ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June
8,
1978
IN THE MATTER OF:
MOTOR RACING NOISE
)
R75-11
REGULATIONS
OPINION OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Goodman):
This mattei~comes before the Board upon a proposal submit-
ted by the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) seeking to
amend the Noise Regulations
(Chapter
8 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations)
as they pertain to noise from motor racing facilities.
The proposal was docketed R75-1l.
The Board adopted the Noise Regulations
on July 26,
1973,
In
Rule 201(c),
the Board defined motor racing facilities as a Class
“C” land use and allowed such facilities until August 10, 1975 to
comply with the numerical limits of Rules
202 through 207.
The
Association for Motor Sports
of Illinois
(AMS)
appealed the Board’s
adoption of Chapter
8 to the Illinois Appellate Court.
In a recent
decision,
the Appellate Court affirmed the BOard’s Order adopting
Chapter
8.
Association for Motor Sports
v.
Pollution Control Board,
49
I11.App.3d 954,
364 N.E.2d 631
(1977).
On September 25,
1974,
the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
submitted R74—l4,
a proposal seeking to exempt motor
racing from the specific numerical limits
0±,
2art
II, Chapter
8,
between the hours
of 7:00
a.m. and 10:30 p
Subsequent to
holding the requisite hearings,
the Board,
on August
28, 1975,
dismissed that proposal
for several reasons:
weak technical data
on noise abatement techniques;
insufficient economic data; insuffi-
cient information
on conditIons
in
thi’
motor
mci
nq
industry;
strong citizen objecLions
to the proposal;
and insufficient factual
data to allow the Board
to establish standards to replace those of
Part II, Chapter
8.
On August 11,
1975,
the Agency filed the R75-ll Motor Racing
Noise Proposal before the Board.
On August 28, 1975 the Board
The Board expresses
its appreciation for the excellent work done
in this matter by Ms. Roberta Levinson, Administrative Assistant
to the Board and Hearing Officer herein.
30
—
435
—2—
authorized hearings on the proposal, consolidated it with the
R74-14 proposal and incorporated the R74-l4 record into the R75—ll
proceedings.
On
June
9,
1976,
the Agency submitted revisions
to
its original R75~l1proposal.
The Board published the revised pro-
posal
in
Environmental
Re9ister #140.
On January
6,
1977,
the
Board itself proposed a three-year delay of the muffler require-
ments and dB reduction schedule outlined in the proposal.
Public hearings were held in the following locations:
November 18,
1975
Springfield
December 2,
1975
Chicago
December 19,
1975
Chicago
August
8,
1976
Chicago
March 21, 1977
Springfield
In accordance with Section
6 of the Environmental Protection
Act
(Act),
the Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality
(IIEQ)
on February
25,
1977,
filed the final version of IIEQ Document
No.
76/24,
the Economic Impact Study of the Motor Racing Noise
Proposal.
The Study, entitled Economic Analysis of Environmental
Regulation in the Racing Industry, was prepared for the IIEQ by
Economic Evaluation Associates
(EEA).
Economic impact hearings were conducted in the following
locations:
March 21, 1977
Springfield
March 22, 1977
Chicago
April 12, 1977
Chicago
The
record was kept open
in this matter for 45 days after
the
final hearing to allow for submittal of any public comments or
legal briefs.
On November 23,
1977,
the Board proposed a Final Draft Order,
which incorporated the Agency’s proposal with certain modifica-
tions,
and set a 45-day public comment period.
Subsequent to
publication of the Board’s proposed final draft, the Illinois
Administrative Procedure Act became effective.
That Act requires
state agencies to publish for 45 days in the Illinois Register
30
—
~36
—3—
all regulations they propose to adopt.
The Board’s proposed final
draft was published in the I~lino~sR~isteron January
13,
1978,
and subsequently, due
to technical problems with the form of the
notice, was republished on February 24,
1978.
The public comment
period in this proceeding thus extended through April
10,
1978.
The Board notes that the Association for Motor Sports
filed
a Motion seeking to strike the Agency’s public comment dated April
10,
1978,
as having been filed too late.
The Motion
is denied.
The comment was filed within the public comment period based upon
publication
in the Illinois Register.
The Agency’s R75-ll proposal divides motor racing facilities
into four categories:
drag racing, oval racing,
sports car racing,
and motorcycle racing.
For each type of facility the proposal in-
corporates
a muffler requirement,
and for certain drag racing and
oval racing facilities the proposal incorporates
a gradual decibel
reduction requirement.
The numerical property line noise limit-
ations of the Noise Regulations would,
in the original proposal,
apply to any races conducted after 10:30
p.m.,
and the proposal
would prohibit after 10:30 p.m.
the use of any motor racing vehicle
which
is not required to have a muffler.
In addition,
the Proposal
requires the operators of motor racing facilities
to employ noise
abatement methods for reducing noise emissions
from the public
address system.
Finally, the proposal incorporates exceptions
for
special motor racing events,
racing events held during county or
state
fairs, facilities
for which there are no residential dwell-
ing units within two miles,
facilities whose sound emissions do
not exceed the background sound level by more
than
7 dB(A)
at any
residential dwelling unit,
and facilities whose sound emissions
comply with the octave band sound pressure levels specified
in
Part II of Chapter
8.
The record in this matter consists of 1,062 pages of testimony,
as well
as
73 Exhibits.
Testimony was received from the Agency,
members
of
the
f)uhi Ic,
trade
aSSCCJ
a
~
ions,
acceus
t
i
Ca
eaqi
l’OJ~,
rack
owners
,
and.i.
ndus
LIry
rep:resen
La
1.. iyes
.
The
fleard has care ui ly
rev
jewed
Lhe
t;cs
Liniony
,
exhibits
and
public
conimen
t~ss
ubmi.
t.
ted
I
n
response
to the
proposal.
Based
on
consideration
of
Lhe enLire
record
and pursuant to Section
27 of the Act,
the Bo~rdhereby
adopts,
with certain modifications,
the Motor Racing Noise Regu-
lations,
As a starting point,
the Board notes
that the data presented
during this proceeding was expressed
in terms of
a single A-weighted
sound level in decibels
(dB(A))
rather than the octave band type
of measurement incorporated
in Rules
202 through
207.
In the Motor
30
—
—4—
Vehicle Noise Regulation, R74-10,
recently adopted by the Board,
we found that dB(A),
a unit that is weighted to compensate for the
sensitivity of the human ear to sounds of different frequencies,
was the proper descriptor for the noise emitted from motor vehicles.
In this proceeding, the Agency similarly testified that the noise
spectrum of practically all motor vehicles
is distinct and very
similar
(R.ll,60).
Additionally,
the Agency,
as well as engineers
testifying both on behalf of residents and
on behalf of track
owners, testified that the
dB(A)
is a universally accepted stand-
ard for measuring all motor vehicle noise,
is relatively easily
understood,
and can be incorporated into an
inexpensive sound level
meter
(R.12,
131),
Octave band analysis, on the other hand,
requires
more technical skill, a better understanding of accoustics, more
expensive sound level meters and the use of high quality tape
recorders,
since the noise from a race track fluctuates due to the
movement of the vehicles on the track,
The recorded sounds must
then be laboratory analyzed to determine the precise level measured
in each octave band,
The Board agrees with the Agency~sdetermi-
nation that dB(A)
is the proper descriptor for noise emitted from
motor racing vehicles,
The following Table summarizes the numerical
regulations of Chapter
8, Rules
202 through 205,
in terms of dB(A)
equivalents
In
the
Matter
of Noise Pollution Control Regulations,
R72—9,
8 PCB 703,
29
(July 31,
1973)
dB(A)
for specified
emittingland
uses
C
C
70
62
62
Receiving
B
66
62
55
land
use
A
(day)
61
55
55
A (night)
51
45
45
NEED FOR THE REGULATIONS
The motor racing noise issue is one which has aroused a great
deal of public attention,
There are approximately 100-125 motor
racing facilities in Illinois
(R.22).
On the one hand, residents
living near motor racing noise facilities are subjected to noise
levels often greatly exceeding the daytime and evening noise limi-
tations
of Rules
202 through 207.
The Agency during the R74-14
proceedings submitted a summary of twenty—six complaints
received
from residents living near various Illinois race tracks
(R74-l4,
30
—
438
—5—
Ex.
11,
14).
During the R75-ll proceedings,
a group of home
owners residing near the Santa Fe race track opposed adoption of
the Proposal.
Citizen witnesses testified during both the R74-14
and R75-ll proceedings
as to the interruption to their lives caused
by motor racing noise.
Citizens complained that the noise dis-
rupted both outdoor and indoor activities, disrupted sleep and quiet
conversation, caused them to leave home during the evenings when
races were conducted, and caused slower appreciation of property
in
the area
(R74—l4, R.160—185,
335—350,
721—777,
810—835; R75—ll,
R.31l-3l7,
333).
On the other hand, many ardent racing fans and race
track operators participated in these proceedings.
These witnesses
testified that a significant part of the attraction of the sport was
the noise and that drivers are resistant to using mufflers
(R.274,
287).
Also, the warden of a correctional center for juvenile
offenders and a priest who is assistant principal of a Catholic high
school testified about successful programs they have been administer-
ing involving motor racing activities as
an outlet for youths.
They
testified that
a muffler requirement would severely hamper these
programs
(R.216,
223).
The
primary
sources
of
noise
from
motor
racing
facilities
are
the vehicles themselves,
and the predominant source of noise from
the vehicle is the exhaust system.
Secondary noise sources at the
race track
include
the public address system, crowd cheering noises
and
equipment
used
for
maintaining
the
track
and
parking
areas.
The
level
of
noise
emitted
from
motor racing facilities is evidenced
in
both
the
R74-l4
and
R75—ll
records.
Exhibit
13
of
the
R74-14
record
(R75-ll, Ex.
2)
contains
the
following
noise
readings
on
complaining homeowners property each near different race tracks in
Illinois:
Motorized
Ambient
Distance
Complaint No.
vehicles
dB(A)
reading
noise level
from track
72—22—1
Cars
75—84
53
73—6
Cars
78—80
1/4 mile
71—37
Cars
80—84
47—50
71-53
Motorcycle
84
72-24
Dragsters
78
54
72—15—1
Single cars
68—75
500 yards
30
—
439
—6—
Exhibit 21 of R74—14 also contains sound level measurements revealing
high dB(A)
readings at residential property near motor racing faci-
lities during racing events.
Additionally, tests conducted during May, 1975 at Rockford and
Jacksonville speedways revealed levels above the compliance limits
(R74-l4, R.507).
At Jacksonville, late model cars
(20 vehicles),
required
to
have
mufflers,
were
measured
at
93-113
dB(A)
at
62—1/2
feet
(R74-l4,
R.504).
Not
all
cars
were
muffled, and the Agency
believed
that
total
muffling could reduce dB(A’s) by
5-8.
At
600
feet
(the
nearest
resident)
noise levels exceeded
80
dB(A).
Similar
but
lower
readings
were
recorded
at
Rockford
speedway.
A
witness
testifying on behalf of the Association for Motor Sports indicated
that the noise level for late model stock cars at the Santa Fe race-
track was approximately 107
dB(A)
at 50 feet
(R.l83).
Data from
Oregon indicate that unmuffled drag race cars can emit sounds as
high as 122 dB(A) when measured 50 feet from the vehicle path, and
data from Colorado indicates that unmuffled racing cars may emit
A-weighted sound levels as high as 110 dB(A) measured 100 feet
from the racing vehicle
(R74-14, Ex.
6, Attachment
1 and 2).
It
should be noted that noise attenuates
6 dB per doubling of distance,
In the original Opinion adopting the Noise Regulations,
R72-2,
we determined that various noise abatement techniques,
including
walls, barriers,
domes, modification of engines, use of mufflers,
and land acquisition were available and could bring about compli-
ance with the numerical limits of Rules 202 through 207 within the
allotted two year time period.
However, having considered the new
evidence presented since the original noise hearings, we find that
these techniques are not currently technically feasible or economic-
ally reasonable methods of bringing motor racing facilities state-
wide into compliance with the decibel limits of Rules
202 through
207.
The Agency testified that doming a quarter mile track would,
in 1973,
have cost $1,210,000
(R.ll).
The problem with barriers is
twofold:
the cost of barriers, between $12 and $150 per linear
foot,
is excessive
(R74—l4,
Ex.
6, Attachment
4 and 5), and barriers
are not particularly effective
in the motor racing noise situation
because they are not always close
to the noise source itself, the
racing vehicle, particularly at oval tracks.
As to land acquisi-
tion,
testimony was presented during the hearing that the acquisi-
tion of 460 acres of land would be required in order to meet a 92
decibel level at 50
feet.
We find that the acquisition of such a
vast amount of land is not feasible around most existing tracks and
would be an economically unreasonable method of control.
As to the
feasibility of obtaining compliance with the Noise Regulations
through mufflers, although we find that muffling racing vehicles
is
30
—
440
—7—
technically feasible,
it alone cannot bring
about
compliance with
the numerical limits of Rules 202 through
207.
As will be discussed,
mufflers can bring about
a 16
dB reduction in oval racing vehicle
noise and up to a 14 dB reduction in drag racing vehicle noise.
However, considering the levels of noise previously discussed as
being emitted from motor racing vehicles,
even
muffling to the
greatest degree achievable will not result
in
compliance
with
the
property
line
noise
limitations.
Additionally,
a
property
line
noise
limitation,
although
uniform
in
terms
of protection, results
in a lack of uniformity as applied to the individual racing vehicles.
The noise emitted from any particular vehicle may vary from track
to
track based upon such factors as bleacher arrangements, nearby
reflective surfaces, and ground cover.
Based upon the unavailability of sufficiently effective
traditional
noise
abatement
techniques
as applied
to
the
motor
racing
situation
statewide
and the desire
to adopt
a
Regulation
which
will
allow uniform requirements
to be applied to individual motor racing
vehicles, we have determined that the property line noise limita-
tion
promulgated
by
us
in
1973
is
not,
under
our
current
knowledge,
a
technically
feasible
or
economically
reasonable
means
of
control.
Imposition of such a standard could indeed
at the
current time
threaten
the
existence
of
the
sport
of
motor
racing
in
the
State
of
Illinois.
However, we recognize that
homeowners
will be subjected
to
noise
levels
which
may
well
interfere
with
the peaceful enjoy-
ment of their homes.
We have,
therefore,
imposed a muffler
requirement for individual racing vehicles which provides for the
quieting of motor racing vehicles to the
greatest
extent
technically
feasible.
Thus,
the need for these regulations arises from the
Board’s duty to protect the citizens of
Illinois
from
excessive
noise
and the Board’s desire to prevent a shut
down
of the motor racing
sport in Illinois.
An issue which arose during the proceedings was the availability
of Rule 102,
the general prohibition against noise pollution,
to
residents severely affected by noise emissions from motor racing
facilities.
The Board recognizes
that,
although we are abandoning
the
property line
noise limitation concept for the motor racing
noise situation as applied statewide,
certain individual race
tracks,
even
with
the
application
of
mufflers
on racing vehicles,
may indeed still cause noise pollution under the Rule 101(j) defi-
nition.
In such situations,
Rule 102 would prohibit the emission of
noise which as received by nearby residential property is excessive.
In other words,
although we find that a statewide property line
noise limitation is not technically feasible or economically reason-
able,
in an individual situation the injury to the health and welfare
of the public may outweigh the difficulties of achieving a certain
noise
reduction
at
the
property
line.
In
reaching
our
decision
we
have essentially reached a compromise position between the citizen
interests involved in the motor racing noise
issue,
We have
30
—
‘~41
—8—
determined that motor racing facilities shall be exempted from the
numerical limits of
Rules
202 through
207, that individual racing
vehicles shall be quieted to the greatest extent technically feasi-
ble, and that in individual situations in which the injury to the
public may outweigh
the technical
and economic difficulties of
complying
with
the numerical limits, Rule
102
shall prohibit noise
which unreasonably interferes with
the enjoyment of life.
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
The technical feasibility of muffling the various types of
racing
vehicles
was one of the central issues addressed during
the R75—ll and R74—14
proceedings.
In discussing technical feasi-
bility, we must examine the four categories of vehicles outlined in
the Proposal
—
motorcycles,
sports
car
vehicles,
oval
racing
vehicles,
and
drag racing vehicles
-
as well as
the
sub-categories
outlined therein.
The record contains a significant amount of
information
on muffling effectiveness,
Based on that information,
we have determined that muffling to
the
degree
and
over
the
time
period detailed in our Order is technically feasible.
Muffling
of
motorcycles
is
the
least
controversial
aspect
of
the muffling issue.
The original R75-ll Proposal required that any
motorcycle competing in either an oval racing or motorcycle racing
facility have a muffler which complies with the American Motorcycle
Association
(AMA)
sound level requirement of
92
dB(A)
or
less
when
measured at 50 feet under a stationary test.
The Agency’s most
recent Proposal and the version we have adopted changes the sound
level
requirement
to 115 dB(A)
at
one-half
meter
from
the
exhaust
system, in accordance with a change in the
JIMA’s
measurement pro-
cedure.
The Economic
Impact
Study
(Ex.
17)
indicates that the AMA
sanctions
85
of the motorcycle racing
events
in Illinois.
Therefore,
the
Regulation
we
are
hereby
adopting
is
already being complied with
or in effect in most motorcycle racing facilities.
An official for
the AMA and the Director of the Illinois Motorcycle Dealers Associ-
ation
(IMDA) both testified during the proceedings.
They both
endorsed the Proposal on behalf of their organizations and indicated
that
motorcycle
racers
could
comply with the standard without any
damage
to
their
vehicles
or
degradation
of
performance
(R.84,
96,
Ex.
12).
.
The standard applied to sports car racing facilities parallels
that applied at the
Waterford
Hills Sports car racing facility in
Michigan.
There is currently only one sports car racing facility
in Illinois,
Blackhawk Farms in South Beloit.
No question has been
presented as to technical feasibility
of requiring non—supercharged
sports car racing vehicles
to comply with a 105 dB(A)
limit measured
at 50 feet from
the center
of the lane of travel, the requirement
30
—
442
Inc ~rporated
in the
i
15
i
Picp~ecJ
i.
fb~
cx
n~ is ue with regard to
these facilities
is ~he ecc~o~ic ‘rn 5(1 or
s~ct
a
requirement,
which
wi1~be addressed curing the ecorn Hc imp~ i porton of our
discus—
s~on~
However,
x~ to
t~e
sLperct~
L.Cd
ye
cles,
testimony
indicated
that
-i~pircat
.n
a
~ut
~ler
I
~
~
~cred
vehicle
would
increase
tIe
lack
jre5~
e
a
c
ai1iific~i~
~t
performance and
quality
of
the
cnqin~
(~4l)~
$heri~oi~
proposal
exempts such
vehicles
from
the
nut
:ler
requ
~c
The
record
c~nxtaio~mucri
ixn
iIec~
~.
technical
feasi—
bi1~ty
of
muff
ig
ova~ lacing
~xice~
h~o l~ contains
a
study
done
by
W
P
Close
of
toe
S
~r~’
of
transportation
at
an
oval
rae
ig
trd.~k
in
Be1t~
I1~.
M
ylaxd~
Application
of
mufflers
to
tiree
regular
Late
xi~del
~poi~~an
~mpetitors
at
Beitsville
resulted
in a
15.8
ant
~
9
a2
raise
reduction
measured at
50
feet
during
high
speed
oper
~i
or
the
vehicles.
Appli
~ation
of
a
muffler
on
anatuci
i
~
t~LpLi~eoent
Late Model
Sportsmen
auto
resulted
ii
a
cIB(A
noas
~e
~ctirn
of
greater
than
20.
Additionally,
a new track recur
no.
set
b,’ a muffled vehicle.
Exhibit
6, Attathmert
1,
in the
h/’x
~I ra ord
i~
cates the
results
of
tests
pertormed
on
late
m~de
rage
cejuirxd
o
be
equipped
with
mufriers
a~ the
Cayuga
Iotexna
~i
a~
~ee
~v
~
Canada.
Sound
level
Taea~uie~ents
indicaten
~hat
~n
~atC
model
race
cars
meL
82
dB(A
at
L~e
property
line
at
the
~
~Lscic
oOO
feet
away
from the racing path
Other sound
ov~lh
iciicated that at sites
three
~uarters of a mile away trom
a
t~
ix~ff
led late model
race
cars
produce
sound
level~
of
C
J2
~c
in
Attachment
1
of
Exhibit
6,
R/4~14
was
data
rnj~a
~r
I
s
ries
indicating
that
application
of
seven
different
muffle
x
vehicLe,
each
during
full
throttle
aceietdLron
at
the
cruc~
a
in
noise
reduc-
tion
of
from
4-20
dB(1’
with
no
detrr~o.~
en
on
performance.
The
c
tual
noise
redu
Li
os
in
dB(A)
ci ide
noise
at
50
feet
obtained
for
the
seven
differer
~
~ere:
4,
16—1/2,
18,
18—1/2,
i8—l/i~,
i9
and
2u
dB(A)
The
~sc.
noi~e
reduction
was
18
dB(A).
With
the
appli~.ation
f
muo.iic.
at
Ja~
cay
Park
in
Indianapolis,
Indiana,
one
racer
ser
a
new
racing
necord
(R74—l4, Ex.
6,
~ttachment
I,
“Scm~timea
Sileice
is
Vein
C
ldei1~)
We
conclude
that
the
muff lLig
ci
ci!
racing
venrc!es
o
he
extent
required
in
our
)rder
is
techn
tlj
reasible
without
fi~lamertally
changing the
cars
or
the
sport
nine
5jency~s
proposal
a~quires
a
murfler
by
March
15,
1977,
a
10
eB
red
cta~n
by
March
15,
1979,
a~d
a
16
dB
reduction
by
March
15,
1980
Bec~us~the
March
15
39’’
a~d March
15,
1978
dates
have
aliecidy
a~sed,
we
wili
extend
the
initial
date until
March
15,
1979,
al~
~1ciude
tijat,
at
1
~uqh
muffling
to the
degree
of
10
and
lb
dE
reduction
has
been
lemcrcwLrated,
we
have
no
indicabio~i
that
sucn
mufflers
are
currn~ritLy
widely
available.
We
will,
therefore,
extend
the
dates
for
nequiring
a
10
and
16 dB
reduction
by
two
years.
—10—
As to drag racing vehicles, the Agency’s proposal divides
such vehicles into three categories,based upon ease of muffling.
Group A includes vehicles for which mufflers are easily installed;
group B includes vehicles for which mufflers also may easily be
installed, but
some modification to the vehicle is necessary;
and
group C includes vehicles for which further modification is
necessary.
The Agency based its muffling requirement for drag
racing vehicles on tests performed on oval racing vehicles and
on tests conducted by the National Hot Rod Association
(NHRA)
during which members of the Agency were present.
The NHRA tests
conducted at the Los Angeles County Fair Grounds
in Pomona,
California
(Ex.
15), revealed dB(A)
reductions at 50 feet ranging
from 4-13.5 during acceleration runs.
The Agency’s proposal requires
a maximum dB reduction of 14 to be achieved by 1981 for all classes
of vehicles.
During the R75-ll hearings, the Agency agreed that no
mufflers are currently on the market which can achieve a 14 dB re—
ductiôn but, based upon the
16 dB reduction available for oval
racing vehicles through muffling,
a 14 dB reduction for drag racing
vehicles appears achievable within the next few years.
We are
extending the compliance dates for drag racing vehicles in the follow-
ing manner:
Group A vehicles shall be required to have a muffler by
March 15,
1979, and to achieve a 10 dB reduction by March 15,
1980
and a 14 dB reduction by March
15, 1982; Group B vehicles shall be
required to have a muffler by March 15,
1980, to achieve a 10 dB
reduction by March 15,
1981 and a 14 dB reduction by March 15, 1983;
and Group C vehicles shall be required to have a muffler by March
15,
1981, to achieve
a 10 dB reduction by March 15, 1982 and a 14
dB
reduction
by
March
15,
1983.
We
conclude
that
the
muffling
of
drag racing vehicles to the extent required by our Order is tech-
nically feasible within the allotted time.
DISCUSSION OF THE MOTOR RACING NOISE REGULATIONS
The following is
a rule by rule discussion of the regulations
adopted by the Board.
Rule 103:
Measurement Procedures
This existing Rule
is amended to specify under paragraph
(d)
the procedures applicable to the measurement of noise from motor
racing vehicles.
The procedures are consistent with those published
by established standards organizations.
It should be noted that
the Board’s November 23 draft Order contained
a typographical
error.
Rule 103(d) (2)
referred to Rule 414 but should have referred
to Rule
411.
The error has been corrected.
30—’,44
—11—
Rule
201:
Classification
of Land According to Use,
and
Rule
208:
Exceptions
Until adoption of this regulation,
fair
ground activities other
than motor sports were a classified land use under
Rule 201(b) but
were exempted by Rule 208(a)
from the
numerical
limits of Rules
202
through 207.
Our amendment of Rule 201(b) simplifies the regulations
by exempting fair grounds without racing activity
from the numerical
limits by declassifying such land use.
Rule 208(g)
has been amended to exempt motor racing facilities
from the numerical limits of Rules
202 through
207 for motor racing
activities started between the hours of 7:00
a.m. and 10:30 p.m. on
weekdays
and
7:00
a.m.
and 11:00 p.m. on
weekend
days.
Definitions
of weekdays and weekend days have been added to Rule
101.
Appli-
cation of Rules 202 through 207 after 10:30 p.m.
or 11:00 p.m.
generally requires
the cessation of motor racing
activities
at that
time.
An issue raised at the hearings was why the
10:30 p.m.
time
limit should apply to motor racing when the stricter evening noise
limitations
in Rules
202 through 207 apply to other industries
as
of 10:00
p.m.
Testimony at the hearings and written
public comments
indicated that scheduled racing
events
for any particular
evening
are
subject
to
unpredictable
delays
because
of
both weather conditions
and accidents and that some race tracks grade and
clean
their
track
surface after the last racing event, which in itself can cause noise
emissions exceeding the Chapter
8 decibel limits.
Therefore, addi-
tional time is necessary in order to allow motor racing
facilities to
complete their evening activities,
Often,
the highlighted race
is
the last one, and a 10:00
p.m.
cut-off time would frequently
pre-
clude
the running
of this event.
The 11:00 n.m.
cut-off time on
Friday and Saturday nights was suggested
I:
:;ublic comment
(P.C.
#17)
and is intended to give race tracks some ~:~way
based on the assump-
tion
that people go to sleep later on weekends.
The Rule as drafted in the Board’s November 23,
1977,
proposed
Order would have applied to motor racing activities conducted after
the 10:30 p.m.
cut—off time.
Several
public comments received by
the Board expressed concern that such a Rule could
force a track
owner to stop an individual event before its completion.
We
have,
therefore, changed Rule 208 such that the cut-off
time
applies
to
events started rather than conducted after 10:30
or 11:00 p.m.
The
intent of
this
rule
is
that
individual
races,
not
entire
evening’s
events,
started
before
the cut—off time may be completed.
Rule 101:
Definitions
These definitions are largely self-explanatory.
Although
the Agency’s proposal suggested that the definitions
be included in
30
—
445
—12—
Rule
401,
we have incorporated these definitions into those
contained in our existing Rule 101
of
Chapter
8.
They are added
to correspond to terms and
terminology
contained in the motor
racing noise regulations.
Several of these new definitions require
further discussion and/or interpretation:
Background sound level
is derived from
a document by
the International Standards Organization, document
No,
1996.
It is defined as
the
A—weighted sound level
which is exceeded 90
of the time and
is
applicable
only to the motor racing situation.
The Agency proposed in a public comment dated April
10,
1978,
that this definition be broadened to apply
to measuring the ambient sound level for any Part of
the Noise Regulations, not
just
Part
IV.
The Board
finds, however, that such a change at the last minute,
without any public hearings or notice, would be in-
appropriate.
We suggest that, should the Agency still
wish to change the definition,
it propose such a change
in another proceeding.
Special—motor-racing-event has been revised to specify
that only a motor racing event which is held on two
consecutive days or less may be considered a special
motor racing event.
Special motor racing events are
designated as such by the owner or operator of the
facility and are included under the Rule 415 exceptions.
Weekday and
~dd~1
have been added after the
public comment period and are
relevant
to
Rules
208(g)
and 402.
Well-maintained muffler
is defined as a muffler which
is free from defects which affect sound reduction.
The Agency testified that an increase of
4
decibels
or
more over the vehicle’s original sound emission level
with mufflers applied would indicate that
the
mufflers
were no longer well-maintained.
Rule 401:
Motor Racing Facilities:
Operational Procedures
This Rule
is
intended to require the owners or operators of
motor racing facilities to use practical noise abatement methods
to reduce noise emissions from the public address system.
These
methods should be readily available at most tracks.
30
—
446
—
13—
Rule
402:
Motor
Raci~~
ilities
Racing
Vehicles
Without
Mufflers
Rules
403,
406
and
409
exempt
certain motor racing vehicles
from
the
muffler
requirements.
The purpose of this Rule 402
is
to preclude any
vehicle which is not required to be equipped with
a
muffler from racing
in any event which begins after 10:30 p.m.
local
time weekdays
or after 11:00 p.m. weekend days.
Therefore,
after 10:30 or
11:00 p.m.,
the property
line
noise limitations
of
Rules 202
through 207 are effective and no unmuffled vehicles
may participate in any racing event.
The cut-off time is intended
to
take
effect
on
the effective date of the regulations even
though
the
muffler
requirements are not triggered until 1979.
Rule
403:
p~,~~4ngFacilities-Muffler Requirements
The
muffler
requirements
of
Rule
403
apply
to
drag
racing
vehicles which are equipped with normally aspirated gasoline
burning
engines.
Such vehicles are basically those which are not
supercharged.
The decibel reduction requirements are reductions
in
total
vehicle
noise, not just insertion noise or reduction
in
exhaust noise,
during
operation in a manner which simulates wide—
open
throttle competition.
As mentioned previously, we have
allowed
a two-year delay in the muffler and specific decibel re-
duction requirements over those dates incorporated in the Agency’s
proposal.
The intent of the Rule is
to require the drag racing
vehicles listed under Table
1 to comply with the schedule in Table
1 and to require that any motorcycle being used as a drag racing
vehicle
at
a
drag
racing facility comply by March 15,
1979 with
the muffling requirement.
As stated previously,
the categories of
vehicles are determined on the basis of ease of muffling and
necessity
of modification of the vehicles
in
order to muffle.
The
classes of vehicles are those determined
by
the national and inter-
national functioning bodies,
the
NHRA,
the
IHRA,
and the AERA.
Rule 404:
Drag
Racing Facilities
-
Sound Level Measurement
~~remen
ts
The
original Agency proposal required sound level measurements
to be taken
during qualification runs under wide-open throttle
conditions.
However, the revisions which the Agency submitted in
June and the version
which we adopt today requires sound level
measurements
to
be
made under static conditions.
This change,
which
was
suggested
by the NHRA,
is to allow the vehicle sound
level test to be
incorporated into the technical inspection which
is performed before
each racing event.
Measurements under such
conditions are
simpler than during qualification runs and, accord-
ing to
the
Agency,
are preferred by the
racing
industry
(R.493).
The Agency indicated that it would make forms
available upon which
30
—
447
-
14-
the operators of
racing facilities would
record the measurements
taken
(R.53).
An issue arose
at
the hearings as to whether
there was any
correlation
between sound levels
occurrina;
during
static and wide—
open throttle conditions.
Although the measurements
are to be
made under
static
test conditions,
the purpose is
to determine com-
pliance with
the decibel reduction requirements
to be achieved
according to
Rule
403
under
wide-open
throttle
conditions.
Tests
taken
by
the
NHRA
at
which
the
Aqency
was
present
revealed
that
for
vehicles
equipped
with certain types
of
mufflers
such correl-
ation
does
exist
(Ex,
15,
R.491-3).
Durlnq
the
period of time
between the requirement of muffling and
the
specific dB reduction
requirement,
the Agency intends to study
the
static sound level
measurements
to
be taken by race
track
operators
and wide—open
throttle measurements
to determine correlation for
purposes of
inspection and enforcement of the
regulations
(R,494).
We have
incorporated a requirement in Rule 404(b)
that the
Agency develop
procedures
for determining compliance with Rule
403 by means of a
static test.
Rule
404:
~
nFacilities-Emission
t
The 115 dB(A)
limit for motorcycles competing
at drag racing
facilities incorporated in this Rule is in accordance with the
requirement currently being imposed by
the
AMA.
Rule 406:
Oval
Racin
li-Muffler
Requirements
The muffler requirements for oval
raci.
facilities apply
to
oval racing
vehicles other than sprint rac.~ p vehicles,
midget
racing vehicles, and
supercharged oval ra~.angvehicles, all of
which are
defined in Rule 101,
As notaP
previously,
the
excepted
vehicles are
those which
cannot
be muffled
without degradation of
performance and deterioration of
the engine
itself.
As
is the case
with drag racing
vehicles,
the
muffler requirement
and dB reduction
requirement
imposed
upon
oval
racing vehicles
are intended to re-
quire a reduction
in
total
vehicle
noise,
rather
than exhaust noise,
when such vehicles are
operated
in
a
manner
simulating wide-open
throttle competition.
Also
as noted previously, we have allowed an
extra two years for
the
specific dB
reduction
requirements.
As
in
the case of drag
racing vehicles,
any motorcycle
used as an oval
racing vehicle
is required to
be
equipped by March 15,
1979 with a
muffler,
Rule
407:
Oval Racing_Facilities
-
Sound Level Measurement
Requirements
This Rule parallels the sound level measurement
requirement
30
—
448
for drag racing facilities.
All the requirements
of Rule 404,
including the measurement and record—keeping requirements
applied
to drag racing vehicles
and
motorcycles
racing at drag racing
facilities,
shall apply to
oval
racing
vehicles and
motorcycles
racing at oval racing facilities.
Rule
408:
~
The sound emission limit for motorcycles competing at oval
racing facilities parallels the requirement of
115 dB(A)
for
motorcycles competing at drag and at motorcycle racing facilities.
Rule
409:
~p2~s~
anFaflties-MufflerRe~uire
ments
The intent
of
this
Rule is
to
require
that all sports car
racing vehicles which are not supercharged be equipped with a
muffler which brings the vehicle into compliance
with the sound
emission limit incorporated in Rule 411,
This Rule parallels
that now enforced at a race track in Michigan.
Rule 410:
~
Level Measurement
~rements
Unlike the Rules applied to the other categories of motor
racing facilities,
this Rule requires that
noise emissions from
sports car racing vehicles
be
measured
during
qualifying runs.
Rule
411:
~
Sound Emission Limits
Sports
car
racing
vehicles
are
required
to
meet a 105 dB(A)
limit
measured
50
feet
from
the
center
larm:
of
travel of the
vehicle while
accelerating
on
the
track.
The
Board notes that
Rule 103(d)
allows
the Agency to provide for
measuring emissions
at
distances other than
50 feet, provided
appropriate correction
factors are applied.
Rule
412:
2~cleRacinj~c~i1ities-Muff1er
Reguirements
This
Rule
parallels
the
requirement
currently
imposed by the
American Motorcycle
Association,
the
sanctioning
body for motor-
cycle racing.
The Rule
is intended to require mufflers
on all
motorcycle racing vehicles which are not supercharged.
Rule
413:
~
eR
in
Facilitie
ndevelMeasuremen
RequIrements
The measurement requirements
for motorcycle racing vehicles
competing at motorcycle racing facilities are the same as those
—16—
required
for measuring noise
from
motorcycle racing vehicles com-
peting
at
drag
and
oval
racing
facilities.
Again these measurement
requirements
are
those
now
imposed
by
the
AMA.
Rule
414:
~1eRa~~a~41ity
SoundE
mis
sion
Limits
The
sound
emission
limit
for
motorcycles racing at motor-
cycle racing facilities,
115
dB(A)
at one-half meter from the
rear exhaust outlet,
is
the same as that imposed on motorcycles
at
oval
and drag
racing tracks and is the standard imposed by
the AMA.
Rule
415:
~
The exceptions
are an important concept in the motor racing
noise regulation and
raised some controversy during the hearing.
The exception incorporated
in Rule 415(a) permits
a race track
operator to conduct three
special motor racing events per calendar
year without complying with the muffler and sound emission limit
requirements
of
Rules
403 through 414.
The prohibition after 10:30
or 11:00
p.m.
against racing a vehicle that does not require a
muffler will
still
be applicable even during special motor racing
events.
The purpose
of this Rule is to allow three events per
year
(no longer than two consecutive days each)
at which a substan-
tial
number of
out—of-state vehicles compete at an Illinois facility.
Because many other states do not currently impose muffler require-
ments,
out-of-state
drivers are unlikely to participate in Illinois
events
for which mufflers are required.
Therefore,
the muffler
requirements
are
lifted for three events per year in which many
out-of—state
drivers
participate.
Rule
415(b)
allows an exception for motor racing facilities
which
conduct
events on fewer than five days per calendar year.
The Agency testified that
it arrived at the number five based
upon a determination of
the impact only five days of racing would
have upon nearby residents balanced against the costs
of control
(R.532).
We
find
this
exception to be reasonable.
Rule 415(c) provides
an exception for motor racing events
which may be held on fair
grounds in conjunction with State or
County
fairs.
Rule
415(d) provides an exception for facilities
which are
located
two miles away from any residential dwelling
units.
The Board
has made the determination that at a distance
of two miles
from
a motor racing facility the noise has attenuated
to the
degree that
the
cost of a muffling requirement or decibel
limit outweighs the benefits to
be achieved.
Rule 415(e), which allows an exception for facilities whose
emissions
do not exceed
background sound level by more than seven
3o
—
17—
dB(A)
at any residential dwelling unit,
incorporates similar reason-
ing to Rule 415(d).
In such a situation the cost of compliance ex-
ceeds the benefits to be gained to
the
degree that an exception is
warranted.
Rule 415(f)
allows an exception for existing facilities
whose emissions comply with the daytime property-line octave band
limits specified under Rule 202 of the
Noise
Regulations.
Compli-
ance with this standard would protect
the public to the degree
that the Board has determined desirable, although the exception
applies even if the nighttime standards
of Rule
203 are not being
met.
Emission levels complying with
the daytime
limits, even if
higher than the nighttime limits, will
still be
lower than most
racing facilities could achieve through
muffling.
We note that,
although we have found thatcompliance
with
these numerical limits
is not feasible statewide, we would encourage individual facilities
to attempt to achieve such compliance.
In
individual situations,
the application of barriers or acquisition
of
land may indeed be
feasible and may bring
about
compliance
with Rules
202
through
207,
alleviating the requirement of compliance with the muffler require-
ments.
Rule 415(g)
exeMpts new facilities which comply with the day-
time and evening octave band limits.
Again,
these levels are
stricter than those that most facilities
will
achieve through
muffling.
Construction of new
facilities would allow for forward
planning and consideration of land
uses
such
that
compliance
with
the property line limits could be
achieved.
Rule 416:
Compliance dates for Part
4
This Rule allows owners of existing
facilities
90 days from
the date of the Board’s Order to comply
with
the
regulation,
and
requires owners of new facilities to
comply
upon commencement of
activities.
Of course, the muffler and
dB
reduction requirements
apply as of the dates specified in those
Rules.
Economic Impact of the Regulations
Determination of the economic impact
of
the motor racing noise
regulatory proposal requires reliance upon an extensive series of
assumptions and calculations.
The contractors who performed the
economic impact study
(Ex.
17), Economic Evaluation Associates
(EEA),
concluded that the cost of regulating motor racing noise
exceeded the benefits
to nearby communities
by
a 2:1 ratio for
the R75-ll proposal and by a 10:1 ratio for
the
existing Rule
201.
The Agency then performed an independent analysis using the
same data.
It concluded that benefits exceeded costs by a 9:1
ratio for R75-ll, thus obtaining opposite results from those of
EEA.
In addition, a witness called on behalf of
AMS
presented his
own analysis of the size of the population impacted by motor racing
noise in Illinois with and without the regulation
(R.l78-l9l, Ex.3).
30
—
—18—
Before beginning our analysis, we note that
AMS
in a public
comment
filed
February
27, 1978,
implied that the conclusions
reached in the economic impact study prepared by the IIEQ are
binding upon the Board.
Section 27(b)
of
the Act, however, states
that the Board shall “consider those elements detailed in the
Institute’s study”
(emphasis added)
and determine “based upon the
Institute’s study and other evidence
in the public hearing record”
(emphasis added) whether the proposed regulation has any adverse
economic impact.
The Board must consider the economic impact
study but is certainly not required to adopt its conclusions.
Such a result would remove decision—making power from the Board
and place it within the hands of the IIEQ.
The Board has con-
sidered the study submitted by the IIEQ but is also required to
consider other evidence in the record in making its determination.
Such other evidence in this case included the extensive economic
analysis performed by the Agency.
EEA determined that the direct costs of R75-ll consist of
attendance losses, muffler costs,
sound meter costs,
and enforcement
costs.
The bulk of the cost associated with R75-ll comes from what
EEA projects as
a drop in attendance.
The total yearly cost associ-
ated with all of these categories according to the EEA evaluation
is $797,770.
Although the figures were somewhat adjusted during
the economic impact hearings, EEA estimated in the study itself that
the benefits from R75—ll totaled $424,877, and benefits from Rule
201 totaled $736,664.
During the economic impact hearings, EEA
increased its estimation of the benefits to $648,000
(R.799).
EEA assumed certain costs
to be common for all, categories of
racing facilities.
These costs include:
sound measuring equipment,
assumed to be $535 purchase price plus
$50 per year for maintenance
and calibration; mufflers, assumed to be $50 per pair,
to be
replaced annually; and enforcement, assumed to be $7,412 for train-
ing, preparation of technical documents, and field investigation.
The cost of sound measuring equipment and mufflers was obtained
from manufacturers, and the cost of enforcement was obtained from
the Agency.
The major cost
in the
EEA calculations, attendance effects, was
calculated for both oval and drag racing facilities.
For motorcycle
racing facilities, no attendance loss was assumed as
a result of
R75-ll because the R75-ll emission standard for motorcycles
is
already in force
in 85
of the Illinois facilities due
to the
parallel AMA requirement.
EEA arrived at its projected attendance
loss for oval facilities on the basis of both out—of—state
experience and a survey of Illinois promoters, some of whom had
already imposed
a muffler requirement.
Attendance loss experienced
by out-of-state oval facilities has been negligible at most,
but
the promoters’
survey in Illinois indicated promoters anticipate a
9.67
average
yearly
loss
due
to
the
R75—ll muffler requirement.
30
—
452
—19—
EEA
assumed
that
the
real
loss
would
lie
between
the
out-of—state
experience
and
promoter
expectations,
and
used
an
expected
average
attendance loss of 5
yearly.
At a cost of $5.50 per person,
based
upon
an admission price of $3.00
and
cost
of
refreshments
pet person of $2.50, a 5
loss in attendance would result in a
$353,582.00 loss in gross inccme.
For drag racing facilities,
there is no out-of—state experience to draw from in determining
attendance
loss.
The
promoter
survey
indicated
an expected 48
drop
in
attendance,
but
EEA
assumed
a
yearly
15
drop
in
attendance
or $208,601 average yearly loss.
The issue arising in relation to sports car facilities is not
attendance loss but potential
loss
of
driver
participation.
The
promoter
of
Blackhawk
Farms,
the
only
sports
car
facility
in
Illinois,
rents
the
facility
out
to
two
major
clubs
-
Sports
Car
Club
of
America
(SCCA)
and
Midwest
Council
of
Sports
Car
Clubs
(MCSCC),
both
of
which
conduct
approximately
12
races
at
the
facility
per
year.
Attendance
at
these
events
is
very
small
as
most
of
the
people
who
come are associated with either of the two
major
organizations.
The
relevant
issue
is,
therefore,
not
attend-
ance
but
driver
participation.
Experience
at
Waterford
Bills
in
Michigan,
the .sports
car
racing
facility
currently
imposing
a re-
quirement
parallel
to
the
relevant
R75—ll
requirement,
indicates
there
may
not
be
a
significant
loss
of
participation.
A
survey
conducted
by
the
Chicago
Region
of
the
SCCA
(Ex.
6)
would
seem
to
indicate
that
many
drivers
are
not
racing
at
Waterford
Hills
because
of
the
muffler
requirement,
but,
as
was
noted
by
EEA,
the
accuracy
of
the
survey
is
very
questionable.
Howevur,
because
no
midwest
sports
car
tracks
other
than
Waterford
Hille
require
mufflers,
the
Efl
report
assumed
a
negative
impact
could
.•e
expected.
EEA
“guessed”
that
a
25
loss
in
participation
‘Aould
occur
due
to
R75—ll, resulting in a cost of $61,875.
In calculating the benefits of reducing racing noise levels,
EEA used as the
monetary
measure
the
increase
in
residential
pro-
perty values resulting from producing a quieter residential environ-
ment.
Monetary benefits were calculated for thirty-five race tracks
in Illinois in the following manner.
An
annual
average day-night
noise
level
(Ldn)
was
calculated
for
a
series
of
distances
from
each
race
track
with
and without
regulations.
Distances
were
established
by
using
6
concentric
rings
around
the
track,
each
doubling the distance of the last up to
two
miles
away.
The area
within each ring was considered an
equal
noise band 6 dB lower
than the bloser one.
The population and number of homes in each
noise
band
were
estimated.
For
ten
race tracks census block data
was
available
which
allowed
actual
counting
of
people
in
homes
in
each
area.
For
the
rest
of
the
tracks,
county
population
densities
were
applied
to
the
areas
involved
to
calculate
numbers
—453
—20—
of
people.
The
“equivalent
fully
impacted
population”
for
each
track
was
then
determined
(See
Ex.
17,
ch.
IX).
The
number
of
homes
were
estimated
using
the
statewide
average
of
3
•
3
persons
per
single family dwelling
unit.
All
estimates
were
adjusted
to
1975
populations
in
homes,
and
future
changes
were
projected
through
1981.
Home
values
were
obtained
from
the
census
and
adjusted
from
1970
to
1975
dollars
by
using
the
hosing
cost
index
of
the
Consumer Price
Index.
The
factor
used
for
adjust-
ing
from 1970 to 1975 values was 1.165
(R.662).
It should be note
that, although benefits were based on 1975 dollars, costs in the
study were based on 1976 dollars.
A Racing Noise Index
(RN!) for each band was calculated for
regulated
and
unregulated
conditions.
The
RN!
is
the
difference
between
the
annual
L~ for
a
track
and
ambient
noise
levels.
Ambient
levels
were
assumed
to
be
45
dBA
for
rural
tracks,
55
dBA
for
suburban
tracks,
and
65
dBA
for
urban
tracks,
with
tracks
classified
according
to
location.
Using
a
property
value
measure
developed
by
Nelson,
a
change
in
property
values
of
0.40
for
each
1 dBA
change
in
RN!
was
used
to
calculate
the
total
benefits
of
the
regulation.
The
benefits
for
each
band
were
obtained
by
multipyling:
(the
number
of
dBA’ s
of
change
in
RN!
resulting
from
regulation)
x
(the
aver&ge
home
property
value)
x
(0.004
factor
for
change
in
value).
The
band
benefits
were
sunned
over
all
the
tracks,
yielding
a
total
estimated
annual
benefit
of
$320, 341.
Adjustment
of
that
figure
to
allow
for
an
additional
increase
in
values
of
undeveloped
residential
land
yielded
a
total
adjusted
benefit
of
$424,877.
Benefits
of
$736,664
were
estimated
for
Rule
201.
During
the
economic
impact
hearings,
EEA
adjusted
its
esti-
mation
of benefits for R75-ll to $648,000, due to certain computa-
tional
errors
in.
the
study
and
an
update
of
the
population
esti-
mates
(R.797—799).
During
the
economic
impact
hearings,
the
Agency
presented
its
own
analysis
of
the
economic
impact
of
R75-ll.
Although
the
Agency
had several reservations about some Efl assumptions, it restricted
its own analysis to working with
EEA
data and computations
(R.840).
Because the Agency used the basic procedure outlined above, only
differences between the
two
studies will be presented here.
As to the cost estimate,
although
the
Agency
felt
that
based
upon
in—state
and
out—of—state
experience
the
effect
on
attendance
loss
would
be
neutral,
the
Agency
did
include
attendance
effects
in
its
cost.
estimate.
However,
the
attendance
effect
was
assumed
to
be
temporary,
disappearing
by
the
fourth
year
that
the
regulation
is
in effect.
The Agency used a 10
rate of
attendance
loss, and
assumed
that
the
loss
the
second
year
would
be
one—half
that
of
the
first
year,
the
loss
for
the
third
year
would
be
one-half
of
that
of
the seconct year,
and the
fourth
vc
effect.
The Agency assumed
tb~
~
price of $1.25 rather than
$7~5C
they assumed a 100
mark-up
in
~ir
calculations were done
for
drag
racing facilities,
although
the
cate negligible participation
lo~
participation occurring in
the
would occur for oval and
drag
rs
diminishing to a negligible
los
Agency calculation of costs
yle
$100,000 for drag racing
facil
facilities,
indicating total
co~
As mentioned previously,
EEA
hs
to be $797,770.
In its calculation of
benef~.
in several respects.
First
of
m
data and estimated the
populat~
r~
exact track location.
County th
else was available,
For
these
on
county
or
topographical
maps
dential dwelling units
in
the
th
track was in the vicinity
of
a
data,
the Agency assumed a
unifo
and assigned to the area
of
the
that proportion of the
city~s
p
also updated EEA’s calculation
(Ex.
25).
The results of
the
Ac~
approximately 305,000 people
ii~c
race tracks.
Furthermore,
the
J\~c’
annual average
Ldfl, the
“equiva~-
(FIP)
in Illinois due to
motor
‘
EEA had found the FIP to
be
16,0
testifying
on
behalf
of
AMS
four~
R75—ll
and
4,529
with
R75—l1
(A
mined that R75—l1 would
achir’vc
Using
an
hourly
Leq
which
measure
racing
hours,
the
Agency
deterr~
compared to 201,828 calculated
hi
ever, relied on the annual
I~ r~
thre
would
be
no attendance
dn1s~iol!
price
but used a
corression
costs
because
r~.
~5.
Fa877—882).
Similar
ilities.
For sports car
r
~erience
seemed to mdi—
~cy
assumed a loss of
that
the
attendance loss
~es,
that is,
a
loss
lear.
The
final
~cr
oval
facilities,
i~,15O
for sports car
1~.
2~)0
annually for R75-ll.
C
annual
costs for R75—ll
cy
differed
with
EEA
iry
updated
the
population
f~
cally
in relation to
~
~‘sed
only when nothing
~
?.
Agency
could locate
~e
number
of resi—
~
ose
tracks,
If a race
not
have census block
Jensity
in that city
y particular band
24).
The Agency
on
around rural tracks
~ indicated that
ales
of Illinois
c
~
based upon an
ri~acted
population”
~vties
was 20,182
(R.873).
128),
The witness
~
to
be
10,592 without
~
c
Agency’s
analysis
deter—
uction
in
FIP
(R.873)
e
iso
impact
during
the
::P
to
be
165,213
(R.874),
17
App.
C).
EEA, how-
at
~he
hourly
Leq.
In
determining
property
v~a
i~gency
used
values which
were more specific as to
locatic~
a~.
rural
or
urban.
In
up-
dating property values from
1970
~ol1ars,
the Agency used
the
U.S.
Bureau
of
Census
1974
A.
~.
bo~ing
Survey
home property
values
for
the
North
Central
Un~b
fe~
to
update
to 1974 and
30_
—22~
~rship
component
of
tIre
consumer
price
index
to
update
~Lo
1975
(R.863,
Ex.
33).
Tr’e factor used
for
the
in—
the
value of houses
in
11
inois
from
1970
to
1975 was
cianificantly
higher
than
the
factor
of
1,165
used
by
EEA.
-~
cnce
accounted for
the
.I’~ af
the
difference
in the
A.~culations
between the
t~io
nthyses.
Additionally,
aiues
were updated from
97~
rn
1976 values so
as
to
~.
-~o
the 1976
values usc~
tb~
cost
estimates
(R,885).
a~e
levels were
ca1cuLin-~
nr each track based on
oulation
densities
rat’ ~r ~nn.
A.aracterization of
the
rhan,
suburban
or
rure
u~ce
~n
location.
Addition—
~e
~t
levels
were
include13
r
i
~.ne
calculation of noise
med
during
race
time,
~
‘o~rnastto the EEA report
0 include ambient levA’-
Frrathy,
the Agency
in~~
enefits of
noise redun
a
ental units
in
its
‘~or
Blackhawk
Farms,
~
~
~nnluded benefits
to
~ring
more
than two
mith’
Lrni
OLC
track.
The Agency’s
c benefits yielded an
an~c
~
v~ ‘ie
of
$1,602,000
as
corn—
h~’estimate costs of
$l04~2(0.
As
to
the
individual
the
Agency estimated
~eccthts
of
$1,450,000 for oval
000
for drag racing tr~hs
and
$92,500 for sports
car
all
in
1976 dollars
(Eac
T0~
in
a public comment
10,
1978,
the Agency
:~-agth
as benefits calculation
~ir
facilities
to $317,2~0,
-mcy
indicated
that
it
.
n~imc~~ed
its estimates to
be
—
As
to
cost,
althouc’-r
tie
Ar~ercy included
a
loss
of
its calculations, the
A-,en~7
s
“best estimate” would
~.
ance
effects,
thus
reducing cosr
The Agency used
ic~t~d
time of
actual vethtle ope:c~0ion
as
25
of total
~e
tut
considers that
firturo
to
t
an
underestimate.
A
a~rtage
of
racing time
wo~lrt
mncrease
the Ldn and, there—
acrease the benefits
~rort
the
regulation.
Impacted
‘~-wo
miles
from the
trackt
,ias
used
in the study, but
~ndicated
that additionaL turther areas are also im~’
d their omission was also
n underestimate of benefits.
a age sound levels rathec
tian
energy average
sound
calculated for vehicles
Tth
difference between the
s
of
calculation was
1
de:lhe,
which results
in
a at,’
a
13
underestimate o.~
nenefits.
r
be
seen from the extreme dzftorences between the EEA
ies,
the economic impact
of
this
proposal
in terms
fi~
cost/benefit
ratio
is
Is: from certain.
The Board,
mnclined
to
agree
with tha Aqency~s
analysis.
Based
a
‘cence
of
actual
experience,
both
in
and
out-of~state,
~-t
there
is
unlikely
to
ha
a
significant
attendance
~ong
run
due
to
this
regulatIon.
In
addition,
we
30—
‘~56
—23—
find that inclusion of updated population, more accurate
property
values and
a
more
accurate method
of
updating property values,
and inclusion of ambient levels during race time in
the estimate
of benefits
increase
the accuracy of the benefit
calculation.
We
therefore
conclude
that,
although many of the
assumptions
-in both
EEA and EPA’S analysis can only be ver~fiedon
the basis of future
experience, from our perspective today the
regulations which we
hereby
adopt
are economically reasonable.
Because
the figures are
subject to so much variation, we decline to identify
a
specific
benefit to cost ratio but find that there
is substantial evidence
indicating that adoption of
R75—i1 will
significantly
benefit
the
people of the State of Illinois,
Mr. Young dissents.
I, Christan
L. Moffett,
Clerk of the
Illinois Pollution
Control Boa~d,hereby certify
the
above Opinion was adopted
on the
~
day of
,
1978 by a vote of
4-i
3LL~~
~
Christan L. Mof~~,
Clerk
Illinois Pollutiàñ
COntrol Board
30
—
457
