
-------
Exhibit 2-4
NEW MOTOR VEHICLE STANDARDS
Moving Test At 50 Feet (15.2 meters)
Vehicle Type Effective For Maxinun Noise
Level, dBA
Motorcycles 19-75- ModeL 06
1976 Model 83
1977-1982 Models 81
1983-1987 Models 78
Models after 1987 75
Snowmobile:* as defined
in ORS 401.048 1975 Model 82
1976-1979 Models 73
Model* after 1979 75
Truck in excess of
10,000 pounds. 1975 Model 86
[(4o25 kg) 3 GVWR 1376-1981 Models or Models manufactured
after Jan- 1» 1978 and before Jan. 1, 1902 -83
Models- manufactured after Jan. lr 1982 and
before Jan. 1, 1985 30
Models manufactured after Jan.' I, 1985 (Reserved)
Autcaabiles/ light trucks,
and all other road
vehicles 1975 Model 33
1976—1980 Models 80
Models, after 1930 75
Bus as defined under
CSS 481.0 30 1975 Model 8S
1976—1973 Models 33
Models after 1978 80
29
-------
Exhibit 2-5
IN-USE ROAD VEHICLE STANDARDS
STATIONARY TEST
Vehicle Type
Model Year
Maximum Noise
Level, d8A
Minimum Distance from
Vehicle
Point
to Measurement
Vehicles 1n excess of 10,000
pounds (4538 kg) GVWR or
GCWR engaged.irr interstate ccjjj-
merci as permitted by Title 40,.
Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 202, Environmental
Protection Agency (Noise
Emission Standards-Motor .
Carriers Engaged in Inter-
state Ccrtwerce)
ATI
AIT other trucks in excess
of 10,000 pounds [(4535 kg)] Before 1976
sm
Motorcycles
1975-1931
after 1931
1975 and Before
88
94
91
88
102
50 feet (15.2 meters)
25 feet (7.6 meters)
25 feet (7.6 meters)
25 feet (7.6 meters)
Front-engine automobiles,,
light trucks and all
other front-engine- road
vehicles
Rear-engine automobiles
and light trucks and aid-
engine automobiles and
light trucks
Buses as defined under
0R3 431.030
After 197?
AIT
99
AIT
Before 1975
1976-1973
After 1978
95
97
94
91
88
[20 inches (1/2 neter)
20 inches (1/2 rater)
20 inches (1/2 r;ater)
25 feet (7.6 meters)
25 feet (7.5 meters)
25 feet (7.5 meters)
30
-------
Exhibit 2-6
IN-USE ROAD VEHICLE STANDARDS
MOVING TEST AT 50 FEET (15.2 METERS) OR GREATER AT VEHICLE SPEED
Vehicle Type
Vehicles in excess of
1Q,000 pounds (4536 leg)
GVWR or GCWR engaged 1 it
Interstate cormerce as
permitted, by Title 40,
Coder of Federal Regulations,
Part 202, Environmental
Protection- Agency (Noise
Emission- Standards-Motor
Carriers. Engaged irr Inter-
state Comaerce)
All other trucks in excess
of 10,000 pounds (4536 kg)
GVWR
Motorcycles
ModeT Year
Automobilesr light trucks
and. all other road vehicles
Buses as defined under ORS
487.030
Max1mun» Noise LeveT, dBA
35 mph Greater than
(56 kplr) 35 mph- (56 kph)
or Tess
ATT
Before 1976
T976-198T
After 198T
Before 1976
T976
T977-1982
T983--1987
After-1987
Before 1976
1976-1980
After 1980
Before 1976
T976-1978
After 1978
86
86
85
82
84
81
79-
76
72
81
78
73
36
85
82
90
90
87
84
8ff
85
82
80
77
85
82
77
90
87
84
31
-------
Exhibit 2-7
OFF-ROAD RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STANDARDS
ALLOWABLE NOISE LIMITS
Vehicle Type
Motorcycles
Snowmobiles
Boats
Underwater Exhaust
Atmosphere Exhaust
All Others
Front Engine-
Mid and Rear
Engines
Model Year
Maximum Noise Level (dBA) and
Distance from Vehicle to
Measurement Point
T975 arid Before
After T 975
1S7T and Before
T972-1975
T975-197S
After 1978
All
ATI
All
ATT
Stationary Test
20 Tnches (1/2 Meter)
102
99
100
95
97
Moving Test
at 50 Feet
(15.2 Meters)
86
84-
80
77
84
84
32
-------
Exhibit 2-8
AMBIENT STANDARDS FOR VEHICLES
OPERATED NEAR NOISE SENSITIVE PROPERTY
Allowable Noise Limits
Time Maximum Noise Level, dBA
7 a.m. - 10 p.m. 60
10 p.m. - 7 a.m.. 55
Exhibit 2-9
AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT DRIVEN BY
PRIMARY ENGINE NOISE STANDARDS
Stationary Test At 50 Feet 05.2 meters) Or Greater
Model Year Maximum Noise Level, dSA
Before 197S 88
1575-1973 -85
After 1978 82
Exhibit 2-10
EXISTING INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL
NOISE SOURCE STANDARDS
Allowable Statistical Noise Levels in Any One Hour
Fre-1978 Post - 1977
7 a.m. ~ 10 p.m^ 10 p.nr. - 7 a.m. 7 a.m. - 10 p.m. 1Q p.m. - 7 a.m.
L5q - 60 dBA Lsq - 55 dBA L5Q - 55 dBA L5Q - 50 dBA
L1q - 65 dBA L1Q - 6Q dBA L](J - 60 dBA LTQ - 55 dCA
L1 - 80 d8A Lx - 65 dSA L-j - 75 d3A - 60 dSA
33
-------
Exhibit 2-11
NEW INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL NOISE SOURCE STANDARDS
Allowable Statistical Noise Levels in Any One Hour
T a.nr. - TO p.nt. TO p.m. - 7 a.m.
Ljjj - 55 dBA L5Q - 50 dSA
Lm - 60 <$A Lla - 55 dBA
Lt - 75: dBA Lt - 60 dBA
Exhibit 2-12
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL NOISE SOURCE STANDARDS
FOR QUIET AREAS
Allowable Statistical Noise Levels in Any One Hour
7 a.m. - 10 p.m. 10 p.m. - 7 a.m.
L50 - 50 dBA Lg0 - 45 dBA
t1Q - 55 dBA L]0 - 50 dBA
LT - 60 dBA Lt - 55" dBA
Exhibit 2-13
MEDIAN OCTAVE BAND STANDARDS FOR
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL NOISE SOURCES
AlTcwable Octave* Band Sound Pressure.Levels
Octave Band Center
Frequency, Hz T a:.mv - 10" p-.nr. TO p.m. - 7 a .nr.
2T.5
65
65
S3.
65
62
125
67
55
250
55
50
500
52
4o
looa
49
43
2000
45.
40
400a
43:
37
aaoa
40
3*
34
-------
3
STATE NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM OPERATIONS
Since 1972^ the Noise Control Program (NCP) has shaped its program around eight
areas of responsibility:
(1) Regulation of motor vehicle noise;
(2) Regulation of highway noise;
(3) Regulation of industrial and commercial noise;
(4) Regulation of airport noise;
(5) Regulation of racing event noise;
(6) Drafting of a model comprehensive city/county noise ordinance;
(7) Coordinating policy with other Federal Stater- and local agencies; and
(8) Carrying out special technical projects which would assist in the ongoing
development of effective noise regulations.
The program, which operates on a biennial budget,, has grown from a staff of two
in 1972 to a staff of 8.3 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) for 1977-79. Structurally,, the
program is now organized as DEQ itself is organized: a central office together with
field offices. Four full-time staff handle central office functions-,- while 4.3 FTE staff
cover the ten field offices in geographically-defined regions. The program's budget
for 1977-79 is $408^000, and includes $23^000 for capital expendituresr currently
including equipment purchases and an equipment calibration program ($15,000 to
$20^)00) provided as a service to local governments.
An overview of program activities for the eight areas cited abover together with
detailed discussions of central office activities, field office operations., and motor
vehicle inspections, is presented in this chapter. Eugene's enforcement of the state
motor vehicle noise limits is covered here, also. Sample cases are presented to
illustrate enforcement strategies.
35
-------
OVERVIEW
The Noise Control Program (NCP) is a part of the Air Quality Division of the
Department of Environmental Quality. Its central office administers the statewide
program and generally handles all training and technical assistance. Special studies,
formulation of regulations, and coordination with Federal and local programs are also
central office functions. Complaints are most often investigated and resolved
through field offices, though the central office provides back-up services when
needed and responds to industry inquiries it receives. City and county land-use
plans are reviewed by NCP for noise impacts. Industry tax credit applications for
capital expenses incurred to control or eliminate noise problems are processed
through the central office in coordination with the related field office.
Program activities described in this chapter began in 1974 after administrative
rules had been adopted. Emphasis is placed on recent and current events (1976-78).
Industrial and Commercial Noise
The program is currently complaint-based for industrial and commercial sources,
meaning that the noise program does no general monitoring of sources, but responds
to complaints from noise sensitive properties. Staff limitations make this the only
approach feasible at this time, but the program plans to adapt its approach to source
monitoring in the next two or three years. Most field office activity is related to
resolving industrial and commercial noise complaints. Operations of both the
Portland and the Salem field offices will be described in this chapter.
Motor Vehicle Noise
One aspect of motor vehicle noise monitoring is conducted through a certification
procedure governing new vehicles offered for sale in Oregon. Manufacturers have
been complying with the standards. In-use vehicle standards are being enforced
only in a limited way. Voluntary noise testing has been included in the mandatory
biennial auto inspections for the Portland Metropolitan Service Area. The City of
Eugene is actively enforcing the state motor vehicle noise standards as well as the
separate state laws covering motor vehicle exhaust systems. In 1978, the state
legislature was petitioned to make the noise inspection mandatory. However, at the
time of the site visit, the inspection was still voluntary. The noise inspection
process will be described in detail later in this chapter. Material on Eugene's
activities will be presented, also.
Highway Noise
Although a highway noise regulation was proposed in the 1973 initial regulations
proposal, the standard proposed was 15 dBA more restrictive than Federal guidelines,
and much opposition to it was registered by public officials. A second proposal
made in 1974 covering only new roads also met with strong opposition. A technical
36
-------
advisory committee has been working with DEQ since 1976 and has been studying this
problem, especially the potential economic impact of public road noise regulation.
The current regulations do not cover noise.
Airport Noise
State regulation of airport noise is still preempted by the Federal Aviation
Administration. Proposals calling for Federal assistance in retrofitting older
commercial jet aircraft and/or replacing noisy B-707's and DC-8's have been under
consideration for some time. The EPA has also recommended to the FAA that its
program of airport noise regulation include the use of a planning process in the
development of comprehensive noise abatement plans for all the nation's airports.
Racing Event Noise
Racing event noise was also a regulation issue addressed in 1973. However,
strong opposition from racing enthusiasts blocked passage of regulatory measures.
In the ensuing years, DEQ has devised a voluntary noise control strategy, calling for
mufflers on competing vehicles, that has been implemented by several tracks. Most
"stock car" circle tracks in the state now require mufflers at all events, as do most
motorcycle tracks. Racing industry support for noise control was demonstrated by
one of the two sports car sanctioning bodies in Oregon when they set a maximum
allowable decible limit for all vehicles competing in their events. Nonetheless,
complaints about racing event noise continue to be filed with DEQ at a rate that
suggests a comprehensive rule is needed. There was no rule in force at the time of
the site visit.
Model Noise Ordinance
A model noise ordinance drafted in 1976 was considered by NCP to be both
comprehensive and consistent with state regulations. Review of that ordinance with
a technical advisory committee brought to light concerns the staff had not
anticipated. Limited staff availability and other program priorities have stalemated
this activity somewhat.
Coordination With Other Agencies
Oregon's noise control program attributes many of its significant gains to the
coordination of its efforts with those of other governmental agencies. At the
Federal level, the program monitors Federal activity in setting standards for new
equipment (like trucks, air compressors, and railroad equipment), in-use vehicles, and
identification of other sources needing regulation. The program comments on
Federal actions, invites Federal review of its regulation proposals, and uses Federal
technical assistance in some of its own efforts. At the state level, the program
37
-------
works closely with other state agencies that exercise control over noise problems
peculiar to their areas of regulation. Notable work has been done with the Marine
Board, Department of Transportation, and Department of Land Conservation and
Development. Coordination efforts will be discussed in detail elsewhere in this
chapter.
Special Studies
The program views the responsibility of special studies as critical to the
regulation development process. In its short life the Noise Control Program has
conducted varied technical studies including:
* Studies of impulse noise,
Field measurements of racing motor vehicles,
• Field measurements of more than 30 categories of farm machinery (in
conjunction with the Oregon Farm Bureau), and
• Noise testing of more than 1,500 automobiles at motor vehicle emission
stations to ascertain adequacy of testing procedures.
New study needs arise continuously as new sources needing to be regulated are
identified and as technical problems come to light in current enforcement efforts.
CENTRAL OFFICE OPERATIONS
The only full-time noise pollution staff in DEQ works in the central office.
Besides coordinating noise control activities in the ten field offices, the program
director, assisted by two technical staff and one secretary, focuses most central
office effort toward:
* Formulating regulatory proposals, including conducting studies, taking noise
measurements, testing equipment, and working with task forces and special
advisory committees.
* Responding to Industry requests for technical interpretations of the noise
regulations.
• Coordinating follow-up activity on noise complaints.
* Coordinating with other state agencies and local governments on noise
abatement issues, plans, and enforcement.
• Training of DEQ staff as well as people from local jurisdictions in both motor
vehicle noise enforcement and in interpretation of the noise rules.
38
-------
• Providing technical assistance to DEQ field offices., especially special
statistical studies., and to local jurisdictions.
Designing mass public awareness and public information campaigns.
• Coordinating the industrial tax credit program.
• Reviewing city and county comprehensive land-use plans for noise impacts.
In the area of rule-making and motor vehicle noise enforcement, the noise program
has prepared a handbook used in conducting the voluntary noise inspections included
as part of the mandatory automobile inspections and has trained inspectors in the
use of sound measuring equipment. Noise program staff have also used data
collected in this program to assist in formulating a rule proposal to make the noise
inspection mandatory. According to an August 1976 NCP status report, the voluntary
tests had shown that approximately 15% of vehicles participating in the Portland
Metropolitan Service District program failed to meet appropriate DEQ noise standards.
Seventy percent of all vehicles with modified exhaust systems failed, while only 5%
of vehicles with stock systems failed.
The Noise Control Program regularly loans equipment (together with instructions)
to local jurisdictions. Besides regular and periodic training for DEQ staff, central
office staff has organized and mounted a number of other training sessions:
Field office staff were trained in 1978 prior to the shifting of staff
assignments from single pollutants to all pollutants (Note: Prior to July 1,
1978,. a technical person in a DEQ field office had had responsibility for one
pollutant, his/her territory being the entire region that particular field office
was responsible for; as of July 1T 1978, staff became responsible for all
pollutants in a smaller area of a field office's geographic range).
Eugene police officers were trained in using sound measuring equipment and
motor vehicle noise testing procedures.
Portland noise officers were trained in motor vehicle noise testing and
enforcement.
• U.S. Forestry Service personnel participated in two training seminars on
enforcement of off-road recreational vehicle standards in national parks.
In all, the Noise Control Program had trained policemen in approximately 12
jurisdictions in the state.
The model noise ordinance prepared by the staff in 1976 has been requested by
some local jurisdictions and used in their early stages of noise program development.
There has not been as much interest shown in this planning tool as DEQ had initially
expected. Needs for revisions suggested by industry and citizen input have been
addressed somewhat, but the level of activity on model ordinance development has
been low since early 1977.
39
-------
Interest appears to be growing in the tax credit program instituted in 1976.
Under this program a commercial or industrial concern cited for a violation that
requires construction or engineering changes (capital expenditures) may apply for a
tax credit for all or specific parts of these expenditures. Between 10 and 15
applications had been filed at the time of the site visit, but none had been processed
to completion. In order to complete processing of a tax credit application the
following steps must occur7 as a minimum:
(1) A facility must be found in violation when a complaint lodged against it is
investigated.
(2) Noise surveys at the facility must be performed in order to accurately
identify the problem (usually both the facility and NCP will do this).
(3) A facility must submit a compliance plan to DEQ. From the start of this
program, facilities were encouraged to gear their plans for noise abatement to
the post-1978 standards to avoid future potential violations.
(4) If a facility's compliance plan includes structural or engineering changesT
that facility may request a tax credit application.
(5) If a facility's compliance (construction/engineering) plan is approved by DEQ
a preliminary certification for tax credit is grantedT making that facility
eligible for tax credit consideration.
(6) A facility must file a certificate of construction completion with DEQ within
30 days of actual completion.
(7) Compliance with the noise standards under normal operating conditions
must be demonstrated by a compliance noise survey.
Only those construction or engineering facility modifications directly attributable to
noise abatement efforts are eligible for tax credit review.
In the realm of coordination with other state and local agencies and technical
assistance the Noise Control Program has been very active with:
Oregon Department of Transportation (QDQ"Q. NCP is working with ODOT
on new freeway routes and designs. ODOT writes its own environmental
impact statements,, but usually consults with DEQ. (NCP attempted to have
highway noise standards included in its rules in 1973; the move was
defeated.) In conjunction with the Aeronautics Division., NCP has put
together a land-use compatibility document for airports in the state.
• Motor Vehicle Administration. DEQv through NCPr has had statutory
authority over motor vehicle noise since 1974. It has:
- developed procedures and test methodologies for enforcement
- phased in a voluntary noise inspection progranv and
- prepared a rules proposal for making noise inspections mandatory.
40
-------
• Marine Board. NCP usually works with the Marine Board in instances of
violations. NCP provides instruction and equipment for county sheriffs to
enforce the watercraft noise standards under contract to the Marine Baord.
• Department of Land Conservation and Development. NCP has been reviewing
comprehensive plans that cities and counties are required to submit for noise
impacts. NCP is working with local jurisdiction staff in preparing a criteria
document that can be used in planning. NCP serves as a consultant to local
jurisdictions in monitoring their noise control plans (land use).
At the local level,. NCP is working with both planning and enforcement agencies.
Exemplary activities include:
• Working with the City of Portland with many of the enforcement phases of
its noise ordinance.
• Assisting several county planning agencies in evaluating conditional land use
permits so that they could prevent incompatible land uses (noisewise) from
developing between existing activities in an area and activities being
considered.
The noise section of DEQ has commented on Federal noise control proposals for
trucks and has regularly sought Federal EPA comment on its rules proposals. The
central noise office, in concert with the regional office involved-, routinely processes
variance requests for action by the Environmental Quality Commission.
Public service announcements on radio and television-, together with press
releases to newspapersT constitute most of the noise program's public relations.
Central and field office noise staff may also attend community meetings when noise
or related community issues are agenda items.
FIELD OFFICE OPERATIONS
Complaints-, source monitoring, and compliance are normally handled by field
offices in the ten geographically defined regions. Until the summer of 1978,
technical staff in field offices were specialists on pollution sources; that is, they
were assigned by pollution source: air, water, noise,, and solid waste. Since thenT
technical staff have been given geographic assignments and address all pollutants for
their assigned territory.
The western part of the state is much more populous and industrialized than the
eastern sector; the bulk of activity in noise control emanates from the Portland and
Salem field offices. The Portland field office is responsible for seven counties in the
metropolitan area,, an industrialized area that includes rock crushing as a major
industry; the Salem office covers six counties in the largely ruralT agricultural
Willamette Valley, where agrarian and forestry industries abound. Both Portland and
Salem field offices were site visited.
41
-------
Of the two, the Portland office handles a significantly higher volume of noise
complaints. Neither office does noise source monitoring; DEQ has not yet moved in
that direction, because it lacks the staff to do so. Noise control activities at the
field office level are described in this section. Emphasis is placed on the nature of
complaints, level of complaints, and complaint resolution techniques. Unresolved
compliance problems are also discussed.
Nature and Level of Complaints
Most complaints filed with the Portland office deal with noise from diesel
engines, compressors, pneumatic conveying equipment and rock processors.
Occasionally, air pollution control equipment is the source being complained about.
Noises are most often generated by industrial or commercial sources; complainants
are usually residents being disturbed by these sounds. On the average, noise
complaints account for 8-15% of the 200-250 pollutant complaints received each
month. In some months, however, noise outnumbers all other pollutant complaints.
Complaints to the Salem field office most often concern off-road recreational
vehicles (dirt bikes) operated on vacant lots in the city. Noisy cars, industrial or
commercial sources, barking dogs, and noisy taverns are also complained about from
time to time. In an average month the staff has three or four noise complaints to
handle.
Resolution Strategies and Techniques
"Cooperation and conciliation" are hallmarks of the Noise Control Program's
approach to achieving compliance with noise standards, and communication is the
key to program success. When the source is other than a motor vehicle operating on
state roads, complaints are generally handled in the following way:
(1) The complaint registered is investigated to determine its validity. The
investigation usually includes taking noise measurements at several
points, including the appropriate point on the noise sensitive property
from which the complaint was lodged.
(2) A violation notice, including a request for a compliance plan, is mailed to
the violator from the noise program's central office, and the complainant
is notified of this action.
(3) Meetings may be held with the violator to formulate or negotiate a
compliance plan with timelines and performance targets.
(4) Once an acceptable compliance plan has been submitted, DEQ staff
monitors progress. If the source is industrial or commercial, and its plan
contains construction or engineering changes, that source is informed of
the tax credit program (described under Central Office Operations).
42
-------
(5) If steps toward compliance are not carried out according to plan (i.e., a
performance target is not achieved by the agreed-upon date), DEQ sends
the violator a five-day notice that continued noncooperation will result in
civil penalties (fines of $25 to $500 per day).
(6) The compliance plan is monitored in this way until the violator achieves
compliance.
In the process of investigating complaints and negotiating compliance, DEQ makes no
specific suggestions about what a violator should do to eliminate the noise problem
in question. DEQ does suggest that consultants be used, especially if the problem is
one of wide band or three-octave sound. DEQ further encourages businesses to seek
performance clauses in their consultant contracts so that they can have some
assurance of improvements. DEQ may also provide some minor technical analyses.
(The consultant list distributed by DEQ appears as Exhibit 3-1.)
In the problem resolution (enforcement) process, staff attitudes and level of
communication with both violators and complainants are variables that seem to
directly affect program effectiveness. Many sources found in violation are unaware
of the existence of the noise control program and the state's noise standards. The
investigating DEQ staffer frequently finds himself in the role of public information
officer or community educator. According to field office managers, most violators
agree with the concept of noise control and seem willing to support program
objectives if they can be assured that the economics of meeting current or future
standards will be reasonable and manageable. In any event, violators seem, willing to
negotiate compliance plans once they understand what the standards are and how
they are enforced. Noise control staff feel that telling industrial or commercial
violators of similar situations that have been satisfactorily resolved helps create a
positive attitude toward problem solving. In the three years of program
enforcement, all industrial and commercial violations have been satisfied.
To minimize costs to business and industry, the noise control program tries to
use anticipatory guidance whenever possible. For example, an investigation of
potential noise problems can be made as part of a site evaluation of air quality
plans. If noise sensitive property is located near the site and the expected noise
level of the industrial activity is known (or can be approximated), the industry can be
alerted to accommodate compliance with applicable noise limits while still in the
planning stage. When this is done, future problems can be more readily avoided.
Sometimes residential developments have been built in an area already populated
by business and industry. Naturally, residents want a tranquil environment in which
to enjoy their homes. On the other hand, business feels it has rights, too. A
specific situation like this exists in the Northwest region (Portland area). The local
community is concerned about air pollution and noise. The specific business
involved has spent more than three million dollars on air pollution control and wants
"to be good neighbors," but recognizes that its noise problems may be difficult to
solve completely. The company is willing to work on the problem, and the DEQ
position is that DEQ will work with the company to reduce noise levels. In this
instance, no complaints had been lodged, but the residents and the company had
agreed to discuss a problem they shared.
43
-------
The Salem office handled a similar caser the difference being that complaints were
actually lodged against a canning company. Some of the company's equipment
operated only seasonally,, so different levels of noise were generated by plant
operations at different times of the year. The compliance process covered a span of
3 years: the first complaint was made in late June 1975; after other noise reduction
steps failed., construction changes to achieve compliance were completed in June
1978. A chronology of major activities in the process is presented below:
6/25/75 Complaint received from a resident.
7/30/75 First noise survey made.
8/75 Company informed about complaint and violation of regulation; given 30
days to take remedial action; told that it must develop a compliance
plan and encouraged to develop a plan to meet post-78 standards.
1/76 Another inspection made; compliance plan requested; given list of
consultants.
3/76 Company submitted proposal for compliance. DEQ responded,,
accepting proposal and setting examination for 10/76.
7/76 Survey done again.
8/76 Company had an acoustical consultant provide suggested methods for
compliance.
9/76 Company reported to DEQ on study activity and consultant's
recommendations.
10/76 DEQ technical staff reviewed consultant's report and alternative
approaches.
12/76 DEQ informed the company of results of the review (i.e.r which
approach was acceptable). DEQ required plans by April 1977.
3/77 Company submitted plans indicating completion of project by July 1977.
5/77 Another technical review of the plan.
5/77 DEQ discussed company plans. Company took action using sound-off
paint; results unsatisfactory.
7/77 New measurements taken; company said it would not spend any more
money on abatement.
44
-------
8/77
Internal memorandum suggesting company apply for variance;
company preferred to resolve the problem slowly. Only a nine
decibel reduction had been achieved and it needed to reduce eight
more decibels.
8/77
Another complaint received.
9/77
Another survey made.
9/77
Company was alerted about tax credit program
12/77 Company submitted new plans and requested tax credit forms
2/78
DEQ reviewed plans and approved tax credit, subject to some
reservations.
3/78
Company notified of plan approval
4/78
Construction completed.
In the period between the first complaint and apparent final resolution,
• The company had tried three other noise reduction strategies.
• The company and DEQ had to resolve differences between their sound level
meter readings (the company's meters had shown lower readings than DEQ).
• The company and DEQ made several noise surveys.
It seems that the opportunity to recoup some construction costs through the tax
credit program stimulated the company to continue working on the problem after
three unsuccessful attempts to solve it.
In both of the field offices that were visited, staff stressed the need to work with
violators in resolving problems. They emphasized the need for staff to be
well-trained and concerned about noise, as well as having the ability to explain the
noise standards and the noise control program to industries with whom they may be
working on other problems. (At lease one case was cited where air pollution
control equipment was the source of a noise violation.) Regional managers
recognized the difficulty in acclimating and training air, water, and waste technicians
in noise control technology, but felt that training provided by the central office on a
periodic (annual) basis was adequate. Generating real staff and industry interest in
noise control was seen as a more complex matter, but Industry in Oregon was seen
as having demonstrated their willingness to cooperate in pollution control.
Associated Oregon Industries, a lobbying organization, was seen as an important and
useful vehicle in getting individual companies interested and involved in noise
control in a positive vein.
45
-------
CONTROL OF MOTOR VEHICUE NOISE
The Motor Vehicle Inspection unit of the Air Quality Division of DEQ is
responsible for all vehicle pollution control inspections. The unit, which had 5
inspectors, 1 field supervisor, 2 engineers, and 1 secretary in December 1973, has
since grown to a current strength of 75 inspectors, 3 field supervisors, and 2
engineers. The principal impetus to this burgeoning growth was the March 1974
legislative mandate to initiate a voluntary vehicle air pollution inspection program in
the Portland Metropolitan Service Area.
This program, voluntary until June 30, 1975, became mandatory on July 1, 1975.
Since that time, all automobiles registered in the Metropolitan Portland area have been
required to be recertified once every two years as meeting air emissions standards.
(The Portland Metropolitan Service Area covers approximately 65% of the land area of
Washington, Multnomah, and Clackamas counties, and accounts for 80-95% of all
registered motor vehicles in these counties.) All in-use vehicles manufactured after
1942 (except new vehicles), powered by gasoline or diesel fuel, and weighing 8,500
pounds or less, are subject to an idle mode air pollutant test procedure. DEQ noise
staff prepared the program's basic reference, the "rpm" document, or handbook of
maximum revolutions per minute for all covered vehicles. Vehicles must pass the air
emissions test in order to be relicensed for the succeeding two years. A proposal to
make these inspections annual was slated to be put before the 1978 session of the
state legislature. Citizens' groups from the Medford-Acton area and Eugene were
also expected to appeal to the legislature for the establishment of inspection
programs there. A proposal for expanding the current program's coverage to the
entire tri-county metropolitan area was to be introduced as well.
A voluntary noise emissions inspection procedure had been part of the air
emissions inspection for more than two years at the time of the site visit. This
voluntary inspection is informational, in order to develop empirical data on the
nature of vehicular exhaust system noise problems and potential problems in
implementation of a mandatory noise inspection program being considered for 1979
or 1980. Here is the way the noise inspection worked in the early fall of 1978:
1. Ninety days prior to license expiration on vehicles registered in the
Portland Metropolitan Service District, a notice to appear at an inspection
station is sent to the automobile owner. (Motorcycles, along with
fixed-load vehicles, farm-plated vehicles, electric cars, and ICC reciprocity
registered vehicles, are exempt.)
2. When owners present their vehicles at an inspection station, ail are
checked for exhaust emissions and a carbon emissions test, as well as an
idle emissions test. Vehicles must pass this test to be recertified.
3. Some vehicles are also tested for noise. A subjective screening process
(visual inspection of exhaust system, perceived vehicle noise) is used to
determine which vehicles will be given the objective test.
46
-------
4. The objective test requires taking a noise level reading at a distance of 20
inches from the vehicle's muffler with the engine running at 75% of the
maximum engine output.
S. Owners of vehicles passing the noise tests receive a notice indicating that
the vehicle has passed; owners of vehicles that exceed noise limits
receive a non-compliance notice. Both notices explain what is measured
by the test and give a rationale for including this test in the inspection.
Maximum allowable noise levels are specified: 95 dBA for front-engine
vehicles and 97 dBA for mid- and rear-engine vehicles, when engines are
run at 75% of maximum output. Samples of each appear as Exhibits 3-2
and 3-3.
In addition to measurements taken during inspections for air emissions, drivers
cited by Portland police or a noise officer may come to an inspection station and
request the objective noise test. If the vehicle passes, and a certificate of
compliance is mailed to the court within three days, the citation is cancelled;
otherwise, the vehicle owner is required to appear in court to answer the citation.
Portland police had issued fewer than six citations in an 18-month period.
Citizens may call complaints about noisy vehicles in to the DEQ headquarters in
Portland. DEQ has only administrative authority and sends the violator an advisory
letter suggesting that the vehicle be inspected. Such called-in complaints are
sporadic, usually following newspaper articles like the one in Exhibit 3-4.
There are eight inspection stations; seven are permanent, one is mobile. Stations
are open daily from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. An inspection normally takes less than
five minutes. Waiting queues can develop, causing the entire visit to run as long as
20-30 minutes.
Some citizens see the voluntary noise test as an unnecessary harassment, but
through these inspections, the Oregon noise control program has been able to
document that:
• 15% of vehicles inspected failed to meet DEQ noise standards,
• Vehicles with "modified" exhaust systems (usually cut-outs or by-passes) had
a 70% failure rate, and
• Vehicles with "stock" exhaust systems had a failure rate of only 5%.
Except in Milwaukee (Oregon) and Eugene, where motor vehicle noise standards are
actively enforced, little enforcement is being done. Eugene has documented more
than 500 satisfied complaints over a period of eight months. Eugene's vehicular
noise control activities are described in the next section.
47
-------
NOISE CONTROL IN EUGENE
Eugene, Oregon, often cited as the "number one medium-sized city," is evolving its
noise abatement and control program in a deliberate and systematic way. Although
most of its energy is currently devoted to controlling motor vehicle noise, Eugene is
taking first steps to address community noise control from a land-use planning
perspective.
Since 1961, Eugene's population has doubled. A university city of approximately
100,000, and known throughout the country as being progressive, Eugene is numbered
among the top five cities in cultural and educational opportunities and economic
stability. Like the State of Oregon, it, too, is environmentally aggressive. Situated in
the Willamette Valley, ringed by mountains and foothills, Eugene is susceptible to
noise and other pollutants. Automobile traffic in and around the city has increased
tremendously in the last ten years. Eugene's economic base stems largely from
forest product industries and agribusiness; it does not otherwise have a large
industrial or manufacturing base.
Eugene's commitment to programmed compact urban growth instead of urban
sprawl certainly justifies—in fact, demands—anticipatory and continuous
environmental planning to maintain the quality of life its citizens appreciate.
Compact urban growth means that residential construction may now be planned (or
at least considered) in locations earlier considered undesirable for residential
development. Such locations include tracts adjacent to industry, heavy traffic zones,
or other noisy sectors. Consideration of ways to develop and enforce land-use
plans that will control the location and types of new residential growth near existing
noise generators is receiving significant attention from city government, especially the
Public Works and Planning Department. The present city code has no noise
standards covering these conditions.
During the September 1978 site visit, the city was in the midst of making a
determination on a situation involving the conditions just described. A private
developer had submitted plans for building a housing development in close proximity
to a sand and gravel plant creating substantial noise. In addressing this problem,
Eugene was working with both the developer and the gravel plant:
The developer was being required to prove that public safety would be
maintained (noise is interpreted as a safety issue). This was currently the
city's only regulatory handle on this kind of planning problem.
* The gravel plant was being encouraged to meet the DEQ noise standards for
industrial and commercial noise sources.
At issue was the question of limitation of responsibility: How much noise control
must the plant institute? How much noise control (development layout, noise
barriers, and unit structural noise inhibitors) must the developer incorporate? Public
hearings were to be held before any determinations were made.
48
-------
This case may have helped stimulate city government to move once again toward the
development of a comprehensive noise ordinance for Eugene. As of September 21,
1978, the city's code for noise enforcement was essentially a "nuisance11 ordinance.
It contained no quantitative standards, except for selected manufacturing and service
activities and specific zones. In the previous four years, the city has reviewed over
120 ordinances solicited from other cities. A comprehensive ordinance had been
drafted, but had been stalemated in the legal review process. In the interim, city
officials have participated in a variety of noise conferences, and are revising their
approach. While the city government feels that Eugene's population base is too
small to support a noise bureau, the goal is, nonetheless, to formulate an objective
noise ordinance that can be enforced by a police officer with minimal training (octave
band and land-use enforcement would be handled separately).
Spearheaded by the City Manager's Assistant for Technology Coordination, this
integrated ordinance formulation effort, involving planning, public works, and police,
appears to be gaining momentum.
Vehicular Noise Control
In 1974, the City Council of Eugene authorized the establishment of a Traffic and
Noise Team within the Police Department. Little was done with noise on other than
a "nuisance" (misdemeanor) basis, until the state modified its motor vehicle code in
1977 to incorporate the DEQ standards for in-use vehicle exhaust systems. However,
within 90 days of the effective date of this new provision (September 30, 1977), the
city of Eugene had completed the preparatory and preliminary stages of program
development and was ready to enforce the new state exhaust system standards.
In early September 1977 Sgt. Robert Laws, leader of the Traffic and Noise Team,
alerted the Chief of Police to the new state provision, indicating the personnel and
equipment needed for Eugene's active enforcement of it. DEQ had agreed to provide
necessary training and technical advice. DEQ had also indicated that it might be able
to loan Eugene some or all of the necessary equipment. Sgt. Laws provided his
superior with a table showing the number and type of noise complaints received by
his unit between January 1, 1977, and August 31, 1977. That table, amended to show
percentages as well, is reproduced here as Exhibit 3-5. The reader will note that the
actual distribution of complaints by type may be in error, but the total is correct.
Discussions with noise staff in Eugene and other cities suggest that the relative
percentage distribution of complaints by type approximates the typical experience.
By mid November 1977, sixteen (16) people from Eugene's Police Department,
Planning Department, and City Prosecutor's office had been trained in the principles
and techniques of motor vehicle noise emissions measurement, and had learned to
operate sound measuring instruments used in taking such measurements. DEQ had
loaned the city two sound level meters (valued at $700 each) and had promised to
provide two tachometers (valued at $75 each) on loan, too.
49
-------
Between mid November and the end of January, police conducted measurements
on several weekends (Friday and Saturday) in an area of the city well-known for its
vehicular noise. No enforcement was done. Information feedback was given until
January, when warnings were issued. From January to May 1978, testing, with
warnings to violators, was continued. At the same time, seminars for auto repair
shops, muffler shops, and motorcycle and auto dealers were held. The intent was to
allow officers to gain practical experience in taking measurements, to collect data on
the time involved in handling each motorist encounter, to alert the public that
enforcement would be starting, and to give residents opportunities to bring their
vehicles into compliance without penalty. Police measurements taken from 65
vehicles over three weekends early in this period showed more than 75% to be in
violation of standards.
During this period, news media were used to advise the general public about the
standards and planned enforcement. (See Exhibit 3-6 for typical news articles.)
Residents were encouraged to participate in two free, non-punitive vehicular noise
clinics. Five hundred to seven hundred fifty vehicles were tested. Following these
clinics, the Police Department received hundreds of telephone calls supporting the
noise control effort. The initial feeling expressed by Sgt. Laws that the quantitative
DEQ standards provided a firm basis for noise enforcement was borne out by close
examination of the statute by the Office of the City Prosecutor and the Eugene
Municipal Court.
On May 28, 1978, the City of Eugene became the first police agency in the state to
enforce vehicular noise standards using sound measuring instruments.
Eugene's enforcement program operates on the same principle as that of the State
Motor Vehicle Inspection Unit:
1. A police officer makes a subjective determination of whether or not a vehicle
is possibly in violation of the standards.
2. Selected vehicles are directed to a near-by parking lot where they are given an
objective noise test called the 20-inch stationary test. This test can be
applied to in-use vehicles manufactured after 1942, weighing 8,500 pounds or
less, and powered by gasoline or dies el fuel.
3. If noise emissions are within the standards, no citation is issued.
4. Vehicles violating standards receive citations.
Maximum bail for a noise infraction is $40 (forfeited if the violator fails to appear
in court); the average fine, $30. If a vehicle owner can get a DEQ Certificate of
Compliance, the court may elect to throw out the citation. Such action is always at
the discretion of the court. Eugene has no vehicle test station like those in the
Portland Service Area. Residents sometimes choose to go there for a noise test.
Sgt. Laws has requested that DEQ rotate its mobile test station through Eugene on a
regular basis.
50
-------
Eugene's enforcement approach embodies the same cooperation and conciliation
spirit exhibited by DEQ staff in other areas of the state.
Staff and Budget
Sgt. Laws and six other police officers comprise the Traffic/Noise Team. Six
vehicles are also assigned to this unit, whose annual budget for 1978 was $140,000.
Roughly ten percent of the team's time is spent on vehicular noise, making the
direct cost approximately $14,000 per year. Of course, equipment loaned by DEQ
amounts to $1,550, so the total direct program cost is $15,550, most of which comes
from the city's budget. In calendar year 1977, prior to the enactment of Oregon
Senate Bill 241 incorporating DEQ vehicle noise standards, police were enforcing a
subjective ordinance. Sgt. Laws estimates that direct costs for that year were
$12,981.
Slightly more than two-thirds of the 3,155 noise complaints registered in
calendar year 1977 resulted in citations (2,079). Approximately 563 of the registered
complaints were vehicle related: 530 for general traffic noise, 33 for vehicle exhaust
system noise. Citations were issued for half (16) of the vehicle exhaust system
complaints.
In the four-month period between enforcement initiation (May 28) and mid
September 1978, approximately 120 citations were issued. All citations have stood,
except one. In that single exception, the officer had used the wrong "rpm"
reference table.
Program Assessment
City government is in general agreement that the motor vehicle noise control
program is working well and at an affordable cost. This effort was mounted
without increasing the Police Department's budget. The program is flexible, and
enforcement can be (in fact, is) done by non-technicians. Police are developing
rapport with residents and motorists as the noise team learns more and more about
automotive equipment and is starting to share some of its developing noise expertise
and sensitivity. According to Sgt. Laws, officers on the team are "highly motivated;
they like this assignment." The city administration must, however, be concerned
about taxpayer lobbying that supports measures like California's successful
"Proposition 13." Such tax limitation measures, if enacted, would reduce the tax
base, making the competition between noise control and other public concerns even
stiffer.
UNRESOLVED NOISE PROBLEMS
Oregon's noise control program is gradually being integrated into the
bureaucratic fabric of the state. More and more, other government agencies are
giving cognizance to noise issues as they carry out their normal programming.
Awareness had not consistently filtered down to the operational level, however.
51
-------
Some agency staff in the Oregon Department of Transportation and with the Port of
Portland are functioning as if they know nothing about the standard noise limits or
the variance procedure that can be pursued.
In at least one case, bids were being solicited for highway construction to be
done between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. without application for a variance. Such an
action leaves the burden for compliance entirely on the successful contractor. If
contractors interested in this type of job are also unaware of the noise standards,
they could be forced to modify their work schedule, running the risk of missing
performance deadlines or increasing costs. Conceivably, this specific situation
could have been avoided had ODOT staff been properly knowledgeable.
However, new programs almost always encounter these kinds of missteps in
their early days. It may be necessary, then, for noise program staff to aggressively
orient and train state and city agencies in proper procedures for integrating noise
considerations into their planning, programming, and contracting activities.
Environmental agency staff, particularly, need this training so that environmental
planning decisions can accommodate noise in the same way that they now handle
air, water, and solid waste pollution issues.
Field staff have found that noise has some peculiar aspects that impinge on
enforcement of the noise control law. For example:
• Ambient noise levels greatly affect the apparent noise emanating from a
specific source. Sources which could be in violation themselves may be
masked by the ambient noise.
• Air and water pollution generally affect people indirectly; noise seems to
affect people personally—it is more difficult to ignore.
• There may be several individual noise sources emitting in concert, such that
the louder source(s) "covers" the others. Therefore, merely solving the
problem of the louder source(s) does not entirely solve the noise problem
for the complainant. It was pointed out that two noise sources operating in
concert increase the noise level by approximately 3 dBA—less than most lay
people might expect.
In a specific case that was investigated, measurements taken relative to a
commercial concern operating only during daylight hours (therefore bounded by a 55
dBA standard) showed noise levels at roughtly 62 dBA. The ambient noise level was
so high that it was difficult to determine whether the source being complained
about was itself within the standard. While the ambient noise level could be
measured during hours when the company was not operating, there was no way to
directly measure that company's actual contribution to the overall noise in the area.
Because background noise levels are generally lower at night than during the day,
source noise is more audible at night. People often misunderstand this
phenomenon.
52
-------
Although attempts had been made to include vibration standards in the noise
regulations, and although complaints and concern about vibrations are still registered
with DEQ, no vibration standards have been promulgated. Noise program staff feel
that more study of vibration problems and measurement techniques Is needed.
Finally, the Port of Portland, a special district in the state, foresees peculiar
problems unlike any others. The Port has jurisdiction over the marine terminal, three
airports (including Portland International Airport), the ship repair yard, the two
industrial parks covering in excess of 3,000 acres. Its holdings are in three different
jurisdictions, the city of Portland being one of these. Until the state noise law was
modified in 1978 to clarify state versus local jurisdiction, preeminence and
coordination, it was unclear which standards the Port was bound to comply with.
Even with these improvements in the law, however, differences in approaches to
noise measurement can cause difficulty in regard to interpretations and expectations.
(The state uses a statistical noise level approach while the city of Portland uses a
fixed standard based on city zoning).
The Department of Environmental Quality, through its commission and its noise
program staff, is alert to problems such as these. At the time of the site visit,
priorities and detailed plans were being established in support of DEQ's biennial
goals and objectives for its noise control program. Some of the unresolved problems
cited in this section are slated for attention before 1980. A copy of the noise
control goals and objectives for 1977-79 may be found in Appendix D.
53/54
-------
Exhibit 3-1
AUDIO AND/OR ACOUSTICAL ENGINEERS
The following is an alphabetical list of audio and/or acoustical engineers and
consultants. This list does not constitute a recommendation from the Department
of Environmental Quality for any particular consultant, but is merely for your
information and benefit. This list is not meant to be exhaustive and additional
names will be added as they become known to the noise staff.
3eak Consultants, Inc.
317 S.W. Alder
Portland, Oregon 97204
248-9507
Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.
3344 Crossvlew
Houston, Texas 77042
(713 ) 784-5000
CH2M—Hill
200 S.W. Market
Portland, Oregon 97201
224-9190
Olson Labs
421 E. Cerritos Avenue
Anaheim, California 92805
(714) 956-5450
Mr. Norman Buske
Pacific Engineering Corporation
1750 S.W. Skyline Boulevard
Portland, Oregon 97221
Seton, Johnson & Odell, Inc.
317 S.W. Alder Street
Portland, Oregon 97204
226-3921
Mr. Edward A. Daly, P.E.
Daly Engineering Company
Room 110
11855 S.W. Ridgecrest Drive
Beaverton, Oregon 97005
646-4420
Dames & Morre
ATTN: Miles M. Athey
Northgate Executive Center
Suite 500
155 N.E. 100 Street
P.O. Box C-25901
Seattle, Washington 98125
(206) 523-0560
dBH Acoustics
Suite 209
10211 S.W. Barbur Boulevard
Portland, Oregon 97219
245-4446
Cliff Sroka Consulting Engineers
P.O. Box 3413
213 S.W. Ash
Portland, Oregon 97208
227-6233
Towne, Richards &
Chaudiere, Incorporated
11731 S.E. Home Avenue
Milwaukee, Oregon 97222
221-0211
A. R. Tunturl, Prof.
2360 S.W. Georgian Place
Portland, Oregon 97201
223-9181, Ext. 737
Van Gulik & Associates, Inc.
543 Third Street
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
636-4178
Mr. Michael C. Kaye
2166 N.W. Flanders Street
Portland, Oregon 97210
227-2888
55
-------
Exhibit 3-2
VEHICLE NOISE COMPLIANCE FORM
Month
Day
Year
TEST DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
PASSED
VOLUNTARY NOISE TEST
Li cense
Year
Make
Li ne
Engine ClO/cc
VEHICLE CLASS STANDARDS
MAXIMUM ALLOWED
AT TEST RPM
INSPECTOR
~EQ/AQ-118
MPC 32977
THIS VEHICLE COMPLIED WITH DEQ NOISE STANDARDS WHEN TESTED
TODAY. THIS NOTICE IS NOT A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.
Your vehicle has passed a voluntary noise pollution test. This
test included both an actual noise measurement of your vehicle
in operation and a visual inspection of its exhaust system. To
administer the test, the engine of your car was accelerated to
a high idle, simulating actual driving conditions. It was at
this point that sound level readings were taken. Although the
test does not measure annoying noises associated with improper
operation of your vehicle, such as squealing tires, it does
detect an inadequate or defective exhaust system, which is the
main reason a vehicle is considered "noisy." This could then
be easily repaired or replaced, insuring that you would not be
contributing to Oregon's noise problem.
(Over)
More
about NOISE and your car--
1)
This test measures only exhaust system noise
*not other mechanical noises (intake or fan noise, etc.)
*not noises from other sources (tire noise, chassis squeaks, etc.)
*not noises from improper operation (squealing tires, overrewed engine, etc.)
2)
Visual inspection quickly spots the following defects:
-no muffler
*leaks in the exhaust system
^pinched outlet pipe
3)
Modified Exhaust Systems (glasspack or extractor mufflers)
Versus
Stock Exhaust Systems (baffled mufflers)
*Only of the cars tested with stock systems failed the noise test, but
over 70% of the cars tested with modified systems failed.
~Stock mufflers fail primarily because of deterioration, but
modified mufflers fail primarily because of design limitations.
Modified mufflers generally cost less, but they deteriorate much faster and
thus could be more expensive than stock muffljers in the long run.
~Stock type mufflers are available which do not impair performance.
~Although modified exhaust systems are not illegal, they must be adequate to
meet state noise standards.
"THE MOTOR VEHICLE HAS HAV A DRAMATIC IMPACT ON THE QUALITY OF OUR ENVIRONUENT. HO SUALL
PART
OF
THIS IMPACT HAS INVOLVED EXCESSIVE NOISE. ONCE 0NL7 AH ANNOYANCE. NOISE HAS RECENTLY
tiECOME A WIVES PRE AD ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTANT. THIS TEST IS BUT ONE STEP TOWARD ITS CONTROL."
0-iAicXon., Vzpa/rfment oh Env-Oioiuneji&ii ^acUiZij
56
-------
Exhibit 3-3
VEHICLE NOISE NONCOMPLIANCE FORM
TEST DATE
Month
Day
Year
O' sual Inspection
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
VEHICLE INSPECTION OIVISION
NOISE CONTROL TEST RESULTS
NOISE
NONCOMPLIANCE
| |nol»a Heading
~
Invalid Test
License
Year Hake
Line
Engine ClO/cc
VEHICLE CLASS STANOAROS
MAXIMUM ALLOWED
AT TEST ftPtt
Decibels (dBA)
RPH
INSPECTOR
D8Q/AQ-U9
NPC 82377
TEST RESULTS
NOISE READING(S)
Left Side
Right Side
d8A
dBA
VISUAL INSPECTION
Satisfactory [ |
Exhaust System Leaks | |
Ho Huffier | |
Pinched Outlet Pipe, | |
This test does not measure annoying noise associated with
Improper operation of your vehicle. It does detect an
Inadequate or defective exhaust system, however, which Is
the main reason a vehicle Is considered "noisy•" This can
then be easily repaired or replaced. Insuring that you will
not be contributing to Oregon's noise problem.
ioii*. vthizlt did not poia VEQ'4 voluntary noiit pollution izJkt. Uoton. vtkicl&t fatvt
been idmtijiid by OAtgonmu
-------
Exhibit 3-4
STOP AUL THAT NOISE
NORTH COAST TIMES EAGLi:
WHEELER, OR
FEBRUARY 5, 1976
PORTLAND — Annoyed by
excessive noise from mo-
tor vehicles? The Depart-
ment of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) maintains
a system (or the public
to report noisy motor ve-
hicles.
The department advises
that people reporting such
excessive noise must have
the license number, type
and description of the ve-
hicle and the time and lo-
cation of the alleged infra-
ction.
Complaints can be mail-
ed or telephoned to the DEQ
headquarters office, (1234
S.Vf. Morrison, Portland,
Oregon 97205, 229-6085)
or any of the DEQ region-
al offices throughout the
s :te.
The department sends a
notice of the reported vio-
lation to the registered
owner of the vehicle, re-
questing the owner to cor-
rect the noise problem
within 15 days.
Cars, trucks, motorcy-
cles, motor boats and all
other motor vehicles are
now subject to state noise
regulations.
58
-------
Exhibit 3-5
NOISE COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY POLICE
BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 1977, AND AUGUST 31, 1977
Type of Complaint Number of Complaints Percent of Total
Traffic generally 390 18
Noise - Vehicle 165 8
Noise - Exhaust 15 *
Noise - Horn 10 *
Noise - Party 595 27
Noise - Amplifier 432 20
Noise - Yelling 54 2
Noise - Construction 83 4
Noise - Animal 7 *
Noise - Barking Dog 237 11
Noise - Fireworks 40 2
Noise - Gunshots 140 J5
Total Number of Noise
Complaints, All Sources 2,168 98
•Less than 1%
Note: Due to improper computer entry the indicated number for a specific noise
complaint may be incorrect. This will not have any effect on the validity of the
total number of noise complaints.
59
-------
Exhibit 3-6(A)
NOISE LAW ENFORCEMENT SET
OREGON JOURNAL
PORTLAND, OR
DECEMBER 23,1977
Noise law enforcement set
EUGENE Eugene
police will be the first in
Oregon to enforce a new
state motor vehicle law
defining limits on the
amount of exhaust rtoisa
a vehicle can make, ac-
cording to a state Depart'
ment of Environmental
Quality official.
The law allows police
agencies to enforce max-
imum noise limits as
measured in decibels
rather than on a subjec-
tive basis. It was passed
by the 1977 state Legisla-
ture and went into effect
Oct. 5.
Eugene city police
have announced they will
begin enforcing decibel
limits Jan. 1. The max-
imum noise levels allow*
able will be 95 decibels
for front-engine automo-
biles, 97 for rear-engine
autos, 102 for motorcy-
cles built in 1975 and pre-
viously, and 99 for mo-
torcycles built after 1975.
"These limits are rea-
sonable, except for
maybe certain older mod-
ified cars," said Eugene
Police SgL R_A. Laws.
"Every new car must be
built to meet these stand-
ards or do better."
Most police depart-
ments are using subjec-
tive noise standards and
will continue to do so,
said John Hector, DEQ
supervisor for noise con-
trol. A few, such as Port-
land city police, have
been working with the
DEQ to enforce the noise
control law more aggres-
sively, he said.
"The new law was in-
tended to encourage po-
lice to adopt the decibel
standards," Hector said.
The exhaust noise lev-
el, he said, can be deter-
mined by DEQ sound
measurement equipment.
60
-------
Exhibit 3-6(B)
EUGENE CRACKS DOWN ON NOISY CARS
SUNDAY OREGONIAN
PORTLAND, OR
FEBRUARY 5, 1978
Police plan checks
Eugene cracks down
on noisy cars
By CLAY EALS
CorTMpondant, Th» OregonlM
EUGENE — If a Eugene policeman pulls
you over to check your car for noise emis-
sion, you can be sure the test will be accu-
rate to the decibel.
Eugene is the first city in the state to use
a device which gives a precise reading of the
sound level coming out of an automobile
exhaust pipe.
The 1977 Legislature passed a bill per-
mitting police departments to use such
equipment, although it did not preclude sub-
jective judgment by individual officers. The
law also set maximum decibel levels, which
vary depending on the car's make and en-
gine.
Sgt. Robert Laws said the Eugene de-
partment has three sound-measuring units
on loan from the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and the state Department of
Environmental Quality.
The units include a tester and a tachome-
ter and cost about $1,000 each, he said.
Laws said inconsistent, subjective judg-
ments of auto noise by police officers have
been "the biggest single detraction to effec-
tive noise enforcement" in Eugene.
The department has been experimenting
with the equipment in the South Eugene
area since November. Starting Jan. 1, offi-
cers began checking cars throughout the city
and giving warnings when necessary.
A public clinic will be held later this
month, after which the department will is-
sue citations, Laws said.
"I am very concerned that the general
public be made aware and be given an ample
opportunity to voluntarily see that their ve-
hicles are in compliance," he said.
The problem of noisy cars is a big one,
Laws said, making up one-fourth of all noise
complaints received by the department. Esti-
mates are that for every citizen complaint
about noise, from three to 20 other persons
are annoyed by the same noise.
Laws said a noisy car usually is the re-
sult of modifications to a vehicle's engine or
exhaust system.
Several officers in Laws' traffic and
noise team have been trained by DEQ per-
sonnel to use the new units. The tester,
which shows the decibel level, is held behind
a car's exhaust pipe to obtain a reading.
61/62
-------
4
NOISE CONTROL IN PORTLAND
Portland, county seat of Multnomah County, stands out as Oregon's industrial center
and one of the largest cities in the nation. It lies along both sides of the Willamette
River at its juncture with the Columbia. The city area, currently 95.3 square miles,
will be increased to 107.3 square miles with the annexation of Riverside. The
Portland Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA), comprised of Clackamas,
Multnomah, and Washington counties in Oregon, and Clark County in Washington,
covers 3,650 square miles. The SMSA has a population of over 1.1 million, while the
city has a population of about 400,000.
As the financial, commercial, and industrial center of the Columbia River basin,
Portland has a large and diversified economic base. The total number of businesses
in the area exceeds 27,000. Lumber and lumber product manufacturing make up a
large part of the local industries. The freshwater harbor, 110 miles inland from the
Pacific Ocean, ranks third in ocean-borne tonnage on the Pacific Coast, making
Portland a leading lumber and wheat export point.
One might expect the noise issues and sources of a major Pacific Coast
commercial and industrial center such as Portland to be primarily industry related.
However, citizen complaints have centered mainly around noise sources associated
with residential zoning and nonconforming use properties, such as retail outlets
within residential areas. Delivery truck motors, left running during deliveries to
businesses, represented the major complaint relative to nonconforming use proper-
ties. Strictly residential area complaints also dealt with trucks, such as garbage truck
compactors operating In the early morning. Power mowers, barking dogs, and,
especially, unmuffled power boats also concerned citizens. Although the DEQ
telephone noise survey of 1972 revealed many complaints about industrial noise,
especially sand and gravel operations, selected construction sites surveyed during the
planning stages for the city noise ordinance fell within an acceptable noise range.
ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENT
The move toward developing a comprehensive noise ordinance was triggered by a
1971 letter to Mayor Terry Shrunk from a concerned audiologist, a city resident, Mr.
Archie Tunturi. Mr. Tunturi expressed concern that Portland was beset by noise
intrusions: sounds of an intensity and duration sufficient to compromise the
liveability of the city, and in some cases, sufficient to cause hearing damage. His
63
-------
most pressing concern, however, was that citizens were generally unaware of the
noise problems and their susceptibility to resolution. Mayor Shrunk read Mr.
Tunturi's letter in an informal meeting of the city commissioners^, who agreed to
investigate the problem. Commissioner Goidschmidt (Mayor of Portland at the time
of the site visit), responsible for the Bureau of Nuisance Abatement (later to become
the Bureau of Neighborhood Environment), was asked to spearhead this effort, with
assistance from Commissioner Anderson, who headed Public Works. (See Exhibit
4-1, Mayor Shrunk's reply to Mr. Tunturi.) These two commissioners, through their
principal staff assistants, Alan Weber and Charles Crews, worked with police and
community representatives to investigate Portland's noise problems and other city
activities in the noise arena.
This group reviewed noise projects underway in other cities (the Chicago program
being prominent) and gathered additional information on ordinances from the
Conference of Mayors. Analysis of what other cities were doing and the kinds of
laws they were passing led this committee to propose an ordinance format for
consideration by the council. No noise levels were specified; they were to be
developed later.
This initial ordinance proposal was actually a piecework quilt of provisions
extracted from other cities' ordinances. The council recommended that a formal
study be done in conjunction with Multnomah County to determine appropriate
maximum sound levels. A proposal to support this joint venture with
revenue-sharing funds was considered briefly, then dropped. In exploring
alternatives to city tax-base support, the committee discovered that their project
might be eligible for federal funding through the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). HUD had denied funds for downtown housing construction
because of bus noise at the proposed sites. Formal inquiry was made, and by the
spring of 1973, Portland had received approximately $100,000 through HUD, with
assistance from EPA.
This Portland-Multnomah County Acoustical Project was intended to develop a
prototype systems model for urban noise control. According to the project
proposal, the major output model was to be "an enforceable noise control ordinance
with definite levels of acceptable noise for individual neighborhoods within the
Metropolitan Portland area." In addition, the study was also expected to produce:
A self-evaluating noise control system,
• A computer model,
^Portland has a commissioner form of government. The mayor, who is also a
commissioner, and four other commissioners are all elected at large. The
commissioners collectively constitute the city council. Each Is responsible for an
executive administrative function and for one or more city agencies.
64
-------
• Standards for monitoring noise, and
• Standards for acceptable levels of noise for a mix of neighborhoods.
Dr. Paul Herman, a university researcher with some noise-related experience, was
hired as Acoustical Project Director, and a private consulting firm was contracted.
During the 12-15 months of the study, the committee continued to work on its
ordinance proposal, using study results as they became available. Approximately
one year after the study started, Dr. Herman and the committee had prepared a
revised ordinance, which he sent to EPA for review and comment. This ordinance
proposal would have established noise limits based on land-use (zoning) (See
Exhibit 4-2) and covered heavy equipment, motor vehicles, watercraft, motor vehicle
racing events, and animals, as well as places of public entertainment. According to
an October 17, 1974, letter from EPA to Dr. Herman, Portland's draft proposal was
"well organized, succinct, readily interpretable, and technically comprehensive." EPA
did make some comments and recommendations regarding ordinance language,
definitions of terms, and certain enforcement provisions. Portland's proposal also
contained some noise levels that could not be met by equipment available at that
time (e.g., air conditioners and exhaust fans running at night, garbage compacting
vehicles). This proposal may be found in Appendix E.
Despite EPA's positive appraisal of the ordinance, the city council did not pass
it, largely because of strong lobbying from industry and commerce, who perceived
the program as detrimental to their economic stability and growth. Citizens also
expressed concern over differences between Portland's motor vehicle standards and
the state's, and the costs and problems of enforcing the ordinance.
In all, eleven ordinance drafts were prepared before the existing ordinance was
passed. A number of hearings were held in 1975 and early 1976. Revisions for one
such public hearing, in December 1975, included:
• Bringing city motor vehicle standards into conformance with the state's,
• Gradually reducing commercial and industrial noise limits over a five-year
span, and
• Modifying the off-road recreational vehicle provision to require written
permission from the subject property owner (when owner is other than
operator).
As in the earlier draft, enforcement provisions included a maximum fine of $500 and
were complaint-based. Generally, no new restrictions were added. Excerpts from
an article that appeared in the Oregonian, December 7, 1975, summarizing this new
proposal, can be found in Exhibit 4-3.
According to the December 10 Oregonian, areas of concern expected to be raised
at the December 11 hearing included:
65
-------
Provisions to prevent residents from using the variance procedure to create
more stringent noise limits for existing non-conforming uses in their
neighborhoods,
Definition of "emergency" conditions, and
Budgetary considerations.
Though the Oregonian, the Oregon Environmental Council, and a number of citizens
were in favor of passage, there were still objections from commerce and industry and
from off-road vehicle lobbyists. At the final reading of the ordinance on December
18, 1975, these interests requested additional revisions, and another hearing was
scheduled for early January 1976. The Oregon Journal of December 19, 1975, reported
two major concerns yet to be resolved:
1. Stationary vehicles, such as heavy trucks with refrigerator units, and
2. Written permission from property owners for a person to operate off-road
recreational vehicles.
During the three years since Commissioner Goldschmidt had taken leadership in
developing an enforceable noise ordinance that Portland citizens, business, and
industry could live with, several significant changes had occurred. First,
Commissioner Goldschmidt had become mayor. Second, industry and commerce had
become seriously concerned that this ordinance would affect their ability to do
business. Third, inflation had tightened Portland's budget, as it had everyone's.
Fourth, the general community, together with public interest groups, had become
actively involved in passage deliberations. Only one commissioner, Connie McCready,
had been a consistent ally in Commissioner Goldschmidt's attempts to get the
ordinance passed—and three votes were required. Commissioner Francis Ivancie was
opposed to the ordinance; Commissioners Charles Jordan and Mildred Schwab would
be the pivots on which passage swung.
In February 1975, Commissioner Jordan announced that budgetary constraints
compelled him to oppose passage of the ordinance; Commissioner Schwab also
expressed reservations about passage at that time, and was supported in her
proposal to postpone consideration of the ordinance until May 5, at which time
budget hearings would be over. This council action appears to have confused
proponents of the measure and opponents alike. Nonetheless, the matter was set
aside. When the much-amended ordinance was finally presented at the Council's
May 5 session, it had to compete with two substitute proposals. Commissioner
Jordan Introduced a measure regulating only motor vehicle noise. (A state measure
was already on the books, and DEQ had promulgated standards.) Commissioner
Schwab's proposal, also put before the council, had residential noise being regulated
by the city, with commercial and industrial noise being regulated by DEQ. In both
cases, all other noise regulation had been deleted. The original ordinance in its final
amended form failed once again. Mayor Goldschmidt relinquished administrative
responsibility for introducing any revised measures, and Commissioner Jordan agreed
to try to formulate a compromise bill.
66
-------
The proposed noise ordinance Jordan produced gave the construction industry a
six-month moratorium on noise limit enforcement, while assuring that they would
play an active role in program development. Off-road vehicle provisions were
strengthened to provide protection beyond the boundary of the property being
used. Police, along with noise enforcement officers, would be empowered to cite
motor vehicles. A summary of the provision in the compromise bill that appeared in
the June 20, 1976, issue of the Oregonian is reprinted here as Exhibit 4-4. As might
be expected, the compromise land-use standards (shown in Exhibit 4-5) were in
some cases more stringent; in others, more lenient. In general, noise ceilings for
commercial and industrial sources had been raised.
Exhibit 4-6 compares the original Goldschmidt proposal with the final Jordan
compromise, which was passed unanimously in June 1976. Effective July 1, 1976,
Portland was protected from intrusive noise. The current ordinance may be found
in Appendix E.
Compromise was the key to shaping the final version of the ordinance. Local
industry considered many clauses in the draft ordinance restrictive. Industry
claimed that many of the necessary noise control strategies, represented by the
culprit clauses, cost too much for small operators. Moreover, the Port of Portland,
owner of much of the industrially zoned property in Portland, was concerned that
the ordinance might become a debilitating factor in their marketing efforts. The use
of a phased implementation plan for the ordinance addressed these concerns. The
following issues also required some study and compromise before the final version
of the ordinance was formulated:
1. Railroads worried over the application of the city ordinance to them since
they also had to comply with possibly overlapping or conflicting Interstate
Commerce Commission regulations. It was decided to exempt railroad sound
from coverage.
2. Manufacturers and distributors of water heat pumps wanted an exemption
from ordinance requirements; however, the Council decided not to grant it.
3. The initial noise ordinance did not address the situation of a commercial
industry in a residential area. The Council decided to give the business a
commercial status (with a 5 dBA higher permissible level) instead of
residential status.
Citizen response to the approved ordinance varied. In neighborhoods with noise
problems, citizens who had been actively working for passage received the ordinance
enthusiastically. This was especially true for neighborhoods closer to water, where
unmuffled motor boats prevailed. Other citizen reaction ranged from neutral to
mildly interested.
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
The Noise Control Office (NCO) of the Bureau of Neighborhood Environment
(BNE) enforces the ordinance. The BNE is primarily complaint/response oriented;
67
-------
however, some of its work falls under the category of surveys and monitoring. The
office performs this latter work in close cooperation with the zoning and land use
staff, since zoning is the basis for noise standards.
The basic philosophy of BNE/NCO is that a spirit of cooperation yields better
results than punitive action. Additionally, noise staff agree that resolutions to
complaints should have a subjective aspect that explores (1) the legitimacy of the
complaint and, (2) discourse with and suggestions for the offender, since most
noise problems in the city are neighbor-to-neighbor problems.
Enforcement
The enforcement procedure utilized by the NCO reveals that (1) the NCO
officials are striving toward the goals established by the NCO's Noise Review Board
and the BNE; and (2) the enforcement policy is truly one of compliance and not
penance. All noise complaints received by the NCO are treated similarly: an attempt
is made to identify the noise source, determine the extent of the problem in terms of
the NCO's standards, and see that corrective action is taken when necessary. The
usual course of events in enforcing Portland's noise ordinance is as follows:
Complainant notifies offender. Before the Noise Control Office becomes
involved, they ask that the person(s) disturbed by a recurring noise
notify the offender personally. The reason for this is two-fold: (1) it
establishes communication between the complainant and the offender,
thereby providing the opportunity for possible alleviation of the noise
problem without external intervention, and (2) it notifies the offender
of the reported noise disturbance, so he/she is not surprised by a
possible visit from NCO staff.
• Complainant files complaint. In the event that the complainant
repeatedly but unsuccessfully tries to notify the offender, or if the
offender does not respond to the request, then the complainant files a
formal complaint with the Noise Control Office. (See Exhibit 4-7,
General Intake/Report Form.)
• Noise control officer contacts offender. Within three working days after
the complainant files a formal compaint with the NCO, a noise control
officer personally contacts the offender. During this site visit, the noise
control officer asks for a demonstration to check noise compliance. The
noise control officer ends the interview by explaining that a citation will
be issued if the noise level goes up again.
• Noise control officer contacts complainant. After visiting the offender
and checking noise levels, the noise control officer calls the complainant
and gives an account of the meeting with the offender. If the offender
was not in compliance with noise standards, the noise control officer
explains to the complainant the amount of time the offender has to
come into compliance with the noise standards. The conversation ends
with the noise control officer asking the complainant to notify the NCO
if the problem occurs again.
68
-------
Usually, reported noise problems concern a specific location and a specific source of
sound. Occasionally, a problem is reported in which neither the location nor the
source of the noise can be identified by the complainant.
NCO's investigation of a typical problem is illustrated by a complaint about a
neighbor's loud music. This neighbor reportedly played loud music several times a
week from late afternoon until late evening. The problem had recurred over several
months. The complainant indicated that he had spoken with the neighbor about the
music a couple of times. The music may have been turned down for a while, but the
level went right back up the next day. The complainant felt that he should not have
to continue asking this neighbor to turn the music down, and asked for help from
the NCO.
Within three days, a Deputy Noise Control Officer spoke with the offender.
After explaining the problem and the standards of the noise ordinance, the officer
suggested that the stereo be turned on so he could demonstrate the acceptable
sound level. The officer explained that a citation might be issued if he. should arrive
sometime when the music was exceeding the allowable level, asked for the person's
cooperation in keeping it down, and left.
From his office, the officer called the complainant, explained the action taken,
and asked that the complainant call if the problem continued. With no further word
from the complainant, the matter was filed.
Investigation of an atypical problem is somewhat more involved and time
consuming. An example is the case of "Wailing Willie." A gentleman called seeking
help with an unidentifiable sound. He described the sound as "Wailing Willie," a
siren used on ships. (He is a retired sea captain and his home is on a bluff
overlooking a large industrial area.) The sound occurred intermittently throughout
the day and night. The sound was heard on several of the many field visits, but no
one was able to identify the source. After several months, the complainant reported
that he had discovered the source. From his home he could see a railroad boxcar
repair facility; every time a car would roll out of the repair building, a siren would
wail. A field visit to the railroad yard confirmed that the source was a siren to warn
employees. Conversation with railroad officials revealed that they could operate
safely in the evenings without this device. As the warning device was exempt from
the noise ordinance, the investigating officer had no authority to require the sound
of the device to be lowered. He obtained the cooperation of the railroad in
curtailing use of the device after 6:00 p.m. and reported to the complainant. The
complainant was quite satisfied and the matter was then filed.
In both examples, the problem was satisfactorily resolved for the complainant.
Both relied on voluntary cooperation from the owners of the noise sources.
Portland's noise ordinance served as a guide for enforcement action.
Sometimes, problems have been resolved for the complainants even though the
noise sources technically remained in violation of the standard:
69
-------
An offending heat pump was measured at 10 dBA above the standard. The
violator enclosed it in a shed that failed to muffle its noise sufficiently to
bring about technical compliance. Nonetheless, the complainant was
satisfied, so no further action was taken.
Court actions on citations issued have suggested that complainant perceptions
of the situations are important in supporting the citations.
Portland's Noise Review Board
The Noise Review Board (NRB) lends community credibility to the noise program.
Its members serve without pay, and it has a preeminent role In certain variance
determinations. With its mandated membership an an acoustical professional, a
citizen-at-large, and a construction representative, along with two others, this group
represents diverse backgrounds and noise perspectives. Most of its current members
have had some experience with noise problems either in their work or as concerned
citizens. The review board hears and acts on Class B and C variances. Members
feel that the board saves the city money by holding the necessary public hearings and
making findings. Unencumbered by day-to-day program operations, this group
can—and does—do program evaluation and forward planning, as authorized by law.
In its two-year history, the review board has had to deal with fewer variance
applications than it had expected; few industrial noise source problems, which it
finds surprising; and many issues that reduce to establishing a balance among good
(or well-intentioned) ideas. The average Portland citizen does not even know that
the Noise Control Office exists; people seem to accept noise as part of urban life.
The board feels that it must do much more public education and reserve adequate
time for planning and policy formulation.
As a planning parameter, noise is handled in an uneven way, although some city
bureaus invite NCO comments on their plans. Zoning changes, for example, are
reviewed for noise impacts. Pervasive problems, like ambient traffic noise and
neighbor-to-neighbor housing noise (noise transmitted through walls, especially in
apartments) are not now covered by the ordinance, but should, in the board's
estimation, be explored. According to one member, the board has had its hands full
"convincing both sides that something must be done and that the impossible cannot
be done."
Level and Nature of Complaints
In 1973, the first year of the acoustical study under which he was employed, Dr.
Herman reported 216 noise complaints to the Bureau of Neighborhood Environment.
That number rose to more than 500 in 1974, and to more than 700 in 1975. These
figures exclude animal complaints (handled by the Multnomah County Animal Control
Unit) and complaints filed with other agencies, such as the police department. Or.
Herman's 1978 annual report to the board indicated that the program had responded
to between 1,600 and 1,700 complaints from citizens and neighborhood organizations
70
-------
since its July 1, 1976, inception. Almost all of these (85-90%) had been resolved
without exercising the program's citation authority. In fact, by September 1978, the
ordinance had been tested in court only once.
Through its variance procedure, the program has provided an orderly process for
dealing both with infrequent, short-duration activities that do not meet noise
standards (Class A variance) and with such events of longer or unspecified duration
(Class 8 or C variances). Illustrations include rock concerts in the Stadium, racing
events, and announcements by sound trucks. The noise control officer handles Class
A situations; Class 8 or C matters are within the purview of the Noise Review 3oard.
Exhibit 4-8 shows the noise variance application that must be completed. Variance
decisions can be appealed to the City Council. Few have been.
Budget and Staff
The noise program operates on an annual budget of approximately $70,000, about
half coming from general city funds. Dr. Herman's two deputies are Comprehensive
Employment Training Act (CETA) employees. Basic equipment includes: two type II
sound level meters, one General Electronics sound level meter, and one community
noise analyzer.
Coordination with City Bureaus
The program functions as in internal consulting service to other city agencies
such as Streets and Structural Engineering, Sanitation, Planning, Zoning, Fire, Police,
and Traffic Engineering. It has usually provided assistance at no charge. Where
charges have been made, Dr. Herman estimates that services from his office "saved
about $10,000-$12,000 above (sic) charges for identical externally available services."
Work with the Police Department on motor vehicle noise enforcement has been
less fruitful than hoped for. The Department's priorities do not include noise
enforcement and few individual police are interested. Following a task force
investigation of a large number of citizen complaints, police effort at motorcycle
enforcement in an overtime mode was short-lived: It was too costly.
Coordination with the State Noise Control Program
Certain loopholes in the language of the state noise law and Portland's
ordinance have been closed so that jurisdictional and coverage requirements are
clear. Within city limits, the Portland office handles almost all complaints. City
residents normally call BNE first to register noise complaints. If DEQ (usually the
Northwest Regional Office) Is called first, it will handle the problem unless it is
clearly a complaint expedited more readily under the city ordinance. The city's
ordinance is zoning or land-use based while the states's is source-based.
71
-------
There are some gaps. For example, at the time of the site visit, Portland program
staff were not consistently informing city business of the DEQ's noise abatement tax
credit program. In addition, there has been at least one instance where both BNE
and DEQ investigated the same complaint and produced conflicting findings. This
may have been largely a result of different measurement bases (fixed limits for the
city versus statistical noise levels for DEQ) and points of measurement (any point on
the lot line, for Portland; the further of 25 feet from the source or the point on the
property line nearest the noise source, for DEQ). Situations like these can be
expected to occur with decreasing frequency as DEQ and BNE expand operational
experiences.
Developmental Activities
Dr. Herman has mapped out three major initiatives for the noise control office:
• First, to get the two deputies on general funds. Two years into the
program they remain CETA-funded. Making the program city-funded is
viewed as increasing its stability.
* Second, to expand survey work. The office needs to collect more
objective and subjective data to guide and support its evolving planning
and enforcement policies and practices.
Third, to expand the noise control program's technical assistance role
toward other local governments. Other jurisdictions in Oregon are
gearing up to control noise. Dr. Herman feels that the EPA ECHO
concept (Each Community Helps Others) can work intrastate at least as
well as it appears to be working nationally. Dr. Herman is serving as an
ECHO consultant to other cities through this EPA program.
SUMMARY
It has taken time to achieve systematic noise control in Portland. More than
four years in the making, the ordinance appears to be adequate based on the two-
and-one-half years of actual program experience. Special interest groups have not
lobbied for ordinance changes, nor have citizens voiced strong objections to the
provisions of the program. Obviously, the program philosophy mitigates
confrontations and blatant practices that might be judged punitive. Staff have been
trained in this approach, are comfortable functioning in this way, and are supported
without reservation by the Noise Review Board.
Policy-makers cite separation of noise problem-solving from police matters as a
significant program attribute in building citizen and business support for the
program. Developing the program's capability to provide anticipatory guidance to
the city through planning and public education is viewed as an important element in
program expansion.
72
-------
Many people in the Portland area feel that Portland's noise ordiance, hence
program, works because Portland is a stable town, with little migration, good
communication flow between government and citizens, and where city officials
accommodate residents' needs. This belief and support of citizens is reflected in
the enforcement philosophy of the NCO; The emphasis is on cooperation and
voluntary compliance.
73/74
-------
Orncs or thc .Match
Exhibit 4-1
CODE DEVELOPMENT
/-/ N?-\
djibAffir.
Tzanr o. Scwnun*
¦ MATOA
city O" muriA.-JO
Crrvoi'' Poutla^d 17T:r'1?~r-,P?~^
1 N.li m/
Oregon*
AUG 2t> 1S71
August 23, 1971
BUREAU OF
.NUISANCE ABATEMENT
Mr. A. R. Tunturi
2630 S. W. Georgian Place
Portland, Oregon 97201
Dear Mr. Tunturi:
This will acknowledge receipt or your letter of August the 6th
relative to the possibility of developing a code for the City ot
Portland as it would relate to noise.
1 appreciate the fact that there now exists a method a: measuring
noise and/or sound lavais which might now make it possible to
develop a code wherein these sounds would have to be within a
measured, limit.
I am, by copy of this letter to Mr. C. W. Simmons, Director,
Bureau of Nuisance Abatement; Commissioner Lloyd Z. Anderson;
Chief McNamara, 3ureau of Police; Miss Marian Xuahing, City
Attorney; and Mr. Lloyd Keefe, Director, City Planning Commission,
asking for their review and recommendation.
Very truly yours.
€tZ-s~**yS ,
yo a.
TDS. T. d
cc- Mr. C. W. Simmons
Commissioner Anderson
Chief McNamara
Miss Marian Rushing
Mr. Lloyd Keefa
¦
75
-------
Exhibit 4-2
JULY 1974 ORDINANCE PROPOSAL
LAND-USE NOISE STANDARDS
Noise Source^
Receiving Property^
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Rural
Residential
55
65
70
50
Commercial
55
65
70
50
Industrial
55
65
70
50
Rural
55
65
70
50
^Measurements taken at the lot line within zones, at the zone boundary between
zones.
9
¦'Maximum levels are reduced by 10dB for nighttime (11 p.m.-7 a.m.).
76
-------
Exhibit 4-3
MAXIMUM LEVELS OF NOISE SET IN DECIBELS
OREGONI AN,
Portland, Oregon
December 7, 1975.
Maximum levels of noise
set in decibels
The key to Portland's proposed
aoise ordinance, which the City- Council
will near on iirst reading this week, is
that it provides an objective measure-
ment of noise, the decibeL
Specifically, according to Paul Her*
man. the city's acoustical project man-
ager, the ordinance sets maximum
allowable levels within and between
residential, commercial and industrial
zones.
Maximum level within a residential
zone during daytime hours next year,
for example, is 53 decibels. It drops to
50 decibels at night. Decibel level mea-
surement. done with a sound meter, Is
taken at any point on the line separa-
ting the source of the sound from the
receiver of the sound.
For residential zones, this would be
done on the property line of the resident
who was complaining about the noise.
II the noise exceeded the mayftnimt
limit; the person responsible for the
noise would be given a warning. Her*
man said.
If the noise continued, the person
would be issued a citation . Conviction
in court carries up to a 3200 fine.
Herman said citations would be used,
as a "last resort" measure. "This thing
works on voluntary comuiiance or it
really fails on its keasier," he comment-
ed.
Maximum allowable decibel levels
would take effect Jan. 1 and be
decreased for some zones over a four-
year period.
For motor vehicles, the proposed
ordinance adopts the standards of the
state Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ).
They prohibit the sale of new motor
vehicles which exceed certain decibel
levels and require manufacturers to cer-
tify with tie DEQ that the vehicles do
not exceed .those levels.
The standards also set maximum
dedbei levels, based on model year, for
vehicles already in use. Cars manufac-
tured before 1976, for example, can
register so more than 92 decibels as
measured in a stationary test at 25 feet.
While the DEQ will begin enforcing
regulations for new cars Jan. I, it' will
not strictly enforce standards for vehi-
cles already in use until at least another
six months, said David Sweet, DEQ
noise control technician.
The department is developing a sim-
plified noise test, yet to be approved by
the Environmental Quality Commission,
which would be used in Portland at
DEQ's five auto emission inspection sta-
tions, he said.
Also to he regulated are power
tools, watercraft, commercial construc-
tion, animals, stereos, burglar alarms
and auto racing.
The ordinance sets up a noise con-
trol officer In the Eureau of Neighbor-
hood Environment with the power to
issue citations and variances to the
noise regulations.
Administration of the ordinance will
cost an estimated $70,000 a year. Her-
man said. The budget will cover salaries
for the aoise control officer, one secre-
tary and two noise inspectors.
Herman said the inspectors would
primarily follow up on campiaints rath-
er than initiating noise checks through-
out the city.
"Well be moving fast just to stay in
place and pursue complaints," be com-
mented.
Apart from noise from animals,
which is handled by Multnomah Coun-
ty's animal control division, most city
residents complain about motorcycle
and residential noise, Herman said.
And these noise sources will be hit
hardest by the city's proposed' ordi-
nance, he said.
"The people really affected will be
the Indiscriminate cyclist,, the person
who soups up a car without muffling
and the guy who has a party at 3 a.m.
and doesn't give a hoot about his neigh-
¦ bora," Herman remarked.
' Noise violation by industry* is
expected to be "the exception rather
than the rule,"he said. Most complaints
about industrial aoise, he noted, turn
out to be complaints about trucks serv-
ing industry.
77
-------
Exhibit 4-4
PORTLAND'S 'NOISE BOYS' TO CHECK ON DECIBELS
AFTER JULY 1
OREGONLAN
PORTLAND, OR
JUNE 20, 157o
J JS.
w
s noise ooys
on decibels after
to
July 1
By HUNTLY CCLUHS
e< Th» Onqenin «Mf
Portland won't become
"the quiet city" over-
sight, but it could
become a lot less noisy
after July 1.
At least thaf s the hope
of • Portland's "noise
boys," as they call them-
selves, who will begin
enforcing the city's first
comprehensive noise
ordinance July 1.
"I think we've got an
ordinance that will
work." said Paul Her-
man, acoustical prajact
manager who is expected
to be named the city,s
Erst noise control officer.
. "We're breathing a
whopping sigh of relief.**
The-relief is over City
Couscl approval of the-
.ordinance; a compromise
measure, drafted by Com-
missioner Charles Jordan
earlier this month. -
Council objections, to
more than a dozen drafts
of an original noise ordi-
nance had threatened to
leave- the city with no en-
forceable noise laws,
scuttling more Chan three
years of work on the mu-
nicipal noise problem.
Compromise achieved
What emerged from
Jordan's desk — and won
a surprisingly unanimous
council vote — was a.
compromise measure that
most agree is tough
enough to get the job
dons but not overly re-
strictive.
However, the offroad
vehicle (ORV) lobby,
which has opposed re-
strictive ORV provisions
in the ordinance all along,
is still unhappy.
The city has passed
legislation that it can't
possibly enforce," said
Frank Forster. represent-
ing both the Oregon
Motorcycle Dealers
Association- and Oregon
Motorcycle Riders
Association.
"Most parents,"" he
predicted, "are not going
to- go along with the law.
And- they are going to
assist their children in
violating it."
In brief, here's what
the ordinance does:
— It establishes max-
imum decibel levels for
residential, commercial
and industrial zones of
the city.
In residential K areas,
where most noise com-
plaints arise, the max-
imum daytime level- Is 55
deci'oeis. At night, it
drops to 50.
Although decibel equi-
valencies depend on a
number of variables, a
large transferrer a: 2CC
feet will register between
50 and 60 decibels, Her-
man scid.
Sound devices used
He said the city will
measure decibel levels
with sound meters on the
property line of the resi-
dent who complains of
the noise.
Persons who violate
the allowable ievels will
first be issued warnings,
Herman said. 12 the noise
persists, the city will
issue a citation which, if
upheld la court, carries
up a a $300 fine.
— It gives the Port of
Portland and the con-
struction industry six
months longer than the
rest of the city to comply
with the noise standards.
Under the ' Jordan-
sponsored compromise,
the city wiQ monitor con-
struction and port noise,
but won,: cite It. for any
violations until after Jan.
1, 1377.
— It continues Mult-
nomah County Animal
Control as the agency
responsible- for handling
complaints about barking
dogs and other noisy ani-
mals within city limits.
Residents who complain,
however, must know
wherr the lives
Where to complain
— Loud music next to your house? Call the Bureau
of Neighborhood Environment, 248-4465.
— A loud car dmgging your neighborhood street?
Call che Bureau of Neighborhood Environment or
Portland Police Bureau, 22S-7351.
— Loud offroad vehicles on property not desig-
nated for them? Gil! city police.
— A barking dog disturbing your sleep? Call Mult-
nomah County Animal Control. 656-3711.
— Want .permission to exceed city noise stand-
ards? Call the Bureau of Neighborhood Environment,
where you can apply for a variance.
— red up with the city's new noise regulations?
Call your favorite city commissioner.
before the county can
dispatch officers to the
scene, said Mike Burg-
win, agency manager.
— It adopts, the noise
standards of the state
Department of Environ-
mental Quality (DEQ) lor
new motor vehicles and
vehicles already in use.
Ceitiflcaiioa needed
The state regulations
prohibit the sale of new
motor vehicles which
exceed certain decibel
levels and require- manu-
facturer* to certify with
the DEQ- that vehicles do
not exceed those levels.
They also set max-
imum decibel levels,
based on model year, for
vehicles already in use.
Cars manufactured
before 127S, /or example,
can register no more than
78
-------
Exhibit 4-4 (Continued)
PORTLAND'S 'NOISE BOYS' TO CHECK ON DECIBELS
AFTER JULY 1
92 decibels as measured
is a stationary test at- 25
feet.
Under ths city's ordi-
nance, both city police
and nois# offlcsa will b«
empowered to cits vehi-
cles for alleged noise
violations. Owners o( cit-
ed vehicles would iave
up to 28 days before a
court bearing to gee their
vehicles tested by the
DEQ for compliance with
noise standards. A certifi-
cate of compliance tram-
DEQ before the caurr*
hearing would automati-
cally rtismitt the cistica.
The DEQ has agreed to
test vesicles cited for
noise violations at oce or
sore of its auto emission
inspection stations, said
DEQ dirsesr Loran (Bud)
Kramer.
Tie agency Jus not yet
determined what stations
are a be used for the
testing, but expects to
know by July 1, he said.,
— It requires that
off read vehicles, comply
with, state and city noise
level standards, asd-aiso
prohibits QRVs an public,
or private property inside
city limits which Is not
specifically designated
for tiam.
Currently, the only
public property where
CRVs are allowed in the
cty is Was: Delta Pari.
They are allowed on pri-
vate property if the prop-
erty owser is not unwil-
ling.
Under the new provi-
sion. however, the prop-
err/ owner must get a
conditional use permit
from the city Planning
Bureau to have ORYs on
his property.
The permits, which
would go through the
city's hearings officer,
could take up to four
months to process, said
Ernest Bonner, planning
director.
Aid currently, the city
zoning code does not pro-
vide for an ORV designa-
tion, but is expected ts be
amended is. several
week3 to accommodate
noisa ordinance provi-
sions, he said.
Although city police
believe the new ORV
provision will jjve them
an additional tool to more
adequately respond to '
complaints, ORV enthu-
siasts believe the provi-
sion is too restrictive and
unenforceable.
"I don't visualize a cru-
sade type of thing, but
we'll be able-to respond
to complaints without
having to get property
owners to iign a trespass
violation," said Portland
Police Ca.pt. Melvin
HuietL
rorster contended
however, that the new
provision will fores
youths with minibikes to
ride on ths streets or" un-
authorized private prop-
erty because they will
have nowhere to go.
And he predicted
police would be unable to
cte many violators. "The
kids won't" be caught
because they'll ran from.
Ae cops," Forstsr said.
Herman said the city
has embarked on a "big
auntf* to 2nd public or
private property within
the city limits that would
be appropriate for CRVs.
But so far, io sites have
been found, he said.
79
-------
Exhibit 4-5
JUNE 1976 COMPROMISE ORDINANCE
LAND-USE NOISE STANDARDS1
NOISE SOURCE
RECEIVING STANDARDS2
Residential
Commercial
industrial
Residential^
55/55
60/60
65/60
Commercial
60/55
70/65
70/65
Industrial
65/60
70/65
75/70
1Night standards (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) are 5 dBA less in each case.
^Number to left of diagonal is standard for existing sources; number to right of
diagonal is standard for new sources constructed after January 1, 1977.
^Mixed-use property (i.e., residential property or school) predating a commercial
property in a nonresidential zone can receive noise 5 dBA higher than the standard
for zone of source to residential receiver.
^Farm and Forest (FF zone) standards are same as residential.
80
-------
Exhibit 4-6
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND FINAL ORDINANCE PROVISIONS
oo
GENERAL PROVISIONS
ORDINANCE
PROVISION
COVERAGE
ORIGINAL
COMPROMISE
DEFINITIONS
AND
STANDARDS
Comprehensive, reflects specific noise source coverages
such as vibrations, property boundaries, noise types;
covers Multnomah County as well as Portland.
Comprehensive, fewer specific terms reflecting change in,
or elimination of, coverage; additional definitions for new
coverages (e.g., narrow band sound, octave band, zoning
exceptions)* Multnomah County excluded.
RESPONSIBILITIES
AND
AUTHORITY
Noise Control Officer responsibilities and authorities
included:
* Program administration
* Research and monitoring
* Plan review
* Public education
* Coordination with city agencies
" Issuance of variances
* Review of city agencies1 noise control activities and
capita! purchases
No other responsible parties.
Noise Review Board responsibilities and authorities
include:
* Public education
* Reviewing and acting on Class B & C variance
applications
* Evaluating noise control programs
* Long term planning
* Holding hearings on variance applications
* Recommending ordinance changes
Board has 5 members subject to the following conditions:
* Citizen-at-large (1)
* Acoustical professional (1)
Construction Industry representative (1)
Board serves without pay.
Noise Control Officer responsibilities and authorities
include:
' Complaint investigation
* Rule and regulation promulgation
* Research and monitoring
* Technical assistance
* Supporting agencies in implementing ordinance
* Reviewing and acting on Class A variances
* Issuing violation citations
* Requiring noise source owner cooperation !n taking
Measurements
-------
Exhibit 4-6 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND FINAL ORDINANCE PROVISIONS
ORDINANCE
PROVISION
COVERAGE
ORIGINAL
COMPROMISE
CITY BUREAUS
Not addressed in proactive way; Noise Control Office had
responsibility to review, coordinate, and cooperate to
assure the Bureaus' adherence to ordinance.
Required to support provisions of ordinance in own
programs as well as to cooperate with Noise Control
Office •
Review own produce purchases subject to explicit
provision in ordinance.
oo
NJ
-------
Exhibit 4-6 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND FINAL ORDINANCE PROVISIONS
MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOUND LEVELS
ORDINANCE
PROVISION
COVERAGE
ORIGINAL
COMPROMISE
LAND USE
' ZONES
* Covered residential, commercial, industrial, and rural
zones with fixed ma
-------
Exhibit 4-6 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND FINAL ORDINANCE PROVISIONS
oo
ORDINANCE
COVERAGE
PROVISION
ORIGINAL
COMPROMISE
WATERCRAFT
* 75 dBA daytime limit (7 a.m.-11 p.m.) measured
from any point on land.
* 75 dBA daytime (7 a.m.-10 p.m.), measured on
shore*
* 65 dSA nighttime standard.
* 65 dBA nighttime standard.
* As of January 1, 1976, 65 dBA limit at all times.
* Underwater exhaust or muffler required on boats
operating in public waterways inside city limits.
* Exempts craft in authorized races. These craft
subject to "Motor Vehicle racing Events" provision.
CONSTRUCTION
ACTIVITY
AND
EQUIPMENT
Construction activity not identified per se; equipment
cited instead.
Standards for equipment effective January 1, 1976:
" Limit of 85 dBA measured at 25 ft. from source.
Only pile drivers excluded.
• Pavement breakers covered under standard of 35 dBA
for January 1, 1976, 75 dBA for January 1, 1980.
* Night use prohibited except In emergencies.
Activity and equipment covered after January 1, 1977:
* Limit of 85 dBA measured at 50 ft. from source.
* Scrapers, pavement breakers, concrete saws, rock
drillsj and pile drivers excluded.
» No exceptions to night, week-end, and holiday
standards (the land-use standards), except by variance
permit or emergency situation.
REFUSE
COMPACTING
VEHICLES
Measured at 25 ft., 70 dBA limit for vehicles manufactured
after December 31, 1975, (when compacting).
Not specifically cited; covered under "NOISES
PROHIBITED, Parked Motor Vehicles."
HOME
EQUIPMENT
AND
POWERED TOOLS
• Standards by motor size (implicit).
* Maximum levels:
- 78 dBA, small motors, 1976
- 85 dBA, larger motors, 1976
- 65 dBA, small motors, 1980
- 75 dBA, larger motors, 1980
Standards by explicit motor size.
* Measured at lot line or 25 ft., whichever is further
from the source.
* Limits equipment used inside residences to 60 dBA at
the lot line.
* Sets limit of 80 dBA for equipment with 5 HP or
smaller motor.
* Sets limit of 85 dBA for equipment with motors
exceeding 5 HP.
* Collective of all equipment in use during nighttime
must meet the nighttime zone standards.
-------
Exhibit 4-6 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND FINAL ORDINANCE PROVISIONS
oo
Ul
ORDINANCE
PROVISION
COVERAGE
ORIGINAL
COMPROMISE
NOISES
PROHIBITED
* Animals—specific provision including animal shelters
and treatment facilities*
* Sound producing or reproducing equipment—prohibits
sound from such equipment thai creates a "noise
disturbance" at or beyond the property line.
* Parked motor vehicles-—prohibits trucks with motor
and/or auxiliary equipment running from parking on
public right of way or on private property such that
Its sound is audible in a residence at night.
* Burglar Alarms—one year exception, alarm sound
limited to 15 minutes for buildings, 10 minutes for
vehicles with provisions for police to disconnect.
Helicopter Operations—prohibits except at helioports
or by specific variance or emergency.
* Places of Public Entertainment—85 dBA limit measured
it any point normally occupied by a person unless
warning sign posted.
* Similar coverage by reference to existing Portland
Code.
* Similarly limits such sound; includes more explicit
nighttime limitations; provides limits for such
equipment operating in a park under a permit.
Prohibits (rucks parking over 5 minutes in public right
of way, in residential district, quiet zone, or on private
property in residential or commercial zone unless it is
within a completely enclosed structure.
* No coverage, except as narrow-band sound.
No coverage.
* No explicit coverage; can be handled under "sound
producing or reproducing equipment."
EXEMPTIONS
Emergency work only.
Emergency work and vehicles, sounds caused by sources
subject to Federal laws, crowd sounds from athletic and
entertainment events, blasting, existing stationary
refrigeration units and port facilities (for 6 months),
certain warning devices.
VARIANCES
Temporary (7 days or less) and extended variances
available; complex conditions for determining if
variance will be granted and stringent criteria, for
duration of extended variances.
* Actions can be appealed to the City Council.
# Class A for 3 days or less—application reviewed
and acted upon by noise control officer.
* Class B for specific periods longer than 3 days or
regularly occurring events—acted upon by Noise
Review Board.
• Class C for unspecified periods longer than 3
days—acted upon by the Noise Review Board.
• Actions can be appealed by the City Council.
-------
Exhibit 4-6 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND FINAL ORDINANCE PROVISIONS
ORDINANCE
PROVISION
COVERAGE
ORIGINAL
COMPROMISE
ENFORCEMENT
* Noise officer enforces through issuing citations.
Offender allowed 7 days to abate noise.
* Fine, not to exceed $500, can be levied.
* Bureau of Neighborhood Environment enforce].
* Noise control officer and authorized agents can
Issue citations.
* Fine, not to exceed $500, can be levied.
City attorney can institute legal proceedings to
compel compliance or restrain violations.
-------
Exhibit 4-7
BUREAU OF NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENT
GENERAL INTAKE/REPORT FORM
FILE #
SURVEY/PU IlLIC/ REFERRAL/S I
DATE/INITIALS
BUREAU OK NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENT SEC.,
P //
GENERAL INTAKE/REPORT FORM
N/A_
DATE
ACCT. It
LOCATION/ADDRESS
REPORTED BY:
DATE
ADDRESS;
HOME IF
WORK #
warn |_
POST
CONCERNING:_
LEGAL DESC._
CONTACTED:
OTHER AGENCY:
PERSON (S) MAKING NOISE:
TIME NOISE OCCURS:
SZ:
REMARKS:
HOW LONG GOING ON:
R2:
REFERRED TO:
05711777-
INSPECTOR
-------
Exhibit 4-8
SAMPLE NOISE VARIANCE APPLICATION
This is an application for a variance from the noise ordinance. You apply for it because your present or proposed
activity violates the ordinance. There are three types of variances. Class \ variances are for infrequent events which
do not exceed 72 hours duration, and they are not renewable. Class B variances are for events which exceed 72 hrs.
duration, or are regularly occurring events, or seasonal events. They are renewable on reapplication. Class C var-
iances are like Class B, with the additional requirement that the noise does not annoy the affected public. They are
issued for an unspecified tine, and may be reviewed upon complaint.
A variance may be granted, conditioned or denied, and is subject to revocation if the terms (if any) of the variance
are violated. "B" and "C" variances require public notification, and may also involve public hearings at the dis-
cretion of the Noise Review Board.
You can expect a response within 7 days for an "A" variance, and within 45 days for "B" and "C" variances, although
in most sases it will not take this long. If a decision is not reached in this rime, your application is automatically
approved for a 130 period. A written decision with supporting facts and reasons shall be provided to the applicant,
and to anyone who requests it in writing. Any person affected by the decision may appeal to the Citv Council foT
hearing.
Please fill out this application carefully. The application will not be considered "received" until the necessary
Information is Included. Use a separate sheet, if necessary. Some of the questions are technical and may not be
jppropriate to your application; where this is so please insert an "N/A" and continue. If you have any questions or
would like assistance, please call 248-4465.
APPLtCATOM
1. Circle type of vananco needed (see above}: ABC
2. (a)Your name: (b)Phonm: fclAddress:
3. If applying for organization or business, etc. indicate its naae:
4. Location of activity or event:
5. Hours and date(s) of activity:
6. Describe the activity. Is the noise regular* Intermittent* List all sound producing equipment. Always used in the
same place?
7. Is the affected arem primarily residential? Is it heavily populated? Lightly'
9. Supply a drawing or nap of the affected area. Show the source, property lines and other details.
9. Describe the noise as it will be heard (high pitch, banging, etc.)
10. (a)Have any sound measurements been taken- of the equipment on site, and in use' If so, hew and when vere
they obtained? (c)Hhat were these sound levels'
(d)Are data available from the nanufacturer on sound levels produced by this eouipaent? (e)What are they'
U. ff not a new activity, indicate relative dates when sound source *as first present, and when iffected parties *«re
fiTSt present'
12. rfow many neighbors have you contacted? What is their reaction?
13. What has been done to bring this activity into compliance with the noise ordinance?
14. Explain the compelling reasons for this aoplication m sufficient detail to justify its consideration.
IS. Signature Date
88
-------
5
WHAT CAN BE LEARNED
The Oregon experience holds several lessons that may help other states and cities
develop viable noise control programs. Though the efforts at the state level and
those in Portland and Eugene were separate and largely independent, they were
clearly related and, in several ways, reenforcing. The similarities in these efforts are
more striking than the differences among them, as seen when they are reviewed from
four perspectives: needs assessment and action planning, law formulation,
implementation strategies, and law enforcement.
LESSON 1: DETERMINE YOUR NEEDS AND FORMULATE AN ACTION PLAN
A noise control program is no different from other city or state programs. There
should be an established need for it. What sets noise control apart from some other
service programs is that it is a new technology requiring a fairly complex skill base
before problems may be defined or resolutions proposed. The Oregon experience
demonstrates how needs assessment may be approached. The state, Portland, and
Eugene all included in varying degrees, the following elements in determining their
noise control needs. Though numbered, these elements are not necessarily
sequential. The first or second (and often both) most often precede other elements
in a developmental process.
(1) Formal knowledge of what noise is, ways it can affect individuals and
community ilveability, and how it can be measured. A monumental education and
persuasion job must be effectively done if a noise control law is to get from the
framers1 table to the statute books. Where the initiators' knowledge base is skimpy
or nonexistent, persuasion may stilt be possible, but education cannot occur in ways
that build the constituency base necessary for final passage of the law. Oregon is,
perhaps, more sophisticated that many states, because it has been an environmental
protection proponent for a long time. The state and its larger cities have resident
noise control expertise. Notwithstanding, the noise control field has developed
sufficiently over the last ten years, so that an organized body of research and
literature is readily accessible. In addition, the EPA Office of Noise Abatement and
Control is as close as a telephone or any EPA regional office.
89
-------
(2) Identification of actual or potential problems and compilation of already
documented noise problems, if any. Of course, this lesson seems obvious, as will
some other cited here. Unfortunately, their obviousness may be the very attribute
that causes them to be sometimes overlooked. People in all aspects of noise control
in Oregon stressed the importance of avoiding "overkill." The law formulated should
be congruent with the nature of actual and potential problems. It is wise to weigh
decisions about the extent of coverage needed to seek beyond the foreseeable future
against the level of knowledge, concern, and support that can be generated from a
cross section of those most directly affected (positively and negatively).
(3) Strategy for increasing public awareness or interest in noise problems and for
soliciting and consolidating citizen, business, and Industry input. This element may
be the most critical: not only must it be addressed early, but also, through periodic
well-organized campaigns, throughout the drafting of the law and administrative
rules. The state's strategy was to involve the community explicitly after the law was
passed and investigations of best approaches for rulemaking had begun. Portland
generated involvement in its first foray into noise, through the committee
Commissioner Anderson headed, and through its acoustical project. Eugene, having
the advantage of the state motor vehicle noise provision as its starting point, used
news media and its police force to educate city residents.
(4) Coordination with other city of state offices, interest groups already active,
and Federal regulatory agencies. Conservation of resources and minimization of
duplication can result. Preemptive provisions at a Federal or state level can have a
major impact on local program direction and scope. The state and Portland made
good use of other governmental regulations and resources. DEQ sought EPA advice
and offered input to EPA rulemaking (that would affect Oregon's program). Portland
used DEQ staff and expertise and its historical experience in shaping its laws. Each
program retained its distinct identity.
(5) Assessment of resources available to address noise issues, along with
additional resources needed. Used here, resources means people, expertise, space,
money, equipment, and media. Other factors, such as proponent and opponent
clusters, that can facilitate or impede the activity, are also resources to be thought
about. Oregon had a wealth of people and expertise. Money, as is often the case,
was difficult to come by. Implementation of the state program was delayed by
several months for tack of an appropriation. Passage of Portland's law was also
affected by the money issue (perhaps as a guise for other political issues). Money
was less an issue in Eugene, because its program is not comprehensive and because
no new monies were being sought. Portland took advantage of funding sources
beyond its own budgets. DEQ made good use of the League of Women Voters in
organizing and conducting its statewide noise survey. Eugene was able to borrow
from DEQ the equipment needed to implement its program.
(6) Determination of preliminary time frames for activities (needs assessment,
passage of law, formulation of standards, program design, acquisition of staff and
equipment, and implementation. Interview data and documents do not reflect that
the state and Portland both mapped out timelines at the beginning of their efforts.
90
-------
The state did have an initial time-phased plan for program implementation, but that
plan was apparently not explicitly modified as time passed. Eugene policy did have a
time frame in mind at the start of their program, which may have helped them achieve
implementation with proper advance public education, and measurement testing in a
relatively short time. They also, of course, had DEQ resources to draw upon for
training and technical assistance.
Time frames or schedules are variables, affected by the very events and factors
that they endeavor to organize. As a result, they need to be adjusted periodically to
reflect changes in these activities.
The programs in Oregon were all started with careful technical exploration in the
early stages. Expertise, resident in regional EPA offices as well as EPA headquarters,
was drawn upon throughout the three Oregon programs' early development. Program
planners also used private noise consultants and academic researchers. Costs and
certification of the quality of service should be major factors in making decisions
about the way in which formal technical knowledge will be acquired.
A review of Federal and related state noise laws and their program efforts can be
most helpful in avoiding "false starts" and wasted effort. An increasing amount of
basic research into noise, its impacts, and effective abatement and control strategies
is being done each year. Some of this may be quite useful.
LESSON 2: DETERMINE SUITABLE LAW
In formulating a noise ordinance, at least two approaches may be taken. An
ordinance may be formulated specifically, spelling out premises, intent, scope,
standards, and measurement techniques; Portland did this. Or, a more general law
may be proposed, defining only premises and intent, and requiring scope, standards,
and rules to be worked out subsequently. The state took this approach. Obviously,
a law of the former type takes longer to formulate (and probably to pass) than the
latter. Formulation and passage of a law of the first type also means that more
technical knowledge, public education, and input mechanisms will be necessary.
Cities and states with scarce experience and limited formal noise knowledge may find
this approach burdensome.
Regardless of the approach taken, any law proposed should establish a program
based on quantifiable data (noise measurements). An EPA Model Noise Control
Ordinance is available from ONAC regional or central offices.
People in Oregon stressed the importance of being practical in this. Though an
idea may be meritorious in the abstract, resources required to translate it into a
reality may be beyond a state city city's capability—or more than that state or city
can handle at one time. Time and again, interviewees stressed the need for balance
and understanding of the complexity of the undertaking. Other points stressed
were:
91
-------
• There are a variety of ways to control noise, e.g., through land-use planning,
source monitoring, and complaint-response systems.
• Different types of noise may require different abatement and control
approaches.
• Compromise is inevitable.
LESSON 3: DESIGN THE PROGRAM TO SUIT YOUR NEEDS
The needs assessment of Lesson 1 provides an excellent basis for program design.
It appears that consideration should be given to potential, as well as existing
problems and noise sources. Early intervention is desirable; Inclusion of noise
issues as planning parameters for coordination with plans to control land use and air
and water pollution is preferable. Aspects of design to be considered include:
(1) Philosophy
(2) Scope
(3) Priorities
(4) Approaches and procedures
• Problem identification
• Problem resolution (enforcement)
• Maintenance of program gains
• Early intervention (especially for new noise sources)
(5) Staffing
• Technical expertise needed
• Periodic staff development
Generalist technicians versus specialists
(6) Budget
• Funds for staff, space, equipment supplies
' Ways of acquiring these without incurring new costs
Funds/seryice sources
(7) Phasing of program development activities
(8) Monitoring mechanisms
• Milestones
Feedback loops
92
-------
(9)
Mechanisms for making program changes
Community input (includes general, political, and special interest groups)
Business
• Industry (especially construction, manufacturing, and transportation)
• Land use
(10) Coordination with other city agencies
(11) Interface with state programs (if any) and Federal programs.
Philosophy, scope, and priorities provide the program framework. A noise
control program should "fit" a city's already established structure, especially that
structure in which the program will reside. Functional similarities to existing
programs should be recognized and built upon. At the same time, opportunities for
creativity and progressive innovation should not be overlooked. The bottom line
measures appear to be fiscal and technical capability.
Action planning and program implementation strategies are worth significant time
and resource investments. Oregon's experience echoes that of other jurisdictions
(e.g., San Diego, California, and Evansville, Indiana). New technologies cannot be
introduced overnight. Program designers must conceptualize its administrative,
technological, fiscal, and legal aspects in fairly fine detail so that sound
implementation strategies that establish and expand program credibility can be
mounted. Both the state and Portland's principal noise control staff and early
program developers agree that sound planning and implementation strategies include:
¦ Accumulation and analysis of empirical data,
• Exploration and testing of measurement and enforcement techniques,
• Involvement and education of noise source owners, and
• Involvement and education of the general community.
In a more limited focus, Eugene's noise control staff concurs. Activities listed
above all take time and need to be carefully phased if undesirable stalemates are to
be minimized.
While a review of the approaches and experiences of other cities and states is
useful, often providing valuable insights at little expense, it is a clear understanding
of one's own city that must weigh heavily in any adaptation of these experiences.
93
-------
LESSON 4: ENFORCE YOUR NOISE CONTROL PROVISIONS
Commitment to enforcement must be translated Into regulations and procedures.
Otherwise, programs will be superficial. Procedures, particularly, must be clear,
relatively uncomplicated, and easily performed by personnel with limited training.
Enforcement can consume the largest portion of staff time and capital expenditures
(equipment). The less stringent the technical qualifications are for enforcement
personnel, the more affordable they will be. There will also be more flexibility for
program implementation if staff in related areas can function In noise control with
incremental training or education. All programs in Oregon designed enforcement to
meet these criteria.
Enforcement, usually considered punitive, can be proactive and positively
motivational, as well. The Oregon programs lean more toward the latter, though
punitive actions are taken. It remains to be seen whether the "conciliation and
cooperation" approach yields longer-lasting results than hard enforcement approaches
employed in other jurisdictions. In any case, enforcement needs to be consistent,
responsive to program growth, and adaptable in the face of changing political,
environmental, and economic times. Enforcement in Oregon appears to be
consistent, responsive, and adaptable. Cooperation and conciliation are yielding
results that both programs and citizens seem to find acceptable. DEQ is currently
laying the foundation for a source monitoring enforcement strategy; Portland is
trying to stabilize its enforcement staff and to develop better empirical data bases
for evolving enforcement policies. Eugene is grappling with the complex task of
extrapolating its experience in motor vehicle noise control enforcement to approaches
for other noise sources, as it designs a comprehensive program.
The state government has taken a very systematic approach to evolving its noise
control program. Portland and Eugene have followed this path, also. To date, all
programs appear to be working well toward their objectives. Quantitative measures
of overall noise reduction are not available—and perhaps it is too early to expect
significant results.
94
-------
Appendix A
• OREGON HOUSE BILL 1669
• DEQ MEMORANDUM: PROPOSED STATE-WIDE
NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM
• DEQ NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
95/96
-------
OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY—1971 REGULAR SESSION
ENGROSSED
House Bill 1669
Ordered by the Chairman of the
Committee on Rules and Resolutions May 25
(Including Amendments by House May 13)
Sponsored by Representative SKELTON, Senators OUDERKIRK,
HALLOCK, Representatives FADELEY, WILLITS
SUMMARY
The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors
of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof
subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly.
It is an editor's brief statement of the essential fea-
tures of the measure.
Authorizes Environmental Quality Commission to adopt standards relating to
control and prevention of emissions of excessive noise including standards relating to
vehicles and aircraft. (Declares violations of standards to be public nuisance and)
Authorizes commission (, State Board of Health and local boards of health) to file
proceedings to abate nuisances relating to excessive noise (in specified manner).
(Prohibits emissions by persons or public bodies of noise in excess of levels set by
commission outside boundaries of their property or property controlled by them.
Prohibits, except in specified emergency situations, use of airport facilities within
state for landings and takeoffs by aircraft emitting noise in excess of specified level.
Makes related changes.) Provides penalties.
Declares emergency. Effective July 1, 1971.
NOTE: Matter in bold face in an amended section is new; matter (italic and
bracketed) is existing law to be omitted; complete new sections begin with
SECTION.
97
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Eng. HB 1669
(2)
A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to noise; providing penalties; and declaring an emergency.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. The Legislative Assembly finds that the increasing incidence of
noise emissions in this state at unreasonable levels is as much a threat to the
environmental quality of life in this state and the health, safety and welfare of
the people of this state as is pollution of the air and waters of this state. To
provide protection of the health, safety and welfare of Oregon citizens from
the hazards and deterioration of the quality of life imposed by excessive noise
emissions, it is hereby declared that the State of Oregon has an interest in the
control of such pollution, and that a program of protection should be initiated.
To carry out this purpose, it is desirable to centralize in the Environmental
Quality Commission the authority to adopt reasonable state-wide standards for
noise emissions permitted within this state and to implement and enforce
compliance with such, standards.
SECTION 2. In accordance with the applicable provisions of ORS chapter
183, the Environmental Quality Commission shall promulgate reasonable rules
relating to the control of levels of noise emitted into the environment of this
state and including the following:
(1) Establish categories of noise emission sources, including the categories of
motor vehicles and aircraft;
(2) Establish requirements and specifications for equipment to be used in the
monitoring of noise emissions;
(3) Adopt procedures for the collection, reporting, interpretations and use of
data obtained from noise monitoring activities;
(4) Investigate and, after appropriate public notice and hearing, establish
maximum permissible levels of noise emission for each category established, as
measured by units of perceived noise, in decibels (EPNdB); and
(5) Adopt, after appropriate public notice and hearing, standards for the
control of noise emissions which shall be enforceable by order of the
commission.
98
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
(3)
Eng. H8 1669
SECTION 3. No person may emit, cause the emission of, or permit the
emission of noise in excess of the levels fixed therefor by the Environmental
Quality Commission pursuant to section 2 of this Act.
SECTION 4. The Environmental Quality Commission has the power to
investigate complaints regarding excessive noise emission, to hold hearings, to
issue orders, to make rules, to impose sanctions, and to do any other thing
necessary to carry out the policies of this state as set forth in this Act.
SECTION 5. The Environmental Quality Commission shall have the further
power to bring civil abatement proceedings in the manner provided by ORS
449.100 against violation of this Act or rules or orders made thereunder.
SECTION 6. Violation of this Act, or rules or orders made under the
provisions of this Act is punishable, upon conviction, by a fine of not more
than $500 or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months,
or both. Each day of violation shall be considered a separate offense.
SECTION 7. This Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the
public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Act
takes effect July 1, 1971.
********
99/100
-------
TO'.' .WcCALL
GOV£SNOS
L 3. CAY
Oiractor
ENVIRONMENTAL GUALITY
COMMISSION
3. A. ,"c?K!lL!?S
Chalrxan, "iV.ir.nviila
EO'.VAXO C. HARMS, JX.
SBn'njflald
STOSr.S S. V/ATSi^MAN
Porr'and
GEO'Ge A. MoMATH
Portland
ARNOLD V. CCGAN
Portland
r.-T3An7f.t-y
C»\ * -i «• r* <«» ^ ~ i rt • jg** h i f* m "
Ml ^ 7 i 11W i >4jv£i^4'J 3 jtii ^ A *"
TERMINAL SALES BLDG. 0 1234 S.W. MORRISON ST. 0 PORTLAND, OREGON 97205
MEMORANDUM
TO: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION
FROM: Director
SUBJECT: Agenda Item F October 25, 1972 EQC Meeting
Proposed State-wide Noise Control Program
Background:
The 1971 Legislative Assembly found the increasing incidence
of noise emissions in Oregon at unreasonable levels to be as much a
threat to the environmental quality of life and to the health, safety and
welfare of the people of Oregon as Dollution of the air and waters. To
protect the health, safety and welfare of Oregon citizens from the hazards
and deterioration of the quality of life imposed by excessive noise emissions,
the Legislative Assembly authorized the Environmental Quality Commission
to implement standards for the emission of noise in Oregon and to
enforce compliance with such standards.
The Department recognized that many noise sources exist in
various locations and that they affect people in many ways. Therefore,
one of the first activities undertaken by the Deoartment was an evaluation
of public concern, by three methods:
1. Thirteen public information meetings,, co-sponsored by
101
-------
the League of Women Voters, were held throughout
the state. These meetings, publicized by local news
media, provided two-way communications between the
public and the Department.
2. Some newspapers printed the Department questionnaire
and the resulting mail response was tabulated.
3. Citizens with specific noise problems called or wrote the
Department and their 'complaints were summarized.
Following public meetings the staff conducted instrumented
noise surveys of many noise sources causing complaint. These surveys
and public input have provided guidance to the Department concerning the
relative magnitude of Oregon's noise problems. Several Department
requests for noise abatement, based on survey results, have been achieving
positive results.
Department Evaluation of Surveys:
Details of public inout are given in the attached interim report,
"Noise Pollution Problems in Oregon". The Department's evaluation
of that input is as follows:
1. Noise pollution is a significant problem in Oregon ana
citizens want immediate action.
2. Noise from motor vehicles, -especially motorcycles, drew
state-wide criticism and was the major source of complaint.
3. Noise on residential uroperty from nearby racing events,
highways and industry is a major problem. Such noise
102
-------
interferes with sleeo and communication, creates annoyance
and in some cases has been measured at levels known to
be potentially damaging to hearing. Many people feel
deprived of the enjoyment of their property, and some
leave their homes during periods of extreme noise. Schools
also need to be protected from such noise.
4. Effectively enforced, revised and clarified noise ordinances
are necessary. Existing state and local noise laws have
not been adequately enforced, nor are ordinances comcre-
hensive enough to effectively control today's varied noise
sources.
5. Many noise problems arise from non-comoatible land use.
Planning Commissions are in a good oosition to eliminate
many future noise problems, but they presently lack the
tools to do a comprehensive job relative to noise. Guide-
lines for locating both noisy and quiet activities would aid
planners in eliminating many potential noise problems.
Noise Measurement and Control:
The many sources of environmental noise require several
methods of measurement and control. Noise sources can be broadly
classified as those emitting:
1. A nearly constant sound level.
2. Impulsive noise.
3. A sound level fluctuating over a range of many decibels.
The fluctuations can be either random or periodic.
103
-------
Noise from air conditioners and vehicles, typical of the first
category, can be measured quickly with a simple sound level meter.
Hammering and other impulsive sounds require the use of an
impulse sound level meter, or tape recorded data displayed on an oscilli-
scope.
Noise from highways, racing events and some industrial activities
is not adequately described by single meter readings: statistical descrip-
tion of some of these noise levels is necessary. The statistical distribu-
tion can often be estimated by readings from a sound level meter during
a 10 to 30 minute period. Accurate measurement requires the use of a
tape recorder and a statistical distribution analyzer capable of sampling
sound levels several times per second. Suitable tape recordings can be
made in less than one hour for some sources, but many noise sources
are recorded for S to 24 hour periods.
One of the Department's most challenging objectives is to
develop, where technically feasible, simple standards measurable with
simple instrumentation to minimize the cost of evaluation and noise control
for all concerned. Unfortunately noise is a multi-dimensional problem
and is not aaequantely described by the simplest measurements. Some
noise sources, as indicated above, will require more complex standards,
equipment, and procedures for measurement, evaluation and control.
The methods available for noise control fall into three broad
categories:
104
-------
1. Source control
2. Use control
3. Planning and zoning
Many noise problems require the use of more than one method
of control. For example, source control has resulted in some reduction
of aircraft noise, but planning is still very important to keep airports and
residential areas separated.
Source control has been used principally for new products, but
can be readily applied to products in use. Source control will then require
replacement of faulty silencing equipment or require enclosure of inherently
noisy equipment. Prohibition of sale of noisy equipment is an extreme
example of source control which may be necessary for some automotive
mufflers.
Use control can range from simple prohibition of using Dower
lawnmowers before 8 a.m. to different weighting of daytime and nightime
flights in airport standards. Use control sometimes results in quieter
alternative methods for manufacture or construction.
Planning and zoning will always be an important method of
noise control. Some activities which are difficult to silence will continue
to cause public complaint when located too close to residential areas.
Projections:
The Department concludes that an effective noise control program
will depend upon coordinated efforts of federal, state and local governments.
105
-------
The federal role should include control of aircraft noise,
control of noise levels of new products, and assistance to state and local
governments. Motor vehicle standards should be developed after consulta-
tion with states, and federal test procedures should be published which
will provide a solid base for state vehicle noise programs. Minimum
control, such as product labeling, should be acceptable for some products
(e.g. household appliances).
The state should control industrial and motor vehicle noise,
guide planning of its transportation system, and provide assistance to local
governments. State control of environmental industrial noise is necessary
to prevent jurisdictional problems. Occupational noise exposure is being
regulated by the Occupational Health Division, and the Department of
Environmental Quality should not duplicate that program. Noise levels
specified in the Federal Highway Administration noise standard are too high,
and a state standard is necessary for olanning new highways and for
identifying areas of existing highways which require noise abatement.
Local governments should include noise in their planning and
zoning activities and in building codes, assist in motor vehicle noise
control, and improve their control over nuisance noises. Few local
ordinances are readily enforced, and comprehensive revision of ordinances
is necessary.
A legislative change is essential to eliminate the current
statutory requirement of using Perceived Noise Level (PNL). Commer-
cially available sound level meters measure A, B or C-weighted sound pressure
level, however, there is no meter which measures PNL. Correct mcasure-
106
-------
ment of PNL requires real time analyzers ana computerized data analysis,
although PNL can be approximated with less expensive equipment. Further-
more, A-weighted sound level has been shown to be a reliable indicator
of human response to noise.
Additional technical work is necessary before standards and
guidelines can be completed, as follows:
1. Develop a single noise rating system for use with major
noise. sources. Airport, highway and industrial noise are
all typically described by different rating methods. Some
useful planning guidelines have been developed for single
noise sources, but they are not adequate for different types
of noise sources. Several potential noise rating systems
are available, such as Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL) and Noise Pollution Level (NPL). The available
methods must be evaluated and possibly modified for use
as planning tools.
2. Develop motor vehicle test procedures. Most vehicle noise
standards specify the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
test procedure, which requires the vehicle to be operated at
full throttle, beginning at 30 mph. Vehicles are then
monitored on the road and are in violation if they are
operated in a manner to produce more noise than specified
for the SAE test. This procedure works reasonably well
for trucks, but is ineffective for cars and motorcycles
for two reasons. First, an officer must monitor all
107
-------
violations with a sound level meter even though some noisy
areas are not adequate test sites because of building location.
Second, the driver of a car or motorcycle can easily control
the amount of noise generated and quickly learns how to
identify a sound level meter. An inspection procedure, in
conjunction with air quality and safety inspection, for motor
vehicles would be much more effective, but the SAE test
procedure should not be used because it requires special
test facilities around the state and requires that the car
owners drive according to the test procedure. The Depart-
ment should attempt to develop a test procedure without these
deficiencies. Such a procedure is projected for the motor
vehicle inspection program, where the vehicle would be
stationary and the engine to be run at full throttle for a
brief period or run at rated speed.
3. Determine the accuracy of the present ambient noise measure-
ment procedure. Ambient noise levels have been observed
with variations in excess of 50 decibels. Such noises
cannot be adequately described with a few meter readings,
and a procedure has been developed which requires meter
readings at 5 second intervals for a minimum of 10 minutes.
The procedure is relatively easy for one person to use when
the dynamic range of ambient noise is less than 20 decibels.
Data analysis of Department noise surveys indicates that
108
-------
the method provides an acceptable estimate of ambient noise
but it probably cannot be used to enforce a standard if the
noise source is within 5 decibels of the standard. The
accuracy of the procedure must be checked by means of
electronic data analysis of tape recorded data. The visual
sampling procedure is potentially very useful, and if it can
be modified for improved accuracy it should save some time
and money in data acquisition and enforcement.
Additional noise surveys should be conducted in a variety of
residential areas. Department noise surveys have been limited in number.
Realistic standards must be based on noise levels which are considered
acceptable to most people, and a broader data base is important to the
development of standards.
Outlines of standards, as presently envisioned, are attached.
Conclusions:
The Department concludes that its responsibilities are to:
1. Control noise of motor vehicles in use.
2. Control the noise impact of highways, especially on
residential property.
3. Control environmental industrial noise, especially on
residential property.
4. Evaluate airport noise problems and control airport noise
if effective federal action does not appear likely within a
reasonable time (e.g. two years).
109
-------
5. Insure that local governments act to eliminate serious
noise problems which now exist, especially residential
noise due to racing events.
6. Provide technical assistance to local governments, especially
in developing guidelines and a model ordinance.
7. Coordinate noise control activities with federal, state and
local agencies.
8. Conduct or sponsor technical projects as required to develop
effective noise regulations.
Proposed Program Development and Time Schedule;
1. Before December 1, 1972, draft a proposed legislative change
to eliminate the requirement of using Perceived Noise Level.
2. By April, 1973 -
a) Adopt an ambient noise objective
b) Develop guidelines for noise from racing events.
3. By July, 1973 -
a) Develop standards and adopt regulations for noise emission
from motor vehicles (including motorcycles) and replace-
ment mufflers, and establish procedures for incorporating
noise measurement in the motor vehicle inspection
program now being developed.
b) Develop standards and adopt regulations for existing and
proposed highways.
110
-------
c) Develop standards and adopt regulations for industrial
noise transmitted across property lines.
d) Develop a guideline for hearing conservation of students
exposed to amplified music. Provide school officials
with a simple method for determining acceptable levels
without the need of a sound level meter.
By October, 1973, require, by rule, local governments, the
Oregon Marine Board and the U. S. Coast Guard, prior to
issuing a permit, to submit plans for racing events for
Department approval.
By January, 1974, develop a model ordinance and planning
guidelines for use by local governments. Seek adoption by
local governments and provide training and technical assistance.
By June 1974, review federal action on motor vehicle, airport
and new product noise standards, and evaluate the need for
state regulations.
Send a resolution to Oregon's Senators and Representatives
and to the Federal Environmental Protection Agency urging
federal standards for new products and requesting the appropriate
Federal agency to coordinate its work with the Department,
especially when developing motor vehicle standards and test
procedures.
Notify by letter, all manufacturers of motor vehicles (including
motorcycles) sold in Oregon, except snomobile manufacturers,
111
-------
specifically noting:
a. Oregon's interest in noise abatement.
b. The need for Federal new vehicle standards to
eliminate the possibility of varied or conflicting
state standards.
c. Oregon's intention of waiting at least two years for
federal standards, but not for quiet vehicles, and
d.- Requesting that all new vehicles, especially motorcycles
and trucks sold in Oregon meet California standards for
the interim period.
Director's Recommendation:
It is the Director's recommendation that the Commission
authorize and direct development of a comprehensive noise pollution
control program as outlined above.
112
-------
DEr.vin :.h;nt or L-::-:v::yj;\:\!r,N'iML quai ity
nop;m pollution" control program
1M P LE I\ i [0 -> T A' l i 0 M PLAN"
Including:
Legislat ive Background
Background to Noise Program.
Noise Program Development Outline
Budget Projection;-; 1971-1073 Biennium
Position Descriptions
SUA" TARY:
1. With increasing people and products, noise is becoming iasirg'.y
an "environmental pollutant".
2. H. B. 1GG9 charges DEQ'v/ith responsibility of developing and imple-
menting comprehensive environmental noise pollution coni'rol programs.
3. DEQ is currently receiving complaints from individuals and requests
for assistarr-e from State agencies, Cities and Counties, vdio feel thm
need for noise control, establishment of standards, methods of measure-
ment, adoption of ordinances, and to clinical assistance in resolving
noise problems.
4. Presenth' nc staff is provided. A staff is needed to define probl-_-rns.
develop program, rules, standard? and regulation"; and siu:-.<\-.rd med.o.is
of measure:;,vent to provide service to people and otiier govcrumen'a)
entities, and tc control noise pollution.
113
-------
PROi'OSKD ST \ FI'IKO
PHOPOMKn ACTIVITIKS
Acoustical Engineer (PIIK H)
Supervise, c!e\*cTop and c\^~>rdin;iiu )v
program; o.s'i::i/i ; r;!i rules o nci stand:; ¦
establish procedures for invent rvatic
and measurement of noiV.e; reviews
nnd spo.ciJi cation^: condacar; surveys
makes reports; :mk! tor i;n:.Ionl-.-r;Lin;
total control urogram.
Noise Specialist (I'lIK-l)
Gather and or;-ani'/,c data and ic-ehni
information on control proeodures,
equipment and instrument¦i!:on; inve:-
complaints nr.d mal.es 'd"ld mvasu :v
cvalrales problems a:io prepares re;
conducts special studies Mid assists
Technical Sen. ice and trn:'.d!:a; under
direction of program supervisor.
Secretary 2S
Provides secretarial service io nois
pollution control program and motor
control program.
114
-------
LKCbS; 'i' 111 ' "A' 'lull LOUaD
In e?.l:.b!i.s1i;!r' ("¦Mapi.ar Oregon 1,,-tv/ 1071 (IH.1 ihy
I.egrjhu lire fo'j;ri nob-.e cir-ions at I'lrreasowable level.; ;:s much a
threat to the c^v/iroumcn'.ni quality of life as is poliulioii of air a::d v.\dcr.
To pi-civicTo prou'etion of (lie iicr.lii:, safety, and v.vii'ar'* of
Oropor. citizens from [he hazards and deterioration of Urj cju:. i: iof I [ f. •
as relate d lo .-oh-.c pc.lliui.v.-., the authority Lo establish si\de-\. standards,
ininl ;• men1, the ]¦»r'^;i,ram, ard (".'.force co.ivplhmee was centraii'/ad ir ii:c
Environmental <• ? • \ a 1 i I y C o i -1: i j i t1 s i o n.
Specifically, the DEQ is charged with the responsibility of
establishing ami H.vpieiucnu'j-ig reasonable rules to control Icm-i.-, cl not . a
eniiited including the following:
1) Establish categories of noise emission sources.
2) Establish requirements and specifications for eoeipracnt to
monitor sources.
3) Establish procedures for collection, reporting and interpretation
of data.
4) Implement authority to investigate and establish permissible
levels of noise source categories.
5) Establish standards for the control of noise erni.7sio.is.
In addition, general authority is granted to investigate complaints,
hold hearings, issue orders, make rules and do tilings necessary to carry
out the policies of the State as set forth in the Act.
The Legislative Act established a new program in the Department
with no authorized or funded positions.- Only minimal information and
assistance can be provided. The Department iias developed program needs
to implement the program.
115
-------
CiJ AP'J'j'.K ¦>
AN ACT un-. kc3]
Relating to noise; providing penalties; and d.xlaring an emergency.
li Fr.:i.,;."LcI by the lYo;i!o of the Si 1:i(o of Oregon:
£>ECTIO?\ 1. Tin: ] ,i.'giMativo A.v.embiy finds that the i11ci"c-i_r; inci-
dence oi omission^ :a this state at unreasonable levels is as much a
threat to the i:nvh'nn,n...-Mal ouaiity oi life: in tins stale and li;..' health,
safely an.! welfare of the people of this state as is pollution of the air and
wale;-:: ol tins slate. To provide proifjtiaa of live ncatlh, safelv and wel-
fare oi' Oregon eituicns from the iiattarns and deterioration of the it, utility of
hie impo-eci cy cxooj.mVc noise em.s'totts. it is nereuy ct c c i a i v c l ¦ n a t tne
Slate of Q.V '.'in lias a:i ntteivsl .n '.lit: coiiliul of sucii jj%jiit;11^, ana iii.it a
program of protection jiioald be ini' inled. To rarre o;M tins purposta il ;s
desirable to ecnlra:i:-:c i.; the Knvirutit.tealai Quality C<.minis.:tou the au-
thority tiw> auoot. reasonable staiL.'-wu.e stanuarc.s lor noi.tc ciinssj."'.1 per-
mitted within this ctaio and :o implement, and enforce compliance with
such standards.
SI-iC'jL'ifi'X 2. In a coord a no: with the applicable provisions of OilS
chapter 1,".", the Itlnvironrnenial Quality C^mmis^lon shall promulgate rea-
sonable rul^s rclalinp, to liie control n; iovols of noise emitted inu. iliu en-
vironment of this state aivu inci tiding inc following:
(1) Establish caierorie-; oi noise emission sources, including the cate-
gories of motor vehicles ar.ci aircraft;
(2) Establish requirements and specifications for equipment to be used
in the monitoring of noise emissions;
(3) Adopt procedures for the collection, reporting, interpretations and
uss of data obtained from noise monitoring activities;
(4) Investigate and. after appropriate public notice and '.tearing, es-
tablish ra;.Minium. permissible ieveis ol noise emission for cr-ch category
established, as measured by units oi perceived noise, in decibels (,E?Nd3);
and
(5) Adopt, after appropriate public notice and hearing, standard; for
the control of noise emibstons which shall be enforceable by order oi the
commission..
SECTION 3. No person may emit, cause the omission of. or permit
the emission oi noise m excess oi the levels fixed therefor by the En-
vironmental Quality Commission, pursuant to section 2 oi this Act.
SECTION 4. The Environmental Quality Commission has the power
to investigate ccmpiamts regarding excessive noise emission, to hole hear-
ings, to issue orders, to make rules, to impose sanctions, ana to do any
other thing necessary to carry out the policies oi this state as set form
in this Act.
SECTION 5. The Environmental Quality Commission shall have the
farther nower to bring civil abaremenc proceedings in the manner provided
by 02S -l-iD.lOO violation oi mis Act or ruies or orders made
thereunder.
SECTION G. Violation o: this Act, or rules or orders made under the
provisions oi this Act is punishable, upon conviction, by a fine of no: mere
than S50G or by imprisonment m the county jail for not more titan li::
months, or both. Each day oi violation snail be considered a separate
offense.
SECTION 7. This Act being necessary for the immediate preser-
vation. oi the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared
to exist, and this Act takes effect July i, 1371.
Approved by t!".c Govc.nor June 2j. 1071.
Filed in "l.c oincc oi i^crc'.nry o: SI;; to J^nc 25, 1071.
116
-------
DEPAKTrdi^T OF ENVlrtOrOlKNTAL QUALITY
AIJI QUALITY CONTHOL niVISfONT
BACKGROUND TO NOISE LK OGHAM
'While sources of noises can be listed and categorized with relat;\e
case, and a reasonable amount of research has been conducted, relative
to non-damaging and acceptable noise levels, rnrticjlariy n"v re!:i!ed 'o
occupational health. conirol activities have largclv been related to
standards for industrial equipment and acoustical design. Effect studies
have also boon largely related to short term exposure, i.e. minutes in
8 hours for more commonly recognized sources, whereas there is now
a broadened concern for eflects of overall noise exposure at home, in
offices, outdoors and from recreational activities as well as that related
to commercial and industrial activities.
"Point" or individual noise sources will obviously be a problem
receiving program emphasis for evaluation in terms of levels and exposure
and control activities. Willi broadened concern for unwanted noise from
equipment such as home aupliances, yard, office, nbnt and vehicles, once
facts are established decisions will have to be made on program priorities
and emphasis. Existing known problems must receive attention. Public
education has been suggested as a method of creating a ''consumer demand"
for low noise level appliances, etc. Information and education of all
government agencies, private and public purchasing agents, contractors
and other groups should provide another prevention alternative to maximize
use of low noise level equipment and methods. There have been suggestions
of national requirements for labeling of equipment and for noise omission
standards applicable to point of manufacturing for specified equipment, i.e.
motor vehicles, lawnmowers, etc.
Area noise levels caused by the accumulation of point sources (motor
vehicles in urban and freeway traffic) and location of activities (drag races,
auto races, dance halls, etc.). once standards have been esuddiskeu. will
require close working relationships with -State and local agencies. T'">e
Highway Department has already an environmental ream with specialists in
the noise field considering both existing problems and preventative design.
Guidelines and rules for location of conflicting activities, i.e. residenrial
vs. commercial or recreational, etc., (with standards established) should 1..
accomplished in a more scientific and acceptable manner and noise problems
prevented by worlung closely with planning and zoning agencies.
117
-------
Whether certain equipment should he nrohibilcd IVwm snl<\ should
be considered, i.e. cc-riain motor vehicle exhaust cuIihiI.1; :im( :111:! I; 11 ¦
devices.
Requirements on recreational nclivitics iii specified arc,'is, if anv,
must be considered (ski mobile::, model airplanes, etc.)
Noise evaluation should be considered in any motor vehicle inspection
program (if it is established in the Siric). Effective cnforcemo::'; o;' noise,
standards for irciividu.il motor vehicles will lie a problem for e.vrilur.'"on
(as arc visible emissions for air quality). Should Slate and local m>lice
be empowered, trained and equipped to issue citations ?
Low levels of noise may be subjective in nature, as arc odors in
air quality, and what is acceptable io one individual or group may not
be to another. This will be the more difficult area in establishing standards,
zoning requirements and in evaluating problems.
The "program development outline" has been projected to gain a
maximum of information on Oregon's noise problems, and for providing for
establishment of program priorities.
Several questions may arise in program development which suggest a
summary report should be available Drier to the next legislative session.
Are there specific projects that should receive approval of the EQC?
Should cities and counties be empowered or directed to enforce certain
standards ? Should Slate and local police be involved? Should regional
air pollution control agencies be involved in noise pollution? Should the
distinction between the current and occupational health responsibilities
be clarified statutorily?
118
-------
DEPARTMENT OF K N V! KON ,M 1 'NTAL QUALITY
AIR QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION
NOISE PflOGlUM DEVELOPMENT OUTLINE
Employ Program Director (Acoustical Engineer), followed by Noise
Control Specialist within GO days.
1. Refine Program Approach
2. Evaluate:
a. Current bacb^round nnd general information, including law,
DEQ operations, etc.
b. Ordi nances in file
c. Technical data on instrumentation and measurements
including A5TM, and other publications
d. 'Current and past complaints
3. Project sche'dule of meetings and/or of obtaining of information from
major cities and counties relative to current ordinances, past and curr
problems and needs (control, technical service, etc.).
Carry out meetings and prepare summarized report on a state-wide ba.1
4. Contact agencies such as Highway Department, Forest Service, Plannin
agencies, etc.
5. Contact and visit a well established and operating program such as Cily
of Chicago as well as contact other well known programs m get maxim
benefit of procedural, records and control experience.
6. Draft initial (a) noi.se standards and (b) standard method of mcasurcmci
for each source type.
7. Order central office control equipment.
8. Hold public meetings throughout state to briefly explain lav/, methods o
measurements and problems and projected programs, but particularly ti
receive complaints and information from citizens, etc. (well advertised
informal meetings).
Q f* - ~ J . * ^ cur1, ~ * t-w- ~ v.- r • *
119
-------
11.
12.
120
Kc-evaluate where necessary and project in detail noise cos:l rol program
implementation based upon classification of noise sources .and
problems and prep."re summary report. Orrier additional field
investigation equipment for district offices.
Propose noise standards, standard met hod of measurement and accompanying
administrative rules. Hold public hearings throughout Stale as
authorized. Adopt final standards and rules.
Train appropriate field personnel in rule interpretation, noite problem
solution, instrumentation and measurement and providing technical
assistance to citizens and agencies.
-------
i 'C;:;;': sc^i i ;¦»
c. *? i i m
i m r i ¦ i f h v»
I * < ' v. f « ' . I t I '
i • i /» i r, i .. \ /. .; ii i ¦ '.ii
Pi IE
I 'j c nm
Ocpfc. oi' Environment.-)! Qv.in.Iity| Noise Pre^m m, AQCT")
I s icc* t .on ,»ro'i •.c i>l..w i/• • • :i» '
! S. \V. Morrimn. P.
is costtioN i*» occu^iro i»< (r.AMf)
U wC'UMMJ TiTl.:. Q'
Aco'.:LLica.]_Zi:a'r_-r .Noisc—T^r.ilr.r.io'v CV.n;
««s 3isctn««»»iOM is intc'oi ? io s>«*»w
A SCW POM71 ON C "XANCl> IN f*ISTlNG r*©«UT»ON
?0 THIS* f'C5lT:ON (S \ . * i c.i.
TlMC "_J fi.nT.TtMt
. UMM*«r ttati mcmr or thc. auTi'i, or this f ssuion .n c.i. 'r-ircs^i i»
Plain;, orgar.izes. ciireels nnci cue ruinates noise pollution control i^ypnram
r.4"t*.niPTic» r.t 0 «j r'k. 5 • —ncti i» ?m i'o^t it(» t •. mn »c*- r.w * - * r j'ljr'.i i «s j * ¦ *«*. c t • •» >t r^.t co«".i''s;
-c* Tt"»» «• r en i »{•< vi'Tt or or total tiuc qn *ou^ *• c. • ;a) .% i c *
fj ..r.T "io
Plans noise pollution control program
Supervises, and coordinates as necessary with other prop-runs, nnd provider, puH'
functions as:
Developing, conducting, and maintaining a noise emission and source listing.
Operating and maintaining noise monitoring, sam^ling and analyzing cqu!pin;
Reviewing and acting on requests for new construclion
Investigating complaints;
Inspecting facilities and equipment
Conducting surveys and special studies
Develops procedures; makes recommendations for invoking thc procedures;
and may supervise tire enforcement of thc procedures for thc agency.
Develops proposals for needed new standards, regulations, and laws. EvaluateIn-
state, regional, and Federal la*vs, regulations and standards.
Appears at hearings on noise pollution violations and presents pertinent data; ap:::n:
at court actions as an e\-pcrt witness.
Develops and presents reports and studies on noise pollution to the Department an:,
public distribution and represents the Department at conferences and meetings; rev!
and evaluates staff reports and studies.
Develops and participates in a public information program to mini; *i.:o noi.-^
Provides consultative services to public and private agencies and official:; on the
identification, control, and rc.duci.ion of noise.
Develops thc budget for the program segment along wilh supportive data just if;. in.:
requests for manpower, facilities, equipment, and material.
Recruits and evaluates candidates for employment, evaluates employees, and make:-
recommendations to the Director regarding all types of needed personnel actions.
\? ANT QTMtM POSITIONS IN TQu« AC4NCY KAVC A00U7 THC SamC UuTICS. LI71Ti.CS *N0 VAM(S O* IM»1_0yC1 TH«tt Afc( iUfFiCltMT
LiC KX TfJA II HCETS ir NftCZCSARY
121
-------
12. Description of Duties - continued
5% Plans oncl implements training: programs for program stair and for represent:'
of other public agencies and private organizations interested in air pollution.
1% May supervise the organization and inair.ienance of a technical library rcsour; .
1% Performs related duties as required.
122
-------
i im i riwHti ¦.:*»11 s. *c 7. /1:11 ^ m.»a ,,t>-» tu i» w »'i ». ~ t1 '- it / .vi• icm w.c. mil
>.¦ I Vd 1 ¦ • r, T UiUCwT U1 I iVC C»» IIWLH IMClOff. u " 1 " :i. Jf: is am ~ . anO LL « C M T i C A 7 i o,n ip < • jrtt 1 hah T mi. n »
I *C M '
AN1.I l.liMuiB Of tMflO\F1 CLASS .vCr.Mf.C lll,.,'i.
(1) vacant P11E I (Specialist) Noise Control Dsr.ir.ccr
(Technician)
C».;C1*»Ol THU AMOUNT and kind O t £Uf»li NU »rVUY'>0?
Minimum supervision required. Has overall rcrponii'ui]ivies with additional a-si^'niy.ci't ~ bv
mcmcraiicam, conferences with Director. Work reuTcvcu bv Division rind Dcr.ar! iv.c n' D'v<
namc tLASCiric.vriON *».d %vcf ,
lc»cc«»r*c I { [_! | I LU"-'"-'" ^
LIST A."»* MAJOR tOU,PMrfr»CClAL S« jilP'CATIOS i&QuC&Twd. GivL M.A&ON. Aim &UMMAHU.. MAwQ.l CHAl.ui.l < r« T.iL POSITION
^CUY C-.'rt T1FY THAT \ riAVt RtAD T>^h. 1. «*"' n U CTIO! I i ANJ *IUT "1\L Afrj.iiMS MY oV.f\ ,»'«L ill\ i. TO
<1 lit ii« a O >^H '
-------
n'!C-;j u:.• i i.fi> norj
' l ¦ . I i IM A ¦ » • I • M. » .ill
\*i ><¦ » . f i.i l
fi I." • U • i.
¦""Ml *.»' '• ; - '.»r.i
O V.'OlfMMi T1 t *w f <"¦' IOSiTIOS
Specialist
>'•« 0t5Cm',IlC,,l '5 IMif-w'lO TO f.HOW
, K Nl W POMTtOM ''~lANGCi If4 f\lC7»K6 POSITION
I io tm»5 fuonio.N is ;V rCHMAsc.r 1' li"-' iju"a? os
I fun Tmr. ^Ai'T.Ti^r
ummamy «-? r v« cnt c r tm»- cuTirr. £** this pot «<«<•»»« -» »•- •• csi •.•¦.rn-.i tr k\i;*!\CS *.s< L'O! f"**'i^l" *\1 iC^'Ol '•) P L"* ; ?
¦vr.lunii'V'^, r.j'-'l 'V^rr^.v1 • conduces. in\^.siigation;:, and prepares rVporiP a:iu n.^siai c.'.'c":-..u._
.«! 7M«' »C'J IS * r*» Tiv- - » Ct".'«k SC--
' t.1 . * r 1 r c «. t. * "O-' ' *
vs->k ?
Gathers and orgrur>cs information and data on nciso pollution sou.-ccs sir.d on the
effectiveness of control facilities, equipment,' and instrumentation-, and assists in
analyzing and evaluating the information and data and in developing recommcndatio',
for improving the noise lcveJs,
Conducts and assists in performing s-rvcillanca, inspections, and investigations.
Assists in evaluating rccaicsts for new construction bv checking records, reviewing
plans, inspecting facilities and equipment and making reports and developing
recommendations.
Inspects and Rcinspects facilities and equipment to determine if noise levels arc
satisfactory.
Gathers and organizes for presentation basic data on violation.™ ot noise pollution
rules, and regulations and participates in evaluating and developing rccommeudari.-i'
related to the Eolations.
Meets with public and private officials and assists in providing professional and
technical advice.
Discusses noise pollution control with operators, managers, and owners of facili:!'
• which arc or may be actual or potential sources of noise pollution and seeks to r
voluntary compliance with laws, rules and regulations.
Participates in special surveys and studies
Appears at hearings or in court actions as a witness as required
Participates in the training of staff and representatives of other public agencies a:
private organizations.
May maintain a technical library resource and perform related duties as required.
i# ant OTMCn POSITIONS IN VOUA aCCNCY HAV( ASOUT TmC OUTtCS. LIST TITUC3 ANO NAHCS OF CM'LQft* THffCC AA{ SufftCltNf
1 CXTRA IT NECH5I3AHV
124
-------
* i iiwMt . i m. u'nr, *11 v 111 > ¦ mu*', a . , r rv :uih iiv,m t •„ i u.i i «. ^ • ¦ t. i u I i '~ k\ •-. «• .\ »
No: ^ c:.l7 as related to traiuhu;, ote,
i' • r.iiArwvi^ru fiv» oh h writ fiw i.^tc; Twc»n na» i. U ang CLa:. :.i nt, a i .on 'j if «nuL t»,A N vA :nu
I . h -1 * ~» •-
•l »r,Z* riL, ¦*«; LK or LM»«cO*U» CI.A5 3 ,vUki>.w "ML-
r^CSCniltC THf AMOUNT AN3 MNJ OF SbTIVlflCN CXtPCl'.IU vIVLft TMlC I'OS.TlON. nOW li, VVOHH A55lC rti'J amO fiCVILVYi.U
Minimum supervision should be re qui red ones assignments are made. Assignments hy new-
asd by -direct supervision oi" Acoustics engineer
CUAii.KlCATlCN. All.*, wcri: INC. TITwC Of IMMlOlAIC Syf'CHVISOR
Aeousrical EIiv.vir.ccr
r.uscwicc t11c r i:«r> A'lauM of ccNT/d. ucoyMna
Frequent contacts v/Kh industry. public and citizens'
\<>iat *»,«-. 7ml TY'-r *s3 »».tG.;r*.r> .;»• urf"ir".«c • /u.cv'i.jr.o Ano ' cruui o» i »j»*r« f*'"(.*ui;.L s ti.f j Ttwr [ c \ i .-Of »* ,aut(,m.NT1 tuol:.. machines o^icc maciiini u oh hctok vlhic.us OPtwArcn on job anu lmo.v i'ui«cci«r or n^c
Sound mcasuriuc: and recording equipment
»»•;** '.CMrnuLt—cmlc^ *on *.~ »¦ c a j. womkjng conditions- ocicmsL i^nu$jal Klir.s, i> Lmtions. on aiSAr-M^c.A;»u^ *.l'
O MUi. 3*r s Tvr* 5A1UC.C.Vv .
H-; :>• TMu°n£. - CJN '] • Good - noa-hazardous
a ~oav.Au lhucation ncoumLO ron this position
C LLS^ Thai. I ft S H -CHOOW G Hlin SCHOOL CI 0 USiwr 3 s. VftC ATI ON AL fCHOOL G SOME COLCCUT ^ COLLCCfT OMAOUaTION Cj '"0»»",UATP. ¦ TL'IJY
~CA.'LMIC COUf»VU ANU/Ou *4 A J P M I *f.AU1 , Cil G.»*.r
AcourjLicn, Aiath, or Physics [ 4 ; BS j Acoustics preferred
CXfCulCNwC '(CQUirrEO
Education as above - preferred acoustics
CS CC:aL--*!LLS -3y«Cr.3
Ability to uj:dcrstand equipmen!-, set up studies, and evaluate results.
) it- HiCw *'Car.or. 19 KS.guesrt.j. aivt aca^on, ano ^mmaki.i. majom cmanulv in t»«i. fOi»« no'i
nu:»
lil U-r»TIFV THAT 1 hAVt tlHAO TliL INi*. H'JCTIONS ;nG THAT Tfic. AMb'.VCM.S AlxL M
r nv, N -Vf .() #!•»!.
- .': i : v i«i«
• NCO
IT.
AT. Pnttcr^on. Director, AOCD
OAru
i Anrruii in* mi \i.t
I'Ui *-U AUU AtlY lU'lMl',, J,
'() THE PLST cr MY
-------
.S':crctnvv 23
I 1 f f. T C L i f I • . l I f.c. I 'V.I i I Dr.
cut ^_oL_Znr..
5 WOK), UNIT
I 'ON »,o
Ai.r—Q ii;u ii.y _Control..Divi.'iiou F. V.\ Morrison,- J?or;
.h tO'-iriON IS OCCurtLO liV INAMC)
6 .VO'iMNS TlTcr Or
I'Jf.
/acant (new)
Secretary for
Noi>e and
Mo! or
i',, OreCMt'TiON 1S tNTfN"»3 10 SHOV.
to tins i-osjTion is
»•« "M tufM
-J L 1 M
•*A NCV. (j LIUN..I-5 ,•< CXJ5TINO r*o$.T««N
L^r f ULU.TlMt
•j M*'»T
yMMAf.y o» "l«r si-Tirs Of this iO>iT'C?i !•< wsc MhiCNtr i*
'lencrai .^ecrct.-iry for poise y.olUitin:i control prcrTra;.". and motor vehicle: ^v^'wrm and nr^iM
(-T*.C>:i,,T:Os« O* "}«*?! 1 " "«0 T C T».'* t t»«i v c b r iw ;i(f«sf - r « <** *« - t s r» i. ' Mnr -pat -og wsC'i1;'*^: iotr>
,»<* a» 'i«f ;»rir c*« c»c*' yur» o» **n»i«.r*ct o» 131*1 Ti»»r o« .vtr» on wes?>«
cf j»t ;i«m 1
WOI'K ft1*" CMh' • Z/
Takes dictation and transcription from teckiical staff; types letters, memorandum::
and technical reports.
Receives reports from staff, regions, and public relative to cmisrio!'- iVo;-\ :nw"
vehicles. Cliecks validity of report with Department of Motor Vehicles; procc r".:-:.
report, scuds letter of notification, maintains records.
Performs general stenographic duties, reproduces reports, e>:pcnsos accounts,
activity reports, transcribes data and maintains section files. Types and checks
for accuracy documents and reports to be printed.
Assists in ordering supplies for office, laboratory and field operations and chec!-:.~
upon delivery and receipt.
Maintains records and distributes reports for noise and motor vehicle programs.
Receives telephone calls and answers questions 011 noise and motor vehicles when
requested; refers technical and policy matters to proper person; meets public v/h.
requested^
Types citations, findings of fact, final orders and related legal papers.
Assists in emergency stenographic services for other sections of the Division.
1 19 ANT OTNCR POSITIONS IN TOUH AGCftCT MAVC A»OYT THC SAMC OuTICS (.1ST TITICS ANO NAM(S Of CMP^OtCS THRU *«f. JU^ftCIlNT
126
-------
(_ lor :ju'iuv';r"ii!iic riml nff^o wori; rcr !i «i (o noiMj
n;i t oi.k:*ol m u'-rvtin.
'•••,« . T c ¦ .M 'A'CMUt' I I , VJ Or* MAW* I wt'LOU •• - f l»U .1. » V . . KUi^ ; i. K i,'i , » I { A T t „» > I h >« I
/.'-'•I Li'l Of I."I CLASi.
. _> »• IOr» •. I'r.C'dl L.") AP.O ULiUlT Tir u/'TOtiS
Tabulating, typing error, nnd verifications with Motor Vehicle Department can be serious
•F jon Kfouii t.s rvpir.c j r> 1
I
.»»ti ,trouir»cs r.-f j timc | c i 11 ] ir- *v 1 «- *»•» ".'i A-.y .
:H«".;r,irTio;j or 'hciiim; j i | y !.•*•.
ji.-uncv, emc< nut). j I ( * I c«i* c • l
i' r *:w •¦'fcjen >''' joul*-. v alhi »«u cmi;-. y« ; on mv:o,i v lmiclli* o^i'iati i os ;on *»o i < .•;¦• \* T:mc
Xerox, etc. relating to general office*, training for transcribing sound records
Pi'M CHjlC. v. nuN r>il' ! 'VOiMINi CC'l>» T1 ON 5 DCSwHI&t unu£»LAW HtSNS. t X t ¦« 1 » poim*c r.ouCAnos* wicuiaco i»on this position
?*" tf.s THAN HIGH f.r^OOL s HIGH CSI1O0L C OUSl'.CSS. VOCATIONAL SCHOOL Q SOMr. SOLLLCt G COLLiSt" C »~ AO U<* TION ~ -"AQUAli. .7 j ~"
. * itMiC Cduxit V.ilHK A.N^/OR MAjCtf 1 Vt'.AIt* 1 DCG.ltE ' C SPfZIAl TkAIMNw nrc'MMtn
i I
Secretarial i j j liqvoyaLcj.it.j^rpericnce
> t-'LiULN^i ilCCUIRCC
One year of experience preferred (or equivalent training
f'tCAU v.. LUb
• r ioatio*. i ^ ouivjt ifc:- i«£.a-,on. anu jc ;ujwi< tr« t »i«- ko iuf»
C.-TOlT't im.\T I -uv£ mTAD T'.'.r. :N3T«i'JCT10M3 A.iO THAT T>»t AN jV.'Lflr» AU'l MY CV.'M A'O A} i_ |K"JL ^ 1 r> u _. r, r v ,
4 Aui. AG J a;.'
r < 111i
^ (tu:.
t h£ ljcct or my KNowLSrr.r TU*. stathmcnt^ maoc nebcin ari: Aricuiurt. a hp co'-'ficrn i -cli-t* as nchu »oovr. i unuli.
• Z PfTOPO^rO ClIANCt 15 Af»f ncvr.^ T H t INC.If.M'l.f.r MUST C.-UALIf*> ro»? THr. NCW LLAbS
127/128
-------
Appendix B
• DEQ PROPOSD NOISE CONTROL REGULATIONS
• OREGON NOISE CONTROL REGULATIONS,
AS AMENDED
• CHAPTER 467, 1977 REPLACEMENT PART:
NOISE CONTROL
• OREGON MOTOR VEHICLE NOISE CONTROL LAW
129/130
-------
DEPARTMENT OF [NIVINONMENTAL DUALITY
AIR QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION
September, 1973
Propossd
Noise Control Regulations
131
-------
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIP.O.'iMEMTAL QUALITY
AIR QUALITY COIITROL DIVISION
September, 1973
Proposed
Noise Control Regulations for Off-Road
Recreational Vehicles and Motorcycles
A. PURPOSE. The purposes of these regulations are \,o:
1. Prohibit the .sale of new motorcycles and snowmobiles which
exceed specified noise emission limits.
2. Prohibit the sale of new exhaust systems which cause any new or
used motorcycle cr off-road recreational vehicle to exceed specified
noise emission limits.
3. Prohibit modifications of new and used motorcycles, off-road
recreational vehicles, and their exhaust systems, which nay increase
noise.
4. Prohibit the use of motorcycles and off-road recreational ve-
hicles which have inadequate mufflers or which are modified to
increase noise.
5. Require persons owning or controlling property to control the
use of all motor vehicles on that property such that ambient noise
limits are not exceeded on noise sensitive property.
B. DEFINITIONS. As used in these regulations, unless otherwise required
by context:
1. "Department" means the Department of Environmental Quality.
2. "Farm Tractor" means any motor vehicle designed primarily for use
in agricultural operations for drawing or operating plows, mowing
machines or other implements of husbandry.
3. "Industrial or Construction Vehicle" means any motor-vehicle
designed primarily for industrial or construction work and not for
use on public roads including, but not limited to, fork-lift trucks,
front-end loaders, scrapers and compactors.
132
-------
-2-
4. "Motor Vehicle" means any vehicle which is, or is designed
to be, self-propelled.
5. "Motorcycle" means any motor vehicle, except farm tractors,
designed to travel on not rare than three wheels which are in
contact with the ground.
6. ".r!oise Level" means weighted sound pressure level measured
by the use of a metering characteristic with an A, B or C frequency
weighting network and reported as d3A, d33 or d3C respectively.
7. "floise Sensitive Property" means real property on which out-
doors speech communication appropriate for residential use is
¦important or on which people normally sleep, including but not
limited to houses, apartments, hospitals and schools. Hotels and
motels are defined as ncise sensitive property between the hours
of 3 p.m. and 8 a.m. Other property used for commercial ,
industrial, or agricultural purposes is not defined to be
noise sensitive propercy.
8. "Off-road Recreational Vehicle" means any motor vehicle used
primarily for recreational purposes including, but not limited to,
snov/mobiles and all-terrain type vehicles.
9. "Person1'' ir.eens the United States Government and agencies thereof,
any state, individual, public or private corporation, political sub-
division, governmental agency, municipality, industry, co-part-
nershi.o, association, firm, trust, estate, or any other legal entity
whatever.
10. "Public Road" means every street., alley, road, highway and
thoroughfare in this State used by the"public- or dedicated or
appropriated to public use.
11. "Racing Event" means any competition using motor vehicles,
conducted under a permit issued by the governmental authority
having jurisdiction or, if such permit is not required, then
under the auspicies of a recognized sanctioning body.
12. "Sound Pressure Level" (SPL) means 20 times the logarithm to the
base 10 of the ratio of the rcot-meen-square pressure of the sound to
the reference micronewtons per square meter.
133
-------
NOISE STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS
1. No person shall'sail or offer for sale a new motorcycle or
snowmobile which produces a maximum noiss level exceeding the
noise limits specified in Table I..
Table I
Maximum Allowable Noise Emission Measured at 50 feet
For New llotorcycl es and Snov.mobiles
Vehicle Tvoe Date of Manufacture Noise Limit, dSA
* ¦ , ¦ —— — i - , , , 7
Motorcycle Before Jan. 1, 1975 85
After Dec 1, 1974 . 80
Snowmobile Before Jan 1, 1975 82
After Dec 1, 1974 80
2. No person shall sell or offer for sale an exhaust system or
part thereof which causes the motorcycle or off-road recreational vehicle
to which it becomes attached to exceed the noise levels of Table II.
3. No person shall modify,or authorize modification on, the exhaust
system of any. motorcycle engine or off-road recreational verncle engine
in a manner which will amplify or increase the noise emitted by the
exhaust system of such vehicle, above that emitted by the exhaust
system specified as original equipment for that engine-, and in no
case shall any motorcycle or off-road recreational vehicle exceed
the ncise limits specified in Table II.
4. No person shall operate any off-road recreational vehicle or any
motorcycle which:
a. Has been modified in a manner which amplifies or
increases the noise emitted by the exhaust system of the engine
of such vehicle, above that emi-ted by the exhaust system
specified as original equipment for that engine, or
b. Exceeds the noise levels specified in Table II
when tested by a stationary test procedure.
TABLE II
Maximum Allowable Noise Emission Measured at 25 Feet
For Off-Road Recreational Vehicles and Motorcycles
(Stationary Test)
Effective Date Maximum Noise Level, dBA
January 1, 1974 94
January 1, 1975 88
134
-------
-4-
5. flo person shall cause, suffer, allow, permit or fail to control
the use of motor vehicles, except for racing events, on property
owned by him or under his control such that the ambient noise levels
specified in Table III are exceeded, as measured at any noise sensitive
property line.
TABLE III
Maximum Allowable Ambient Noise Limits for Off-Road
Recreational Vehicles and Motorcycles
(Hot to be exceeded at any noise sensitive property line)
Tim? Maximum Noise Level, dBA
9 a.m. - 9 p.m. 60
9 p.m. - 9 a.m. 50
D. TEST I.'13: All testing of motor vehicle noise shall be conducted in
accordance with test procedures adopted by the Department.
135
-------
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIROririEMTAL QUALITY
AIR QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION
September, 1973
Proposed
Noise Control Regulations for Road Vehicles
A. PURPOSE. The Purposes of these regulations are to:
1. Prohibit the use of any new or used road vehicle which has
an inadequate exhaust system, which has been r:odified to increase
noise emissions, or which is used in a manner to exceed specified
emission limits.
2. Prohibit modifications of new and used road vehicles, and their
exhaust systems, which may increase noise.
3. Prohibit' the sale of new exhaust systems which cause a new or
used road vehicle to exceed specified noise emission limits.
B. DEFIfMTIOrlS. As used in these regulations, unless otherwise
required by context:
1. "Bus" means any road vehicle designed or used for carrying
passengers and their personal baggage for compensation, but does
not include any taxicab as defined in OR5 431.050 (3).
2. "Department" means the Department of Environmental Quality.
3. "Farm Tractor" means any motor vehicle designed primarily
for use in agricultural operations for drawing or operating
plows, mowing machines or other implements of husbandry.
4. "Motor Vehicle" means any vehicle which is, or is designed to
be, self-propelled.
5. "Motorcycle" means any motor vehicle, except farm tractors,
designed to travel on not more than three wheels which are in
contact with the ground.
136
-------
-2-
6. "Noise Laval" means weighted sound pressure level measured by
use of a metering^characteristic with an A, 3 or C frequency
weighing network a'nd reported as d3A, d3B or d3C respectively.
7. "Person" means the United States Government and agencies
thereof, any state, individual, public or private corporation,
political subdivision, governmental agency, municipality, industry,
co-partnership, association, firm, trust, estate, or any other
legal entity whatever.
8. "Public Road" means every street, alley, road, highv/ay and
thoroughfare in this state used by the public or dedicated or
appropriated to public use.
9. "Road Vehicle-' means any motor vehicle registered for use
on public roads, including any attached trailing vehicles.
10. "Sound Pressure Level" (SPL) means 20 times the logarithm
to the base 10 of tn?. ratio of the root-mean-square pressure of
the sound to the reference pressure. SPL is given in decibels
(dB). The reference pressure is 20 micronewtons per square meter.
11. "Truck" means any road vehicle designed or used for carrying^
conveying or. moving over the public reads of this state any freight,
property, article or thing, and having a combined weight and
maximum load to be carried thereon of more than 6,000 pounds.
C. nOISE STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS.
1. Mo person shall operate any road vehicle at any
time or under any condition of grade, load,
acceleration or deceleration:
a. If that road vehicle has been modified in a manner
which amplifies or increases the noise emitted by the
exhaust system of the engine of such vehicle, above that
emitted by the exhaust system specified as original equipment
for that engine, .
b. J.f the noise emitted by that road vehicle exceeds
the noise levels specified in Table I when tested
by a stationary test procedure, or
c. In such a manner as to exceed the noise limits
specified in Table II.
137
-------
-3-
TABLE I
Maximum Allowable iloise Emission Measured at 25 Feet
for Road Vehicles (Stationary Test)
Max Allowable Effect.
Type
floise Level, dBA
Date
Truck
and
Bus
94
1/1/74
Motor-
94
1/1/74
cycles
83
1/1/75
Others
92
1/1/74
88
1/1/75
TABLE II
l!aximi:::i Allowable Hoise Levels Measured at 50 Feet
for Operation of Road Vehicles on Public Roads
Vehicle Speed Limit 'Effect.
Type 35 mph or less More than 35 mph Date
Truck 83 dBA 90 dBA 1/1/74
or Bus 85 90 10/1/74
Motor-
cycle 82 85 1/1/74
Other 76 82 1/1/74
2. No person shall modify, or authorize modification of, the exhaust
system of any road vehicle engine in a manner which will amolify or
increase the noise emitted by the exhaust system of such vehicle,
above that emitted by the exhaust system specified as original
equipment for that engine, and in no case shall any road vehicle
exceed the noise limits specified in Table I.
3. flo person shall sell or offer for sale an exhaust system or part
inereof uhich causes the vehicle to which it becomes attached to exceed
the noise levels of TABLE I.
D. TESTING. All testing of road vehicle-noise shall be conducted
in accordance with tost procedures adopted by the Department.
138
-------
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
AIR QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION
September, 1973
Proposed
Noise Control Regulation for Racing Events
PURPOSE. The purpose of tin's regulation is to control ambient
noise from racing events to levels suitable f~r speech cormuni-
cation and sleep, on r.oisa sensitive property.
DEFINITIONS. As used in this regulation, unless otherwise
required by context:
1. "Department" means the Department of Environmental Quality.
2. "Motor Vehicle" means any vehicle which "is, or is designed
to be, selT-prcpe112j.
3. "Noise Level" means weighted sound pressure level measured
by the use of a metering characteristic with an A, B or C fre-
quency weighting network and reported as d3A, dBB, or dBC
respectively.
4. "Noise Sensitive Property" means real prooerty on which
outdoors speech communication appropriate for residential use
is important or on which people normally sleep, including but
not limited to houses, apartments, hospitals and schools.
Hotels and motels are defined as noise sensitive property
between the hours of 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. Other property used
for commercial, industrial, or agricultural purposes is not
defined to be noise sensitive property.
5. "Person" means the United States Government and agencies
thereof, any state, individual, public or private corporation,
political subdivision, governmental agency, municipality, industry,
co-partnership, association, firm, trust, estate, or any other
legal entity whatever.
6. "Racing Event" means any competition using motor vehicles, including
boats, conducted under a permit issued by the governmental authority
having jurisdicition or, if such permit is not required, then
under the auspices of a recognized sanctioning body.
139
-------
-2-
7. "Sound Pressure Level" (SPL) means 20 tines the logarithm to
the bass 10 of the ratio of the root-mean-square pressure of the
sound to the reference pressure. SPL is given in decibels (dB).
The reference pressure is 20 micronewtons per square meter.
C. H0ISE STANDARD. Ho person shall cause, suffer, al^ow, permit or
fail to control racing events on property owned by or under the
control of such person, such that the ambient noise levels
specified in TA3LE I are exceeded at any noise sensitive
property line. The Department may grant exceptions
to this rule for racing events of regional or national signifi-
cance.
TABLE I
Maximum Allowable Ambient Noise Levels for-Racing Events
(Not to be exceeded at any noise sensitive property line)
Haximii;;) Allowable
Time Noise Level, d?.A Effective Date
9 a.m. - 9 p.m. 70 January 1, 1974
9 p.m. - 9. a.m 50
9 a.m. - 9 p.m. 60 January 1, 1975
9 p.m. - 9 a.m. 50
D. COMPLIANCE.
1. Owners and operators of racing facilities established on or
after January 1, 1974, shall be in compliance with this regulation
upon starting racing activities.
2. Owners and operators of racing facilities established before
January 1, 1974, shall demonstrate compliance or submit plans and
schedules for compliance to the Department before June 1, 1974,
for various types of vehicles and races. Department approval must
be obtained before conducting any racing events after June 1, 1974.
E. MEASUREMENT. Measurements shall conform to test procedures adopted
by the Department, or to recognized applicable standard methods
previously approved in writing by the Department.
¦ F. MONITORING AND REPORTING. Upon written notification from the
Department, all persons conducting racing events or owning or
operating racing facilities shall monitor noise from and hours
of racing events, and submit data to the Department in a form
and on such schedule as required by the Director.
140
-------
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
AIR QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION
September, 1973
Proposed
Noise Control Regulation for Public Roads
PURPOSE. The purposes of this regulation are to control, to
levels suitable for speech ccn^unication and sleep on nnise
sensitive property, ambient noise caused by operation of
motor vehicles on:
1. lie:/ public roads, and
2. Existing public roads where noise problems are recognized
by the Department and can be readily defined.
DEFINITIONS. As used in this regulation, unless otherwise
required by context:
1. "Ambient Noise" means the all-encompassing noise associated
with a given environment, being usually a composite of sounds
from many sources near and far.
2. "Department" means the Department of Environmental Quality.
3. "Noise Level" means weighted sound pressure level measured
by the use of a metering characteristic with an A, 3 or C frequency
weighting network and reported as dSA, dB3 or dCC respectively.
4. "Noise Sensitive Property" means real property on which
outdoors speech communication appropriate for residential use
is important or on which people normally sleep, including but not
limited to houses, apartments, hospitals and schools. Hotels and
motels are defined as noise sensitive Drooertv between the hours
of S p.m. and 3 a.m. Other property used for commercial ,
industrial, or agricultural purposes is not defined to be
noise sensitive property.
5. "Public Agency" means any political subdivision, agency, board,
department or bureau of the United States, the State of Oregon,
county, city or municipality, or board thereof.
141
-------
-2-
6. "Public Road" moans every street, alley, road, highway and
thoroughfare in this State used by the public or dedicated or
appropriated to public use.
7. "Statistical Noise Level" means the noise level which is
exceeded for a stated percentage of the time.
Ly is the noise level exceeded y% of the time.
L90 is the noise level exceeded 90% of the time.
L50 is the noise level exceeded 50^ of the time.
L10 is the noise level exceeded 10" of the time.
L] is the noise level exceeded 1% of the time.
Lq = Lmax and is the maximum noise level observed.
8. "Sound Prpssure Love!" (SPL) means 20 times the logarithm to
the base 10 of the ratio of the root-mean-square pressure of the
sound to the reference pressure. SPL is given in decibels
(dS). The reference pressure is 20 nicronawtons per square mater.
C. NOISE STANDARD AND REGULATION. Ho public agency shall cause,
suffer, allow or permit noise from traffic on any public road
such that the statistical noise levels specified in TABLE I
are exceeded, as measured at any noise sensitive
property line. Measurements shall conform to test
procedures adopted by the Department, or to recognized applicable
standards methods previously approved in writing by the Depart-
ment.
TABLE I
Maximum Allowable Ambient Noise Levels for Highways
in Any Hour (Not to be exceeded at any noise sensitive
property line)
l90 =
45 dBA
L50 =
50 dBA
LlO =
55 dBA
Ll =
60 dBA
1-max =
70 dBA
D. COMPLIANCE.
1. New roads shall comply immediately.
2. Public agencies which have jurisdiction over existing roads
shall, upon written notification from the Department, comply in
accordance with plans and time schedules filed with ani approved
by the Department.
142
-------
-3-
E. I-iOIlITORITIG A;!D REPORTING. Upon notification fron the Depart-
ment, public agencies shall monitor ncise from public roads
which are under their jurisdiction, and submit data to the
Department in a form and on such schedule as required by the
Director.
143
-------
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
AIR QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION'
September, 1973
Proposed
Noise Control Regulations for Industry and Commerce
A. PURPOSE. The purpose of these regulations is to control
ambient noise rro:n industry and commerce, excluding con-
struction activities, to levels suitable for speech
communication and sleep, on noise sensitive property.
B. DEFINITIONS. As used in these regulations, unless otherwise
required by context:
1. "Ambient floise" means the all-encompassing noise associated
with a given environment, being usually a conposite .of sounds
from many sources near and far.
2. "Department" means the Department of Environmental Quality.
3. "Emergency Equipment" means noise emitting devices required to
avoid or reduce the severity of accidents. Such equipment includes, but
is not limited to^safety valves and other pressure relief devices.
4. "Equivalent Octave Band Level" (L^O means a measured sound
pressure level converted to eauivalent^Toudness at a frequency of
1,000 Hertz.
5. "Industrial or Commercial" pertains to equipment, facilities,
operations or activities for manufacturing for use and for profit,
or equipment, facil ities, operations or activities for the purchase,
storage, handling, sale or exchange of merchandise or commodities.
6. Motor Vehicle" means any vehicle which is, or is designed to
be, self-propelled.
7. "Noise Level" means weighted sound pressure level measured by
the use of a metering characteristic with an A, B or C frequency
weighting network and reported as dBA, dBB or dBC respectively.
144
-------
-2-
8. "Noise Sensitive Property" means real property on which
outdoors speech communication appropriate for residential use
is important or'on v/hich people normally sleep, including but not
limited to houses, apartments, hospitals and schools. Hotels and
motels are defined as noise sensitive property between the hours
of S p.m. and 8 a.m. Other property used for commercial,
industrial, or agricultural purposes is not defined to be noise
sensitive property.
9. "Person" means the United States Government and agencies
thereof, any state, individual, public or private corporation,
politic?. 1 subdivision, governmental agency, municipality, industry,
co-partnership, association, firm, trust, estate, or any other
legal entity whatever.
10. "Public Road" means every street, alley, road, highway and
thoroughfare in this State used by the public or dedicated or
appropriated to public use.
11. "Sound Pressure Level" (SPL) means 20 times the logarithm to
the base 10 of the ratio of the root-mean-square pressure of the
sound to the reference pressure. SPL is given in decibels (d3).
The reference pressure is 20 micronewtons per square meter.
12. "!-:?,rring Device" means any device v/hich signals an unsafe or
potentially ci^rujerous situation.
C. iiOISE STANDARDS AMD REGULATIONS.
1. !!o person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit noise from
industrial or commercial equipment, facilities, operations and
activities, other than construction equipment, facilities,
operations and activities, such that the ambient noise levels
specified in TA3LE I are exceeded, as measured at any noise
sensitive property line.
TABLE I
Maximum Allowable Ambient Iloise Levels
(f.'ot to be exceeded at any noise sensitive property line)
Time that floise Source is Audible at
a Noise Sensitive Property Line, min./hr
Maximum Allowable
Noise Level, d3A
More than 42.
More than 20.
Mere than 5.
More than 0.6
Any time
45
50
55
GO
70
145
-------
-3-
9
2. No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit noise from
industrial or commercial equipment, facilities, operations and
activities rare than 6'minutes per hour, as measured at any noise
sensitive property line, such that:
a. The equivalent octave band level (Leqr) at 31.5 Hz
exceeds the LeC3 at 63 Hz by more than 5 db,
b. The LEGS of any octave band between 31.5 Hz and 3,000
Hz exceeds the numerical average of the Leob'S of the tv/o
adjacent octave bands by more than.5 dS, or
c. The Legs at 3,000 Hz exceeds the Leob at 4,000 Hz by
more than 5 db.
3. The noise limits specified in TABLE I of this section may be:
a. Increased up to 10 dB if the noise sensitive property is
zoned for industrial or commercial use.
b. Reduced up to 10 dB if neither the noise sensitive property
nor the property containing the noise source is zoned for indus-
trial or commercial use.
4. This regulation shall not apply to emergency equipment or
to warning devices required under occupational health regulations.
5. The Department may authorize exceptions for:
1. Unusual and infrequent events, and
2. flew development of noise sensitive property around established
industrial or commercial facilities.
3. Noise sensitive property which is owned or controlled by the
person who has control over the noise source.
In establishing exceptions, the following items shall be
considered:
1. Feasibility and cost of noise abatement.
2. Past, present and projected future land use.
3. Relative timing of land use changes and changes in noise levels.
146
-------
-4-
D. COMPLIANCE.
1. i!ew installations shall comply immediately.
2. Existing installations shall, upon written notification from
the Department, comply in accordance with plans and time schedules
filed with and approved by the Department.
E. MEASURE!'.ENT. Measurements shall conform to test procedures
adopted by the Department, or to recognized applicable standard
methods previously approved in writing by the Department.
F. MONITOR I :!G .-V;D REPORTING. Upon notification from the Director of
the Department, all persons control lino industrial or commercial
equipment or facilities shall monitor noise from and operating
times of such equipmentj facilities, operations or activities,
and submit data to the Department in a form and on such schedule
as required by the Director.
147
-------
The following guideline is being considered along with
proposed regulations for approval by the Environmental Ouali
Cornnission.
148
-------
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
AIR QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION
September, 1973
Proposed
floise Guidelines for Schools
A. PURPOSE. The puposes of these guidelines are to:
1. Ensure hearing conservation for occupants of, and
2. To provide ari adequate noise environment for speech communi-
cation in%primary, intermediate and secondary schools.
B. DEFINITIONS. As used in these guidelines, unless otherwise
required by context:
1. "Ambient Noise" means the all-encompassing noise associated
with a given environment, being usually a composite of sounds
from many sources near and far.
2. "Noise Level" means weighted sound pressure level measured
by the use of a metering characteristic vrith an A, B or C
frequency weighting network and reported as dBA, dCD or d3C
respectively.
3. "Preferred Speech Interference Level" (PSIL) means the
arithmetic average of the sound pressure levels in the octave
bands centered at 500, 1,000 and 2,000 Hertz (Hz).
4. "Sound Pressure Level" (SPL) means 20 times the logarithm
to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound to the
reference pressure. SPL is given in units of decibels (do). The
reference pressure is 20 micronewtons per square meter.
5. "Statistical Noise Level" means the noise level which is
exceeded a stated percentage of time.
149
-------
Ly is tho noise: level exceeded yf5 of the time.
L90 is the noise level exceeded 90"! of the time.
L50 is the noise level exceeded 50'! of the time.
L10 is the noise level exceeded 10:' of the time.
L} is the noise level exceeded If' of the time.
Lq = Lniax and is the maximum noise level observed.
GUIDELINE.
1. The occupants of a school should not be exposed to amplified
music exc ceding 8r d3A.
2. Hearing protectors.such as ear muffs or ear plugs should be
provided to students and instructors who are exposed to noise
from equipment found in wood, metal or auto shops whan such noise
levels exceed 85 dBA.
Table I rcay be used to estimate a noise level of 85 dBA
v;hen r.o sound level meter is available.
TABLE I
Coiiiiiiunication Distances for an
Ambient liaise Level of 85 dBA
Voice Level Speaker-Listener Distance
Normal Much less than one foot
Raised Less than one foot
Very Loud 1-1/2 feet
Shout 3 feet
Max. Vocal Effort 18 feet
3. The Preferred Speech Interference Levels (PSIL) anywhere
within instructional areas should not exceed 40 dB (<+7 d3A)
except in existing construction where a PSIL of 43 dB (50 dBA)
shall be allowed.
4. Ambient noise at a school building location should not exceed
the statistical noise levels of Table II between the hours of
7:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.
150
-------
-3-
TABLE II
Maximum Ambient Noise Levels
Lgr) = 45 d3A
L50 = 50 d3A
LlO = 55 dBA
Ll = 60 dBA
^max= 70 d3A
D. CO'PLTAIiCE. Compliance is voluntary, but is encouraged by the
Oepartrr-nt in the interest of hearing conservation and speech
ccrr-T.unication.
151/152
-------
OREGON NOISE CONTROL REGULATIONS
(Environmental Quality Commission Noise Control Regulations; Adopted July 19,
1974; Amended September 15, 1974; May 27, 1977; September 23, 1977)
35-005 POLICY. In the interest of public health and
welfare, and in accordance with ORS 467.010, it is
declared to be the public policy of the State of Oregon:
(1) to provide a coordinated state-wide program of
noise control to protect the health, safety, and welfare of
Oregon citizens from the hazards and deterioration of the
quality of life imposed by excessive noise emissions.
(2) to facilitate cooperation among units of state and
local governments in establishing and supporting noise
control programs consistent with the State program and
to encourage the enforcement of viable local noise con-
trol regulations by the appropriate local jurisdiction.
(3) to develop a program for the control of excessive
noise sources which shall be undertaken in a progressive
manner, and each of its objectives shall be accomplished
by cooperation among all parties concerned.
35-010 EXCEPTIONS. Upon written request from
the owner or controller of a noise source, the Department
may authorize exceptions as specifically listed in these
rules.
In establishing exceptions, the Department shall con-
sider the protection of health, safety and welfare of
Oregon citizens as well as the feasibility and cost of noise
abatement; the past, present and future patterns of land
use; the relative timing of land use changes and other
legal constraints. For those exceptions which it
authorizes the Department shall specify the times during
which the noise rules can be exceeded and the quantity
and quality of the noise generated, and when appropriate
shall specify the increments of progress of the noise
source toward meeting the noise rules.
35-015 DEFINITIONS. As used in this Subdivision,
(1) "Ambient Noise" means the all-encompassing
noise associated with a given environment, being usually
a composite of sounds from many sources near and far.
(2) "Any one hour" means any period of 60 con-
secutive minutes during the 24-hour day.
(3) "Commission" means the Environmental Quality
Commission.
(4) "Construction" shall mean building or demolition
work and shall include all activities thereto such as clear-
ing of land, earthmoving and landscaping, but shall not
include the production of construction materials.
(5) "Department" means the Department of En-
vironmental Quality.
(6) "Director" means the Director of the depart-
ment.
(7) "Emergency Equipment" means noise emitting
devices required to avoid or reduce the severity of ac-
cidents. Such equipment includes, but is not limited to,
safety valves and other pressure relief devices.
(8) "Existing Industrial or Commercial Noise
Sources means any industrial or commercial Noise
Source for which construction was commenced prior to
January 1, 1975.
(9) "Farm Tractor" means any motor vehicle
designed primarily for use in agricultural operations for
drawing or operating plows, moving machines or other
implements of husbandry.
(10) "Impulse Sound" means either a single pressure
peak or a single burst (multiple pressure peaks) for a
duration of less than one second as measured on a peak
unweighted sound pressure measuring instrument.
(11) "In-t/se Motor Vehicle" means any motor
vehicle which is not a new motor vehicle.
(12) "Industrial or Commercial Noise Source"
means that source of noise which generates industrial
or commercial noise levels.
(13) "Industrial or Commercial Noise Levels" means
those noises generated by a combination of equipment,
facilities, operations or activities employed in the produc-
tion, storage, handling, sale, purchase, exchange or
maintenance of a product, commodity or service and
those noise levels generated in the storage or disposal of
waste products.
(14) "Motorcycle" means any motor vehicle,
except farm tractors, designed to travel on not more than
three wheels which are in contact with the ground.
(15) "Motor Vehicle" means any vehicle which is, or
is designed to be self-propelled or is designed or used for
transporting persons or properly. This definition ex-
cludes airplanes, but includes water craft.
(16) "New Industrial or Commercial Noise Source"
means any industrial or commercial noise source for
which installation or construction was commenced after
January 1, 1975 on a site not previously occupied by the
industrial or commercial noise source in question.
(17) "New Motor Vehicle" means a motor vehicle
whose equitable or legal title has never been transferred
to a person who in good faith purchases the new motor
vehicle for purposes other than resale.
3-27-78 Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037
153
-------
81:7612
REFERENCE FILE
(18) "Noise Level" means weighted sound pressure
level measured by use of a metering characteristic
with an "A" frequency weighting network and reported
as dBA.
(19) "Noise Sensitive Property" means real property
on which people normally sleep, or on which exist
facilities normally used by people as schools, churches
and public libraries. Property used in industrial or
agricultural activities is not defined to be noise sen-
sitive property unless it meets the above criteria in more
than an incidental manner.
(20) "Octave Band Sound Pressure Level" means the
sound pressure level for the sound being measured within
the specified octave band. The reference pressure is 20
micropascals (20 micronewtons per square meter).
(21) "Off-Road Recreational Vehicle" means any
motor vehicle, including water craft, used off public
roads for recreational purposes. When a road vehicle is
operated off-road the vehicle shall be considered an off-
road recreational vehicle if it is being operated for
recreational purposes.
(22) "One-Third Octave Band Sound Pressure Level"
means the sound pressure level for the sound being
measured within the specified one-third octave band at
the preferred frequencies. The reference pressure is 20
micropascals (20 micronewtons per square meter).
(23) "Person" means the United States Government
and agencies thereof, any state, individual, public or
private corportation, political subdivision, governmental
agency, municipality, industry, co-partnership, associa-
tion, firm, trust, estate or any other legal entity whatever.
(24) "Preferred Frequencies" means those mean fre-
quencies in Hertz preferred for acoustical measurements
which for this purpose shall consist of the following set of
values: 20, 25, 31.5, 40, 50, 63, 80, 100, 125, 160, 200,
250, 315, 400, 500, 630, 800, 1000, 1250, 1600, 2000,
2500, 3150, 4000, 5000, 6300, 8000, 10,000, 12,500.
(25) "Previously Unused Industrial or Commercial
Site" means property which has not been used by any in-
dustrial or commercial noise source during the 20 years
immediately preceding commencement of construction
of a new industrial or commercial source on that proper-
ty. Agricultural activities and silvicultural activities of
an incidental nature shall not be considered as industrial
or commercial operations for the purposes of this defini-
tion.
(26) "Propulsion Noise" means that noise created in
the propulsion of a motor vehicle. This includes, but is
not limited to, exhaust system noise, induction system
noise, tire noise, cooling system noise, aerodynamic noise
and where appropriate in the test procedure, braking
system noise. This does not include noise created by road
vehicle auxiliary equipment such as power take-offs
and compressors.
(27) "Public Roads" means any street, alley, road,
highway, freeway, thoroughfare or section thereof in this
state used by the public or dedicated or appropriated to
public use.
(28) "Quiet Area" means any land or facility
designated by the Commission as an appropriate area
where the qualities of serenity, tranquility, and quiet are
of extraordinary significance and serve as an important
public need, such as, without being limited to, a
wilderness area, national park, state park, game reserve,
wildlife breeding area or amphitheater. The Department
shall submit areas suggested by the public as Quiet Areas
to the Commission, with the Department's recommenda-
tion.
(29) "Racing Events" means any competition using
motor vehicles, conducted under a permit issued by the
governmental authority having jurisdiction or, if such
permit is not required, under the auspices of a recognized
sanctioning body. This definition includes, but is not
limited to, events on the surface of land and water.
(30) "Racing Vehicle" means any motor vehicle that
is designed to be used exclusively in racing events.
(31) "Road Vehicle" means any motor vehicle
registered for use on public roads, including any attached
trailing vehicles.
(32) "Road Vehicle Auxiliary Equipment" means
thosp mechanical devices which are built in or attached to
a road vehicle and are used primarily for the handling
or storage of products in that motor vehicle. This
includes, but is not limited to, refrigeration units, com-
pressors, compactors, chippers, power lifts, mixers,
pumps, blowers, and other mechanical devices.
(33) "Sound Pressure Level" (SPL) means 20 times
the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the
root-mean-square pressure of the sound to the reference
pressure. SPL is given in decibels (dB). The reference
pressure is 20 micropascals (20 micronewtons per square
meter).
(34) "Statistical Noise Level" means the noise level
which is equalled or exceeded a stated percentage of the
time. An L10 = 65 dBA implies that in any hour of the
day 65 dBA can be equalled or exceeded only 10 percent
of the time, or for 6 minutes.
(35) "Warning Device" means any device which
signals an unsafe or potentially dangerous situation.
35-025 NOISE CONTROL REGULATIONS FOR
THE SALE OF NEW MOTOR VEHICLES.
(1) Standards and Regulations. No person shall sell
or offer for sale any new motor vehicle designated in this
section which produces a propulsion noise exceeding
the noise limits specified in Table A, except as otherwise
provided in these rules.
Noise Rcgulotion Reporter
154
-------
OREGON
S-22
81:7613
TABLE A
New Motor'Vehicle Standards
Moving Test At 50 Feet (15.2 meters)
Vehicle Type Effective For Maximum Hoise
Leve1, dBA
Motorcycles 1975 Model 06
1976 Model 83
1977-1982 Models 81
1983-1987 Models 78
Models after 1987 75
Snowmobiles as defined
in ORS 401.043 1975 Model 82
1976-1979 Models 78
Models after 1979 75
Truck in excess of
10,000 pounds 1975 Model 86
[(4535 kg)] GVWR 1976-1981 Models or Models manufactured
after Jan. 1, 1978 and before Jan. 1, 1902 83
Models manufactured after Jan. 1, 1982 and
before Jan. 1, 1985 80
Models manufactured after Jan. 1, 1985 (Reserved)
Automobiles, light trucks,
and all other road
vehicles 1975 Model 83
1976-1930 Models 80
Models after 1980 75
Bus as defined under
ORS 481.0 30 1975 Model 86
19 76-1978 Models 83
Models after 1978 80
3-27-78
Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037
155
-------
81:7614
REFERENCE FiLE
(2) Measu, dment
(a) Sound measurements shall conform to test
procedures adopted by the commission in Motor Vehicle
Sound Measurement Procedures Manual (NPC-S-21),
or to standard methods approved in writing by the
department. These measurements will generally be
carried out by the motor vehicle manufacturer on a sam-
ple of either prototype or production vehicles. A cer-
tification program shall be devised by the manufacturer
and submitted to the Department for approval within 60
days after the adoption of this rule.
(b) Nothing in this Section shall preclude the Depart-
ment from conducting separate or additional noise level
tests and measurements on new motor vehicles being
offered for sale. Therefore, when requested by the
Department a new motor vehicle dealer or manufacturer
shall cooperate in the reasonable noise testing of a
specific class of motor vehicle being offered for sale.
(3) Manufacturer's Certification.
(a) Prior to the sale of any new motor vehicle
designated in Table A, the manufacturer or a designated
representative shall certify in writing to the Department
that vehicles listed in Table A made by that manufacturer
and offered for sale in the State of Oregon meet
applicable noise limits. Such certification will include a
statement by the manufacturer that:
(i) The manufacturer has tested sample or prototype
vehicles.
(ii) That such samples or prototypes met applicable
noise limits when tested in accordance with the
procedures specified.
(iii) That vehicles offered for sale in Oregon are sub-
stantially identical in construction to such samples or
prototypes.
(b) Nothing in this Section shall preclude the Depart-
ment from obtaining specific noise measurement data
gathered by the manufacturer on prototype or production
vehicles for a class of vehicles for which the Department
has reasonable grounds to believe is not in conformity
with the applicable noise limits.
(4) Exceptions. Upon prior written request from the
manufacturer or designated representative, the Depart-
ment may authorize an exception to this noise rule for a
class of motor vehicles, if it can be demonstrated to the
Department that for that specific class a vehicle
manufacturer has not had adequate lead-time or does not
have the technical capability to either bring the motor
vehicle noise into compliance or to conduct new motor
vehicle noise tests.
(5) Exemptions:
(a) All racing vehicles, except racing motorcycles,
shall be exempt from the requirements of this section
provided that such vehicles are operated only at facili-
ties used for sanctioned racing events.
(b) Racing motorcycles shall be exempt from the
requirements of this section provided that such vehicles
are operated only at facilities used for sanctioned
racing events, and the following conditions are complied
with:
(i) Prior to the sale of a racing motorcycle, the pros-
pective purchaser shall file a notarized affidavit with
the Department, on a Departmentally approved form,
stating that it is the intention of such prospective
purchaser to operate the vehicle only at facilities used
for sanctioned racing events; and
(ii) No racing vehicle shall be displayed fox sale in
the State of Oregon without notice prominently affixed
thereto:
35-030 NOISE CONTROL REGULATIONS FOR
IN-USE MOTOR VEHICLES
(1) Standards and Regulations.
(a) Road Vehicles — No person shall operate any
road vehicle which exceeds the noise level limits specified
in Table B or C, except as otherwise provided in these
rules.
Noise Rcgulotion Reporter
156
-------
OREGON
S-22
81:7615
TABLE B
In-Use Road Vehicle Standards
Stationary Test
Vehicle Type
Model Year Maximum Noise Minimum Distance from
Level, dBA Vehicle to Measurement
Point
Vehicles in excess of 10,000
pounds (4535 kg) GVWR or
GCWR engaged in interstate^com-
mercs.-as permitted by Title 40,
Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 202, Environmental
Protection Agency (Noise
Emission Standards-Motor
Carriers Engaged 1n Inter-
state Ccmmerce) All
All other trucks in excess
cf 10,000 pounds[(4538 kg)] Before 1976
1976-1931
after 1931
88
94
91
88
50 feet (15.2 meters)
25 feet (7.6 meters)
25 feet (7.6 meters)
25 feet (7.6 meters)
Motorcycles
1975 and Before
102
After 1975
99
Front-engine automobiles,
light trucks and aTl
other front-engine road
vehicles
Rear-engine automobiles
end light trucks and mid-
engine automobiles and
light trucks
Buses as defined under
GR5 431.030
All
All
Before 1976
1976-197S
After 1973
95
97
94
91
88
[20 inches (1/2 meter)
20 inches (1/2 ireter)
20 inches (1/2 meter)
25 feet (7.6 meters)
25 feet (7.5 meters)
25 feet (7.6 meters)
3-27-78
Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C. 2CH37
1 R7
-------
81:7B1Q
RFFFRENCE FILE
TABLE C
In-Use Road Vehicle Standards
Moving Test At 50 Feet (15.2 meters) or Greater At Vehicle Speed
Vehicle Type
Vehicles in excess of
10,000 pounds (4536 kg)
GVWR or GCWR engaged 1n
Interstate conmerce as
permitted by Title 40,
Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 202, Environmental
Protection Agency (Noise
Emission Standards-Motor
Carriers Engaged in Inter-
state Conmerce)
All other trucks in excess
of 10,000 pounds (4536 kg)
GVWR
Motorcycles
Model Year
Automobiles, light trucks
and all other road vehicles
Buses as defined under 0RS
481.030
All
Before 1976
1976-1981
After 1981
Before 1976
1976
1977-1982
1983-1987
After 1987
Before 1976
1976-1980
After 1980
Before 1976
1976-1978
After 1978
Maximum Noise Level, dBA
35 mph Greater than
(56 kph) 35 mph (56 kph)
or less
86
86
85
82
84
81
79
76
73
81
78
73
86
85
82
90
90
87
84
88
85
83
80
77
85
82
77
90
87
84
Nonconforming "classic" and other "special interest"
vehicles may be granted an exception for this rule, pur-
suant to Section 35-010, for the purpose of maintaining
authentic equipment.
(b) Off-Road Recreational Vehicles — No person
shall operate any off-road recreational vehicle which
exceeds the noise limits specified in Table D.
Noise Regulation Reporter
158
-------
OREGON
S-22
81:7517
TABLE D
Off-Road Recreational Vehicle Standards
Allowable Noise Limits
Vehicle Type
Motorcycles
Snowmobiles
Boats
Underwater Exhaust
Atmosphere Exhaust
All Others
Front Engine
Mid and Rear
Engines
Model Year
1975 and Before
After 1975
1971 and Before
1972-1975
1976-1978
After 1978
All
All
All
All
Maximum Noise Level (dBA) and
Distance from Vehicle to
Measurement Point
Stationary Test
20 Inches (1/2 Meter)
102
99
100
95
97
Moving Test
at 50 Feet
(15.2 Meters)
86
84
80
77
84
84
(c) Exhaust Systems — No person shall operate any
road vehicle or off-road recreational vehicle with a
defective exhaust system. This rule is limited to exhaust
systems with the following defects:
(i) no muffler
(ii) leaks in the exhaust system
(iii) pinched outlet pipe
(d) Ambient Noise Limits — No person shall cause,
allow, permit, or fail to control the operation of motor
vehicles, including motorcycles, on property which he
owns or controls nor shall any person operate any such
motor vehicle if the operation thereof increases the
ambient noise level such that the appropriate noise level
specified in Table E is exceeded as measured from either
of the following points, if located within 1000 feet (305
meters) of the motor vehicle:
(i) noise sensitive property, or
(ii) the boundary of a quiet area.
TAGLE E
Ambient Standards for Vehicles Operated Near fioise Sensitive Property
Allowable Noise Limits
Time Maximum Noise Level, dSA
7 a.m. - 10 p.m. 60
10 p.m. - 7 a.m. 55
3-27-78 Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037
159
-------
81:7318
Not incluaed in this subsection are motor vehicles
operating in racing events, motor vehicles initially enter-
ing or leaving property which is more than 1000 feet from
the nearest noise sensitive property, motor vehicles
operating on public roads, and motor vehicles operating
off-road for non-recreational purposes.
REFERENCE FILE
(e) Auxiliary Equipment Noise Limits — (A)
No person shall operate any road vehicle auxiliary equip-
ment powered by the road vehicle's primary power source
which exceeds the noise limits specified in Table F,
except as otherwise provided in these rules.
TABLE F
Auxiliary Equipment Driven by Primary Ennine Noise Standards
Stationary Test At 50 Feet (15.2 netersj Or Greater
Model Year
Maximum iioise Level, dSA
Before 1975
1976-1973
After 1973
83
85
82
(B) As of June 1974, the Department does not have
sufficient information to determine the maximum noise
levels for road vehicle auxiliary equipment powered by a
secondary source. Research on this noise source will
be carried out with the goal of setting noise level limits
by 1/1/75.
(2) Measurement — Sound measurement shall con-
form to test procedures adopted by the Department in
Sound Measurement Procedures Manual (NPCS-1) and
Motor Vehicle Sound Measurement Procedures Manual
(NPCS-21) or to standard methods approved in writing
by the Department.
(3) Exemptions — (a) Motor Vehicles registered as an-
tique or historical motor vehicles licensed in accordance
with ORS 481.205 (4) are exempt from these regulations.
(b) Mutor vehicle warning devices are exempt from
these regulations.
(c) Vehicles equipped with at least two snowtread tires
are exempt from the noise limits of Table C.
(d) Motor vehicles described in section (i)(c),
which are demonstrated by the operator to be in com-
pliance with the noise levels in Table C, for operation
greater than 35 mph, are exempt from these regulations.
35-035 NOISE CONTROL REGULATIONS FOR
INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE.
(1) Standards and Regulations
(a) Existing Noise Sources. No person owning or con-
trolling an existing industrial or commercial noise source
shall cause or permit the operation of that noise source if
the statistical noise levels generated by that source and
measured at an appropriate measurement point, specified
in subsection (3) (b) of this section, exceed the levels
specified in Table G, except as otherwise provided in
these rules.
(A) New Sources Located on Previously Used Sites.
No person owning or controlling a new industrial or com-
mercial noise source located on a previously used in-
dustrial or commercial site shall cause or permit the
operation of that noise source, if the statistical noise
levels generated by that new source and measured at an
appropriate measurement point, specified in subsection
(3) (b) of this section, exceed the levels specified in Table
H, except as otherwise provided in these rules.
(B) New Sources Located on Previously Unused Site.
Notse Regulation Reporter
160
-------
OREGON
S-22
81:7619
(i) No person owning or controlling a new industrial or
commercial noise source located on a previously unused
industrial or commercial site shall cause or permit the
operation of that noise source if the noise levels generated
or indirectly caused by that new- noise source increase
the ambient statistical noise levels, LIO or L50, by more
than 10 dBA in any one hour, or exceed the levels speci-
fied in Table H, as measured-at an appropriate measure-
ment point, as specified in subsection (3) (b) of this
section.
(ii) The ambient statistical noise level of a new in-
dustrial or commercial noise source on a previously unus-
ed industrial or commercial site shall include all noises
generated or indirectly caused by or attributable to that
source including all of its related activities. Sources ex-
enpted from the requirements of section 35-035 (l),
(c), 5(d), (5)(e), (5)(0, (5)0), (5)(k), and (5)(I)
of this section, shall not be excluded from this ambient
measurement.
(c) Modified Noise Sources. After January l, 1975 and
before January I, 1978, no person owning or controlling
an existing industrial or commercial noise source shall
modify that noise source so as to violate the following
rules:
(A) If prior to modification an industrial or commer-
cial noise source does not exceed the noise levels in Table
H, the modified industrial or commercial noise source
shall not exceed the noise levels in Table H, except as
otherwise provided in these rules.
(B) If prior to modification an existing industrial or
commercial noise source exceeds the noise levels in Table
H, but does not exceed the noise levels in Table G, then
the modification shall not cause an increase in the ex-
isting statistical noise levels, except as otherwise provided
in these rules.
(d) Quiet Areas No person owning or controlling an
industrial or commercial noise source located either
within the boundaries of a Quiet Area or outside its
boundaries shall cause or permit the operation of that
noise if the statistical noise levels generated by that source
exceed the levels specified in Table I as measured within
the Quiet Area and not less than 400 feet (122 meters)
from the noise source.
(e) Impulse Sound. Notwithstanding the noise rules in
Tables G through I, no person owning or controlling an
industrial or commercial noise source shall cause or per-
mit the operation of that noise source if an impulsive
sound is emitted in air by that source which exceeds the peak
sound pressure levels specified below, as measured at an ap-
propriate measurement point, as specified in subsection
(3) (b) of this section: 100 dB during the hours 7 a.m. to
10 p.m. and 80 dB between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7
a.m.
(f) Octave Bands and Audible Discrete Tones. When
the Director has reasonable cause to believe that the re-
quirements of subsections (1) (a), (1) (b), (1) (c) or (1) (d)
of this section do not adequately protect the health, safe-
ty or welfare of the public as provided for in ORS
Chapter 467, the Department may require the noise
source to meet the following rules:
(A) Octave Bands. No person owning or controlling an
industrial or commercial noise source shall cause or per-
mit the operation of that noise source if such operation
generates a median octave band sound pressure level
which as measured at an appropriate measurement point,
specified in subsection (3) (b) of this section, exceeds
applicable levels specified in Table J.
(B) One-third Octave Bands. No person owning or
controlling an industrial or commercial noise source shall
cause or permit the operation of that noise source if such
operation generates a median one-third octave band
sound pressure level which, as measured at an appropriate
measurement point, specified in subsection (3)(b) of this
section, and in a one-third octave band at a preferred
frequency, exceeds the arithmetic average of the median
sound pressure levels of the two adjacent one-third octave
bands by:
(1) 5 dB for such one-third octave band with a center
frequency from 500 Hertz to 10,000 Hertz, inclusive.
Provided: such one-third octave band sound pressure
level exceeds the sound pressure level of each adjacent
one-third octave band,, or;
(ii) 8 dB for such one-third octave band with a center
frequency from 160 Hertz to 400 Hertz, inclusive.
Provided: such one-third octave band sound pressure
level exceeds the sound pressure level of each adjacent
one-third octave band, or;
(iii) 15 dB for such one-third octave band with a center
frequency from 25 Hertz to 125 Hertz, inclusive. Provid-
ed: such one-third octave band sound pressure level ex-
ceeds the sound pressure level of each adjacent one-third
octave band.
This rule shall not apply to audible discrete tones hav-
ing a one-third octave band sound pressure level 10 dB or
more below the allowable sound pressure levels specified
in Table J for the octave band which contains such
one-third octave band.
(2) Compliance, Upon written notification from the
Director, the owner or controller of an industrial or com-
mercial noise source operating in violation of the adopted
rules shall submit a compliance schedule acceptable to
the Department. The schedule will set forth the dates,
terms, and conditions by which the person responsible for
the noise source shall comply with the adopted rules.
(3) Measurement
(a) Sound measurement procedures shall conform to
those procedures which are adopted by the Commission
and set forth in Sound Measurement Procedures Manual
(NPCS-1), or to such other procedures as are approved
in writing by the Department.
(b) Unless otherwise specified, the appropriate
measurement point shall be that point on the noise
sensitive property, described below, which is further from
the noise source:
(A) 25 feet (7.6 meters) toward the noise source from
that point on the noise sensitive building nearest the noise
source,
(B) That point on the noise sensitive property line
nearest the noise source.
3-27-78
Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037
161
-------
81:7620
REFERENCE FILE
(4) Monitoring and Reporting
(a) Upon written notification from the Department,
persons owning or controlling an industrial or commer-
cial noise source shall monitor and record the statistical
noise levels and operating times of equipment, facilities,
operations, and activities, and shall submit such data to
the Department in the form and on the schedule re-
quested by the Department. Procedures for such
measurements shall conform to those procedures which
are adopted by the Commission and set forth in Sound
Measurement Procedures Manual (NPCS-l).
(b) Nothing in this section shall preclude the Depart-
ment from conducting separate or additional noise tests
and measurements. Therefore, when requested by the
Department, the owner or operator of an industrial or
commercial noise source shall provide the following:
(A) access to the site,
(B) reasonable facilities, where available, including but
not limited to electric power and ladders adequate to per-
form the testing,
(C) cooperation in the reasonable operation,
manipulation, or shutdown of various equipment or
operations as needed to ascertain the source of sound and
measure its emission.
(5) Exemptions: Except as otherwise provided in sub-
section (!)(b)(B)(ii), the rules in section 35-035 (l) shall
not apply to:
(a) Emergency equipment not operated on a regular or
scheduled basis.
(b) Warning devices not operating continuously for
more than 5 minutes.
(c) Sounds created by the tires or motor used to propel
any road vehicle complying with the noise standards for
road vehicles.
(d) Sounds resulting from the operation of any equip-
ment or facility of a surface carrier engaged in interstate
commerce by railroad only to the extent that such equip-
ment or facility is regulated by pre-emptive federal
regulations as set forth in Part 201 of Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, promulgated pursuant to section
17 of the Noise Control Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 1248,
Pub.L. 92-576; but this exemption does not apply to any
standard, control, license, regulation, or restriction
necessitated by special local conditions which is approved
by the Administrator of the EPA after consultation with
the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to procedures
set forth in section 17 (c)(2) of the Act.
(e) Sounds created by bells, chimes, or carillons.
(f) Sounds not electronically amplified which are
created by or generated at sporting, amusement, and
entertainment events, except those sounds which are
regulated under other noise standards. An event is a
noteworthy happening and . does not include informal,
frequent or ongoing activities such as, but not limited to,
those which normally occur at bowling alleys or amuse-
ment parks operating in one location for a significant
period of time.
(g) Sounds that originate on construction sites.
(h) Sounds created in construction or maintenance of
capital equipment.
(i) Sounds created by lawn care maintenance and snow
removal equipment.
(j) Sounds generated by the operation of aircraft and
subject to preemptive federal regulation. This exception
does not apply to aircraft engine testing, activity con-
ducted at the airport that is not directly related to flight
operations, and any other activity not preemptively
regulated by the federal government.
(k) Sounds created by the operation of road vehicle
auxiliary equipment complying with the noise rules for
such equipment.
(1) Sounds created by agricultural activities, other
than silviculture.
(6) Exceptions: — Upon written request from the
owner or controller of an industrial or commercial noise
source, the Department may authorize exceptions to sec-
tion 35-035(1), pursuant to section 35-010, for:
(a) Unusual and/or infrequent events.
(b) Industrial or commercial facilities previously es-
tablished in areas of new development of noise sensitive
property.
(c) Those industrial or commercial noise sources whose
statistical noise levels at the appropriate measurement
point are exceeded by any noise source external to the in-
dustrial or commercial noise source in question.
(d) Noise sensitive property owned or controlled by the
person who controls or owns the noise source or noise
sensitive property located on land zoned exclusively for
industrial or commercial use.
Noise Regulation Reporter
162
-------
OREGON
S-22
S"!:7021
TABLE G
Existing Industrial and Commercial Noise Source Standards
Allowable Statistical Noise Levels in Any Cne Hour
Pre-1973
7 a.m. - 10 p.m.- 10 p.m. - 7 a.m.
Post - 1977
7 a.m. - 10 p.m. 10 p.m. - 7 a.m.
L50 - 60 dBA
L1q - 65 d3A
L-j - 80 dBA
Lcn - 55 dEA
ou
L1q - 60 dBA
L-j - 65 dSA
L5Q - 55 dBA
L-j 0 - 60 dBA
L-j - 75 dBA
L50 - 50 dBA
L-jq - 55 dCA
L1 - 60 d3A
TABLE H
New Industrial and Comnercial Noise Source Standards
Allowable Statistical Noise Levels in Any One Hour
7 a.m. - 10 p.m.
10 p.m. - 7 a.m.
L5Q - 55 d3A
L1Q - 60 dBA
L1 - 75 dBA
L5Q - 50 dBA
L^0 - 55 d3A
L-j - 60 dBA
TABLE I
Industrial and Commercial Noise Source Standards for Quiet Areas
Allowable Statistical Noise Levels in Any One Hour
7 a.m. - 10 p.m.
10 p.m. - 7 a.m.
L50 - 50 dBA
L-jq - 55 dBA
L5q - 45 dBA
L1q - 50 dBA
L-j - 60 dBA
L1 - 55 dBA
3-27-78
Published by 1 HE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037
163
-------
81:7622
REFERENCE FILE
TABLE J
Median Octave Band Standards for Industrial and Comrierclal Noise Sources
Allowable Octave Band Sound Pressure Levels
Octave Band Center
Frequency, Hz 7 a.m. - 10 p.m. 10 p.m. - 7 a.m.
31.5.
68
65
63
65
62
125
61
56
250
55
50
500
52
46
1000
49
43
2000
46
40
4000
43
37
8000
40
34
35-100 VARIANCES. (1) Conditions for Granting.
The Commission may grant specific variances from the
particular requirements of any rule, regulation or order
to such specific persons or class of persons or such
specific noise source upon such conditions as it may deem
necessary to protect the public health and welfare, if it
finds that strict compliance with such rule, regulation or
order is inappropriate because of conditions beyond the
control of the persons granted such variance or because
of special circumstances which would render strict com-
pliance unreasonable, or impractical due to special
physical conditions or cause, or because strict com-
pliance would result in substantial curtailment or closing
down of a business, plant or operation, or because no
other alternative facility or method of handling is yet
available. Such variances may be limited in time.
(2) Procedure for Requesting. Any person requesting a
variance shall make his request in writing to the Depart-
ment for consideration by the Commission and shall
state in a concise manner the facts to show cause why
such variance should be granted.
(3) Revocation or Modification. A variance granted
may be revoked or modified by the Commission after a
public hearing held upon not less than 20 days notice.
Such notice shall be served upon the holder of the
variance by certified mail and all persons who have filed
with the Commission a written request for such notifica-
tion.
Noise Regulation Reporter
164
-------
Chapter 467
1977 REPLACEMENT PART
Noise Control
467.010 Legislative findings and policy
467.020 Emission of noise in excesa ot prescribed
levels prohibited
467.030 Adoption of noise control rules, levels and
standards
467.033 Determination of exempt noise emission
sources
467.040 Powers of Environmental Quality Commis-
467.050 Enforcement powers
467.060 Issuance, revocation or modification of
specific variances; grounds
467.100 Local regulation of noise sources
467.990 Penalties
CROSS REFERENCES
Exhaust systems required, noise emission standards. Motor vehicles, unnecessary muffler noise prohibited,
483.449 483.448
Inclusion of noise emission standards with motor vehicle
emission standards, 468.370
165
-------
NOISE CONTROL
467.010 Legislative findings and poli-
cy. The Legislative Assembly finds that the
increasing incidence of noise emissions in this
state at unreasonable levels is as much a
threat to the environmental quality of life in
this state and the health, safety and welfare
of the people of this state as is pollution of the
air and waters of this state. To provide protec-
tion of the health, safety and welfare of
Oregon citizens from the hazards and deterio-
ration of the quality of life imposed by exces-
sive noise emissions, it is hereby declared that
the State of Oregon has an interest in the
control of such pollution, and that a program
of protection should be initiated. To carry out
this purpose, it is desirable to centralize in the
Environmental Quality Commission the
authority to adopt reasonable state-wide
standards for noise emissions permitted
within this state and to implement and en-
force compliance with such standards.
[1971 c.452 §1)
467.020 Emission of noise in excess of
prescribed levels prohibited. No person
may emit, cause the emission of, or permit the
emission of noise in excess of the levels fixed
therefor by the Environmental Quality Com-
mission purusant to ORS 467.030.
11971 c.452 $31
467.030 Adoption of noise control
rules, levels and standards. (1) In accord-
ance with the applicable provisions of ORS
chapter 183, the Environmental Quality
Commission shall adopt rules relating to the
control of levels of noise emitted into the
environment of this state and including the
following:
(a) Categories of noise emission sources,
including the categories of motor vehicles and
aircraft.
(b) Requirements and specifications for
equipment to be used in the monitoring of
noise emissions.
(c) Procedures for the collection, reporting,
interpretations and use of data obtained from
noise monitoring activities.
(2) The Environmental Quality Commis-
sion shall investigate and, after appropriate
public notice and hearing, shall establish
maximum permissible levels of noise emission
for each category established, as well as the
method of measurement of the levels of noise
emission.
(3) The Environmental Quality Commis-
sion shall adopt, after appropriate public
notice and hearing, standards for the control
of noise emissions which shall be enforceable
by order of the commission.
[1971 c.452 §2; 1973 c.107 §1; 1973 c.835 §159]
467.035 Determination of exempt
noise emission sources. (1) In addition to
the powers of the Environmental Quality
Commission described in ORS 467.060, the
commission by rule may exempt a class of
activity within a category of noise emission
sources from the application of a rule estab-
lishing maximum permissible levels of noise
emission for that category of noise emission
sources.
(2) In determining whether to grant an
exemption pursuant to subsection (1) of this
section, the commission shall consider:
(a) Protection of the health, safety and
welfare of the citizens of this state;
(bt Feasibility and cost of noise abate-
ment; and
(c) Past, present and projected patterns of
land use and such state and local laws and
regulations as are applicable thereto.
[1977 c.511 §31
467.040 Powers of Environmental
Quality Commission. The Environmental
Quality Commission has the power to investi-
gate complaints regarding excessive noise
emission, to hold hearings, to issue orders, to
make rules, to impose sanctions, and to do any
other thing necessary to carry out the policies
of this state as set forth in this chapter.
[1971 c.452 §4]
467.050 Enforcement powers. The
Environmental Quality Commission shall
have the further power to enforce compliance
with or restrain violation of this chapter or
rules or orders made thereunder in the same
manner provided for enforcement proceedings
under ORS chapter 468.
[1971 c.452 §5; 1973 c.826 §5; 1973 c.835 §160; 1974 s.s.
c.36 §16]
467.060 Issuance, revocation or modi-
fication of specific variances; grounds. (1)
The Environmental Quality Commission by
order may grant specific variances from the
particular requirements of any rule or stand-
ard to such specific persons or class of persons
or such specific noise emission source, upon
such conditions as it may consider necessary
to protect the public health, safety and wel-
fare. The specific variance may be limited in
duration. The commission shall grant a
specific variance only if it finds that strict
compliance with the rule or standard is inap-
propriate because:
166
-------
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
(a) Conditions exist that are beyond the
control of the persons applying for the
variance;
(b) Special circumstances render strict
compliance unreasonable, unduly burdensome
or impractical due to special physical condi-
tions or cause;
(c) Strict compliance would result in
substantial curfculment or closing down of a
business, plant or operation; or
(d) No other alternative facility or method
of operating is yet available.
(2) The commission by rule may delegate
to the Department of Environmental Quality,
on such conditions as the commission may
find appropriate, the power to grant variances
and to make the finding required by subsec-
tion (1) of this section to justify any such
variance.
(3) In determining whether or not a vari-
ance shall be granted, the commission or the
department shall consider the equities in-
volved and the advantages and disadvantages
to residents and to the person conducting the
activity for which the variance is sought.
(4) A variance may be revoked or modified
by the commission. The commission may
revoke or modify a variance if it finds:
(a) Violation of one or more conditions of
the variance;
(b) Material misrepresentation of fact in
the variance application or other representa-
tions of the variance holder;
(c) Material change in any of the circum-
stances relied upon by the commission or
department in granting the variance; or
(d) A material change or absence of any of
the circumstances set forth in paragraphs (a)
to (d) of subsection (1) of this section.
(5) The procedure for denial, modification,
or revocation of a variance shall be the proce-
dure for a contested case as provided in ORS
chapter 183.
[ 1977 c 511 $21
467.100 Local regulation of noise
sources. (1) Pursuant to this chapter, in order
to protect the health, safety and welfare of its
citizens, a city or county may adopt and en-
force noise ordinances or noise standards
otherwise permitted by law. A city or county
may also adopt such standards for a class of
activity exempted by the commission or noise
emission sources not regulated by the commis-
sion.
(2) The commission may by rule withdraw
from enforcement any or all of its rules or
standards adopted pursuant to this chapter
within the boundaries of any city or county, if
the commission finds such city or county:
(a) Has adopted noise standards that are
at least as stringent as and no less protective
than those standards adopted by the state; and
(b) Has a program of active enforcement
of such standards which, in the commission's
view, is at least as protective of the public
health, safety and welfare as would be the
enforcement provided by the department.
(3) The commission may modify or repeal
such a rule as is made in accordance with
subsection (2) of this section with regard to
any particular city or county if it finds materi-
al change in any of the circumstances relied
upon by the commission in making such rule.
Such rulemaking shall be in conformance
with the provisions of ORS chapter 183.
(4) Nothing in this section is intended to
preclude contractual arrangements between a
city or county and a state agency for services
provided for the enforcement of state or local
noise emission control standards.
[1977 c.511 §4]
467.990 Penalties. Violation of any
provision of this chapter or rules or orders
made under the provisions of this chapter is a
Class B misdemeanor. Each day of violation
shall be considered a separate offense.
[1971 c.452 §6, 1973 c.835 §161]
CERTIFICATE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL
Pursuant to ORS 173.170, I, Thomas G. Clifford, Legislative Counsel, do nereby certify that I have compared each
section printed in this chapter with the original section in the enrolled bill, and that the sections in this chapter are
enrmet copies of the enrolled sections, with the exception of the changes in form permitted by ORS 173.160 and other
changes specifically authorized by law.
Done at Salem, Oregon. Thomas G. Clifford
October 1. 1977. Legislative Counsel
167/168
-------
OREGON MOTOR VEHICLE NOISE CONTROL LAW
(Oregon Revised Statutes 483.448; December 14, 1976)
483.448. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a
highway unless it is equipped with an exhaust system in
good working order and in constant operation to prevent
excessive or unusual noise and annoying smoke.
(2) No person shall equip any motor vehicle with a
"muffler cut-out."
(3) No person shall operate, and no owner of any
motor vehicle shall permit to be operated upon any
public road, street or highway, any motor vehicle so as to
cause any greater noise or sound than is reasonably
necessary for the proper operation of such motor vehicle.
(4) The exhaust system required by subsection (1) of
this section shall be the motor vehicle's original or
replacement exhaust system which has been certified by
its manufacturer to the Department of Environmental
Quality to comply with the applicable noise emission
standards and rules of the Environmental Quality Com-
mission, and such system shall not be modified so as to
amplify or increase the noise emitted by the motor of
such vehicle above that emitted with the exhaust system
originally installed on such vehicle.
(5) A police officer who after stopping and examining a
motor vehicle finds the exhaust system to be in violation
of subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall issue a citation
to the driver for violation of this section. The citation
shall specify the particular manner in which the exhaust
system is in violation of subsection (1) or (2) of this sec-
tion and shall specify that a full defense to the citation
shall consist of the production to the appropriate court by
the person to whom the citation is issued of proof that:
(a) the exhaust system has been replaced with a system
certified by its manufacturer to the Department of En-
vironmental Quality to comply with the applicable noise
emission standards and rules of the Environmental
Quality Commission; or
(b) the vehicle complies with the applicable noise emis-
sion standards and rules of the Environmental Quality
Commission.
Proof for the purposes of this subsection shall be a cer-
tificate issued either by:
(i) the Department of Environmental Quality;
(ii) a business providing automotive repair, pursuant to
procedures approved by the Department of Environmen-
tal Quality; or
(iii) the police agency issuing the citation, based upon a
test administered by the police agency.
(6) A person who violates this section commits a Class
B traffic infraction. A person who is convicted of a viola-
tion of subsection (I) or (2) of this section shall surrender
to the division the certificate of registration of the cited
vehicle. If any person fails to surrender such certificate of
registration, the division shall forthwith direct any peace
officer to obtain possession by appropriate legal means of
the certificate and return it to the division. The certificate
of registration of a vehicle which has been surrendered
pursuant to this section shall be restored to the owner if
he files with the division the proof specified in subsection
(5) (a) or (5) (b).
3--M-77
Copyright © 1977 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
169/170
-------
Appendix C
• DOCUMENTS PERTINENT TO DEVELOPMENT OF
PROCEDURES MANUAL AND NOISE RULES
• DEQ WHITE PAPER: PROPOSED DEQ
NOISE STANDARDS
171/172
-------
DOCUMENTS PERTINENT TO DEVELOPMENT OF PROCEDURES MANUALS
AND NOISE RULES
(Included as Exhibit in May 24, 1974, DEQ Report to Environmental Quality Commission
on the Status of Proposed Noise Rules)
1. "Motor Vehicle Noise" - Report by the Technical Advisory Panel
on Motor Vehicle Noise for the California Legislative Assembly,
February 1973.
2. "Motor Vehicle Noise: Identification and Analysis of Situations
Contributing to Annoyance" prepared for the Automobile
Manufacturer's Association Inc. by Bolt Beranek and Newman
Inc.. Report 2082, June 1971.
3. "Transportation Noise Pollution: Control and Abatement"
NASA Langley Research Center and Old Dominion University;
NASA Contract NGT 47-003-028 dated 1970.
4. "Public Health and Welfare Criteria for Noise" by U.S. Environ-
mental-Protection Agency dated July 27, 1973, Report Number
550/9-73-002.
5. "Transportation Noise and Noise From Equipment Powered by
Internal Combustion Engines''by U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency dated December 31, 1971. Report No. NTID 300.13.
'6. James D. Miller, '-'Effects of Noise on People" U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency dated December 31, 1971, Report
No. NTED 300.7.
7. "Specification for Sound Level Meters" American National
Standard. Institute, Inc. approved April 27, 1971, Standard No.
ANSI SI. 4-1971.
8. "American Standard Specification for O etave, Half-Octave, and
Third-Octave Band Filter Sets" Anerican National Standard
Institute, Inc., approved May 4, 1966, Standard No. SI. 11-1966.
9. "Method for the Physical Measurement of Sound" American
National Standards Institute Inc., approved August 20, 1962,
Report No. ANSI SI.2-1962, reaffirmed 1971.
10. "Measurement of Automotive Passby Noise" by Ralph Hillquist
and Richard Bettis, Society, of Automotive Engineers Report No.
720275 dated January 1972.
U. "SAE Recommended Practice - Qualifying A Sound Data Acquisition
System - SAE" J134" 1973 SAE Handbook Society of Automotive
Engineers, Inc., New York, N.Y.
173
-------
12. "SAE Standard - Sound Level for Passenger Car's an.d Light Trucks-
SAE J9SGa" 1973 SAE Handbook, Society of Automotive Engineers,
Inc., New York, N.Y.
13. "SAE Recommended Practice - Exterior Sound Level for Heavy
Trucks and Buses - SAE J36(>a", 1973 SAE Handbook Society of
Automotive Enginners, Inc., New York, N.Y.
14. "SAE Recommended Practice - Exterior Sound Level for Snowmobiles
SAE J192',' 1973 SAE HandbookSociety of Automotive Engineers,
Inc.,. New "York, N.Y.
15. "SAE Standard - Sound Levels for Engine Powered Equipment -
SAE J952b", 1973 SAE Handbook, Society of Automotive Engineers
Inc., New York, N.Y.
16. "SAE Standard - Engine .Rating Code - Spark Ignition - SAE J245",
1973 SAE Handbook , Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.,
New York, N.Y.
17. "SAE Standard - Engine Rating Code - Diesel - SAE J270",
1973 SAE Handbook Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.,
New York, N.Y.
18. "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to
Protect Public Health and Welfare With an Adequate Margin of
Safety", U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 1974,
Report No. 550/9- 74-004.
19. "Motor Vehicle Laws of Oregon", Compiled by Motor Vehicles
Division, 1971/72 Edition.
20_ "Report to the President and Congress on Noise" Report of the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, February
1972, 92nd Congress 2nd Session, Senate, Document No. 92-63.
21. Oregon DEQ - Bar Chart of Relative Ranking of Noise Probems
from State-Wide Public Information Meetings and Questionnaire
Mail Response.
22. Oregon DEQ - Bar Chart of Relative Ranking of Noise Problems
from Telephoned Complaints
23. Oregon DEQ - Memo - "Noise Reductions Inside a House"
24. Oregon DEQ - Memo - "Weather Conditions Effects on Noise
Propogation"
25. Oregon Revised Statutes - Public Health, Safety and Morals,
Chapter 407 Noise Control.
174
-------
-y: "rj
TOM McCALL
GOVERNOR
DEPARTiVtENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
1234 S.W. MORRISON STREET • PORTLAND, ORE. 97205 ® Telephone (503) 229-
-------
Table 1
achieving an interior noise level of 45 dBA to be
exceeded only 10» of the time in the noisiest hour
of the night. For a bedroom with an open window
this translates into a outdoor standard of app-
roximately 55 dBA to be exceeded only 10% of the
time (such a standard would be written L-jq=55 dBA).
II. Speech Interference - Although the impact of noise
on speech communication is well documented (See
Table I), there remains the question of the degree
to which speech communication should be protected.
There are those who would argue that speech is
protected if you can carry on a face-to-face con-
versation in a shout, while others will argue that
group conversations in a normal voice should be
possible. The DEQ noise staff has generally set
the proposed standards at a level which would permit
intelligible outdoor conversations at 8 to 11 feet
(EPA uses 10 feet) in a normal speaking voice.
From Table I one can see that the standards needed
to reach this speech interference goal are in the
range of 55-60 dBA, and therefore the proposed
standards work toward the goal of keeping daytime
outdoor noise below 60 dBA at least 90 percent of
the time (L-jg=60 dBA).
TALKEft TO LISTENER DISTANCE IN FEET
o
x
120
110
100 -
<
no
"O
LlJ
—
O
2T
3
O
ar
o
c_>
ca
5
o
SPEECH COMMUNICATION
40
' ' ' '
INTIMATE
L
''1 i 1 ii
' 1 1 1 1 1 1
. I
i i i
5 j 10
- NEUTRAL
15
20
PUBLiC "7
L
25
30
176
-------
III. Non-degradation - Although the primary goals of the
noise regulations are to protect speech and sleep,
these regulations have also been designed to maintain
a good existing noise environment and to prevent a
noisy environment from getting worse. In order to
protect an existing noise environment the proposed
standards generally limit the rise in ambient noise
caused by the introduction of a new source of ambient
noise to 5 d6A. Noise research shows that although
an ambient noise increase of 5 dBA can be detected
by the average ear, an ambient noise increase of 5 dBA
or less will generally not lead to community complaints.
A variance procedure in the proposed standards would
permit the ambient noise to rise above 5 dBA in some
instances, but in no case should this rise be permitted
to exceed 15 dBA (that point at which unlimited com-
plaints would occur).
IV. Prominent tones - In order to protect the public from
annoying sounds with peaks at distinct frequencies,
the proposed standards provide limits for the emission
of sounds with such peaks. These sounds are often
particularly annoying in rural or wilderness areas
where the background noise is at a low level and does
not provide any masking for the annoying pure tone
components of the noise source in question.
Proposed Standards
The following summary of the proposed noise regulations lists the
key components of the regulations designed to meet the goals cited
above.
I. Public Roads
a. New Roads - includes any road constructed after
adoption of the proposed standards which has a
projected traffic level of 15,000 vehicles per
day. This then would only include 4 lane roads
or very heavily travelled 2 lane roads. Because
of the difficulty in controlling road noise the
noise standards were set at L, =63 dBA, a level
higher than that called for by our speech and
sleep goals. However, the DEQ staff projects
that these goals will be achieved when the
standards on vehicle noise bring vehicle noise,
and thus road noise, to more acceptable levels.
177
-------
b. Modifying roads - modifications to roads are also
controlled on.the assumption that new roads of the
future will actually just be expansions of existing
roads. Roughly it can be said that these standards
apply only to situations where large roads (15,000
vehicles/day) are expanded by more than 25*, and
where small roads (two lanes) sro expanded tq rcajqr
thoroughfares. The standards applied are primarily
designed to control the increase in the noise to
which an existing neighborhood is exposed.
c. Existing roads - the proposed regulations do not
provide the DEQ with any authority to mandate the
reduction in noise from an existing road which is
not being modified to expand its capacity. Existing
road noise problems identified by the DEQ will be
corrected only through the initiative of other
governmental bodies.
d. Non-degradation - limits are placed on the per-
missible increase in noise created by the introc
duction of a new or modified road. In some cases
a road which meets the 63 dBA limit may not be
acceptable because its construction would substan-
tially (more than 5 dBA) degrade the existing noise
environment.
II. Industry and Commerce
a. Existing industry and commerce - includes nearly
all industry and commerce with the exception of
construction and commercial vehicle noise (covered
in the vehicle standards). The proposed day/night
standards are set at 60 dBA and 55 dBA respectively
to achieve the speech and sleep interference goals
stated above.
b. Non-degradation - new industrial and commercial
noise sources are limited to the 60 and 55 dBA
levels described in (a), but a maximum allowable ambient
noise increase of 5 d3A limits the degradation
created by the introduction of a new noise source.
c. Prominent tones - sounds which emphasize a narrow
frequency band are also controlled so as to reduce
annoyance created by sounds of this nature.
III. New and in-use vehicles
a. New vehicles - the noise limits are set for the sale
of new vehicles and are lowered in the future to
encourage the use of new noise control technology.
These standards are based on those set by the State
of California.
178
-------
c. Vacant lots - the use of vacant lots by motor-
cycles is explicitly controlled without affecting
the use of large land tracts by these vehicles.
IV. Racing - Motor vehicle racing (acceleration and circle
track) is controlled to reduce the periodic annoyance
of racing events. The legislative history of controls
in racing noise and the periodic nature of this type
type of noise have led the DEQ staff to propose
regulations on racing which are less restrictive than
would be expected in light of our stated goals.
Comparison of Standards
Having stated our goals and our means of attainment of these goals,
it is appropriate to compare the proposed noise standards for Oregon
with those of other states (countries) to determine if the DEQ standards
are more restrictive than those found elsewhere.
I. Road Noise - The only other semblance of a standard that
exists for public roads is the guideline issued by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). That guideline
is an L-iq=70 dBA (compared to an Lio=63 dBA in the
proposed DEQ standards). The federal guideline is
certainly an improvement in road noise levels, but as
it was expressed by the Oregon DOT in a letter to the
FHWA, "it is doubtful many people would want to consider
a residence with such an ambient noise level." The EFA
goes even further and states that "there is general
agreement among our reviewers (of the proposed guide-
lines) that an L-,q of 70 dBA is too lenient." A noise
criteria study of the Highway Research Board which was
sponsored by the American Association of State Highway
Officials recommended in 1971 that future roads be
designed for a daytime L"|o=56 dBA and a night L]n=51 dBA.
These "acceptable" levels are far below those proposed
by the DEQ, but do represent goals that we should strive
to achieve as motor vehicle noise declines.
The proposed DEQ standards lie in the middle ground.
The DEQ staff has taken the middle ground in recognition
of the fact that 70 dBA is unacceptably high while 56 dDA
(or 51 dBA) is probably unrealistic with today's rela-
tively noisy vehicles. In setting the road standards at
L]q=63 dBA the DEQ staff is requiring improvements in
existing road design technology. However, our noise goals
cannot be reached with improved road design alone, but
rather relies on a combination of road and vehicle noise
standards.
179
-------
The noise from roads is clearly the most pervasive form of
pollution to which we are all exposed. We have all become
so accustomed to this source of noise that many of us now
subconsciously refuse to believe that something can actually
be done about it. The DEQ road noise standards are a modest
step toward solving this serious pollution problem. Because
the DEQ regulations would not give us the authority to
control existing road noise, the proposed regulation would
impact on only a very few new large roads. In the Portland
area the number of roads that would fall under this standard
at this time, can be counted on one hand. Clearly those
who argue that the road noise standards will usurp the land-
use planning roles of regional governments have given
absolutely no consideration to the modest nature of these
standards.
II. Industry and Conferee Noise - Regulations controlling the
noise from industrial and comnercia 1 sources have been
around for a long time. In 1956 the Soviet Union came out
with a comprehensive noise control program which limited
the maximum noise an industry could legally emit into its
neighborhood to 55 dBA from 8:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M., and
45 dBA from 11:00 P.M. to 8:00 A.M. These standards are
considerably lower than those proposed by tne DEQ, but
it is interesting.to note that the Soviet regulations
called for measurements "just outside the building to be
protected", a concept sirailar to the noise sensitive
property concept used in the proposed DEQ noise standards.
In recent years many states have come forward with noise
standards for industry and commerce. In general, it is
difficult to compare the DEQ noise standards with those
of other states because of differences in measurement
location and technique. The proposed standards for Minn-
esota are perhaps the closest to the DEQ's in terms of
measurement techniques. Table II compares the proposed
standards of Oregon and Minnesota:
Table II
Daytime Nighttime
Oregon Minn Oregon Minn
L1Q=60 dBA L1q=65 dBA L1Q=55 dBA L1Q=55 dBA
The difference in the daytime standards comes about primarily
because the Pollution Control Agency in Minnesota has geared
its daytime levels to acceptable indoor noise, while the
DEQ has designed its daytime levels to protect outdoor speech
communications.
180
-------
Comparisons of noise standards for other areas of the
country required soiie extensive conversion and a great
deal is lost in the technical translation, but the
following list is an attempt to compare the regulations
of key regions with those of the DEQ.
a. Illinois - The state of Illinois has adopted
standards which control the sound being received
on residential type property (called Class A).
Assuming that we can accurately convert the
Illinois standards to dBA and assuming the
measurement locations are similar (the Illinois
measurement point will generally be closer to
the noise source) the following table compares
the Oregon and Illinois standards:
Table III
Daytime Nighttime
111inois Oregon 111i no i s Oregon
Max=62 dBA Max=75 dBA Max=51 dBA Max=60 dBA
Lln=o0 dBA Ln=55 dBA
lJq=55 dBA L5q= 50 dBA
The State of Illinois is presently in court defending
these standards in a suit brought against it by
Commonwealth Edison. Illinois has already worked
out an out-of-court agreement with local racing assoc-
iations which relaxes the noise standards for racing
events.
b. North Carolina - A noise committee appointed by the
North Carolina Department of Administration has pro-
posed industrial noise levels (measured at residential
property) of 60 dBA for the day and 55 dBA for the
night. These standards are for "steady state noise"
which when loosely translated into a statistical "L"
notation yield the following comparisons:
Table IV
Daytime Ni ghttims
Oregon North Carolina Oregon North Carolina
L =75 dBA I, ,n-60 dBA Lm =60 dBA U 1n=55 dBA
max a-1U max o-i u
L1q-=60 dBA L]0 =55 dBA
181
-------
Although it is not apparent in Table IV, the
proposed North Carolina standard can be con-
siderably more stringent than that preposed by
the DEQ. For example, the daytime standard in
North Carolina would not permit an industry to
make a "steady state" noise of 50 dBA for more
than 5 minutes in the entire day. The Oregon
standard would allow industry to exceed 60 dBA
for as much as 6 minutes in every hour of the
day.
c. New York State - The State of New York proposed
standards in 1973 which would control day
(7:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M.) and night (11:00 P.M.
to 7:00 A.M.) levels of "continuous" sound
(defined to be similar to our L ) emitted to
residential property by industr$.x
Table V
Daytime Nighttime
Oregon New York Oregon New York
L =75 d3A* L =65 dBA L =60 dBA L =45 dBA
max max max max
There are numerous other examples of noise control reg-
ulations which can be compared with those proposed for
Oregon. However, in general it can be concluded that the
industrial noise standards proposed by the DEQ, while
being fully protective of public health and welfare, are
in many ways not as stringent as those standards proposed
for other areas. This is clearly a reflection of the
emphasis the DEQ noise staff placed on designing regula-
tions which are protective, yet workable. Further evidence
of this emphasis can be seen in the degree of flexibility
written into the compliance sections of these proposed
standards.
III. Motor Vehicles - Although vehicle noise (and road noise)
represents the most pervasive single source of noise
pollution, the emphasis of most State noise regulations
has been on industrial and commercial noise. California's
noise regulations are the notable exception to this rule.
The California legislature has passed a law which limits
the noise emitted by new and used vehicles and controls
the use and sale of various exhaust muffling equipment.
The EPA has recently followed suit and has proposed
regulations for the control of truck noise.
182
-------
The noise standards for vehicles proposed by the DEQ
noise staff are based primarily on those adopted for
California. The DEQ standards vary from the California
standards in some minor ways, but the intent of both
sets of regulations to control the excessive noise from
existing vehicles and to force the introduction of noise
reducing technology on new vehicles makes them essentially
identical.
IV. Vacant Lot Motor Vehicle Noise - Unique to the proposed
DEQ noise regulations is a separate regulation controlling
the use of relatively small tracts of land by recreational
vehicles, primarily motorcycles. The standards proposed
for this particularly difficult problem should effectively
force the closure of small land tracts in residential
areas while leaving open the larger tracts of land in
rural areas for the use of recreational vehicles.
V. Racing - Noise from racing is a serious problem in many
communities and one that is often solved at the local
level, usually with the race track moving to a rural
site. Attempts by State (and Federal) governments to
control this noise source have generally been unsuccessful.
The most recent attempt by the State of Illinois to include
racing in its very stringent industrial standard met with
a court case which when settled out-of-court resulted in
no racing standards at all.
The DEQ has received considerable public testimony that
racing, and therefore racing noise, is in the public
interest and that the racing noise standards should be
dropped. However, the DEQ staff believes that in many
areas racing does create a serious localized pollution
problem which can be dealt with effectively at the
State level with racing standards which explicitly
recognize not only the intermittent nature of noise from
racing events, but also the inherent difference of noises
from various types of racing events. The proposed DEQ
standards, which take effect progressively starting in
1976, also recognize the need for adequate lead-time in
the development of racing muffler technology.
Summary
In summary, I hope that this paper has demonstrated that it would
be incorrect to classify the noise control standards proposed by the
DEQ as either more or less stringent than standards found in other
areas. These proposed standards are not designed to be relatively
stringent or lenient. They are written to provide the State of Oregon
with reasonable, enforceable noise standards which are adequately
protective of the public health and welfare.
PMS/cb
4/17/74
183/184
-------
Appendix D
NOISE GOALS, 1977-79
185/186
-------
NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM
MISSION STATEMENT
TO CONDUCT, MAKING BEST USE OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES, A COMPREHENSIVE
PROGRAM PROTECTING THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF PEOPLE IN
OREGON FROM THE HAZARDS AND DETERIORATION OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE
IMPOSED BY EXCESSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE BY:
1. PROVIDING A COORDINATED STATEWIDE PROGRAM OF NOISE CONTROL;
2. FACILITATING COOPERATION AMONG UNITS OF FEDERAL, STATE
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN ESTABLISHING AND SUPPORTING
NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE
PROGRAM AND TO ENCOURAGE THE ENFORCEMENT OF VIABLE
LOCAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS BY THE APPROPRIATE
JURISDICTIONS;
3. DEVELOPING A PROGRAM FOR THE CONTROL OF EXCESSIVE NOISE
SOURCES WHICH SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN IN A PROGRESSIVE
MANNER, ENCOURAGING PUBLIC AWARENESS AND INVOLVEMENT,
AND BEING IN HARMONY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL
RESOURCES, ENERGY, LAND USE AND ECONOMIC PROGRAMS AS
PRACTICABLE.
187
-------
NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM
GOALS
1. TO DEVELOP A CONSISTENT CONTROL STRATEGY FOR EXISTING NOISE SOURCES.
2. TO PREVENT NOISE POLLUTION BY NEW AND MODIFIED NOISE SOURCES.
3. TO REDUCE EXCESSIVE NOISE FROM UNREGULATED SOURCES.
4. TO TRAIN, ASSIST AND ENCOURAGE PUBLIC AGENCIES TO DEVELOP LOCAL
NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS.
5. TO INCREASE DEPARTMENTAL AWARENESS AND COMMITMENT TO THE NOISE
PROGRAM.
6. TO INCREASE PUBLIC AND LEGISLATIVE AWARENESS AND SUPPORT OF THE
NOISE PROBLEM AND PROGRAM.
7. TO INCREASE THE USE OF EXISTING RESOURCES AND TO IDENTIFY AND SEEK
ADDITIONAL NEEDED RESOURCES.
3. TO REDUCE EXCESSIVE MOTOR VEHICLE NOISE THROUGH PERIODIC
VEHICLE INSPECTIONS AND SYSTEMATIC POLICE ENFORCEMENT.
188
-------
;j z; o goals a :i d objectives
Profjrara/Unit: Noise Control __ Date: February 3, 1978
Pr
Objeetives
Indicator
Date
Cos t
Accountable
Coordination
GOAL 8; TO REDUCE EXCESSIVE MOTOR VEHICLE NOISE
THROUGH PERIODIC VEHICLE INSPECTIONS AND SYSTEHATIC
POLICE ENFORCEMENT.
To continue to assist the DEQ Vehicle Inspection
Program by training Inspection personnel, assisting
program implementation and monitoring program
effectiveness.
Number of
inspectors
trained.
Pass/Fall rates
Number of noise
tests conducted.
ix. res.
Hector
Noise/VIP
To Implement a mandatory noise inspection program
for automob iles and light trucks within the Portland
HSD.
Rule adopted
Program Imple-
mented.
9/1/78
ix. res.
Householder
Nolse/VIP
To develop inspection station noise test procedures
for the categories of heavy duty gasoline powered
trucks and motorcycles.
Procedures
developed.
Procedures
adopted.
7/1/78
Ex. res.
Hector
Noise/VIP
To reduce the noise failure rate for autos and light
trucks from the base of 15^ to 101 after one year
and 5% after two years of mandatory inspections.
Pass/Fall rate
9/1/79
e
9/1/80
ix. res.
Hector
Noise/VIP
To establish a program to provide encouragement and
technical assistance to police and other enforcement
personnel on motor vehicle noise testing procedures.
Nunber of agencie
trained.
Number of person-
nel trained.
Nunber of pol 1 ce
noise enforce-
ment programs.
.4/1/78
Ex. res.
Hector
Noise/Reg!ons
^Indicates accountability resides outside the Noise Program
-------
Profjram/Unit: Noise Control
U 'j O Cj O A I-i S
Pr Objectives;
GOAL 7: TO INCREASE THE USE OF EXISTING RESOURCES
AND TO IDENTIFY AND SEEK ADDITIONAL NEEDED RESOURCES.
**A To develop written working agreements between Noise
Control Program and each regional manager, region
specific objectives, utilizing the I977~79 budget
allocated FTE's to an extent necessary to accomplish
the Noise Program objectives and update each year
thereafter.
**A To identify existing and potential funding sources,
Identify needed additional resources to Implement
program objectives, and develop the Noise Program
budget for the I979~8l biennium.
**Indicates agency-wide objective
:jd ouji:cTivi.:s
Da to: February 3. 1978
T ndicntor
Number of
written agree-
ments .
Dollars and FTE
of resources
requested for
program.
Date
4/1/78
and
annually
Oos tl
Ex res
Accountable
Hector
Hector
Coordination
Noi se/Regions
Noise/Divisic
Identlfled
addltlonal
needed resources.
Number of funding
sources Identi-
fied.
Funds acquired
from sources.
-------
d l: o goals a ;j n objectives
Proyrar.i/linit: Noise Control bate: February 3, 1978
P)
Objective::
] lulicator
Date
Coat:
Accountable
Cool d i iiCi l ion
GOAL 6 continued . . .
*c
To develop a slide show presentation to Inform
Legislators, public and local government officials
of noise problems, control strategies, state program
and assistance during calendar year 1978.
Number of pre-
sentations.
Swenson
Noise/Pub. Inf
161
rt
To form a citizen committee to advise the Department
on Improving public and local government support
for Noise Control Program.
Pub 1ic opinion
trends.
Index of Leglsla-
tive support.
6/1/78
TBD
Hector
Noise/Pub. Inf
"indicates accountability resides outside the Noise Prog raw
-------
DUO GOALS A 1 I) OBJECTIVES
Prorjran/L'nit: Noise Control DaLc: February 3. 1978
Pr
Objectives
Indicator
Date
Cos t
Accountable
Cooidina tion
GOAL 6: TO INCREASE PUBLIC AND LEGISLATIVE
AWARENESS AND SUPPORT OF THE NOISE PROBLEH AND
PROGRAM.
**A
To develop and Implement a program of briefing
legislators about noise problems and the noise
program goals, objectives and activities prior
to 1/1/79-
Weighted percent
of proposed
bills passed.
Percent of
requested
budget approved.
Index of LegIs la-
tive support.
Number of
briefings.
Percent of total
briefed.
All Division!
**c
To devise and conduct a public opinion survey to
determine public concerns and support for the
Noise Control Program.
Public opinion
trends.
Noise/Pub. Ir
**A
To develop and implement an approach to document
noise control program needs requiring legislative
attention and to build support material to justify
such legislation.
Number of com-
plaints and
inquiries.
Index of Legisla
tive support.
Number of Legist
tive needs
Identlfled.
-
Hector
Noise/Regions
Indicates agency-wide objective
-------
i) E i! GOALS A :I iJ O i) J V C T I V L 3
Prorjrjr.i/Unit: Noise Control Date: February 3» 1978
Pr
Objoct'.i voi;
Indicator
Date
Cos t
Accountable
Coordina Lion
GOAL 5: TO INCREASE DEPARTMENTAL AWARENESS AND
COMMITMENT TO THE NOISE PROGRAM.
A
To Implement a Departmental program of annual train-
ing and Information sessions with regional staff.
Number of in-hous
staff training
sessIons.
Trends of staff
opinion pol1.
7/1/78
and
annually
250 hrs/
irr.
Hector
Noi se/Reglons
A
To Implement a program to provide needed out-of-house
technical training to regional staff.
Number of noise
technical train-
ing classes
attended by non-
headquarters
staff.
1/1/80
FBD
Bolton
Regions/Noi se
A
To increase the number of existing field staff
knowledgeable and capable to address noise pollution
problems to 50! of total regional staff.
^Indicates accountability resides outside the Noise Prdi
Number of staff
pa rt1clpati ng
In Noise Control
Program.
)ram
6/1/78
Ex.res.
Bo 1 ton
Regions/Noise
-------
I) E Q
GOALS
All D OBJECTIVES
Pro
-------
ocjrcJi.i/Uni t: Noise Control
nun goals
Objocti vou
GOAL 3: TO REDUCE EXCESSIVE NOISE FROM UNREGULATED
SOURCES.
To reduce by 15% the number of unregulated source
complaints through the Implementation of new
regulations by:
a. Promulgating motor vehicle racing
facility regulations.
b. Identifying the categories of
unregulated sources needing
regulation.
c. Establishing priorities and a schedule
for rule promulgation.
;J D OBJECTIVES
Da tc : February 3. 1978
Indicator
Date
Cos 1:
Accountable
Coord i iui lj on
Percent complaint
resolution of
"unregulated"
sources.
1/1/80
.5 FTE
Hector
Nolse/Regi ons
Racing rule
adopted.
7/1/78
200 hrs
Hector
Noise/Regions
Number of racing
complaints
resolved.
Nunber of un-
regulated sources
i denti fi ed.
5/1/78
^0 hrs.
Hector
Not se/Regions
Number of new
category regu-
lations adopted.
6/1/78
kO hrs.
Hector
Noise/Regions
-------
Prograr.i/Uni t: Noise Control
D K Q GOALS A :l D O H J L! C T I V »: S
Date: February 3. 1978
Pr
Objectives
Indicator
Date
Cos t
Accountable
Coordination
GOAL 2: TO PREVENT NOISE POLLUTION BY NEW AND
MODIFIED NOISE SOURCES.
V
To Implement a program for encouraging Industrial/
commercial/governmental sources to submit to
voluntary noise plan review.
Number of con-
struction plans
reviewed for
noise impact.
9/1/78
.25 FTE
over
exlstlnc
resource
Hector
s
Prog./Regions
1
To Implement a noise screening and review procedure
for Air Quality, Water Quality and Solid Waste plans
Number of com-
plaints about
new/modi fled
sources.
Number of con-
struction plans
reviewed for
noise Impact.
All Divisions
I
To establish agency review criteria and procedures
for land-use comprehensive plans.
Number of com-
prehensive plans
reviewed for
noise impact.
Hector
Noise/Regions
I •
To establish a program for providing noise planning
guidance to local jurisdictions. (As part of our
assistance to the development of city/county
comprehensive land-use plans.)
Number of
requests for
technical
assistance.
Hector
Noise/Regions
cates agency-wide objective
-------
DEQ GOALS A ii D OBJECTIVES
Program/Unit:
Noise Control
Date: February 3, 1978
Pr
Objectives
Indicator
Date
Cos t
Accountable
Coordinatio
GOAL 1: TO DEVELOP A CONSISTENT CONTROL STRATEGY
FOR EXISTING NOISE SOURCES.
(1) To implement guidelines and achieve 90% com-
pliance level of all Identified sources under the
control strategy.
(2) To develop a written procedure for receiving,
handling, tracking, analyzing and utilizing citizen
complaints as a tool to develop a consistent control
strategy.
(3) To identify categories and develop guidelines
for problem source categories.
Percent of
source compliance
Number of cltizen
complaints by
source category.
Number of com-
plaints of
program Inequltle
Work accomplishes
per staff hour
Number of citizen
complaints by
source category
1/1/84
5 FTE
in 1979
80.
Hector
Nolse/Reglc
Prog./Reg I a
1/1/79
300 hrs
Hector
No! se/Reglo
Number of in-
dustry complaints
of program
inequities.
Number of source
categories
Identi fled
Number of source
categories with
guidelInes
developed.
**lndicates agency-wide objective
-------
Appendix E
* CITY OF PORTLAND PROPOSED
NOISE ORDINANCE (JULY 1974)
• CITY OF PORTLAND TITLE 18:
NOISE (JUNE 1976)
199/200
-------
PROPOSED
NOISE ORDINANCE
CITY OF PORTLAND
MULTNOMAH COUNTY
July 1974
201
-------
Sections: Page
1. DECLARATION OF PURPOSE AND POLICY ...1
2. DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS ...2
3. AUTHORITY AND DUTIES ...7
4. AGENCIES ...9
5. MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOUND AND VIBRATION
LEVELS ..12
5.1. Land Use Zones ..12
5.2. Deviations from Maximum
Permissible Sound Levels ..14
5.3. Provisions shall apply... ..15
5.4. Ground Vibrations ..IS
5.5. Motor Vehicles ..16
5.6. Non-Stationary Equipment ..18
5.7. Watercraft ..20
5.8. Refuse ComDactinq Vehicles ..20
6. NOISES PROHIBITED ..21
7. EXCEPTIONS AND VARIANCES ..26
8. ORDINANCE ADDITIONAL TO OTHER LAW ..31
9. ENFORCEMENT ..32
10. PENALTIES AND OTHER ACTIONS ..34
11. REPEAL OF ORDINANCE ..35
12. SEVERABILITY PROVISIONS ..36
202
-------
SECTION 1. DECLARATION OF PURPOSE AND POLICY
It is declared to be the public policy of (the)(City of
Portland)(Multnomah County), and the purpose of this
ordinance to prevent the exposure -»f citizens to the
physiological and psychological dangers of excessive
noise and to protect, promote, and preserve the public
health, safety and welfare. It is declared to be the
public policy of the (Cit,)(County) to reduce noise
levels so as to promote commerce; the use, value and
enjoyment of property; sleep and repose; and the
aesthetics and quality of the environment. Therefore,
the (Council)(Board of Commissioners) has prepared
this ordinance setting forth detailed standards for
the control and abatement of noise.
203
-------
SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS
Section 2.1. Terminology and Standards
All terminology used in this ordinance not defined below
shall be in accordance with applicable publications of
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) or its
successor body.
Section 2.2. Measurement of Noise
2.2.1. If the measurements are made with a sound level
meter, it shall be an instrument in qood operating
condition, meeting the requirements for a Type 1 or Type
II instrument, as delineated in ANSI S 1.4-1971.
2.2.2. If the measurements are made with other instruments
or assemblages of instruments, the procedure must be carried
out in such a manner that the overall accuracy shall be
at least that called for in ANSI S 1.4-1971 for Type II
instruments.
2.2.3. When the location or distance prescribed in this
ordinance for measurement of noise is impractical or would
provide misleading or inaccurate results, measurements may
be taken at other locations or distances utilizing appropriate
correction factors as specified in rules promulgated by
the Noise Control Officer.
204
-------
Section 2.3. Definitions
2.3.1. A-SCALE (dBA): The sound level in decibels measured
using the A-weighting network as specified in ANSI Specification
S 1.4-1971 for sound level meters.
2.3.2. CONSTRUCTION: Any or all activity necessary or incidental
to the erection, demolition, assembling, altering, installing
or equipping of buildings including land clearing, grading,
excavating, and filling.
2.3.3. CONTINUOUS NOISE: A steady noise existing for at
least one hour or any fluctuating or impact noise which exists
essentially without interruption for a period of one hour or
more.
2.3.4. CYCLICALLY-VARYING NOISE: Fluctuatinq, or impulsive
noise which may or may not contain a pure tone, which varies
1n sound pressure level such that the same level is obtained
repetitively at reasonably uniform intervals of time.
2.3.5. DECIBEL: A unit for measuring the magnitude or a
sound, equal to ten times the logarithm of the ratio of the
intensity of two sounds; denoted as dB.
2.3.6. DWELLING UNIT: A building or portion thereof designed
tor residential or transient occupancy.
2.3.7. DYNAMIC BRAKING DEVICE: A device used, primarily
on trucks, to convert the motor from an internal combustion
engine to an air compressor for the purpose of vehicle braking
without the use of wheel brakes; a common version of which
is called a Jacob's Brake.
2.3.8. EMERGENCY WORK: Work made necessary to restore property
to a safe condition following a public calamity, work to
restore public utilities, or work required to protect persons
or property from an imminent exposure to danger.
2.3.9. IMPULSIVE NOISE: A noise characterized by brief
excursions of sound pressure whose peak levels exceed the
ambient by 10 dB. The duration of a single impulse is usually
less than 1 second and requires the use of a sound level
meter specially adapted for its measurement.
2.3.10. LEVEL STREET: Any street having a grade not exceeding
plus or minus one percent.
205
-------
2.3.11. LOT: As defined in the (City of Portland)(Multnomah
County) Zoning Code.
2.3.12: MOTOR VEHICLE: Every vehicle which is self-propelled
by mechanical power and every vehicle which is propelled by
electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but
not operated upon rails.
2.3.13. MUFFLER: An apparatus consisting of a series of
chambers or baffle plates of similar desiqn for the purpose
of transmitting gases while reducing sound emanating from
such apparatus.
2.3.14. NOISE: Any sound which is unwanted or which causes
or tends to cause an adverse psychological or physiological
effect on human beings.
2.3.15. NOISE DISTURBANCE: Any sound which annoys, disturbs,
or perturbs reasonable Dersons with normal sensitivities;
or any sound which injures or endangers the comfort, repose,
health, hearing, peace or safety of other persons.
2.3.16. PERIOD OF OBSERVATION: The time interval during
which acoustical data are obtained. The period of observation
is determined by the characteristics of the noise being
measured and should also be at least 10 times as long as
the response time of the instrumentation. The greater the
variance in indicated sound level, the longer must be the
observation time for a given expected accuracy of the measurement.
2.3.17. PERCEPTION THRESHOLD: The minimum vibrational motion
necessary to cause awareness of its existence on the part of a
normal person, by direct means, such as, but not limited to,
sensation by touch or visual observations of moving objects.
For the purpose of this ordinance, the perception threshold
shall be presumed to be more than 0.05 in/sec RMS vertical
velocity.
2.3.18. PERSON: Any individual, association, partnership,
or corporation, and includes any officer, employee, department,
agency, or instrumentality of the United States, a state
or any political subdivision of that state, including(the)
(City of Portland)(Multnomah County).
2.3.19. PROPERTY BOUNDARY: An imaginary line exterior to
any enclosed structure, at the ground surface, which separates
the real property owned by one person from that owned by
another person, and its vertical extension.
206
-------
2.3.20. PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PUBL-IC SPACE: Any street,
avenue, boulevard, highway, alley or public space which
Is owned or controlled by a public governmental entity.
2.3.21. PURE TONE: Any noise which can be distinctly heard
as a single pitch or a set of single pitches.
2.3.22. PRE-EXISTING USE: Any use, condition, or activity
established prior to the effective date of this ordinance.
2.3.23. REPETITIVE IMPULSIVE NOISE: Any ncise which is
composed of impulsive noises that are repeated at sufficiently
slow rates such that a sound level meter set at "fast"
meter characteristic will show changes in sound pressure
level greater than 20 dB(A).
2.3.24. SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL: The sound pressure level
(SPL), in decibels, or a sound, is 20 times the logarithm
to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound
to the reference sound pressure. Unless otherwise specified,
the effective (rms) pressure is to be understood. The
reference sound pressure is 20 miGronowtons per square meter.
2.3.?5. SOUND LEVEL METER: A sound level measuring device,
either Type I or Type II, as defined by ANSI Specification
S 1.4-1S71, or its successor publication.
2.3.26. SOUND LEVEL (NOISE LEVEL): The weighted sound pressure
level measured by the use of a metering characteristic and A
weighting as specified in ANSI Specification S 1.4-1971
for sound level meters. The weighting employed must be
indicated. The reference pressure is 20 micronewtons oer
square meter. The unit is the decibel (dBA).
2.3.27. STEADY NOISE: Abound pressure level which remains
essentially constant during the period of observation, i.e.
the fluctuations are too small to meet the criterion for
fluctuating noise.
2.3.28. STATIONARY NOISE SOURCE: Any device, fixed or movable,
which is located or used on property other than on a public
right-of-way.
2.3.29. STATISTICAL NOISE LEVEL: The noise level which is
equal to or exceeded a stated percentage of the time. An
Lio = 70 dBA implies that in any hour of the day, 70 dBA
can be equalled :r exceeded 10% of the time, or for six
minutes.
2.3.30. USE: The purpose for which land or a building is
arranged, designed or intended, or for which either land or
a building may be occupied.
207
-------
2.3.31. VIBRATION: A temporal and spatial oscillation of
displacement, velocity or acceleration in a solid material.
2.3.32. WATERCRAFT: Any contrivance used or capable of
being used as a means of transportation or recreation on
water.
2.3.33. WEIGHTING: A prescribed frequency response provided
in a sound level meter.
2.3.34. ZONE: As defined in the (City of Portland)(Multnomah
County) Zoning Code.
(a) "Residential zones" include zones
R-20, R-10, R-7, R-5, A2.5, A-l, AO (City of
Portland)
R-'VR-30, R-20, R-10, R7.5, R-7, R-4, A-2,
A-l-B (Multnomah County)
(b) "Commercial zones" include zones
C-5, C-4, C-2, C-l (City of Portland
C-4, C-3, C-2, C-AC (Multnomah County)
(c) "Industrial zones" include zones
M-4, M-3, M-2, M-l
(d) "Rural zones" include zones
F-F CCity of Portland)
F-2, S-R (Multnomah County)
2.3.35. NON-CONFORMING USE: As defined in the (City of
Portland)(Multnomah County) Zoning Code.
208
-------
SECTION 3. AUTHORITY AND DUTIES
Section 3.1. Noise Control Officer.
The Noise Control Program required by this ordinance shall
be administered by the Noise Control Officer. His respons-
ibilities and authorities shall include, but not be
limited to:
3.1.1. Enforcing the provisions of this ordinance.
3.1.2. Training field inspectors and other technical
personnel concerr^d v/ith noise abatement.
3.1.3. Purchasing sound measuring and associated equipment
necessary to the conduct of the Noise Control Program.
3.1.4. Promulgating rules and procedures to be used in
the measurement or reduction of noise
3.1.5. Investigating citizens' complaints of violations
of this ordinance; and making all necessary inspections
and observations with reasonable cause and upon presentation
of proper credentials.
3.1.6. Requiring the owner or operator of any noise source
to establish and maintain records, books or p:Ders pertinent
to any matter under investigation and to make such reports
as the Noise Control Officer may reasonably prescribe.
3.1.7. Requiring the owner or operator of any noise source
to measure the noise emissions thereof in accordance with
such methods and procedures and at such locations and times as
the Noise Control Officer may reasonably prescribe.
3.1.8. Issuing orders for the reduction or elimination of
noise.
3.1.9. Instituting a public education program regarding
noise, including the collection, publication or dissemination
of appropriate literature and the enlisting of voluntary
cooperation by civic, technical, scientific and educational
societies.
209
-------
3.1.10 Conducting or causing to be conducted, studies,
research and monitoring related to noise, including
joint cooperative investigation with public or private
agencies, and the application for, and acceptance of grants.
3.1.11. Coordinating the noise control activities of all
(municipal)(county) departments and advising, consulting,
and cooperating with all appropriate municipal, county,
state, and federal agencies to .best implement the purposes
of this ordinance and, where appropriate, enter into
contracts (with the approval of the (City Council)(County
Board of Commissioners)) for the provision of technical
or enforcement services.
3.1.12. Reviewing all projects subject to review by any
other department for compliance with the intent and
provisions of this ordinance. This shall include the
review of all licenses, permits, certificates, notices
or other matters v.here noise may be an important factor,
and the issuance of all such documents required under
the provision of this chapter; including notification
of all persons concerned of any decision he may render,
and providing such persons with an opportunity to be heard.
3.1.13. Reviewing the procurement specifications for all
capital equipment purchases by all departments.
3.1.14. Reviewing the provisions of this ordinance, as
necessary, and recommending revisions to the (City Council)
(County Board of Commissioners), as appropriate.
3.1.15. Doinq any and all other acts which may be necessary
for the successful prosecution of the purposes of this
chapter and such other acts as may be specifically enumerated
herein as his duties.
210
-------
SECTION 4. AGENCIES.
Section 4.1. Departmental Actions.
All departments shall, to the fullest extent consistent
with thetr authorities under other ordinances administered
by them, carry out their programs in such a manner as to
further the policies stated in Section 1 of this ordinance.
Section 4.2. Departmental Cooperation.
All departments shall cooperate with the Noise Control
Officer to the fullest extent in enforcing the noise
regulations of this ore1'nance.
Section 4.3. Compliance With Other Laws.
All departments engaged in any activities which result
or may result in the emission of noise, shall comply with
federal and state laws and regulations, as well as the
provisions of this ordinance, respecting the control and
abatement of noise to the same extent that any person is
subject to such laws and regulations.
Section 4.4. Project Approval.
Each department, whose duty it is to review and approve new
projects, or changes to existing projects, that result, or
may result, in the emission of noise, shall consult with
the Noise Control Officer prior to any such approval.
211
-------
Section 4.5. Right of Review.
If at any time, the Noise Control Officer has reason to
believe that a standard, regulation, or action or proposed
standard, regulation, or action of any department respecting
noise does not conform to the .intent of Section 1 of this
ordinance, he may request such department to review and
report to him on the advisability of revising such standard
or regulation to conform.
Section 4.6. Contracts.
Any written agreement, purchase order, or instrument
whereby the(city) (county) is committed to the expenditure of
funds in return for work, labor, services, supplies, equipment,
materials, or any combination of the foregoing, shall not
be entered into unless such agreement, purchase order, or
instrument contains provisions requiring that any equipment
or activities which are subject to the provisions of this
code will be operated, constructed, conducted, or manufactured
without causing violation of this code.
Section 4.7. Low Noise Emission Products.
Any product which has been certified by the Administrator
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section
15 of the Noise Control Act of 1972 as a low noise emission
product and which is determined to be suitable for use as
a substitute, shall be used in preference to any other product,
provided that such certified product has a procurement cost
212
-------
which Is not more than 125 percentum of the least expensive
type of product for which it is certified as a substitute.
213
-------
SECTION 5. MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOUND AND VIBRATION LEVELS
Section 5.1. Land Use Zones.
No person shall cause and no person in possession of any
lot shall permit sound to emanate from that lot which
exceeds the maximum permissible sound levels established
by this section.
5.1.1. If the sound emanates from a lot located within
a residential zone, maximum permissible sound level is:
(a) 55 dBA at any point on the lot line; or
(b) 65 dBA at any point on a boundary separating
the residential zone from a commercial zone; or
(c) 70 dBA at any point on a boundary separating
the residential zone from an industrial zone; or
(d) 50 dBA at any point on a boundary separating
the residential zone from a rural zone.
5.1.2. If the sound emanates from a lot located within a
commercial zone, the maximum permissible sound level is:
(a) 65 dBA at any point on the lot line: or
(b) 55 dBA at any point on a boundary separating
the commercial zone from a residential zone; or
(c) 70 dBA at any point on a boundary separating
the commercial zone from an industrial zone; or
(d) 50 dBA at any point on a boundary separating
the commercial zone from a rural zone.
214
-------
5.1.3. If the sound emanates from a lot located within
an Industrial zone, the maximum sound level is:
(a) 70 dBA at any point on the lot line; or
(b) 55 dBA at any point on a boundary separating
the industrial zone from a residential zone; or
(c) 65 dBA at any point on a boundary separating
the industrial zone from a commercial zone; or
(d) 50 dBA at any point on a boundary separating
the industrial zone from a rural zone.
5.1.4. If the sound emanates from within a rural- zone,
the maximum sound level is:
(a) 50 dBA at any point on the lot line; or
(b) 55 dBA at any point on a boundary separating
the rural zone from a residential zone; or
(c) 65 dBA at any point on a boundary separating
the rural zone from a commercial zone: or
(d) 70 dBA at any point on a boundary separating
the rural zone from an industrial zone.
5.1.5. Where the lot line coincides with a zone boundary,
the maximum permissible sound level for the zone boundary
controls.
5.1.6. Where a zone boundary divides a lot, the maximum
permissible sound level at the lot line shall be that permitted
from a lot wholly within the zone in which the lot line is
located.
215
-------
5.1.7. In cases involving noise from construction, repair,
or demolition or other activities in a public street or
thoroughfare, the "lot line" shall be the boundary of the
public right-of-way.
5.1.8. For non-conforming use,' the maximum noise levels
permitted shall be the same as for conforming uses within
the same zone.
5.1.9. Where multiple dwelling units are located within
a single lot, residential standards shall apply for sound
transmission between units.
5.1.10. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit
the use of powered equipment intended for repetitive use
in residential areas; see Section 5.6.1(c).
Section 5.2. Deviations From Maximum Permissible Sound Levels
The following deviations from the maximum permissible sound
levels are required or permitted:
5.2.1. Between the hours of 2300 and 0700, the maximum
permissible sound levels established by Section 5.1 shall
be reduced by 10 dB.
5.2.2. The maximum permissible sound levels established by
Section 5.1 shall be reduced by 5 dB for:
(a) Sounds of periodic character; or
216
-------
(b) Sounds of Impulsive character; or
(c) Sounds with a pure tone component.
5.2.3. The maximum permissible sound levels established
by Section 5.1 may be exceeded in all zones between the
hours of 0700 and 2300 by no more than:
(a) 5 dB for a duration not to exceed 12 minutes
in any one hour period; or
(b) 10 dB for a duration not to exceed 3 minutes
in any one huur period; or
(c) 15 dB for a duration not to exceed 30 seconds
in any one hour period.
Section 5.3. The Drovisions of this :action shall apply:
5.3.1. Commencinq one year after the effective date of
this ordinance, to any pre-existing use, condition or
activity.
5.3.2. Commencing after the effective date of this ordinance,
to any new use, condition or activity.
Section 5.4. Ground Vibrations.
No person shall cause and no person in possession of any
lot shall permit a ground vibration disturbance above the
perception threshold of any person, at or beyond the property
boundary of the source.
217
-------
Section 5.5. Motor Vehicles.
5.5.1. No person shall operate any motor vehicle
licensed for use on public roads and highways or combination
of such vehicles at any time or under any condition of grade,
load, acceleration or deceleration in such a manner as
to exceed the following maximum permissible sound levels
for the cateqory of vehicle, as measured at a distance of
25 feet wmpopq from the center of the lane of travel
b*
within the speed limits specified. At distances greater
than 25 feet, an appropriate correction shall be applied.
Speed
Over
35 m.p.h.
96 dBA
94 dBA
88 dBA
83 dBA
91 dBA
88 dBA
83 dBA
Speed
35 m.p.h. Speed
or less • 35 m.p.h.
level street- or less
Effective Date of Ordinance
Motor vehicle of gross vehicle
weight ratinq of 10,000 ibs.
or more after 1 January 1975 86 dBA 92 dBA
Motorcycles: before 1 January 1976 90 dBA
after 1 January 1976 84 dBA
after 1 January 1979 79 dBA
All other ro->d vehicles
after 1 January 1975 87 dBA
after 1 January 1976 84 dBA
after 1 January 1979 79 dBA
5.5.2. Off road vehicles: No person shall operate any off-road
vehicle which exceeds the following maximum permissible sound levels:
218
-------
Speed Speed
35 m.p.h. 35 m.p.h.
or less op >es»
Effective Date of Ordinance
before 1 January 1976 90 dBA 94 dBA
after 1 January 1976 84 dBA 88 dBA
after 1 January 1979 79 dBA 83 dBA
5.5.3. For all motor vehicles operated on private property, the
maximum permissible sound level shall be as established in Section
5.1 nf this ordinance. This includes but is not limited to all
off-road vehicles or other unlicensed motor-driven vehicles.
5.5.4. No person shall operate a motor vehicle which is powered
by an engine with engine speed governor which generates more
noise than 88 dBA measured at 25 feet from vehicle centerline when
the engine is accelerated from idle with wide open throttle to
govern speed with the vehicle stationary, transmission in neutral,
and clutch engaged.
This section applies to the total noise from the vehicle or
combinations of vehicles excluding tire noise. It shall not be
construed as limitinq or precluding enforcement of any other
provision of Section 5.5.
5.5.5. No person shall operate a vehicle which has no expansion
chamber, resonator or noise dissipative device in the exhaust system
or is not equipped with an exhaust gas driven turbocharqer, except
that qas driven turbochargers alone will not be adequate on vehicles
equipped with an engine brake unless such person can show that no
device is needed to enable said vehicle to meet noise standards under
Section 5.5.1. Exhaust system components shall be in constant
operation and properly
219
-------
maintained. No exhaust system shall be equipped with a
cutout, by-pass, or similar device.
5.5.6. No motor vehicle shall be operated on tires at any
ttme having tread pattern composed primarily of cavities in
the tread (excluding sipes and local chunking or irreqularities
of wear) which are not vented by grooves to the tire shoulder
or circumferentially to each other around the tire, unless
such vehicle equipped with such tires can be shown not to
exceed noise standards under Section 5.5.1.
5.5.7. No person shall sound any horn or audible signal
device on any motor vehicle of any kind except as a danger
warning signal or as provided for in the vehicle code of the
State of Oregon.
5.5.8. Dynamic Braking Devices. No person shall operate any motor
vehicle of ten thousand (10,000) pounds qross vehicle weight or greater
7
with a dynamic braivinq device enqaqed except for the aversion of
imminent danger.
Section 5.6. Non-Stationary Equipment.
5.6.1. No person shall operate any powered equipment or
powered hand tool such that it produces a maximum noise
level exceedinq th" following noise limits at a distance of
25 feet:
220
-------
TYPE OF EQUIPMENT
NOISE LIMIT
(a) Construction and industrial machinery
such as, but not limited to, crawler-
tractors, dozers, rotary drills and
augers, loaders, power shovels,
cranes, derricks, motor graders,
paving machines, off-highway
trucks, ditchers, trenchers, com-
pactors, scrapers, v/agons,- pave-
ment breakers, compressors, and
pneumatic powered equipment, etc.
but not including pile drivers.
After 1 January 1976 85 dBA
(b) Powered commercial equipment of 20
HP or less intended for infrequent
use in a residential area, such as,
but not limited to, chsin saws,
pavement breakers, log chippers,
powered hand tools, and snow removal
equipment.
After 1 January 1976 85 dBA
Aftpr 1 January 1980 75 dBA
(c) Powered equipment intended for repetetive
use in residential areas. Such equipment
includes, but is not limited to,
lawn mowers, small lawn garden tools,
and riding tractors.
After 1 January 1976 78 dBA
After 1 January 1980 65 dBA
5.6.2. The maximum permissible sound levels established by
Subsection 5.6.1.(a) shall be reduced by 5 dB for:
(a) Sounds of periodic character; or
(b) Sounds of impulsive character: or
(c) Sounds with a pure tone component.
221
-------
5.6.3. Between the hours of 2200 and 0800, .ion-stationary
equipment including but not limited to the types specified
above under section 5,6.1. shall not be operated except
for reasons of an emergency nature. This restriction shall
apply from the effective date of this ordinance.
Section 5.7. Maximum Permissible Sound Levels for Watercraft
No personshall operate any watercraft in such a manner as
to exceed 75 dBA when measured at any point on land between
the hours of 0700 and 2300. At all other hours these levels
shall be reduced by 10 dB. After 1 January 1976, the maximum
permissible sound level for watercraft shall be 65 dBA when
measured at any point on land.
Section 5.8. Refuse Compacting Vehicles
No person shall operate a refuse compacting vehicle manufactured
after December 31, 1975 which, when compacting, creates a
sound level in excess of 70 dBA when measured at a distance
of 25 feet from any point on the compacting unit.
222
-------
SECTION 6. NOISES PROHIBITED
Section 6.1. General Prohibitions.
It shall be unlawful for any person to make, continue, or
cause to be made to continued or caused any excessive or
unusually loud noise, or to create a noise disturbance within
the limits of the (City of Portland)(County of Multnomah).
Section 6.2. Specific Prohibitions.
The following acts, among others, are declared to be loud,
disturbing, or excessive noise in violation of this ordinance,
but said enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive,
namely:
6.2.1. Aircraft operations. Running, testing or otherwise
operating aircraft engines on the ground in such a manner
as to cause noise disturbance or violate the provisions of
Section 5.1. Nothing in this section shall be construed to
prohibit, restrict, penalize, or enjoin in any manner or
regulate the movement of aircraft which are, in all respects,
conducted in accordance with, or pursuant to, applicable
Federal laws, or regulations, or air traffic control instructions,
or airport proprietor regulations.
6.2.2. Animals. Owning, keeping, possessing, or harborinq
any animal or animals which, by frequent or habitual howling,
barking, meowing, squawking, or other noisemaking, cause a
223
-------
noise disturbance, and the attachinq of any bell on any
animal, or allowing the same to remain on any animal. Any
animal running at large with a bell thereon shall be liable
to be impounded. The provisions of this section shall also
apply to all private or public facilities, including any
anln.ul pounds, which hold or treat animals.
6.2.3. Burglar Alarms. On or after one year from the
effective date of this code, a building or motor vehicle with
an audible burglar alarm thereon, unless such burglar alarm
shall be capable of and shall automatically terminate its
operation within 15 minutes of its being activated in the
case of a building and 10 minutes of its being activated
in the case of a motor vehicle; notwithstanding this provision,
any member of the(Police Department)(Sheriff's Office) of
(the City of Port!and)(Multnomah County) shall have the riqht
to take such steps as may be necessary to disconnect any
alarm installed on a motor vehicle at any time during the
period of its activation. On or after 30 days from the
effective date of this code, any motor vehicle or building on
which a burglar alarm has been installed shall prominently
display the telephone number at which comnuii cation may be made
with the owner of such vehicle or building, or have said
number on record with the (Police Department)(Sheriff's Office).
6.2.4. Helicopter Operations. To land or take off any helicopter
or steep-gradient aircraft at or from any place within the
224
-------
(city)(county), except at a helistop or heliport, unless
the (City Council)(County Board of Commissioners) has
specifically authorized the same, or in case of emergency.
6.2.5. Loading Operations. Loading, unloading, opening
or otherwise handling boxes, crates, containers, garbage
cans, or other similar objects between the hours of
2200 and 0700 in such a manner as to cause a noise disturbance
in any residential zone.
6.2.6. Motor Vehicle Racing Events. Operating or permitting
the operation of any motor vehicle racing events at any
place except an authorized facility and in a manner approved
by the Noise Control Officer or his designated representative
to minimize noise disturbance.
6.2.7. Places of Public Entertainment. Operating, or
permitting to be operated, any loudspeaker of other source
of sound in any place of public entertainment which produces
maximum levels of 85 dB(A) at any point that is normally
occupied by a person, as read with the slow response on a sound
level meter, without a conspicuous and legible sign located
outside such place, near the entrance, stating "WARNING:
EXCESSIVE SOUND LEVELS WITHIN MAY CAUSE PERMANENT HEARING LOSS."
6.2.8. Quiet Zones. Creating any unnecessary or unusually
loud noise or noise disturbance within the vicinity of any
school or other institution of learning, hospital, nursing home,
225
-------
court of law, or other designated area where exceptional
quiet is necessary, while the same are in use, provided
conspicuous signs are displayed in adjacent or contiguous
streets, Indicating that the same is a quiet zone.
6.2.9. Sound Producing or Reproauiing Equipment. The
use or operation of any device, designed for sound production
or reproduction, including but not limited to, any radio,
television set, musical instrument, phonograph, exterior
loudspeaker, bell or chime in such-a manner as to cause a
noise disturbance at or beyond the property boundary of the
source, or on a public r^'ght-of-way, except as provided for
in Section 7.2.
6.2.10. Standing Motor Vehicles. Operating or permitting
the operation of the motor of any motor vehicle whose manufacturer's
gross weight is in excess of ten thousand (10,000) pounds, or
any attached auxiliary equipment for a period .onger than 5
minutes in any hour while such vehicle is stationary on a
public right-of-way in a residential district or in any designated
quiet zone, or is on private property in a residential or
commercial zone and is not within a completely enclosed structure.
6.2.11. Steam Whistles. The blowing of any steam whistle attached
to any stationary boiler, except to give notice of the time to
begin or to stop work, or as a warning of danger.
6.2.12. Street Outcries. Selling anything by outcry or causing
226
-------
any outcry for any purpose except for the aversion of imminent
danger within any area of the (city)(county) zones primarily
for residential uses, except as provided for in Section 7.2.
6.2.13. Vehicle Repairs or Testing. Repairing, rebuilding,
modifying or testing any motor vehicle (or off road vehicles)
or motorboat In or near a residential use district in such a
manner as to cause a noise disturbance or violate the provisions
of Section 5.1. The term residential use district, as used
in this section, shall include but not be restricted to any
area where a garage is located within 100 feet of any building
or buildings used as a private residence, apartment house,
rooming house, or hotel.
227
-------
SECTION 7. EXCEPTIONS AND VARIANCES
Section 7.1. Emergency Exceptions.
Noise caused in the performance of emergency work for the
Immediate safety, health, or welfare of the community or
Individuals of the community, oh to restore property to a safe
condition following a public calamity shall not be subject to
the provisions of this ordinance. Nothing in this section
shall be construed to permit law enforcement, ambulance, fire,
or other emergency personnel to make excessive noise in the
performance of their duties when such noise is clearly
unnecessary,
Section 7.2. Variances.
Any person who owns or operates or causes any noise source
which creates or may create a noise disturbance and/or
exceeds or may exceed the maximum permissible sound levels
specified in Seccion 5.1., may apply to the Noise Control
Officer for a variance from rules or regulations governing
the quality, nature, duration or extent of discharge of
noise. Such noise sources may include, but are not limited
to, the broadcast or amplification of mesr^ges, or commercial
or entertainment programs, music, or speech, or general
entertainment as a part of national, state or city events,
public festivals, or outstanding events of a non-commercial
character, as well as industrial processes and commercial
activities.
228
-------
7.2.1. Application. The application, in writing, shall be
accompanied by such information and data as the Noise Control
Officer may require.
7.2.2. Temporary variances. The Noise Control Officer may
grant temporary variances (not to exceed^seven days) for
activities or events which he determines do not annoy a
substantial number of the public affected and do not endanger
public health and safety, and that compliance with the rules
and regulations from which variance is sought would prodjce
serious hardship without equal or greater benefits to the
public. Application for a temporary variance must be made
at least 30 days prior to the proposed event or activity; this
requirement may be waived at the discretion of the Noise
Control Officer is good cause.is demonstrated.
7.2.3. Extended Variances.Any variance, other than a temporary
variance, is to be considered an extended variance. An extended
variance may be qranted pursuant to this section within the
following limitations:
(a) If the variance is granted on the grounds that there
is no practicable means known or available for the adequate
prevention, abatement or control of the sound involved, it
shall be only until the necessary means for prevention, abatement
or control becomes known or available, and subject to the taking
of any substitute or alternate measures that the Noise Control
Officer may prescribe. The holder of such a variance shall make
229
-------
reports to the Noise Control Officer as required, but not
less than annually, detailing actions taken to develop a means
of noise control or to reduce the sound involved and must relate
these actiont to pertinent current technology.
(b) If the variance is granted on the grounds that
compliance with the particular requirement or requirements from
which a variance is souqht will require the taking of measures
which because of their extent or cost must be spread over a
considerable period of time, it- shall be for a period n^t to
exceed such reasonable time as, in the view of the Noise
Control Officer, is requisite for the taking of the necessary
measures. A variance granted on the ground specified herein
shall contain a timetable for the taking of action in an
expeditious manner and shall be conditioned on adherence to such
timetable.
(c) If the variance is qranted on the ground that it is
justified to relieve or prevent hardship of a kind other than
that provided for in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section,
or for any other reason, it shall be be for not more than one
year.'
7.2.4. Renewal. Any variance, except temporary variances,
granted pursuant to this section, may be renewed on terms and
conditions and for periods which would be appropriate on the
initial granting of a variance. No renewal shall be granted
except on application thereof. Any such application shall be
230
-------
made at least sixty days prior to the expiration of the
variance. Renewal will be considered only if satisfactory
progress towards compliance is demonstrated.
7.2.5. A variance or renewal shall not be a right of the
applicant or holder thereof, but shall be at the reasonable
discretion of the Noise Control Officer. Violation of
the terms of the variance shall be sufficient grounds for
the Immediate revocation of the variance.
7.2.6. In no event shall a variance be issued where any
obstruction to free and uninterrupted traffic, either vehicular
or pedestrian, shall result.
Section 7.3. Public Notification.
7.3.1. Public notification of all applications for variances,
both temporary and extended, and such renewals, shall promptly
be published in a newspaper of qeneral circulation within
the municipality affected. The Noise Control Officer further,
at his discretion, shall contact owners and residents of
property likely to be affected by the noise, and the qeneral
public affected.
7.3.2. The Noise Control Officer shall promptly give notice
of any petition for variance, or renewal of a variance, to any
person who has in writing requested notice of such petition.
231
-------
7.3.3. The Noise Control Officer shall file a written order
in granting or denying any application for a variance or a
renewal of variance within 45 days or less of receipt of
application. This order shall state the facts and reasons
leading to his decision, and shall be available to the applicant
and to any other party who request:, it in writinq.
Section 7.4. Appeal Procedures.
Any person may appeal any variance or renewal of variance
decision made by the Noise Control Officer. Notice of
intent of appeal :!iall be made in writing to the Auditor's
Office within ten days following- decision. The Auditor
shall then place the matter upon the calendar of the (City
Council)(County Board of Commissioners). At the time of
hearing, or thereafter, the (City Council)(County Board
of Commissioners) may affirm, modify or reverse the decision
of the Noise Control Officer.
232
-------
SECTION 8. ORDINANCE ADDITIONAL TO OTHER LAW.
The provisions of this ordinance shall be cumulative and
nonexclusive and shall not affect any other claim, cause
of action or remedy; nor, unless specifically provided,
shall it be deemed to repeal, amend or modify any law,
ordinance or regulation relating to noise or sound, but
shall be deemed additional to existing legislation and
common law in such subject.
233
-------
SECTION 9. ENFORCEMENT.
Section 9.1. Method of Enforcements
Whenever the Noise Control Officer or his agent has reason
to believe that a provision of this ordinance has been
violated, he shall:
(a) cause a citation to be served upon the
alleged violator, and/or
(b) order summary abatement of the violation, and/or
(c) take whatever c';her action he deems appropriate
to secure compliance with the ordinance.
Section 9.2. Citation.
Such citation shall specify the provision(s) of the
ordinance alleged to have been violated; the facts alleged
to constitute a violation, including,where appropriate,
sound level readings and the time and place of their detection:
and shall include an order that abatement or corrective action
occur within a reasonable time, and indicate when court
appearance is ordered.
9.2.1. Mailing of Citation. In the event that a direct
serving of the notice cannot be accomplished, the Noise Control
Officer shall cause a copy of the citation to be mailed to the
owner, or agent of the owner, of the noise source, directed
to his last known address, or, if that address is unknown, to
owner or agent at Portland, Oregon.
234
-------
9.2.2. Abatement by owner. Within seven days after the
serving or mailing of such notice, the owner, agent of
the owner, or occupant of any such property shall abate
said violation or violations of this ordinance and/or take
appropriate corrective action with the approval of the
Noise Control Officer, or show cause why no such violation
exists. Upon abating of the violation and/or the taking
of the corrective action, the Noise Control Officer may
recommend dismissal of the charges. Failure to abate within
the time period and without showing cause why m such
violation occurs is to be considered a violation of this
ordinance.
Section 9.3.
The alleged offender rr.ay show cause why no such violation
exists upon appearance in court. At the time set for
hearing in court, such person or persons shall appear and
be heard along with the Noise Control Officer or his agent,
and the court shall thereupon determine whether such
violation or violations have occurred.
Section 9.4. Summary Abatement.
If, in the opinion of the Noise Control Officer, suiraiary
abatement procedures are indicated, he may so order, with
the cooperation of the department(s) having jurisdiction.
235
-------
SECTION 10. PENALTIES AND OTHER ACTIONS.
Section 10.1. Any person who violates any provision of this
ordinance or a final order made under the provisions of
Section 9, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and subject to
a fine not in excess of $500. Each day of violation shall
constitute a separate offense except when a citation has
been issued allowing correction time.
Section 10.2. Action pursuant to Section 10.1 shall not
bar enforcement of this ordinance or a final order issued
under the provision of Section 9 by injunction or other
appropriate remedy. The Noise Control Officer is authorized
and empowered to institute and maintain through the
(Corporation Counsel)(District Attorney) in the name of
the (county)(city) any and all such enforcement proceedings.
Section 10.3. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed
to abridge or impair the right of any person to damages or
other relief on account of injury to persons or property.
236
-------
SECTION 11. REPEAL OF ORDINANCE.
(Section 14.52 of Ordinance Title 14 of the Code of the City
of Portland is hereby repealed.)
(Ordinance numbers 19 and 37 for the County of Multnomah
are hereby repealed.)
237
-------
SECTION 12. SEVERABILITY PROVISIONS
If any provision of this ordinance, or its application to
any person, or circumstances, is held to be invalid, the
remainder of this ordinance, or the application of the
provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be
affected.
238
-------
PROPOSED NOISE ORDINANCE CORRECTIONS
Section 2.3.28 (Stationary Noise Source) should be deleted.
Section 5.2.1 (p.14) "2300" is to be changed to "2200"
Section 5.2.3 (p.15) "2300" is to be changed to "2200"
Section 5.3 (p.15) should read: "The provisions of Sections
5.1 and 5.2 shall apply..."
Section 5.3.1 (p.15) should read: "Commencing one year after
the effective date of this ordinance, to any pre-existing industrial
or commercial use, condition or activity. All other uses are to
be considered upon the effective date of this ordinance."
Section 5.5.2 (p.17) Right hand column should read "Speed over
35 mph."
Add Section 5.6.4 (p.20) "Nothing in this section shall be construed
as limiting or precluding enforcement of any other provision of
Sections 5.1 and 5.2."
Section 5.7 (p.20): Change "2300" to "2200"
Section 6.2.7 (p.23) Change "85 dB(A)" to "85 dB(A) or greater."
Section 6.2.12 (p.25), line 2. Change "zones" to "zoned"
Section 5.5.2 should read: "Off road vehicles: No person shall
operate any off-road vehicle which exceeds the following maximum
permi:sible sound levels, when measured at a distance of 25 feet
or more within the sneed limits specified. At distances greater
than 25 feet, an appropriate correction shall be applied. This
section shall not be construed as limiting or precluding enforcement
of Section 5.5.3."
Section 712,3CaI'CP. 28), line 4. Change "actiont" to "actions."
239/240
-------
Title 18
(New Title added by Ord. No. 141882
passed and effective June 10, 1976.)
NOISE
Chapters:
18.02
Title
18.04
Standards and Definitions
18.06
Responsibilities and Authority
18.08
City Bureaus
18.10
Maximum Permissible Sound Levels
18.12
Noises Prohibited
18.14
Exceptions and Variances
18.16
Ordinance Additional to Other Law
18.18
Enforcement and Penalties
18.20
Severability Provision
241
-------
STAiNDARDS AND DEFINITIONS
Chapter 18.02
TITLE
Sections:
18.02.010 Title.
18.02.010 Title. This title shall be known as
the "Portland Noise Ordinance"
Chapter 18.04
STANDARDS AND DEFINITIONS
Sections:
18.04.010 Terminology and standards.
18.04.020 Measurement of sound.
18.04.040 Definitions.
18.04.010 Terminology and standards. All
terminology used in this title not defined below
shall be in accordance with applicable publica-
tions of the American National Standards Insti-
tute (ANSI) in effect on the effective date of
this title.
18.04.020 Measurement of sound, (a) If the
measurements are made with a sound level
meter, it shall be an instrument in good operat-
ing condition, meeting the requirements of a
Type I or Type II meter, as specified by ANSI
Standard 1.4-1971. For purposes of this title, a
sound level meter shall contain at least an
A-weighted scale, and both fast and slow meter
response capability.
(b) If the measurements are made with other
instruments, the procedure shall be carried out
in such a manner that the overall accuracy shall
be at least that called for in ANSI standard
1.4-1971 for Type II instruments.
(c) When the location or distance prescribed
in this title for measurement of sound is
impractical or would provide misleading or
inaccurate results, measurements may be taken
at other locations or distances using appropriate
correction factors specified in this title or in
other rules promulgated by the noise control
officer.
(d) Procedures and tests required by this title
and not specified herein, shall be placed on file
with the city auditor.
18.04.040 Definitions. The following words
shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this
section:
(1) A-scale (dBA): The sound level in decibels
measured using the A-weighted network as
specified in ANSI S 1.4-1971 for sound level
meters.
(2) City: The city of Portland, Oregon, or the
area within the territorial city limits of the city
of Portland, Oregon, and such territory outside
of this city over which the city has jurisdiction
or control by virtue of ownership or any
constitutional or charter provisions, or any law.
(3) Construction: Any and all activity neces-
sary or incidental to the erection, demolition,
assembling, altering, installing, repair or
equipping of buildings, roadways, or utilities,
including land clearing, grading, excavating and
filling.
(4) Decibel (dB): A unit of measure of sound
(See sound pressure level).
(5) Dwelling unit: A building or portion
thereof regularly used for residential occupancy.
(6) Dynamic braking device: A device, used
primarily on trucks and busses to convert the
motor from an internal combustion engine to an
air compressor for the purpose of vehicle
braking without the use of wheel brakes.
(7) Emergency work: Work made necessary to
restore property to a safe condition following a
public calamity, work to restore public utilities,
or work required to protect persons or property
from imminent exposure to danger.
(8) Frequency: The time of repetition of a
periodic phenomenon, measured in Hertz (Hz)
(formerly cps or cycles per second).
(9) Impulse sound: A single pressure peak or a
single burst (multiple pressure peaks) for a
duration of less than one second as measured on
a peak unweighted sound pressure measuring
instrument.
(10) Legal holidays: The days on which New
Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day,
Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas
Day are fixed by state law.
(11) Lot: Any area, tract or parcel of land
owned by or under the lawful control of one
distinct ownership. Abutting "platted lots"
under the same ownership shall be considered a
"lot". The lot line or boundary is an imaginary
line at ground level which separates a lot and its
vertical extension owned by one person from
that owned by another.
(12) Mixed use: Dwelling unit or school
located in a commercial or industrial zone.
(13) Motor vehicle: Any land vehicle which is,
or is designed to be self-propelled or is designed
or used for transporting persons or property.
-------
NOISE
(14) Narrow band sound: Sound character-
ized by normal listeners as having a predominant
pitch or series of pitches; sound described by
such listeners as "whine", "hiss", "toot", or
"wail"; a sound whose frequencies occupy an
octave band or less.
(15) Noise disturbance: Any sound which: a)
injures or endangers the safety or health of
humans; or b) annoys or disturbs a reasonable
person of normal sensitivities or c) endangers or
injures personal or real property.
(16) Non-conforming use: A use of structure,
building or land which was established as a
permitted use and which has been lawfully
continued pursuant to Title 33 of this code, but
which is not a permitted use in the zone in
which it is now located.
(17) Octave band: An interval in Hertz
between two frequencies having a ratio of two
to one. For purposes of this title, octave band
sound pressure levels may be measured at any of
the following center frequencies: 31.5, 63, 125,
250, 500, 1000,2000, 4000 and 8000 Hz.
(18) Offroad recreational vehicle: Any motor
vehicle, including road vehicles but excepting
watercraft, used off public roads for recreational
purposes.
(19) Person: Any individual, association,
partnership or corporation including any officer,
department, bureau, agency or instrumentality
of the United States, a state or any political
sub-division of that state, including the city of
Portland.
(20) Physical characteristics of sound: A
descriptive term, encompassing the steady, im-
pulsive or narrow band property of the sound,
the level of the sound, and the extent to which
it exceeds the background sound level.
(21) Plainly audible (sound): Any sound for
which the information content of that sound is
unambiguously communicated to the listener,
such as, but not limited to underctandable
spoken speech, comprehension of whether a
voice is raised or normal, or comprehensible
musical rhythms.
(22) Port facilities: Any and all public or
private facilities used for the repair, loading or
unloading of ships within the city of Portland,
including, but not limited to, shipyards, repair
yards and drydocks.
(23) Public right of way: Any street, avenue,
highway, boulevard, alley, easement or public
space which is owned by or controlled by a
public governmental entity.
(24) Sound level: In dBA, the weighted sound
pressure level, measured by the use of a metering
characteristic. For purposes of this title, the A
weighting is to be used.
(25) Sound level meter: A sound level measur-
ing device, either Type 1 or Type II, as defined
by ANSI specification S 1.4-1971. A sound level
meter for the purpose of this title shall contain
at least an A-scale and both fast and slow meter
response.
(26) Sound pressure, level: In decibels (dB), is
20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the
ratio of the pressure of a given sound to the
reference pressure. The reference pressure is 20
micropascals per square meter.
(27) Steady sound: A sound whose level
remains essentially constant (+/-2 dB) during the
period of observation when measured with the
fast response of the sound level meter.
(28) Use: The purpose for which land or a
building is arranged, designed or occupied.
(29) Watercraft: Any contrivance used, or
capable of being used as a means of transporta-
tion or recreation on the water.
(30) Zone: A classification of area of the city
of Portland as described in Title 33 of the city
code. For purposes of this title, the following
categories are established:
A. Residential zone includes R20, R10, R7,
R5, A2.5, Al, AO.
B. Commercial zone includes zones C5, C4,
C2, CI.
C. Industrial zone includes zones M4, M3, M2,
Ml.
D. FF (Farm and Forest) zone.
Chapter 18.06
RESPONSIBILITIES .AMD AUTHORITY
Sections:
18.06.010 Noise control officer.
18.06.020 Noise review board.
18.06.030 Responsibilities.
18.06.040 Authority.
18.06.010 Noise control officer. The noise
control officer shall be the coordinator of the
bureau of neighborhood environment, or such
other person as the commissioner-in-charge snail
designate. The commissioner may also designate
243
-------
CITY BUREAUS
persons to be deputy noise control officers, and
the noise control officer and the deputies shall
be special police officers of the city and shall
have authority to issue citations for the viola-
tions of this title and to this extent shall exercise
full police power and authority.
18.06.020 Noise review board. The noise
review board is hereby established, consisting of
five members, each appointed by the Mayor, and
approved by the council. Among the members
there shall be, at a minimum, one professional in
acoustics, one citizen-aMarge, and one represen-
tative of the construction industry. Initially, one
member shall be appointed for a term of one
year, two members for two-year terms, and two
members for three-year terms. Thereafter, each
appointment shall be made for a three-year
period, as vacancies occur. Members shall serve
without remuneration. The board shall elect its
own chairperson at its first meeting of each
fiscal year, and shall determine its own schedule
of meetings. The noise control officer shall serve
as a non-voting member of the board. All
decisions made by the noise review board shall
be by simple majority vote of all members.
18.06.030 Responsibilities, (a) The responsi-
bilities of the noise control officer shall include:
(1) Investigating citizen complaints of viola-
tions of this title, making all necessary inspec-
tions and observations upon reasonable cause,
with presentation of proper credentials, and
enforcing the provisions of this title.
(2) Promulgating rules and procedures to be
used in the measurement of sound.
(3) Conducting or participating in studies,
research and monitoring relating to sound and
noise, including joint cooperative investigation
with public or private agencies; and the applica-
tion for, and acceptance of grants and contracts,
with the approval of the city council.
(4) Advising, consulting and cooperating with
any public or private agency, including city
bureaus, to implement the provisions of this
title.
(5) The supplying of such technical assistance
as the board shall direct or require.
(6) The reviewing of all applications for Class
A variances and the rendering of decisions
within the time specified, according to Section
18.14.
(b) The responsibilities of the noise review
board shall include:
(1) Instituting a public education program
regarding, sound and noise, including the collec-
tion, publication and dissemination of appro-
priate literature and information, and the enlist-
ing of cooperation by public, civic, scientific,
and educational groups.
(2) The reviewing of all applications for Gass
B and C variances, and renewals of Class B'
variances, and the rendering of decision within
the time specified, according to Section 18.14.
(3) Evaluating the effectiveness of this title,
and, at the request of the noise control officer,
the developing of recommendations for amend-
ments, additions, or deletions to this title.
(4) Developing long-term objectives for
achieving reduction of sound levels in the
community, and developing a means for imple-
menting these objectives into the long-range
planning process.
18.06.040 Authority, (a) The authority of the
noise control officer shall include:
(1) The issuance of citations for violation of
this title.
(2) Acting on Class A variances, according to
procedures specified in Section 18.14. of this
title.
(3) Requiring the cooperation of the owner or
operator of any noise source in the reasonable
operation, manipulation or shut-down of various
equipment or operations as needed to ascertain
the source of sound and measure its emission.
(b) The authority of the noise review board
shall include:
(1) Acting on Class B and C variances accord-
ing to procedures specified in Section 18.14. of
this title.
(2) Holding hearings to obtain information
relative to variance application, renewal or
revocation.
(3) Recommending amendments, additions,
or deletions to this title.
Chapter 18.08
CITY BUREAUS
Sections:
18.08.010 Bureau actions.
18.08.020 Compliance with other laws.
18.08.030 Product selection.
244
-------
NOISE
18.08.010 Bureau actions. All city bureaus
shall, to the fullest extent consistent with their
authorities under other titles administered by
them, carry out their programs in such a manner
as to further the provisions of this title, and shall
cooperate to the fullest extent in enforcing the
provisions of this title.
(c) The total cost of the purchase being
considered not exceed 110% of the cost, prior to
silencing, of the most advantageous product of
the types being considered.
Chapter 18! 10
18.08.020 Compliance with other laws. All
bureaus engaged in any activities which result, or
may result in the emission of sound, shall
comply with federal and state regulations and
the provisions of this title, respecting the control
and abatement of sound to the same extent that,
any person is subject to-such laws and regula-
tions.
18.08.030 Product selection. When two or
more products, including supplies, materials and
equipment, are being considered for purchase by
a city bureau, and excessive sound levels are a
factor, the product which has the lowest sound
level shall be selected for purchase, provided
that: (a) Fitness and quality are judged to be
equal, and
(b) The procurement cost of such product not
exceed the total cost required to purchase a
competing product and to reduce the sound
emission level of that competing product to the
lowest level of the product being considered,
and
MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOUND LEVELS
Sections:
18.10.010
18.10.020
18.10.030
18.10.040
18.10.050
18.10.060
Land use zones.
Motor vehicles.
Home equipment and powered tools.
Watercraft.
Motor vehicle racing events.
Construction activities and
equipment.
18.10.010 Land use zones. Except as specifi-
cally provided for elsewhere in this title, no
person shall cause or permit sound to intrude
into the property of another person which
exceeds the limits set forth below in this section.
For purposes of this section, "day hours" shall
be between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and
"night hours" shall be between 10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m.
(a) The sound levels established are as set
forth in the following table before any adjust-
ments are applied:
Table 1
Permissible sound levels, in dBA, for land use zones, as measured at any point on the lot line
separating the source from the receiver.
(1) Existing uses. For purposes of this title, existing uses shall be considered as uses in operation,
or for which installation or construction was commenced on or before January 1, 1977.
Zone of Receiver
Zone of Source
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Residential
55'
60
65
Commercial
60
70
70
Industrial
65
70
75
(2) New uses. For purposes of this title, new uses shall be considered as uses for which
installation or construction was commenced after January 1, 1977.
Zone of Source
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Residential
55
55
60
Zone of Receiver
Commercial
60
65
65
Industrial
60
65
70
245
-------
MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOUND LEVELS
(b) Adjustments to Table 1.(1) During night
hours, the sound levels of Table 1 shall be
reduced 5 dBA.
(2) During ail hours, the sound levels of Table .
1 shall be decreased 5 dBA for narrow band or
steady sound (apply one only).
(3) The adjustments provided herein are
cumulative.
(c) Farm and forest (FF) zone. The per-
missible sound levels for an FF zone shall be the
same as for a residential zone. However, the
sounds caused by agricultural and silvicuitural
operations within an FF zone are exempt from
the provisions of section 18.10.010.
(d) Mixed use: If a dwelling unit or school is
in mixed use in a non-residential zone of the
city, the non-residential standard shall normally
apply. If, after a complaint is received, it can be
demonstrated that the present ownership and
location of the dwelling unit or school predates
that of the non-residential noise source, then the
permissible sound level, as measured at the lot
line, shall be 5 dBA greater than the values
indicated in Table 1, above, for the appropriate
zone of source to a residential zone of receiver.
(e) Non-conforming use: The maximum per-
missible sound level that may be emitted from
any lot containing a non-conforming use shall be
the same as for the lowest zone of source in
which the use would be a conforming use as
provided in Table 1. (M zones are herein
considered the highest and R zones the lowest
use).
(0 When a sound source can be identified and
its sound measured in more than one zone, each
of the appropriate sections shall apply at the
boundaries between zones.
(g) Impulse sound: Notwithstanding the
sound levels of this section, no person shall
cause or permit the operation of a noise source
which emits an impulsive sound in air, as
measured at the appropriate measurement point,
which has a peak sound pressure level in excess
of 100 dB during day hours and 80 dB during
night hours.
(h) Octave band measurements: When the
noise control officer makes a finding that the
frequency characteristics of the sound are such
that the A-scale levels specified in section
18.10.010 are inadequate to protect the public
health and safety, octave-band or one-third
octave band sound pressure level measurements
shall be performed. (1) Octave-band measure-
ments shall be compared to the appropriate
values indicated in Table 2 for equivalent per-
missible dBA land use values; octave-band sound
pressure in excess of these standards shall be
considered evidence of a violation of this title.
Table 2
Permitted Octave Band Sound Pressure Levels
for Given Permissible dBA Sound Levels
When the Permissible
dBA level is:
The Maximum Octave Band Sound
Pressure Levels shall not exceed:
Octave Band Center Frequence, in Hz
31.5
63
125
250
500
1000
2000
4000
8000
45
64
58
51
46
42
39
36
33
30
50
65
62
56
50
46
43
40
37
34
55
68
65
61
55
52
49
46
43
40
60
72
68
64
60
56
54
51
48
45
65
76
72
68
64
61
59
56
53
50
70
79
76
72
69
66
64
61
58
55
75
82
79
76
73
71
69
66
63
60
246
-------
NOISE
(2) One-third octave-band measurements shall
be compared to the standards of OAR, section
35-035 (1) (0 (B), three copies of which are on
file with the city auditor, and hereby adopted
by reference. Levels in excess of these standards
shall be considered evidence of a violation of
this title. When such measurements are to be
performed, the department of environmental
quality will support data gathering and analysis
as needed.
(i) When property of the receiver is unoccu-
pied, as in the case of an undeveloped lot, sound
levels in excess of those specified herein, shall be
considered only as a technical non-compliance
to the standard. No citation shall be issued in
such instances, nor is the corrective action on
the part of the noise source required.
(j) Amendments to Title 33, Planning and
Zoning, which, by changing the classification of
property, would otherwise alter the noise emis-
sions permitted from property containing a
noise source, pursuant to section 18.10.010,
shall not alter the noise levels permitted from
such source unless the council, at the time the
change is approved, shall specifically so provide.
18.10.020 Motor vehicles, (a) No person shall
operate any motor vehicle registered for use on
public roads at any time, or under any condition
of grade, load, acceleration or deceleration in
such a manner as to violate the maximum
permissible sound levels or equipment standards
for the category of vehicle as indicated in this
subsection.
(1) Vehicles of 10,000 lbs. GCWR (Gross
Combination Weight Rating) or more, engaged
in interstate commerce as permitted by Title 40,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 202, Environ-
mental Protection Agency (Noise Standards for
Motor Vehicles Engaged in Interstate Com-
merce). the provisions of which are hereby
incorporated by reference and three copies of
which are on file in the office of the city
auditor.
(2) All other vehicles shall not exceed the
vehicular noise emission levels or equipment
standards permitted by OAR 35-030 (1) (a) and
(c), three copies of which are on file in the
office of the city auditor and which are hereby
adopted by reference.
(3) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a
public highway unless it is equipped with a
muffler in good working order and in constant
operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise.
(4) No person shall operate, and no owner of
any motor vehicle shall permit to be operated
upon any public road, street or highway, any
motor vehicle so as to cause any greater noise or
sound than is reasonably necessary for the
proper operation of such motor vehicle.
(5) It shall be unlawful for any person to
operate a motor vehicle on a street or highway
with an exhaust system utilizing a cutout,
by-pass or similar device.
(b) A police officer, or noise control officer,
who finds a vehicle or operator to be in violation
of subsection (a) of this section shall issue a
citation to the operator. The citation shall be
accompanied by a written notice to the operator
specifying the particular subsections found to be
in violation.
(1) The citation shall require the violator to
appear at court to answer for the violation and
present evidence that the violation has been
corrected. The date for court appearance on the
face of the citation shall not be less than 28 days
after the. citation was issued.
(2) The accompanying written notice shall
specify that if the violator presents proof to the
clerk of the district court that the vehicle
complies with the standards described in OAR
35-030, (1), (a), (c) for the control of motor
vehicle noise emissions, three copies of which
are on file with the office of the city auditor and
which are hereby adopted by reference, the
citation shall be dismissed.
(3) Proof for the purpose of this section shall
be a certificate of compliance issued or approved
by the Department of Environmental Quality. If
said certificate is received by the clerk of the
district court not less than five days prior to the
date set for the violator's appearance before the
court, the citation will be dismissed without the
necessity of the violator personally appearing
before the court.
(c) It shall be unlawful for any person to
operate a motor vehicle in such a manner as to
cause or allow to be emitted squealing, screech-
ing or other such noise trom the tires in contact
with the ground because of rapid acceleration or
excessive speed around corners or other such
reason, except that noise resulting from emer-
gency action to avoid imminent danger snail be
exempt from this provision.
(d) No person shall operate any motor vehicle
in excess of 10,000 lbs. GCWR, in any residen-
tial zone of the city or within 200 feet of any
dwelling unit, school, or designated quiet zone,
with a dynamic braking device engaged, unless:
247
-------
.MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOUND LEVELS
(1) Such device when engaged does not
increase the sound level emitted by the vehicle
under power, or
(2) For the aversion of imminent danger.
(e) (1) No person shall operate and no owner
of property shall permit the operation of an
offroad recreational vehicle so as to exceed the
noise emission standards of OAR 35-030 (1) (b)
and (d) (adopted by the environmental quality
commission, effective August 25, 1974), appli-
cable to offroad recreational vehicles, but excep-
ting watercraft from the definition thereof,
three copies of which are on file with the office
of the city auditor, and which are hereby
adopted by reference.
(2) No person shall operate an offroad recrea-
tional vehicle so as to exceed the permissible
sound levels of section 18.10.010 or 18.10.020
of this title.
(3) No person shall operate an offroad recrea-
tional vehicle on private or public property
unless the property has been designated for
offroad recreational vehicle use pursuant to Title
33, Planning and Zoning, of this code.
18.10.030 Home equipment and powered
tools, (a) This section shall apply to powered
tools and equipment for home use, conven-
tionally used in and on residentially zoned
property for general purposes, such as, but not
limited to, repair, maintenance, alteration, and
other such home manual arts projects.
(b) When used inside a dwelling unit, between
the hours of 7:00 ajn. and 10:00 p.m., the
sound levels generated by such equipment shall
not exceed 60 dBA, when measured at the lot
line.
(c) When used outside a dwelling unit, be-
tween the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.,
the sound levels generated by such equipment
shall not exceed the following levels, for equip-
ment of the appropriate class, when measured at
a distance of twenty-five feet (7.6 meters) or at
the lot line, whichever is furthef from the
source:
(1) 5 HP or less, such as, but not limited to,
lawnmowers, riding tractors and small garden
tools: 80 dBA;
(2) More than 5 HP, such as, but not limited
to, powered hand tools and snow removal
equipment: 85 dBA.
(d) When used inside or outside a dwelling,
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.,
the sound levels generated by all such equipment
shall not exceed those specified in Section
18.10.010.
18.10.040 Watercraft (a) No person shall
operate a watercraft between the hours of 7:00
a.m. and 10:00 pjn. which exceeds 75 dBA as
measured on shore. Between 10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m., this sound level shall be 65 dBA.
(b) Exemptions: normal docking and undock-
ing operations of all vessels, and operations of
vessels licensed by the federal government for
purposes of commerce on interstate waters are
exempted from the provisions of this section.
(c) Motorboats shall not be operated on
public waterways within the city limits, unless
equipped with a functioning underwater exhaust
or muffler, or, unless such motorboat has the
discharge water continuously piped into the
exhaust line.
(d) Motorboats operated in an authorized race
are exempted from this section but are subject
to restrictions in operation imposed by the
commissioner-in-charge and the noise control
officer as a condition of this permit.
18.10.050 Motor vehicle racing events, (a) No
person shall operate or permit to be operated
any motor vehicle racing event within the city
except at an area approved by the commissioner-
in-charge or the bureau of police, or the city
council.
(b) All such racing events shall be conducted
in a manner approved by the commissioner-
in-charge and the noise control officer to min-
imize noise disturbance, in accordance with the
provisions of section 18.14.020.
(c) This section shall apply to both land and
water motor vehicles.
(d) Prior to the start of the 1977 racing
season the noise control officer shall make
recommendations to the city council regarding
the control of noise at the Portland Inter-
national Raceway.
18.10.060 Construction activities and equip-
ment. (a) Maximum sound levels: After January
1, 1977, no person shall operate any equipment
or appurtenances thereto in commercial con-
struction activities which exceeds 85 dBA, when
measured at fifty feet (15.2 meters) from the
source. This standard shall not apply to trucks
248
-------
NOISE
(see Section 18.10.020), pile drivers, pavement
breakers, scrapers, concrete saws and rock drills.
(b) Night, weekend and legal holiday limita-
tion. From 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. the following
morning, and 6:00 p.m. Saturday to 7:00 a.m.
the following Monday, and on legal holidays, the
permissible sound levels of Section 18.10.010
shall apply to all construction activities except
by variance or for reasons of emergency. The
exempted equipment of Section 18.10.060 (a) is
not exempted during these hours. For purposes
of this subsection, construction activities on a
public road within a zone shall be considered as
taking place on private property within that
zone.
(c) The adjustments to permissible sound
levels established in Section 18.10.010 (b) apply
to subsections (a) and (b) above.
(d) All equipment used in commercial activi-
ties shall have sound control devices no less
effective than those provided on the original
equipment, and no equipment shall have an
unmuffled exhaust.
(e) All equipment used in commercial con-
struction activities shall comply with pertinent
standards of the U.S. environmental protection
agency.
Chapter 18.12
NOISES PROHIBITED
Sections:
18.12.010 Noise disturbance prohibited.
18.12.020 Specific prohibitions.
18.12.030 Provisions if measurement is made.
18.12.010 Noise disturbance prohibited. It
shall be unlawful for any person to willfully
make, continue, cause or permit to be made or
continued any noise disturbance within the city
of Portland.
18.12.020 Specific prohibitions. The follow-
ing acts are declared to be violations of this title,
but this enumeration shall not be deemed to be
exclusive, namely:
(a) Noisy animals.
(1) Barking dogs. See section 13.04.060 (b) of
Chapter 13 of the code of the city of Portland.
(2) Other animals. The provisions of section
13.04.060 (b) of Chapter 13 of the code of the
city of Portland shall, for purposes of this title,
apply to all other animals, wherein repeated or
habitual vocalization shall be the basis of a
complaint of noise disturbance.
(3) Enforcement of subsections (a) and (b) of
this section shall be the responsibility of Mult-
nomah county's animal control.
(b) Sound producing or reproducing
equipment. Operating or permitting the use or
operation of any device designed for sound
production or reproduction in such a manner as
to cause a noise disturbance; or operating or
permitting the operation or use of any such
device between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. so as to be plainly audible within any
dwelling unit which is not the source of sound;
or operating any such device on public property
or on a public right-of-way so as to be plainly
audible fifty feet or more from such device
provided that a person operating any such device
in a city park pursuant to a permit granted by
the commissioner in charge of the park bureau
shall be in violation only if the device is plainly
audible at any point along the park boundary.
(c) Parked motor vehicles. The parking of any
motor vehicle of 10,000 lbs. GCWR, or more,
with the motor or attached auxiliary equipment
in operation:
(1) On a public right-of-way, except for
reasons of an emergency nature, or
(2) On private property in such a manner as
to be plainly audible within any dwelling unit
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
(3) This subsection (c) shall not apply to:
commercial construction equipment, the normal
operation of vehicles designed and used for
commercial transportation of passengers, and
vehicles being loaded or unloaded.
18.12.030 Provisions if measurement is made.
If measurement is taken of a sound source, the
provisions of chapter 18.10 shall supersede this
section and shall be used to determine if a
violation of this title exists.
Chapter 18.14
EXEMPTIONS AND VARIANCES
Sections:
18.14.010 Exemptions.
18.14.020 Variances.
18.14.010 Exemptions. The following sounds
are exempted from the provisions of this title.
249
-------
EXEMPTIONS AND VARIANCES
(a) Sounds caused by the performance of
emergency work, or by the ordinary and accept-
ed use of emergency apparatus and equipment.
(b) Sounds caused by sources regulated as to
sound production by federal law', including, but
not limited to, sounds created by railroad
operations as defined in subpart A, part 201 of
Title 40, CFR of the environmental protection
agency's proposed railroad noise emission stan-
dards published in Vol. 39, Federal Register No.
129, July 3, 1974.
(c) Sounds not electronically amplified, cre-
ated by athletic and entertainment events other
than motor vehicle racing events.
(d) Electronically amplified announcements
at athletic events other than motor vehicle
racing events.
(e) Blasting, under permit by the department
of public works. Such blasting may occur only
between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, unless specifically
authorized by permit.
(0 Sounds from existing stationary refriger-
ation equipment used for the preservation of
food for retail sales until January 1, 1977.
(h) Sounds emanating from port facilities
until January I, 1977.
(i) Sounds made by warning devices operating
continuously for three minutes or less.
18.14.020 Variances. Any person who owns,
controls or operates any sound source which
does not comply with provisions or standards of
this title may apply for a variance from such
standard(s) or provision(s).
(a) Application. The application shall state
the standard(s) or provision(s) for which the
variance is being sought, the period of time and
reasons for which the variance is sought, and any
other supporting information which may be
reasonably required.
(b) Review of the application shall include
consideration of at least the following condi-
tions:
(1) The physical characteristics of the emitted
sound,
(2) The times and duration of the emitted
sound,
(3) The geography, zone, and population
density of the affected area,
(4) Whether the public health and safety is
endangered,
(5) Whether the sound source predates the
receivers), and
(6) Whether compliance with the standard(s)
from which the variance is sought would
produce hardship without equal or greater bene-
fit to the public.
(c) Types of variance.
(1) Class A variances may be granted by the
noise control officer for infrequent events or
activities which do not exceed 72 hours in
duration. Such variances are not renewable.
(2) Class B variances may be granted by the
noise review board for a specified period of time
for:
A. Events or activities of longer than 72 hours
duration, or
B. Regularly occurring events or activities,
including seasonal activities.
A class B variance may be renewed upon
(3) Class C variances may be granted by the
noise review board for an unspecified period of
time for:
A. Regularly occurring events or activities,
and
B. Where the noise does not annoy the
affected public.
A class C variance shall be reviewed upon
complaint of occupants of affected properties.
(d) A variance may be granted, denied, or
conditioned. Violation of the terms of the
variance may constitute grounds for the revo-
cation of the variance.
(e) Public notification. All applications for
Class B variances and renewals, and class C
variances shall promptly be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the city.
The noise review board shall also contact the
appropriate neighborhood association(s), and/or
owners and residents of property likely to be
affected by. the application. Notice shall also be
given to any person residing within 400 feet of
the sound source considered by the application,
and to any person who has in writing requested
notice of such application.
(0 The noise review board may, at its
discretion, hold public hearings relative to any
application for, or renewal of a class B variance.
(g) Decision by the noise review board shall
be reached within 45 days or less of receipt of
application for, or renewal of ar variance.
Decision by the noise control officer shall be
reached within 7 days or less of receipt of
application for a variance.
(1) Failure to reach a decision in the time
specified shall constitute an approval of the
application or renewal. A class B cr class C
250
-------
NOISE
variance shall expire 180 days after it is con-
sidered approved by lack of action by the noise
review board unless it is renewed.
(2) All decisions shall be in writing, and shall
state the facts and reasons leading to such
decision, and shall be made available to the
applicant, and any other person who requests it
in writing.
(h) (1) Any person affected by such decision
may appeal to the city council for hearing.
Notice of intent to appeal shall be in writing to
the city auditor's office within:
A. Ten days of receipt of decision or
B. Ten days following the expiration of the
review period.
(2) The auditor shall then place the matter
upon the calendar of the city council. At the
time of hearing, the city council may affirm,
modify or reverse the decision.
Chapter 18.16
ORDINANCE ADDITIONAL TO OTHER LAW
Sections:
18.16.010 Ordinance additional to other
law.
18.16.010 Ordinance additional to other law.
The provisions of this title shall be cumulative
and non-exclusive and shall not affect any other
claim, cause of action or remedy; nor, unless
specifically provided, shall it be deemed to
repeal, amend or modify any law, ordinance or
regulation relating to noise or sound, but shall
be deemed additional to existing legislation and
common law on such subject.
Chapter 18.18
ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES
Sections:
18.18.010 Authority for enforcement.
18.18.020 Penalty for violation.
18.18.030 Institution of legal
proceedings.
18.18.040 Effective date.
18.18.010 Authority for enforcement. This
title shall be enforced by the bureau of neigh-
borhood environment. The noise control officer
and duly authorized agents shall have citation
authority for purposes of enforcing this title.
18.18.020 Penalty for violation. It is unlawful
for any person to violate any provision or to fail
to comply with any requirement of this title.
Any person violating any provision or failing to
comply with any requirement of this title, unless
provision is otherwise made herein, shall upon
conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not
more than five hundred dollars. Each such
person shall be guilty of a separate offense for
each and every day during any portion of which
any violation of any provision of this title is
committed, continued, or permitted by such
person and may be punished accordingly.
18.18.030 Institution of legal proceedings.
The city attorney, acting in the name of the
city, may maintain an action or proceeding in a
court of competent jurisdiction to compel com-
pliance with or restrain by injunction the viola-
tion of any provision of this title as additional
remedy.
18.18.040 Effective date. No person shall be
prosecuted or otherwise subject to legal proceed-
ing for a violation of this title occurring before
July 1, 1976.
Chapter 18.20
SEVERABILITY PROVISION
Sections:
18.20.010 Severability provision.
18.20.010 Severability provision. If any pro-
vision of this title, or its application to any
person, or circumstances, is held to be invalid,
the remainder of this ordinance, or the applica-
tion of the provision to other persons or
circumstances, shall not be affected.
251/252
-------
Appendix F
• PERSONS INTERVIEWED
• REPRESENTATIVE DATA SOURCES
253/254
-------
PERSONS INTERVIEWED
September 18, 1978
9:00 a.m.
John Hector, Chief
Noise Pollution Control Section
Department of Environmental Quality
5*^ Floor
522 Southwest 51*1 A venue
Portland, Oregon 97205
(503) 229-5989
The interview with Mr. Hector was conducted to obtain an overview of the noise
pollution control program and also to obtain insight into the specifics of the
program. His office is affiliated with the state noise control program. Gerald
Wilson, Noise Program Operation Specialist, was also present at this meeting.
T:30 p.m.
Dr. Paul Herman
Acoustical Project Manager
Bureau of Neighborhood Environment
2040 Southeast Powell Boulevard
Portland, Oregon 97202
(503) 248-4465
In this interview, Dr. Herman provided information on administrative issues and
an overview of the program from his experience. He was involved from the
conceptual stages of the program through implementation and its present operational
and enforcement activities.
In addition, Sterling Bennett, Deputy Noise Officer, was present to share his
enforcement experiences and methodologies during the interview.
255
-------
September 19, 1978
9:00 a.m.
Edward Daly
Daly Engineering Company
11855 Southwest Ridge Crest
Beavertown, Oregon 97005
(503 ) 646-4420
Mr. Daly gave a historical view of the program in this interview. He is affiliated
with the city noise control program, a member of the Noise Control Review Board,
and an early member of the Oregon Environmental Council. In addition, Mr. Daly is a
resident noise control and abatement expert.
11:00 a.m.
Mr. and Mrs. William Morse
1617 Northeast Brazee Street
Portland, Oregon
(503) 281-7451
Mr. and Mrs. Morse are involved with the city noise control office, and offered
problems and solutions from the citizen's viewpoint. They are also involved in
community assessment and public awareness regarding the noise control problem.
1:30 p.m.
Alan Webber
Willamette Week
Room 303
320 Southwest Stark Street
Portland, Oregon
(503) 243-2122
The purpose of this interview was to gain a historical perspective of the city
noise control program, and the political atmosphere surrounding it. Mr. Webber is
affiliated with the city noise control program, and is a former representative on noise
control from the Mayor's office.
256
-------
3:00 p.m.
Daniel Cooper
Deputy City Attorney
City Attorney's Office
City Hall, Room 315
1220 Southwest 5th Street
Portland, Oregon 97204
(503) 248-4054
The interview with Mr. Cooper was conducted to obtain insight on legal problems
and issues concerning noise control and solutions and the process of ordinance
development. Mr. Cooper is affiliated with the city noise control program and
drafted the noise control ordinance.
5:00 p.m.
Don Miller
Association of General Contractors:
Influence Group
(503) 227-6591
The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the case study team, and the day's
meetings, outcomes, data gaps, and other pertinent information. Appropriate actions
were also discussed. Mr. Miller was involved in the formulation of Portland's Noise
Control Program.
September 20, 1978
9:00 a.m.
James Close, Environmental Specialist
Oregon DEQ Field Office,
Northwest Region, DEQ, Room 501
522 Southwest 5*^ Avenue,
Portland, Oregon 97204
(503) 229-5295
The purpose of this meeting was to gain insight into the Northwest region's
noise problems, issues, and methods and techniques of enforcement and
administration of the program. Information was also obtained on the relationship of
the field office to the state central office and to local noise control programs. Mr.
257
-------
Close is affiliated with the state noise control program and handles enforcement for
the Northwest (Portland) Regional Office on industrial and commercial noise. Mr.
Tom Bispham, Assistant Regional Manager, Northwest Region, was also present at this
meeting.
10:30 a.m.
Stan Sumich
Program Operations Supervisor
Vehicle Inspection Program, DEQ
522 Southwest 5**1 Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204
(503) 229-5080
The site visit team met with Mr. Sumich to learn how the noise inspection program
worked. Mr. Sumich gave the team a tour of an inspection facility and allowed the
team to observe actual inspections.
1:00 p.m.
Joint DEQ and BNE meeting:
BNE
Paul Herman
David Sweett
Sterling Bennett
DEQ
John Hector
Gerald Wilson
James Close
Thomas Bispham
This meeting was organized to explore issues of coordination and collaboration
between the state's and Portland's programs.
258
-------
4:00 p.m.
Keith D. Shelton, Attorney at Law
The Law Corner
2207 Northeast Broadway
Portland, Oregon 97232
Thomas C. Donaca
General Counsel
Associated Oregon Industries
1221 Southwest Main Street
Portland, Oregon 97205
(503) 288-6263
(503) 227-5639 (Portland)
(503) 588-0050 (Salem)
The team met with Mr. Shelton, co-sponsor of the state law, and Mr. Donaca, an
industry lobbyist, at DEQ headquarters. Historical aspects of the state program and
operational experiences and concerns were discussed.
5:30 p.m.
Noise Review Board (in session)
City Hall, Room 106
1220 Southwest 5tfl Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204
Policy issues, plans, variance activities, and historical perspectives of Portland's
program were explored.
September 21, 1978
9:00 a.m.
David St. Louis, P.E.
Assistant Manager
Willamette Valley Region, DEQ
796 Winter Street, N.E.
Salem, Oregon 97310
(503) 378-8240
In this interview, Mr. St. Louis gave insight on noise problems in Salem,
community awareness and attitudes, and interrelationships with central DEQ and
local areas. He is affiliated with the state noise control program and deals with
enforcement of this program for Salem.
259
-------
1:30 p.m.
Sgt. Robert Laws
City Hal!
777 Pearl Street
Eugene, Oregon
(503) 687-5131
Sgt. Laws works with the city of Eugene noise control program and state motor
vehicular enforcement. This meeting was held to discuss historical aspects,
enforcement, noise problems, administration, coordination, public awareness, overview
of the program, and other program-related issues. Other attendees at this meeting
were Guy Page, Technical Coordinator from the City Manager's Office, William Sloat
from the Planning Office, and David Reinhart from the Department of Public Works.
4:00 p.m.
Joseph Richards, Chairman
DEQ Commission
777 High Street
Eugene, Oregon
(503) 484-9292
The interview with Mr. Richards was to obtain information on the relationship of
the commission to the state legislature and DEQ, and on the role of the Commission
in noise control. Mr. Richards, an attorney, is Chairman of the DEQ Commission and
is affiliated with the state noise control program.
5:30 p.m.
Gary Sandburg
(503) 476-1467
Mr. Sandburg was the first noise control coordinator for the Department of
Environmental Quality. In this meeting, he gave a historical perspective on program
development and implementation.
260
-------
September 22, 1978
9:00 a.m.
Don Barney, Director
Community Development
Cliff Hodsick, Manager
Planning and Research
Marge Abbott, Planner
Port of Portland
George Morton
Association of General Contractors
This meeting was held to gather data on the Port's experience with both DEQ's
and Portland's programs. Mr. Morton was asked to provide an industrial perspective
on some issues raised by Port staff.
11:00 a.m.
Commissioner Charles Jordan
City Hall, Room 404
1220 Southwest 5*^ Avenue
Portland, Oregon
(503) 248-4682
Commissioner Jordan is affiliated with the city noise control program and the city
council. In this meeting, he gave insight into the legislative process, the council's
attitude, problems encountered with passage of the ordinance, and problems and
solutions encountered.
261/262
-------
REPRESENTATIVE DATA SOURCES
A. File data from ONAC Headquarters.
(statute/ordinance proposals, rules proposals, correspondence, newspaper
articles, related studies)
3. Computerized literature searches.
C. Interviews with ONAC state and local programs staff.
D. Review of program documents such as rules proposals, internal reports,
correspondence, status reports, related studies, program plans, complaint
forms, case files from the following:
1. Noise Control Program of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
2. Noise Control Office of Portland's Bureau of Neighborhood Environment
3. Noise Control Team of the Eugene Police Department
4. Oregon DEQ Regional Offices
263/264
------- |