ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

August 28, 1975

In The Matte-c Of:

MOTOR RACING NOISE REGULATiONS

)

R74-14

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Dr. Odell)

BACKGROUND TO HEARINGS

On July

26,

1973, the Illinois Pollution Control Board

(Board)

adopted its Noise Regulations

(Chapter

8) which subject-

ed automobile and motorcycle racing

to the noise limitations set

out

in Rules 202

to 207 of that Regulation.

The compliance date,

pursuant to i~u1e209(j)

of Chapter

8, was set for August 10,

1975.

On September

25, 1974,

the Illinois Environmental Pro-

tection Agency

(Agency)

,

pursuant to Section

28

of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Act

(Act), proposed to amend Part II of

Chapter

8.

The Board designated the proposed amendment R74-14.

The proposal was intended to exempt motor racing from the specific

numerical limits contained in Part II of Chapter

8 between 7:00

a.m.

and 10:30 p.m.

Three hearings were held on the proposal:

May

7 and 14, and June

24,

1975.

The Board has authority to hold hearings and adopt

noise regulations based on language contained in Sections

25 and

27 of the Act.

The Agency proposed to exempt motorized racing from the

numerical limits because “the noise problems particular

to the

racing industry do not easily lend themselves

to the normal

solutions necessary for compliance with the property—line noise-

source limits established in Part II,~ of Chapt.er

8.

The Agency

believed that the primary methods of noise control,

i.e., en-

closures, barriers, treatment of the noise source itself, ac-

quisition of

!and buffer zones,

and ~pdrational

changes,would be

ineffective to bring about compliance with the regulations

in

Part

II of Chapter

8.

At the first hearing,

the Agency revised the language of

its proposed amendment to Chapter

8

(Ex.

1).

The revised

language,

contained in Exhibit 3,

stated:

18

—

415

---

—2—

“Rule 201:

CLASSIFICATION OF LAND ACCORDING TO USE

(a)

Class A Land

Class A land shall incluae ~ll land used as specified

by SLUCM Codes 110 through

190 inclusive,

651,

674,

681 bhrouqh

683 inclusive,

691,

711,

762,

7121,

7122,

7123

and 921.

(b)

Class

B Land

Class B land shall include all land used as specified

by

SLUCM Codes 397,

471 through 479 inclusive,

511

through

599

inclusive,

611 through

649 inclusive,

652 through

673 inclusive,

675,

692,

699,

7124,

7129,

719,

721,

722 except 7223,

723 through 761 inclusive

except 7311, 796 thro’~gh790 inclusive,

and 922.

(c)

Class C Land

Class C land shall include all land used as specified

by SLUCM Codes 211 through 299 inclusive,

311 through

396 inclus±ve, 399,

411

except 4111, 412 except 4121,

421,

422,

429,

441,

449,

460,

481 through

499 inclusive,

7123 and 7311 used for motorized racing,

and 811

through 890 inclusive.

(d)

A parcel or tract of land used as specified by SLUCM

Coda

81,

83,

91 or 922, when adjacent to Class

B or

C land may be classified similarly by action of a

municipal government having zoning jurisdiction over

such land.

Nothwithstanding any subsequent changes

in actual land use,

land so classified

shall retain

such B or

C classification until the municipal govern-

ment removes the classification adopted by it.”

“Rule

208:

LXCEPTIONS

(a)

Rules

202 through 207 inclusive shall not apply

to

sound emitted from land used as specified by SLUCM

Codes

110,

140,

190,

691,

and 742 except 7424 and

7425.

(b)

Rules

202

through 207 inclusive shall not apply

to

sound emitted from emergency warning devices and

unrequlated safety relief valves.

Cc)

Rules

202

through 207 inclusive shall not apply

to

sound emitted from lawn care maintenance equipment and

ac~ricultura1field machinery used during daytime

hours.

For the purposes of this sub—section, grain

dryers operated off the farm shall not be considered

agricultural field machinery.

(d)

Rules

202 through 207 inclusive shall not apply

to

sound emitted from equipment being used for con-

struc~ion.

18

—

416

---

—3—

Ce)

Rule 203 shall not apply to sound emitted from

existing property—line-noise-sources during night-

time hours,

provided, however, that sound emitted

from such existing property-line—noise-sources shall

be governed during nighttime hours

by the limits

specified

in Rule

202.

(f)

Rules

202 thi~ough207 inclusive shall not apply

to

sound emitted from land used as specified by SLUCM

Codes

7223 and 7ll1 when used for automobile and

motorcycle racing;

and, any land used for contests,

rallies,

time trials,

test runs or similar opera-

tions of any self-propelled device,

and, upon or by

which any person or property is or may be transported

or drawn, when ~:~chself-propelled device

is actually

being used for sport or recreation and

is actually

p~ticipating in an activity or event organized,

regulated,

and supervised under the sponsorship and

sanction of a club,

organization or corporation hav-

ing national or statewide recognition; PROVIDED,

however,

that the exceptions granted in this Rule

208(f)

shall not apply to automobile and motorcycle

racing, contests, rallies,

time trials,

test runs or

similar operations of any self—propelled device if

such activity is conducted between the hours

of

10:30

p.m.

to 7:00 a.m.,

local time.”

The Agency explained what the proposed amendments to Chapter

8 were intended to accomplish

(R.

15-20):

1.

Rule 201(b)

:

All motorized racing will become classi-

fied as

a Class C land-use so that all motorized racing activities

will be treated alike,

Tracks used for horse racing will be ex-

cluded from Rule 201(b)

and become unclassified

so that they will

be treated similarly to football and baseball events, which are

exempt under Rule 208(a),

SLUCM Code

742.

Fairgrounds will be

exempt from the numerical limits except when the land is used

for motorized racing.

2.

Rule 201(c)

:

Not only automobile and motorcycle racing

will be classified

as

a Class C land—use, but also other motorized

racing forms,

such as go-cart and snowmobile racing, will become

Class C land—use,

3.

208(a):

The exemption for fairgrounds

is deleted from

the numerical limits since the proposed amendment to Rule 201(b)

will achieve this result.

4.

Rule 20a(f):

Motorized racing

is exempted from the

numerical 1im~tsof Rules

202 through

207 between the hours of

7:00 a.m,

to 10:30 p.m.

The Rule provides “that the exemption

will only apply to vehicles being used for sport or recreation

and which are actually participating

in an activity or event

organized,

regulated,

and supervised under the sponsorship and

18

—

417

---

—4—

sanction of

a club,

orqanization or corporation having national

or statewide recoqnitionh

CR,

18).

The Agency noted that al-

though other industries are required to compJy by 10:00 p.m

under the night~imestandard, I0~30p.m.

is justified because

of the “particular uniqeeness of the racing industry.

Scheduled

racing events

for any particular evening are subject to un-

predictable delays because of both weather conditions and

accidents.

Furthermore.

~itis common practice for some race—

tracks to grade and c~e:i ~ieIi ta~cKsurface after the last

racing event.

The qra

~y

ar

caning process itself

is,

many times,

accomplisx1~asitu the use of motorized vehicles

which may not be caps

cci

r~ingwith the existing decibel

limits.

Therefore,

tie

~

nctustry is allowed an additional

30 minutes under

the

j~

~sal

~ account for unpredictable de-

lays inherent in the

a

L

self and for a cieanup process

which

in itself may

‘eta

CC)

SC

R,

19—20)

The Agency

stat

cast b

102 of Chapter

8, which

establishes a viola

easonable interference”

is

proven, would remain

till

ce and effect

arid would be

utilized by the Agen ~ ~.f~c~essary

(R,

20),

a

oNCh

Al

HEARINGS

Most of the tes~ •cry

ll

re hearings centered on the

issues

of feasibis

L,

fi~

~ to control noise emissions,

current levels of

~fj

a

race tracks,

and neighborhood

opposition to exentt

~

racing from the numerical

standards

in Chaprec

~

h~ t

~vidence will show, many questions

on the technical

pra’ ~

blli’y

ci~id economic reasonableness of re-

ducing emissions were

t ans rered.

Additional problems were en-

countered with noise

a~urem~nt~

because Chapter

8 standards

are expressed

in octa

e

and

so ~ä pressure levels

(dE)

while

most evidence submittect

‘ras ca~ essed

in A—weighted sound levels,

dB(A).

While such date

re vajuanle for comparison purposes,

the inability to convc

dB(A

the appropriate dB readings

limited the usefulness

sue

urca.

In addition,

the numerical

standards apply

to nolls

as

IIICSS

~ced on the receiving property

and do not include bar ~~ound

levels,

There are approx~L~ately125 to 150 motorized racing sites

in Illinois

(Ex.

12),

Given beaow are data for the major kinds

of motorized racing

act ivity in

tire state:

i~

Program

Track

Events involved

Kind of

tracic

Ii

time

surface ~er

session

Oval

30~-35 Eaenings

Asphalt/ 2-3 hours of

dirt

racing

Drag racing

10 12*

Day

Asphalt

3000 timed runs

Motorcycles

(scramble)

30

Day

Dirt

4 hour final

Motorcycles

(flat trac~-

Day

-

100 motorcycles

Tractor pulling

20~22 Lvenings

Dirt

2-6hr. elimina-

tion

*

There may be twice

~s nuricter of drag strips in Illinois

(R.

257)

---

—5—

The following table summarizes

the numerical regulations,

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)1:

dB(A)

for specified

emitting land uses

C

B

A

C

70

62

Receiving

B

66

62

55

land

use

A

(day)

61

55

55

A

(night)

51

45

45

Evidence

in Exhibit

6 stated that the primary noise sources

at racetracks arc the sounds emitted from the racing vehicles.

The typical racing vehicle, whether an automobile racing on an

oval track or a dragster,

is unmuffled and consequently produces

extremely loud A-weighted sound levels, dB(A),

in the near

vicinity of the track.

Secondary noise sources include both the

public address

3ystem and crowd cheering noises.

AnOther noise

source which

is present at some tracks

is the maintenance equip-

ment, which may include equipment for maintaining the track and

parking areas.

Oval racetrack data from Colorado recorded individual cars

with noise emissions of 95

to 110 dB(A)

at 100 feet

(Ex.

6, Att.

2)

Mufflers have effected al5

dB(A)

noise reduction.

Muffled

late

model cars emitted

82 dB(A)

600 feet from the racing path

(Ex.

6).

Data from Oregon indicate the unmuffled drag race cars emit

sound levels as high as 122 dB(A)

when measured

50 feet from the

vehicle path

(x.

6, Att.

1).

Tests of seven different mufflers

on individual late model stock cars showed emission levels be-

tween 84 to 103 dB(A)

at 100 feet, which prompted the Agency to

conclude that “you cannot generalize about cars and mufflers”

(R.

77)

The Agency stated that very little data were available on

performance standards

for mufflers and a specific automobile

(R.

92).

Wind speed and direction are also important factors

in

determining the effectiveness of mufflers

(Ex.

6, Racing Promotion

Monthly).

Some evidence

(Ex.

6, Att.

1)

indicated that mufflers

were feasible on drag racing cars.

Late model cars and dragsters,

both unmufflered, were recorded at 116 dB(A)

at 75 feet.

How-

ever with mufflers, drag race cars recorded “103 compared to

93

dB(A)

for stocks.”

The Agency introduced evidence on the feasibility of various

devices

to control noise emissions

(Ex.

6).

“Mufflers are available for racing motorcycles,

for racing

cars, drag race cars, and racing snowmobiles.

Application of the

mufflers

to racing cars will result in a significant noise re-

duction; however,

the results are not always the same.

Data

18— 419

---

—6—

measured from one vehicle, equipped with seven different

mufflers, during full throttle acceleration at a track indicate

that a noise reduction of from 4 to 20 dflA)

may

be achieved by

installing a muffler

CEx.

6, Att.

1).

The actual noise reductions

in dB(A)

at 50 feet obtained for the seven different mufflers

were:

4, 16 1/2,

18, 18 1/2, 19 and 20 dB(A).

The mean noise

reduction was 18 dB(A).

Some mufflers

are

more effective in re-

ducing noise emissions from racing vehicles

than

other mufflers.

The more effective racing mufflers will produce a noise re-

duction of approximately 15 dB(A) or more.

Mufflers installed on

drag race. cars are not as effective as mufflers.installed on cars

racing on oval tracks.

Data from eight drag cars reported in

Exhibit 6~Attachment 1 indicate that a noise reduction from 7 to

19 dB(A) was achieved with a mean value of 14 dB(A)

noise re-

duction.

The actual noise reduction for the eight drag cars

were 7, 12, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19 and 19 dB(A).

It is believed that

the mufflers on drag racing cars

are

not as effective since drag

racing cars operate at higher rpm’s

than

racing cars on oval

tracks and there is more mechanical noise on drag racing vehicles.”

As reported in Exhibit 6, Attachment 3, “mufflers which may

be used for racing vehicles cost between $10 to $40

per

car. The

actual costs~for three types of mufflers were $17.50 each, $40

per pair

and

$10 each.

These are 1974 prices and do not include

installation costs.”

One

expert

witness stated that certain classes of dragsters

were impossible to muffle

CR.

255).

Muffling restricts engine

exhaust and heat

flow

on engines aaready operatingEat

very-h4qh

temperatures.

The witness did not believe that the loss of

efficiency from muffling would

mean

significant engine heat re-

duction.

Rather, the use of mufflers would require heavy brác-

ing which would vitiate the effectiveness of the dragster

(R.

266,

7).

Few

scientific advances have been made in recent years on

metals to enable

them

to withstand higher temperatures

(R.

268).

At the present time tests are not being

conduc

ted to determine

possible methods to muffle dragsters

(R.

269).

Barriers have been applied at some racetracks; however,

the Agency believed that they are not an effective noise reducing

technique

(Ex.

6).

“To be effective, the barrier must be much

higher than the noise source and should be relatively close to

the noise source.

However, at raceLraèks the barrier can never

be very close to the racing vehicle, because for instance, at

times the vehicle will be on the opposite side of the track away

from the barrier.

Thus, because the barrier cannot be placed

near the racing vehicles,, they have in general proven to be an

ineffective noise reducing technique.

However, this is not to

preclude

the

possibility

that

a particular track and a particular

configuration may not benefit from

the

application of a barrier.

The cost of barriers depends upon

many

factors, including type

of barrier and height of barrier.

Data prepared for the con-

struction of highway barriers indicate that”the

-

high barrier varies between $12 and $150 per linear foot

(Ex.

Att.

4 and 5).

For example, the U.S. Department of Transportation

estimates that a ten foot high barrier would cost $50

per

linear

15—420

---

foot for a 2:1 sodded earth berm;

$40 per linear foot for a

wood fence;

$38 per linear foot for

‘well liners;v and $100

per linear foot for a concrete wall.

A report published by

the Highway Research Board in 1973 lists the following approx-

imate costs per linear foot of

a 10

foot high barrier: $15 for

treated fir plywood panels;

$25 for an earth fill,

top soil and

sodded; and $30-55

for reinforced concrete.

The Illinois De-

partment of Transportation estimates that a sodded 2:1 earthen

berm, using

fill available

at the site, would cost $25 per foot

if the barrier were

10 feet high.

If the barrier were to be

20

feet high, the cost would become approximately $100 per linear

foot.

Using this latter information,

if

a track were to install

an earthen berm, using dirt available at its site, that were

500 feet long,

the installed cost would be $12,500 for a 10 feet

high berm an~$50,000 for a 20 feet high berm.

Depending upon

the configuration

of the particular track, a barrier

10

to

20

feet high could be expected to produce a noise reduction of 10

dB(A)

or less.”

“If the installation of mufflers and the erection of

barriers do not provide sufficient noise reduction to comply with

noise regulations,

the only other alternative is

to purchase

additional

land as a

‘buffer zone.’

Sound level data from Exhibit

6,

Attachments

1 and 2 indicate that racing cars equipped with

mufflers produce sound levels of 88-90 dB(A)

at 100 feet.

Using

acoustical propagation theory

(-6 dB(A)

per doubling of distance)

and assuming

a barrier were erected with a noise reduction of

10 dB(A),

there could be no residences for approximately one

quarter

of a mile from the racetrack for this single vehicle’s

noise emissions to comply with the Rule 202 sound pressure level

1 imits.

If the barrier were less effective and

if more vehicles

were operating,

a larger residence—free zone would be required

to achieve compliance.”

It would not be necessary to have

a

one—fourth mile “buffer

zone”

if the racetrack were

in

a rural

area or

if adjacent areas were zoned “Class C’~,pursuant to Rule

201 (d)

Testimony was offered on the economic impact of the re-

gulation.

Individuals involved with motorized racing generally

agreed that any substantial decrease

in noise would adversely

affect business.

The consensus of opinion was that spectators

not only come to the track to see competition but also were buy-

ing noise

(R.

130,

320).

However, other testimony indicated that

recent muffler iequirements

at some racetracks did not appear to

reduce participation.

Track operators felt that any limits be-

fore 10:30 p.m. would not permit them to complete a typical

nightly program.

While most operators strive to conclude racing

by 10:30 p.m.,

it

is very difficult to complete a racing program

by 10:00 p0m.

due to accidents, rain, delays,

and operational

difficulties

(R.

525).

A 10:00

p.m. closing would often mean

that the feature event could not be completed,

which creates

crowd hostility and, when rescheduled during the next session,

causes further difficulty in completing the subsequent racing

program on time.

The following economic data were supplied during the hear-

ings

(Ex.

19)

18

*

421

---

~Motor racing in Illinois contributes substantially

to the economy of the State:

1.

Over

5 million persons attended or participated in

some way.

2.

They spend or generate over $120 million per year

in

goods and services.

3.

They attend over

95 auto and 100 organized and regu-

lated

tracks,

4.

Twenty—five major county fairs sponsor motor races.

5.

Over 7,000 workers

in Illinois owe their livelihood

to the sport in which an additional 10,000 workers

are indirectly employed.

6.

Motor racing offers 10,000 drivers and 30,000 crew-

men a place to pursue their interests.

7.

There are 10,000 sports car enthusiasts who participate

in and through 325 clubs.

8.

There are 35,000 registered motorcycles in Illinois.

9.

The value of race tracks

is incalculable but probably

can be estimated as high as $50 million,

These tracks

pay millions in taxes

to local, county, state and

federal agencies as well as into general funds such as

Social Security and welfare programs.

10. There are 20,000 manufacturers,

distributors,

sales

groups,

retail stores,

speed shops,

and warehouses

involved in motor sports.

11.

To the best of my knowledge, only one track in Illinois

regularly holds events for SCCA sanctioned races

—

Blackhawk Farms, about

8 miles west of South Beloit,

Illinois,

This track has a full schedule of events on

virtually every weekend starting early in May and end-

ing

in October,

The number of participants probably

averages 150 per weekend with perhaps

4

to

5 times

this number

in crews,

families and workers.”

Testimony was offered that racetracks provide a proper outlet

for youthful energy through motorized racing

(R,

478).

Unless

such energies are exoended through the constructive activity of

track racing, such activities will occur on streets with more

serious social conse canoes,

The effects of motorized racing on

other industries was referred to.

Various protective features

associated with motorized racing have

benefited

society in various

ways

(P..

303).

It was also noted that neighboring states do not

have noise emissiu~nlimitations

so that drivers might be encouraged

to race elsewhere if numerical standards were enforced

(P..

530).

18— 422

---

—9—

Since August,

1970 the Agency has received a total of

26

individual unsolicited noise complaints involving motorized

racing activities at 14 racetracks

in Illinois.

The complaints

have been received from all parts of the state.

Noise readings

on homeowners’

property reveal the following levels of emissions

(Ex.

13)

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

The Agency stated that based on the information in Exhibit 13, none

of the tracks could comply with present standards.

Tests conduct-

ed by the Agency in May,

1975 at Rockford and Jacksonville speed-

ways were also found to be above compliance levels

(R.

507)

.

At

Jacksonville, late model cars

(20 vehicles)

required to have

mufflers were measured at

93

to 113 dB(A)

at

62 1/2 feet

(P..

504).

Not all cars were muffled,

and the Agency believed that total

muffling could reduce dB(A)’s by

5 to

8.

At 600 feet

(the nearest

residence)

noise levels exceeded

80 dB(A).

Similar but lower read-

ings were recorded at Rockford Speedway.

Most oval tracks

in Illinois have adopted some kind of

muffler requirement and many tracks have made adjustments

in their

public address systems

to limit noise emissions

(H.

567).

Such

changes may not bring tracks into compliance with the numerical

limits but may provide some relief to neighbors.

The muffler

requirements, however, do not set specific performance standards

but rather specify certain equipment as well as

satisfying the

requirements of a particular track operator.

For motorcycles,

the American Motorcycle Association has set a standard of

92 dB(A)

at

50 feet, which many tracks

in the state are voluntarily comply-

ing with

(P..

500,

501)

After the first hearing, the Board requested that the Agency

supply more detailed and complete information~onmotorized racing

in Illinois.

In the Board letter to the Agency on May 9,

1975

(Ex.

10), the Board stated that “Additional information is re-

quired on all the factors set out under Section

27 of the Act so

that the Board can carry out its statutory responsibilities

.

.

To develop a complete and accurate record the following inform-

ation must also be submitted.

For each track

in the state,

the

Board must know:

18

—

423

---

—10—

1.

Location of the track.

Is

it in

a residential or

rural area and what population centers are located

near it?

2.

The complaints

(by kind)

that have been received about

the noise at the track.

3.

The track surface.

4.

The primary and secondary uses made of the land

surrounding the racetrack,

5.

The approximate number of persons living within one

mile of the track.

6.

The approximate number of programs conducted at the

racetrack each year.”

During the June

24 hearing, the Agency answered the request

of the Board

(Comp.

Ex.

21)

“Russell

T.

Odell’s letter directed certain questions

to

the Agency.

Each question will be restated,

followed by the

Agency’ s response:

QUESTION

-

For each track in the state,

state the complaints

(by kind)

that have been received about the noise

at the track.

RESPONSE

-

Representative examples of the complaints the

Agency has received

is contained in this composite ex-

hibit as PART

1.

QUESTION

-

For each track in the state,

state the approximate

number of programs conducted each year.

RESPONSE

-

FCB Docket

No.

P.74-14, Exhibit No.

12 contains

information concerning the various categories of motoriz-

ed racing.

Exhibit No.

12 states both the approximate

hours of operation and days of the week during which events

are conducted.

Although Exhibit No.

12 does not give a

breakdown for each track,

it purports

to be representative

of racing activities

in general.

QUESTION

-

The Agency should present noise level data for several

representative

tracks

in the State of Illinois.

RESPONSE

-

This information has been supplied and is

a

part of

the record

of proceedings of PCB Docket No.

P.74—14 as

Exh~bit

No.

13.

QUESTION

-

If possible,

the Agency should supply noise level

data for Santa Fe Speedway.

RESPONSE

Nchse level data for Santa Fe Speedway is

included ner~H.nimmediately

following Russell T. Odell’s

letter of May 9, 1975.

The noise level data were taken

at a time when motorcycles were being

raced.

The Agency

—

424

---

—11—

does not currently have any sound level data for Santa

Fe Speedway at a time when cars were being raced.

“Russell

T. Odell~s letter of May

9, 1975 also included four other

questions which are specifically numbered in that letter as

questions numbered

1,

3,

4 and

5.

The Agency has not been able

to ascertain the information necessary to answer these four

questions.

The Agency does not know where every racetrack in

the state is located nor does the Agency know the names of the

various racetracks throughout the State of Illinois.

The re-

quested information could best be answered by the owners and

operators of racetracks throughout Illinois.

Since the racing

interests are represented through the Illinois Association of

Motor Sports

(AMS)

by legal counsel having an appearance on file

for PCB Docket No. R74-l4,

it is suggested that this information

could be obtained by the Board by way of either request or sub-

poena.”

Most citizens who testified at the hearings were opposed to

exempting motorized racing from the numerical limitations

in

Part II of Chapter

8

(H,

160—185; 335—350; 721—777;

and 810—835).

Most of these citizens lived within one mile of a racetrack and

expressed th’~following common complaints:

1.

Lawn, garden,

and patio activities after dinner are

disrupted by racing noise.

Indoor conversation, reading, and

relaxation are impaired by the noise.

2.

Citizens have had to buy air conditioning units because

evening indoor activities on racing nights require that the

house be closed-up.

3.

Noise from racetrack disrupts sleep and quiet con-

versation.

4.

Neighbors are reluctant to have evening parties on

racing nights because racing noise embarrasses them in front of

their guests.

5.

Traffic congestion,

air pollution, and litter problems

result from the motor racing activities.

Most witnesses in opposition to motor racing noise were not

opposed

to motor racing,

but as a “captive audience” felt that

they were entitled to relief from the excessive noise.

While

witnesses were not opposed to the noise generated by an occasional

passing train or airplane,

the incessant and continual sound from

the racing cars and public address system was considered ob-

jectionable.

For the most part,

track neighbors were not aware

of the serious nature of the noise emissions before they purchas-

ed their homes.

Citizens have not always been able to achieve adequate

relief on the local

level.

One witness testified on the success-

ful efforts

in her community to control motorcycle races at a

nearby track

(Ex.

7).

Another witness discussed the problem,

still unresolved,

of getting local agencies to act when the

agencies were unsure of who had jurisdiction over the facility

(P..

396)

18

—

425

---

—12—

FINDINGS OF THE BOARD

The record does not support a change in the regulation

because:

1.

The

technical data on noise abatement techniques

-

especially

in the important area of mufflers

-~

does not support

a regulatory change.

The Agency admitted that the information

was fragmented and incomplete.

While most manufacturers

presently have tests underway,

evidence on performance standards

was not made part of the record.

Some evidence suggested that

even dragsters could be muffled, but information to substantiate

or refute such generalities was not provided.

The problem of

analyzing

the data was compounded by the problem of converting

dBA’s into dE readings.

Had the rerord supported the conclusion

that noise abatement techniques were not available,

the frag-

mentary data would not havebeen adequate to establish a

different

numerical standard,

2.

Little economic data were presented into the

record.

Much of the data consisted of generaLstatements

on the numbers

of people directly or indirectly involved with motorized racing

in Illinois.

The evidence did not indicate how operators would

be affected by the regulation except

to say that they could not

comply

at all and therefore would all

presumably be out of

business.

However,

the record did

not support the statement that

compliance

was not feasible.

Many tracks, due to location, con-

trols, and racing limitations, may already

be in compliance.

In

future hearings

it would be helpful to point out how the present

standard

might affect operators who typify the kinds and conditions

of motor racing found statewide.

3.

The evidence is insufficient to enable the

Board

to

change

the present regulation in light of Section 27 of the Act.

Information required to be considered by the Board in adopting

a

regulation was not supplied although

requested on several

occasions, and much of the data submitted

was incomplete.

We

are

required to follow the legislative mandate in adopting

regulations.

Since conditions, tracks, cars, equipment,

etc.

are

widely

varied

in mototizedrac±ng, sufficient information must

be

supplied to give the Board

a

representative

picture of the

industry.

4.

Many citizens,

both in hearings

and during the public

comment period, strongly objected to the

Agency amendment,

It

is clear

that motorized racing seriously

interferes with and dis-

rupts

the homelife of many people.

While

the serious concerns

of suôh

citizens can beoutweiqhéd~by other more

serio~s-1nterésts,

the

record on this case does not convince

us that racetracks are

entitled to

greater righos

in the light of

the citizen objections.

The

homelife of an individual

is

one of his most important

interests;

the record does

not support a change to undermine or

limit this

substantial social interest,

—

426

---

—13—

5.

Some evidence was submitted which suggests that tho

present standard and methods of noise measurement may need to

be reviewed,

but not enough facLual data were provided

to

establish different standards.

On August 11, 1975,

the Agency

filed another proposed amendment to Chapter

8.

The proposed

amendment, docketed P.75—11 by the Board, deals with the same

subject matter of R74-14.

This proposed amendment will be

consolidated with R74—l4 and further hearings shall be held

as

soon

as possible.

In view of the questions raised concerning

current numerical limits, methods of measuring noise, and the

proposed amendment to Chapter

8 that was filed by the Agency on

August

11,

1975,

the Board will extend the compliance date

in

Rule 209(j) of Chapter

8 to February 10,

1976,

in order

to con-

sider these issues further.

Individual racetracks are not foreclosed from seeking

other relief.

First, under Section 37 of the Act,

the variance

procedure exists for any person.

While no racing facility has

ever sought a variance from the numerical limits,

relief

is

available

if sufficient proof can be shown.

Second,

under Rule

201(d)

of Chapter

8,

racetracks can implement zoning changes on

the local level and thereby protect themselves from residents

who move in after the racetrack is already situated

in the area.

Furthermore, pursuant to Rule 201(d)

racetracks can have adjacent

areas zoned “Class C”, thereby achieving exemption from the

limits set cut for Class A and B receiving land.

ORDER

IT

IS THE ORDER of the Illinois Pollution Control Board

that:

1.

The proposed amendment to Part

II of Chapter

8, con-

tained

in Exhibit

3 of R74—14

is hereby rejected.

2.

R74~l4 and P.75-11 are consolidated

and set for hear-

ing with the record in P.74—14 to be incorporated

in this new

proceeding.

3.

The compliance date in Rule 209(j)

of Chapter

8

is

hereby amended and extended to February 10,

1976.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby cert~4iythat the above Opinion and Order was

adopted on the

~t’1~

day of August,

1975,

by a vote of

3

p

.

Christan

L. Moffett, Cler

Illinois Pollution Control Board

18

—

427