DOCSLIB.ORG

Noise Control in Urban Areas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Noise Control in Urban Areas Tulsa Law Review Volume 53 Issue 1 Article 2 Fall 2017 How Science Can Improve Regulation: Noise Control in Urban Areas Luis Inaraja Vera Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Luis I. Vera, How Science Can Improve Regulation: Noise Control in Urban Areas, 53 Tulsa L. Rev. 33 (2017). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol53/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Vera: How Science Can Improve Regulation: Noise Control in Urban Areas HOW SCIENCE CAN IMPROVE REGULATION: NOISE CONTROL IN URBAN AREAS Luis Inaraja Vera* The issue of noise is becoming increasingly problematic in urban areas. Research has revealed that it not only contributes to hearing loss, but also to cardiovascular disease, psychiatric disorders, and even slower language development and learning in children. Preventing these effects would require a significant decrease in noise levels. However, experts report that community noise levels are actually increasing. Moreover, zoning in many cities and towns is shifting to a model in which different types of land uses tend to be closer to one another, which increases the potential for conflict over noise. This Article draws on the scientific literature on noise to argue that cities can alle- viate this problem by improving noise ordinances and proposes a non-exhaustive list of measures aimed at reaching this goal. First, adjusting noise standards to reflect citizens’ varying tolerance for noise at different times of the day would make noise ordinances more efficient. Second, measuring noise levels where the harm is caused, rather than where the noise is produced, would add flexibility to noise control frameworks. Third, by accounting for noise characteristics—frequency and impulsiveness—that play an important role in determining how unpleasant a particular type of noise is, municipalities would be able to more adequately evaluate the harm that noise can cause. While this list focuses on what municipalities can do to improve their noise ordi- nances, these recommendations can be applied to regulation by other levels of govern- ment. This Article is mainly concerned with noise in mixed-use districts, and therefore focuses on improving regulatory frameworks in the municipal context. However, because this Article’s suggestions are aimed at making noise control frameworks more effective and efficient, states and the federal government can also incorporate them into their noise- control statutes and regulations. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 34 I. BACKGROUND: MIXED-USE DISTRICTS AND THE PROBLEM OF NOISE ................. 37 A. The Cumulative Zoning/Noncumulative Zoning Distinction ............. 37 B. Performance Zoning ............................................................................ 39 II. NOISE REGULATION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL ......................................................... 40 *Research Fellow, NYU Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy, New York University School of Law. The views expressed in this Article are the author’s alone. For helpful conversations and comments, I would like to thank Roderick Hills, Mark Willis, Joshua Ebersole, Gita Khun Jush, Eric Stern, and Michael Suher. 33 Published by TU Law Digital Commons, 2017 1 Tulsa Law Review, Vol. 53 [2017], Iss. 1, Art. 2 34 TULSA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 53:33] A. Noise and Federalism .......................................................................... 40 1. Federal Noise Regulation ............................................................. 40 2. Noise Control at the State Level: Nuisance and Regulation ......... 41 a. Nuisance ................................................................................ 41 b. Nuisance v. Regulation .......................................................... 43 3. Local Regulation........................................................................... 45 B. The Basic Principles of Noise Regulation .......................................... 46 C. Types of Noise Ordinances ................................................................. 47 1. Immission Ordinances: Matrix System ......................................... 47 2. Immission Ordinances: Non-Matrix System ................................ 48 3. Emission Ordinances .................................................................... 49 III. DESIRABLE FEATURES OF NOISE ORDINANCES ................................................. 50 A. Varying Noise Limits Depending on Time and Day ........................... 50 B. Emission v. Immission ........................................................................ 53 1. The Case for Immission Frameworks ........................................... 53 2. Addressing the Criticisms to Immission Frameworks .................. 54 3. Conclusion: Immission Frameworks with Specific Emission Provisions ..................................................................................... 55 C. Annoyance .......................................................................................... 55 1. Frequency and Tonal Noise .......................................................... 56 2. Sound Impulsiveness .................................................................... 57 IV. TRANSITIONAL ISSUES: GRANDFATHERING AND REGULATORY TAKINGS ......... 57 A. New Noise Ordinances and Grandfathering of Existing Facilities ..... 57 B. Could Amending a Noise Ordinance Constitute a Taking? ................ 59 1. The Takings Framework Relevant to New Regulations ............... 59 a. Diminution in Value .............................................................. 60 b. Investment-Backed Expectations .......................................... 60 c. The Character of the Regulation ............................................ 61 2. Applying the Framework to Noise Regulations ............................ 63 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 64 INTRODUCTION Noise, which has been defined as a “disagreeable or undesired” sound,1 is a very serious problem in urban areas.2 Its potential health effects are diverse and some of them 1. Colin H. Hansen, Fundamentals of Acoustics, in OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO NOISE: EVALUATION, PREVENTION AND CONTROL 23 (Berenice Goelzer et al. eds., 2001). 2. In 2002, for example, New York City’s former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg adopted the so-called “Op- eration Silent Night” to reduce excessive noise. Jennifer Steinhauer, It Never Sleeps, But City Does Demand Quiet, N.Y. TIMES (Nov. 25, 2002), http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/25/nyregion/it-never-sleeps-but-city- does-demand-quiet.html. https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol53/iss1/2 2 Vera: How Science Can Improve Regulation: Noise Control in Urban Areas 2017 HOW SCIENCE CAN IMPROVE REGULATION 35 are unknown to many. While the most common consequences of noise are sleep disturb- ance, hearing loss, and reduction in performance, experts have also identified other more serious effects, such as cardiovascular disease, abnormal endocrine responses, and psychi- atric disorders.3 Researchers have even shown that noise causes children to have slower language development and learning.4 These problems affect a not insignificant portion of the American population. Hearing loss, for example, affects fifteen percent of Americans.5 Preventing some of these effects would require a decrease in noise levels of ten dec- ibels.6 This is a very significant reduction: given the nature of this unit of measurement, a ten decibel decrease results in a sound that is only half as loud.7 Meanwhile, despite the technological advances in the field of noise control, noise levels keep rising. Community noise levels experienced an eleven percent increase in the United States between 1987 and 1997.8 One author explains that noise levels in cities may be increasing at a rate of 0.5 decibels per year.9 This is particularly troubling for many urban areas in the United States, given the growing interest in mixed-use districts, that is, areas where different types of land uses (e.g., residential, commercial, and industrial) coexist.10 Under a more traditional zoning approach, which tended to segregate uses to avoid conflict, the issue of noise was often minimized by merely separating noise-producing activities from areas with high sensitiv- ity to noise.11 As the United States Supreme Court framed it in a landmark zoning decision, “[a] nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place.”12 In mixed-use districts, however, where the separation of potentially conflicting uses is not desired, local govern- ments must find other types of solutions. The existing legal literature on noise control has mostly focused on regulation at the federal level,13 new formulas under tort law,14 new regulatory frameworks to tackle the 3. Stephen A. Stansfeld & Mark P. Matheson, Noise Pollution: Non-Auditory Effects on Health, 68 BRIT. MED. BULL. 243, 244–49 (2003). 4. Charlotte Clark & Stephen A. Stansfeld, The Effect of Aircraft and Road Traffic Noise on Children’s Reading, LITERACY TODAY, September 2005, at 24, 25. 5. Hendi Crosby Kowal, Millions of Americans Need Hearing Aids. Why Don’t They Have
Load more

Recommended publications
  • State Law Reference— Noise Regulation, G.S. 160A-184
    State Law reference— Noise regulation, G.S. 160A-184. Sec. 17-8. - Certain noises and sounds prohibited. It shall be unlawful, except as expressly permitted in this chapter, to make, cause, or allow the making of any noise or sound which exceeds the limits set forth in sections 17-9 through 17-13. (Code 1961, § 21-30.1; Ord. No. S2013-025, § 1, 11-18-2013) Sec. 17-9. - Terminology and standards regarding noises and sounds. (a) Terminology and standards. All terminology used in the provisions of sections 17-7 through 17-16 not defined in subsection (b) of this section, shall be in conformance with applicable publications of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) or its successor body. (b) Definitions: Ambient sound means the total noise in a given environment. A-weighted sound level means the sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting network. The level so read is designated dB(A). A-weighted sound level meter means an instrument which includes an omnidirectional microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and frequency weighting network for the measurement of sound. A sound meter that meets these requirements shall be utilized for conducting sound measurements. Background noise means ambient sound. Classification of use occupancies. For the purpose of defining the "use occupancy" all premises containing habitually occupied sleeping quarters shall be considered in residential use. All premises containing transient commercial sleeping quarters shall be considered tourist use. All premises containing businesses where sales, professional, or other commercial use is legally permitted shall be considered commercial use.
    [Show full text]
  • The U.S. Military's Environmental Protection Efforts
    Boston College Law Review Volume 60 | Issue 3 Article 7 3-28-2019 The .SU . Military’s Environmental Protection Efforts: Unexpected Eco-Friendly Solutions to Land Management Problems Curtis Cranston Boston College Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the Environmental Law Commons, Land Use Law Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, and the National Security Law Commons Recommended Citation Curtis Cranston, The U.S. Military’s Environmental Protection Efforts: Unexpected Eco-Friendly Solutions to Land Management Problems, 60 B.C.L. Rev. 1023 (2019), https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol60/iss3/7 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE U.S. MILITARY’S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION EFFORTS: UNEXPECTED ECO- FRIENDLY SOLUTIONS TO LAND MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS Abstract: The military’s historically destructive relationship with the environ- ment and its several national security exemptions from compliance with federal environmental laws would appear to indicate that the military’s mission is inher- ently at odds with environmental protection. Nevertheless, the U.S. Department of Defense (“DoD”) has recently demonstrated a significant interest in ensuring military readiness by reducing potential impediments to normal military opera- tions on DoD installations. Often cumulatively referred to as “encroachment,” these outside pressures include land-use restrictions from federal environmental laws as well as more direct interference from nearby civilian populations, such as noise complaints and light pollution.
    [Show full text]
  • SCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy
    CONTENTS SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION Page 4 1.1 What is noise? Page 4 1.2 How is noise measured? Page 4 1.3 How have noise regulations evolved over time? Page 4 1.4 What is the purpose and applicability of this policy? Page 5 1.5 When is a noise analysis needed? Page 5 SECTION 2: DEFINITIONS Page 6 SECTION 3: TYPES OF SCDOT NOISE ANALYSIS Page 10 3.1 Scoping the Level of Noise Analysis Page 10 3.2 What are the required elements of a SCDOT detailed noise analysis? Page 12 3.3 What are the required elements and/or considerations of a SCDOT final design Page 13 noise analysis? SECTION 4: ELEMENTS OF A SCDOT NOISE ANALYSIS Page 13 4.1 Average Pavement Page 13 4.2 Noise Contours Page 14 4.3 Traffic Characteristics Page 14 4.4 Posted vs. Design Speeds Page 14 4.5 TNM Input Parameters for a SCDOT Noise Analysis Page 14 Receivers Page 14 Roadways Page 16 4.6 Required Additional TNM Input Parameters Page 16 Receivers Page 17 Roadways Page 17 Building Rows/Terrain Lines/Ground Zones/Tree Zones Page 17 4.7 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Page 17 SECTION 5: ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS Page 17 5.1 Field Noise Measurements Page 17 5.2 Model Validation Page 19 5.3 Model Calibration Page 19 5.4 Prediction of Future Highway Traffic Noise Levels for Study Alternatives Page 20 5.5 Identification of Highway Traffic Noise Impacts for Study Alternations Page 20 Activity Category A Page 21 Activity Category B Page 22 Activity Category C Page 22 Activity Category D Page 22 Activity Category E Page 23 Activity Category F Page 23 Activity Category G Page 23
    [Show full text]
  • Picture of Americia Drinking Water Fact Sheet
    COMMUNITIES QUICK FACTS While environmental contaminants in outside The U.S. Environmental air and drinking water have long been linked Protection Agency (≠) has estimated that to public health outcomes, we continue to learn about 1 in 5 Americans, or approximately 69 more about other potential hazards found million people, live within in neighborhoods, towns, and cities which 4 miles of a hazardous waste site.1 can contribute to illness, injury, and even Community noise expo- death. Exposure to noise, heat, ultraviolet light sure acts as an environ- radiation, and hazardous waste sites threatens mental stressor and has been linked to disrupted the health of people in communities across the sleep patterns, increased blood pressure, and nation. Fortunately, the health effects associated mental health impacts in with these factors are largely avoidable through addition to hearing loss.2 awareness and preventive measures. Most of the United States is experiencing an overall warming trend, and INTRODUCTION people living in cities are A healthy community as described by the U.S. Department of Health especially vulnerable to and Human Services Healthy People 2010 report is one that continuously increasing temperatures.3 creates and improves both its physical and social environments, helping people to support one another in aspects of daily life and to develop to their fullest potential. Healthy places are those designed and built to improve the quality of life for all people who live, work, worship, learn, and play within their borders—where every person is free to make choices amid a variety of healthy, available, accessible, and affordable options. A healthy community environment encompasses aspects of human health, disease, and injury that are determined or influenced by factors in the overall environment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dormant Noise Control Act and Options to Abate Noise Pollution
    Administrative Conference of the United States The Dormant Noise Control Act And Options to Abate Noise Pollution Sidney A. Shapiro Rounds Professor of Law University of Kansas (November 1991) This report was prepared for the consideration of the Administrative Conference of the United States. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the members of the Conference or its committees except where formal recommendations of the Conference are cited. INTRODUCTION I. NOISE ABATEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES A. Noise Abatement Prior to ONAC B. Noise Abatement During ONAC 1. Regulation of Noise Emissions 2. Product Labeling 3. Low-Noise-Emission Products 4. Coordination of Noise Reduction Activities 5. Assistance of State and Local Noise Control 6. Noise Education and Research C. Noise Abatement After ONAC 1. ONAC's Loss of Funding 2. Revocation of Pending Standards 3. Enforcement of Existing Regulations 4. Update of Existing Regulations 5. Coordination , Education, and Research 6. State and Local Regulation 7. Private Rights of Action D. The Current Status of Noise Abatement II. OPTIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL NOISE ABATEMENT A. Why State and Local Regulation Declined 1. Infrastructure Support 2. Local Disincentives 3. Federal Preemption B. (NPC Editors note: Original text omitted Section B) 1 C. Policy Options 1. Infrastructure Support 2. Preemption III. OPTIONS FOR FEDERAL NOISE ABATEMENT A. Congressional Options 1. The Future of the NCA 2. Location of Regulatory Activities B. EPA's Options 1. Risk Assessment and Management a. Market Forces b. State and Local Regulation c. EPA Discretion d. Decisionmaking Procedures 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Preemption Language in Federal Environmental Statutes
    Order Code RS20280 Updated August 23, 1999 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Preemption Language in Federal Environmental Statutes (name redacted) Legislative Attorney American Law Division Summary This report compiles the provisions in federal environmental statutes that explicitly state whether Congress intended to preempt state law. The provisions are arranged in four categories, from least preemption to greatest: (1) rights/jurisdiction of state generally unaffected; (2) if a federal standard exists, the state standard must be the same or more stringent; (3) state regulation different from the federal scheme is preempted, but a waiver may be available; and (4) state regulation different from the federal scheme is preempted, and no waiver is available. This report compiles the provisions in federal environmental statutes that explicitly state whether Congress intended to preempt state law. The provisions are arranged in four categories, from least preemption to greatest. Note that several statutes appear under more than one category. Rights/jurisdiction of state generally unaffected1 Clean Air Act “Nothing in this part [dealing with mobile-source pollution] shall preclude ... to any State ... the right otherwise to control ... the use, operation, or movement of ... motor vehicles.” CAA § 209(d); 42 U.S.C. § 7543(d). 1 The no-preemption provisions in this section are not necessarily part of statutes that generally take a no-preemption approach. Several of these provisions seem merely intended to make clear that a statute’s explicit preemption of state law as to certain matters does not impliedly preempt other areas loosely related to such matters. Thus, the first-listed provision states unequivocally that the Clean Air Act’s explicit preemption of most state regulation of automobile emissions should not be construed to mean that the Act preempts state regulation of automobile use.
    [Show full text]
  • Noise Analysis Technical Report 183A Toll Road Phase III, Austin District And
    Noise Analysis Technical Report 183A Toll Road Phase III, Austin District and Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority From Hero Way to 1.1 miles north of State Highway 29 CSJ Number: 0914-05-192 Williamson County, Texas March 2019 The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 16, 2014, and executed by the Federal Highway Administration and TxDOT. This page intentionally left blank 183A Phase III Williamson County, Texas Table of Contents I. Project Description, Land Use Description and Noise Study Methods .....................1 A. Project Description .......................................................................................................1 B. Sound/Noise Fundamentals .........................................................................................2 C. Surrounding Terrain and Land Use ...............................................................................2 D. Methods .......................................................................................................................2 E. Noise Regulation and Impact Criteria ...........................................................................5 II. Existing Noise Levels ....................................................................................................5 III. Traffic Noise Impacts ....................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Crowdsourcing of Noise Map Pollution Using Smartphones Journées Des Laboratoires SIG De Suisse Romande Changins, Suisse - 16 Juin 2015
    European NEtwork for Redistributing Geospatial Information to user Communities - Open Data Crowdsourcing of Noise Map Pollution using Smartphones Journées des Laboratoires SIG de Suisse romande Changins, Suisse - 16 juin 2015 CNRS (E. Bocher, G. Guillaume, N. Fortin) Ecole Centrale de Nantes (G. Petit, S. Palominos) Ifsttar (J. Picaut, A. Can, B. Gauvreau) This project is partially funded under the ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP) as part of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme by the European Community Introduction European NEtwork for Redistributing Geospatial Information to user Communities - Open Data Noise societal and environmental issues Context : Green Paper on Future Noise Policy (1996) published by the Commission of the European Communities reports that between 17 and 22% (close on 80 million people) of the Union’s population are exposed to continuous daytime outdoor noise levels caused by transport above what are generally considered to be acceptable - more than 65 dB(A), which is the level at which people become seriously annoyed during the daytime. Cause : road transport noise stands for the dominant noise source and accounts for 90% of the population exposed to noise levels higher to 65 dB(A). Consequences : Noise can cause annoyance and fatigue, interfere with communication and sleep, reduce efficiency and damage hearing. Anthropogenic activities - especially motorized transportation modes - result in pervasive noise that implies a lessening of both the richness and abundance of the animal species, an alteration of the communication which can threaten the reproduction and predation. ENERGIC-OD, 15 juin 2015 (Changins, Suisse) Noise regulation European NEtwork for Redistributing Geospatial Information to user Communities - Open Data At french level The law n° 92-1444 from 31 december 1992 regarding fight against noise codifies at once the prevention, the reduction and the limitation of both noise emission and propagation susceptible to harming resident health.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Selection and Approval of Noise Barrier Products Final Report
    Guidelines for Selection and Approval of Noise Barrier Products Final Report Prepared for: National Cooperative Highway Research Program Project 25-25, Task 40 Prepared by: ICF International 33 Hayden Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 July 2008 The information contained in this report was prepared as part of NCHRP Project 25-25 Task 40, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board. Acknowledgement This study was conducted as part of National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 25-25, in cooperation with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the U.S. Department of Transportation. The report was prepared by David Ernst, Leiran Biton, Steven Reichenbacher, and Melissa Zgola of ICF International, and Cary Adkins of Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. The project was managed by Christopher Hedges, NCHRP Senior Program Officer. Disclaimer The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board or its sponsors. This report has not been reviewed or accepted by the Transportation Research Board's Executive Committee or the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by NCHRP, the Transportation Research Board or the National Research Council. i Abstract State departments of transportation (DOTs) have identified a need for guidance on noise barrier materials products. This study identified and reviewed literature relevant to noise barrier materials and products with respect to characteristics, testing, selection, and approval.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Noise Action Plans
    Practitioner Handbook for Local Noise Action Plans Recommendations from the SILENCE project SILENCE is an Integrated Project co-funded by the European Commission under the Sixth Framework Programme for R&D, Priority 6 Sustainable Development, Global Change and Ecosystems Guidance for readers Step 1: Getting started – responsibilities and competences • These pages give an overview on the steps of action planning and Objective To defi ne a leader with suffi cient capacities and competences to the noise abatement measures and are especially interesting for successfully setting up a local noise action plan. To involve all relevant stakeholders and make them contribute to the implementation of the plan clear competences with the leading department are needed. The END ... DECISION MAKERS and TRANSPORT PLANNERS. Content Requirements of the END and any other national or The current responsibilities for noise abatement within the local regional legislation regarding authorities will be considered and it will be assessed whether these noise abatement should be institutional settings are well fi tted for the complex task of noise considered from the very action planning. It might be advisable to attribute the leadership to beginning! another department or even to create a new organisation. The organisational settings for steering and carrying out the work to be done will be decided. The fi nancial situation will be clarifi ed. A work plan will be set up. If support from external experts is needed, it will be determined in this stage. To keep in mind For many departments, noise action planning will be an additional task. It is necessary to convince them of the benefi ts and the synergies with other policy fi elds and to include persons in the steering and working group that are willing and able to promote the issue within their departments.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from a Public Policy Failure: EPA and Noise Abatement
    Lessons from a Public Policy Failure: EPA and Noise Abatement Sidney A. Shapiro* CONTENTS Introduction ................................................... 1 I. Noise Abatement in the United States ...................... 3 A. Noise Levels and Health and Welfare Consequences .... 4 B. The History of Noise Abatement ....................... 5 1. Noise Abatement Prior to ONAC .................. 6 2. Noise Abatement During ONAC ................... 9 3. Noise Abatement After ONAC ..................... 19 C. The Current Status of Noise Abatement ................ 30 II. The Future of Noise Abatement in the United States ........ 33 A. The Role of State and Local Involvement .............. 33 1. Why State and Local Regulation Declined .......... 34 2. The Importance of State and Local Involvement .... 39 3. Implications for Federal Policy ..................... 40 B. The Role of Federal Involvement ...................... 44 1. Congressional Options ............................. 44 2. EPA Options ...................................... 48 Conclusion ..................................................... 60 INTRODUCTION In early 1981, Charles Elkins, who headed the Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) at the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), received a surprise telephone call from EPA's Deputy Assistant Administrator, Ed Turk. Turk informed Elkins that the White House Office of Management and Budget (the OMB) had de- cided to end funding of ONAC and that the matter was nonnegotiable., Copyright © 1992 by ECOLOGY LAW QUARTERLY * Rounds Professor of Law, University of Kansas; J.D. 1973, B.S. 1970, University of Pennsylvania. This article is based on a report prepared for the Administrative Conference of the United States. Publication of the article is authorized by the Administrative Conference, but the au- thor is solely responsible for its contents. The author appreciates the comments of Alice Suter and acknowledges the assistance of Wesley Rish, class of 1991, University of North Carolina.
    [Show full text]
  • Reducing Development Risks in Communications Applications with High-Performance Oscillators. by James Wilson
    Next wave in timing innovation Reducing development risks in communications applications with high-performance oscillators. By James Wilson. s optical networks, hyperscale In addition, 56G PAM4 PHYs, offer any-frequency synthesis, ultra-low data centres and mobile 100G/200G/400G Ethernet, and jitter of 80fs rms and are available in A fronthaul/backhaul networks 100G/400G OTN require a more standard, small form factor oscillator move to higher data rates to support diverse mix of frequencies, increasing footprints. By providing best-in-class rapidly increasing Internet traffic timing complexity. jitter margin and frequency flexibility, demands, SerDes reference clock The Si54x Ultra Series of oscillator the Ultra series is intended to make it performance is becoming increasingly products from Silicon Labs is easy for hardware designers to de-risk important. purpose-built to address the needs product development. If reference clock jitter is too high, of these demanding high-speed The device can be programmed it results in unacceptably high system communications and data centre and customised to meet the target bit-error rate (BER), lost traffic or loss applications. frequency during outgoing test and, of system communication. These high-performance oscillators by using this approach, the Si54x can be mass customised in order to meet High-speed communications and data centre timing requirements each customer’s requirements. The Si54x Ultra series supports Target Reference clock any frequency from 200kHz to 1.5GHz, Standard Data Rate frequencies max phase jitter* enabling a single product family to support both standard and custom CEI-28G 28Gbit/s 106.25MHz 150fs frequency applications. CEI-56G PAM4 56Gbit/s 125.00MHz 150fs Designed in 55nm CMOS technology, the fourth generation 100G Ethernet 4x25.8Gbit/s 156.25MHz 180fs DSPLL leverages a highly digital CAUI-4 4x25.8Gbit/s 161.13281MHz 240fs architecture to deliver improved 16G Fibre Channel 14.0Gbit/s 175MHz 240fs frequency flexibility and jitter performance.
    [Show full text]