C.F.R. » Title 23 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER H—RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ENVIRONMENT › PART 772—PROCEDURES FOR ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE AND CONSTRUCTION NOISE

23 C.F.R. § 772.9

Traffic noise prediction

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Any analysis required by this subpart must use the FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM), which is described in “FHWA Traffic Noise Model” Report No. FHWA-PD-96-010, including Revision No. 1, dated April 14, 2004, or any other model determined by the FHWA to be consistent with the methodology of the FHWA TNM. These publications are incorporated by reference in accordance with section 552(a) of title 5, U.S.C. and part 51 of title 1, CFR, and are on file at the National Archives and Record Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030 or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. These documents are available for copying and inspection at the Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, as provided in part 7 of title 49, CFR. These documents are also available on the FHWA's Traffic Noise Model Web site at the following URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/index.htm.

(b) Average pavement type shall be used in the FHWA TNM for future noise level prediction unless a highway agency substantiates the use of a different pavement type for approval by the FHWA.

(c) Noise contour lines may be used for project alternative screening or for land use planning to comply with § 772.17 of this part, but shall not be used for determining highway traffic noise impacts.

(d) In predicting noise levels and assessing noise impacts, traffic characteristics that would yield the worst traffic noise impact for the design year shall be used.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1986–2010 · leading case: Prairie Band Pottawatomie Nation v. Fed. High. Admin., 751 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (D. Kan. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Prairie Band Pottawatomie Nation v. Fed. High. Admin., 751 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (D. Kan. 2010). · cites it 5× “” 23 C.F.R. § 772.9 (a). The traffic noise analysis must (1) identify existing activities and lands that may be affected by noise from the highway; (2) predict traffic noise levels; (3) determine existing noise levels; (4) determine traffic noise impacts (ie.”
Ass'n Concerned About Tomorrow, Inc. v. Slater, 40 F. Supp. 2d 823 (N.D. Tex. 1998). “Upon review of the relevant portions of the SFEIS, this Court is of the opinion that the Defendants sufficiently determined and analyzed the anticipated traffic noise impacts and alternative noise abatement measures to mitigate those impacts, giving weight to the benefits and…”
West Langley Civic Ass'n v. Fed. High. Admin., 11 F. App'x 72 (4th Cir. 2001). “, 23 C.F.R. § 772.9 (c) (1977 ed.), and by 1992 seventeen states had constructed Type II noise abatement projects, see 61 Fed.”
Writer Corp. v. Colorado Dep't of Highways, 734 P.2d 124 (Colo. Ct. App. 1986). “See 23 C.F.R. §§ 772.9 and 772.11 (1978). However, the trial court did not rule on this issue.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.