Richard Colón, Policy Analyst
Donna De
Costanzo, Counsel
Veronica McNeil, Finance
Jonathan Rosenberg, Finance
Maria Alvarado,
Communications
The New York City Council
Committee on Environmental Protection
James
F. Gennaro, Chairman
Infrastructure Division
Marcel Van Ooyen, Deputy
Chief-of-Staff
June 10, 2004
Oversight: Enforcement of the City’s
Noise Control Code
Int. No. 81 Council Members Liu, Foster, Gerson, Martinez,
Moskowitz, Nelson, Brewer, Quinn, Provenzano, Monserrate, Gentile, Jackson,
James, Reed, Vallone, De Blasio and The Public Advocate (Ms. Gotbaum)
Title: A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to prohibiting the sale and installation of audible motor vehicle alarms.
On June 10, 2004, the Committee on Environmental Protection will hold an oversight hearing on the enforcement of the City’s Noise Control Code. The Committee will also hear testimony on Int. No. 81, which would amend the Administrative Code of the City of New York, in relation to prohibiting the sale and installation of audible motor vehicle alarms, and Res. No. 365, which calls upon the New York State Legislature to amend the State Insurance Law to authorize insurers to give an automobile insurance discount to only those policyholders that have silent anti-theft devices installed in their automobiles.
I. Background
It has been well documented that noise is a major contributor to reduced quality of life, and that “[e]xposure to noise in community settings can result in physiological, biochemical and psychological impacts which can roughly be termed stress.”[1] In fact, according to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) definition of health, “noise impacts such as population annoyance, interference with communication, and impaired task performance are health issues.”[2] Essentially, according to Paul Schomer, Ph.D., P.E., author of “A White Paper: ASSESSMENT OF NOISE ANNOYANCE,”
“Noise has a significant impact on the quality of life and is a health problem in accordance with the World Health Organization’s (WHO) definition of health (WHO, 1999). The effects of noise are seldom catastrophic, and are often only transitory, but adverse effects can be cumulative with prolonged or repeated exposure. Sleep disruption, the masking of speech and television, and the inability to enjoy one’s property or leisure time impair the quality of life. In addition, noise can interfere with the teaching and learning process, disrupt the performance of certain tasks, and increase the incidence of antisocial behavior. There is also some evidence that noise can adversely affect general health and wellbeing in the same manner as chronic stress.”[3]
An article in the WebMD website, “When Is Life Too Loud?”, mentions that
“[s]cientists rate noises according to their intensity, or loudness, in decibels (dB). Sounds can be quieter than a whisper (30dB) or as loud as a rocket’s roar (180dB). A normal conversation measures in around 60 dB, while city traffic crawls along at about 80 dB. `Too much’ noise is considered to be 85 db or more over an eight-hour period – enough to permanently damage your hearing.”[4]
Some common noises in decibels (dB) are:
A whisper, a quiet library 30 dB
A normal conversation 60 dB
Truck traffic, shop tools 90 dB
Chain saw, snowmobile 100 dB
Sandblasting, loud rock concert 115 dB
Jet engine, gun blast 140 dB
Source: The American Academy of Otolaryngology [5]
A New York Times article, entitled “New York Quiet? Never. Quieter? Maybe. Listen Up,” correctly notes that “New York is bloated with sound. In what is probably the world’s noisiest city, demonic noises of every schreeching[sic], whining, chattering, grinding, whirring, rattling, barking, whooshing, booming variety ricochets, undulates, burrows, assails, aggravates, raising stress levels and lowering the quality of life.”[6]
In 1972, the City of New York became one of the first cities in the nation to adopt a comprehensive noise code.[7] This pioneering effort sought to eradicate noise as a menace to public health, comfort, convenience, safety, welfare and the prosperity of the people of our great City. Specifically, the declaration of the noise code policy in Section 24-202 of the City’s Administrative Code states the following:
“It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the city to reduce the ambient noise level in the city, so as to preserve, protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare, and the peace and quiet of the inhabitants of the city, prevent injury to human, plant and animal life and property, foster the convenience and comfort of its inhabitants, and facilitate the enjoyment of the natural attractions of the city. It is the public policy of the city that every person is entitled to ambient noise levels that are not detrimental to life, health and enjoyment of his or her property. It is hereby declared that the making, creation or maintenance of excessive and unreasonable noises within the city affects and is a menace to public health, comfort, convenience, safety, welfare and the prosperity of the people of the city. For the purpose of controlling and reducing such noises, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the city to set the unreasonable noise standards and decibel levels contained herein and to consolidate certain of its noise control legislation into this code.[8]
Subchapter four of the City’s Noise Control Code applies an “unreasonable noise” standard to sounds emanating from sound reproduction devices, sound signal devices, animals, emergency signal devices, construction activities, construction devices, containers and construction material, exhausts, lawn care devices, and power tools.[9] Subchapter five of the Code establishes specific decibel level limitations for sounds emanating from motor vehicles, aircraft, rapid transit railroads, railroads, air compressors, circulation devices, motor vehicle claxons, paving breakers, emergency signal devices, and commercial music.[10] The limitations established by the City’s Noise Control Code also relate to, among other things, specific days, times of day, types of dwellings, types of engines, distances from occupied residential buildings, the City agency involved, and combinations of noises. The Administrative Code also contains in section 24-218 a generic prohibition on the making of “unreasonable noise,” which applies when there is no specific decibel level limitation.[11] Section 24-203 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York defines unreasonable noise to mean “any excessive or unusually loud sound that disturbs the peace, comfort or repose of a reasonable person of normal sensitivities, or which causes injury to plant or animal, or damage to property or business.”[12]
The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the New York City Police Department (NYPD) are responsible for enforcing the City’s Noise Control Code. According to The Mayor’s Management Report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 (“2004 MMR”), the DEP issued 1,439 noise violations in FY 2003, which is a decrease of 72 from the 1,511 noise violations issued in FY 2002.[13] In addition, the NYPD issued 532,817 quality-of-life summonses in FY 2003, which is an increase of 88,819 summonses as compared to the 443,998 summonses issued in FY 2002.[14] Quality-of-life violations include, among other things, “unreasonable noise,” but the NYPD does not provide specific data, within the performance statistics it provides in the 2004 MMR, on the different types of “quality of life” violations, stating that the “data is preliminary and subject to further revision.”[15] The 2004 MMR attributes the increase in the total number of NYPD-issued quality-of-life summonses to, in part, “the Department’s strategic initiatives such as Operations Silent Night and Impact.”[16] In October 2002, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly “launched Operation Silent Night to combat excessive noise, targeting 24 high noise neighborhoods throughout the City. Intensive enforcement measures include the use of sound meters, towing of vehicles, seizure of audio equipment, summonses, fines, and arrests.”[17]
II. Car Alarms
One source of noise that has had a negative impact on the quality of life in the City of New York is car alarms. In 1993, the New York City Council passed Local Law 110, which amended the New York City Administrative Code, to impose significantly more stringent regulations of audible car alarms in New York City. This law clearly states that car alarms may not be activated without direct physical contact with the vehicle or through the use of a remote activation device, and that when triggered, the alarm must shut off within three minutes of activation, or the owner will be subject to a civil penalty. The aim of Local Law 110 is to regulate the types of car alarms that are the most egregious: - those that go off as a result of vibrations, such as from a loud motorcycle or from someone in close proximity to a vehicle. Furthermore, current law requires vehicle owners to register with their local precincts; that way, the New York City Police Department can notify the owner when an alarm is continuously sounding. The Police Department may also take reasonable measures to disconnect an offending car alarm or have the vehicle towed.
III. The Effectiveness of Audible Car Alarms
It is without question that the effectiveness of audible car alarms is a matter of debate. Some people, including the author of an article in the Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, argue that “[n]o authoritative study has shown that such alarms reduce auto theft,”[18] and several have argued that audible car alarms have a negligible effect, if any, in deterring car theft. However, Kim Hazelbaker, Senior Vice President of the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) recently informed Council staff that the Institute does not stand by a statement it made in 1997 in which it argued that cars with alarms “show no overall reduction in theft losses”. According to Mr. Hazelbaker, there is currently no reliable data that demonstrates that audible car alarms are not effective in preventing overall auto theft. Furthermore, representatives of the New York City Police Department testified at a Council hearing on June 10, 2003 that the use of audible car alarms should not be banned in New York City until it is demonstrated that they do not serve as a deterrent to automobile theft.
With regard to auto theft in New York City, the NYPD’s CompStat figures covering January 1, 2004 through May 23, 2004 indicate that there has been a decline in auto theft as compared to the same period in calendar year 2003. For the period January 1, 2004 through May 23, 2004, the NYPD Citywide CompStat figures report that a total of 7,668 motor vehicles were stolen, which is 962 fewer motor vehicles stolen, a -11.1% change, as compared to the 8,630 motor vehicles that were stolen during the same period in calendar year 2003.[19] The Grand Larceny Auto (G.L.A.) Citywide CompStat figures also indicate a two year percent change of -24.3% and an eleven year percent change of -82.5% in auto theft.[20]
As previously stated, pursuant to section 24-221 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, any member of the Police Department has the right to take such steps as are necessary to disconnect any audible car alarm at any time during its period of activation. Furthermore, as noted above, no audible burglar alarm on a motor vehicle shall be capable of being activated except by direct physical contact with that motor vehicle or through the use of an individual remote activation device that is designed to be used with the audible burglar alarm system of a particular vehicle which alarm shall be capable of and shall terminate its audible response within three minutes of its being activated.[21] As also noted above, operators of motor vehicles with car alarms must prominently display information concerning the owner’s local police precinct, which shall have on file contact information for the motor vehicle owner.[22] However, in the view of such organizations as Transportation Alternatives,
“these laws have not silenced the city’s blaring cars. First, they have proved unenforceable. Police are unwilling to stand around timing alarm noises, and they have no way to verify the type of sensor employed. Second, limiting the duration of an alarm does not eliminate its harm. Even an alarm that sounds for a short time can wake up an entire neighborhood, while a single three-minute alarm can go off many times in succession, creating a public nuisance that, in theory, remains legal. Enforcing the current law would still leave the car alarm problem unsolved.[23]
Although the City Council held a hearing last year on audible car alarm legislation, since that time, Council staff has been investigating the technical, practical, and legal issues pertaining to the banning of audible car alarms and there are legal and practical hurdles to passing such a law.
First, if the Council were to pass a law completely banning audible car alarms, it would be extremely difficult, perhaps nearly impossible, for many car owners to comply. Research conducted by Council staff found that while after-market (not installed at the factory) alarms are fairly easy to disengage, such is not the case for alarms installed at the factory. According to such carmakers as BMW, Daimler-Chrysler, Honda, and Acura, factory-installed alarms are considered part of the vehicle’s central wiring and monitoring system and, for certain models, cannot be disarmed without great expense, effort, and/or technical concerns. In addition, there is the practicality of requiring all car owners to disable their alarms. First, the Council cannot dictate law beyond its own jurisdiction (the five boroughs). As such, if a person from outside the City, where audible car alarms are lawful, were to drive into any of the five boroughs without first turning off his or her alarm, that person would be in violation of City law if that alarm were at all activated. Given the countless number of nonresidents who drive into New York City each day, this simply is not practical. According to the most recent available date from the New York City Department of Transportation, in 2001, an average of 859,694 vehicles entered Manhattan on a daily basis.[24] This figure does not even consider vehicles driven into the other boroughs from outside the City that never venture into Manhattan. Undoubtedly, many of these vehicles are equipped with factory-installed alarms, which cannot be easily disabled and would be subject to a law that is not binding in their home jurisdiction and nearly impossible to follow. In addition, New York City residents who wish to arm their audible car alarms when traveling outside the five boroughs could face similar obstacles.
However, there are steps that the City can take to reduce the noise pollution caused by these alarms, such as measures that are the subject of today’s hearing.
IV. Analysis of Int. No. 81
Int. No. 81 seeks to silence blaring car alarms in New York City by amending chapter one of title 10 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York by adding a new section 10-137, prohibiting the sale and installation of audible motor vehicle alarms.
Paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of §10-137 defines “audible motor vehicle alarm” to mean any sound signal device designed and intended to produce an audible response upon unauthorized entry into a motor vehicle.
Paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of §10-137 defines “dealer” to mean a person selling or leasing and distributing motor vehicles primarily to purchasers that in good faith purchase the vehicles other than for resale.
Paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of §10-137 defines “manufacturer” to mean any person manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles.
Paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of §10-137 defines “motor vehicle” to mean any device that is propelled by an engine in or upon which a person or material may be transported on the ground and which is intended to be operated upon a public highway.
Paragraph
(5) of subdivision (a) of §10-137 defines “person” to mean an individual,
partnership, company, corporation, association, firm, organization or any
principal, director, officer, partner, member or employee thereof.
Paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of §10-137 makes it unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale or cause any other person to sell or offer for sale an audible motor vehicle alarm.
Paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of §10-137 makes it unlawful for any person, other than a manufacturer, to install or cause any person to install an audible motor vehicle alarm on a motor vehicle.
Paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of §10-137 provides that any dealer or any person engaged in the business of installing audible motor vehicle alarms who installed an audible motor vehicle alarm on a motor vehicle prior to the effective date of that section and who, at the time the alarm was installed, provided a warranty for the replacement or repair of such alarm that commenced upon the installation of such alarm shall be authorized to replace or repair the alarm in accordance with the terms of the warranty.
Paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of §10-137 states that any dealer or any person engaged in the business of installing audible motor vehicle alarms to which the provisions of paragraph one of that subdivision apply must maintain a record of all repairs and replacements of an audible motor vehicle alarm performed in accordance with a warranty. Such records shall include the effective date and expiration date of the warranty, the date on which such repair or replacement was performed and such other information as the Police Commissioner shall require by rule. These records shall be kept for a period of seven years, or for a longer period of time as the Police Commissioner shall establish by rule.
Subdivision (d) of §10-137 states that any dealer who sells or offers for sale a motor vehicle for which the manufacturer has installed an audible motor vehicle alarm during the manufacture of the motor vehicle must maintain a record of the date on which the assembly of each such motor vehicle sold or offered for sale by the dealer was completed. The dealer must also maintain a record of the vehicle identification number of each such vehicle and such other records as the Police Commissioner requires by rule. These records shall be kept for a period of seven years, or for a longer period of time as the Police Commissioner shall establish by rule.
Subdivision
(e) of §10-137 states that any person who violates subdivision (b) of that section
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of §10-137 states that in addition to the criminal penalty imposed pursuant to subdivision (e) of that section, any person who violates subdivision (b) of §10-137 shall be liable for a civil penalty of not less than five hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars for the first violation, not less than one thousand dollars nor more than two thousand five hundred dollars for the second violation and not less than two thousand five hundred dollars nor more than five thousand dollars for the third and each subsequent violation. Such penalties may be recovered in a proceeding before the Environmental Control Board (ECB). Any such proceeding before the ECB shall be commenced by the service of a Notice of Violation returnable before the Board.
Paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of §10-137 states that each sale, offer for sale, or installation of an audible motor vehicle alarm made or caused to be made in violation of subdivision (b) of that section is deemed a separate violation and a separate civil penalty shall be imposed for each such violation.
Subdivision (g) provides that the provisions of §10-137 shall be enforced by the Police Department and the Departments of Consumer Affairs, Environmental Protection, Sanitation and Transportation.
Section two of the legislation states that the law shall take effect immediately.
V. Analysis
of Res. No. 365
Res. No. 365 calls upon the New York State Legislature to amend the State Insurance Law to authorize insurers to give an automobile insurance discount to only those policyholders that have silent anti-theft devices installed in their automobiles.
Pursuant to section 2337 of the New York State Insurance Law, the State of New York requires insurers to provide a discount on the comprehensive portion of the automobile insurance premium to automobile insurance policyholders that have installed an anti-theft device in their automobile.
According to the Automobile Club of New York,
insurance companies in New York State typically provide a discount of five
percent for audible car alarms, ten percent for passive disabling devices that
cut off the ignition, fifteen percent for electronic homing devices, such as
LoJack, and five percent for window etching.
The State of New York would encourage owners
of motor vehicles to choose anti-theft technology that does not cause needless
noise pollution by authorizing insurers to give an automobile insurance
discount to only those policyholders that have silent anti-theft devices
installed in their automobiles.
Int. No. 81
By Council Members Liu, Foster, Gerson, Martinez, Moskowitz, Nelson, Brewer, Quinn, Provenzano, Monserrate, Gentile, Jackson, James, Reed, Vallone, De Blasio and The Public Advocate (Ms. Gotbaum)
A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to prohibiting the sale and
installation of audible motor vehicle alarms.
Be it enacted
by the Council as follows:
Section
1. Chapter one of title 10 of the
administrative code of the city of New York is amended by adding section 10‑137
to read as follows:
§10‑137. Prohibition on the sale or installation of
audible motor vehicle alarms. a. Definitions. For the purposes of this section:
(1)
"audible motor vehicle alarm" shall mean any sound signal device
designed and intended to produce an audible response upon unauthorized entry
into a motor vehicle.
(2)
"dealer" shall mean a person selling or leasing and distributing
motor vehicles primarily to purchasers that in good faith purchase the vehicles
other than for resale.
(3)
"manufacturer" shall mean any person manufacturing or assembling
motor vehicles.
(4)
"motor vehicle" shall mean any device that is propelled by an engine
in or upon which a person or material maybe transported on the ground and which
is intended to be operated upon a public highway.
(5) "person" shall mean an
individual, partnership,
company,
corporation, association, firm, organization or
any
principal, director, officer, partner, member or
employee
thereof
b.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale or cause any
other person to sell or offer for sale an audible motor vehicle alarm.
(2)
It shall be unlawful for any person, other than a manufacturer, to install or
cause any person to install an audible motor vehicle alarm on a motor vehicle.
c.
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision b, any dealer or any person
engaged in the business of installing audible motor vehicle alarms who
installed an audible motor vehicle alarm on a motor vehicle prior to the
effective date of this section and who, at the time the audible motor vehicle
alarm was installed, provided a warranty for the replacement or repair of such
audible motor vehicle alarm that commenced upon the installation of such
audible motor vehicle alarm shall be authorized to replace or repair such
audible motor vehicle alarm in accordance with the terms of such warranty.
(2) Any dealer or any
person engaged in the business of installing audible motor vehicle alarms to
which the provisions of paragraph 1 of this subdivision apply shall maintain a
record of all repairs and replacements of an audible motor vehicle alarm
performed in accordance with the terms of a warranty. Such records shall include the effective date and expiration date
of the warranty, the date on which such repair or replacement was performed and
such other information as the police commissioner shall require by rule. These records shall be retained for a period
of seven years, or such longer period as the police commissioner shall
establish by rule.
d. Any dealer who sells or offers for sale a
motor vehicle for which the manufacturer has installed an audible motor vehicle
alarm during the manufacture of such motor vehicle shall maintain a record of
the date on which the assembly of each such motor vehicle sold or offered for
sale by such dealer was completed, the vehicle identification number of each
such vehicle and such other records as the police commissioner shall require by
rule. These records shall be retained for a period of seven years, or such
longer period as the police commissioner shall establish by rule.
e. Any person who violates subdivision b of
this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
f.(1) In addition to the criminal penalty imposed
pursuant to subdivision e of this section, any person who violates subdivision
b of this section shall be liable for a civil penalty of not less than five
hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars for the first violation, not
less than one thousand dollars nor more than two thousand five hundred dollars
for the second violation and not less than two thousand five hundred dollars
nor more than five thousand dollars for the third and each subsequent violation
which may be recovered in a proceeding before the environmental control board.
Any such proceeding shall be commenced by the service of a notice of violation
returnable before such board.
(2)
Each sale, offer for sale, or installation of an audible motor vehicle alarm
made or caused to be made in violation of subdivision b of this section shall
be deemed a separate violation and a separate civil penalty shall be imposed
for each such violation.
g. The provisions of this section shall be
enforced by the police department and the departments of consumer affairs,
environmental protection, sanitation and transportation.
§2.
This local law shall take effect immediately.
Res. No. 365
Resolution calling upon the New
York State Legislature to amend the State Insurance Law to authorize insurers
to give an automobile insurance discount to only those policyholders that have
silent anti-theft devices installed in their automobiles.
By Council Members Moskowitz, Liu, Brewer, Recchia, Sanders, Stewart and
Vallone
Whereas, It has been well documented that noise is a major contributor to
reduced quality of life and, according to The State University of New Jersey at
Rutgers, “exposure to noise in community settings can result in physiological,
biochemical and psychological impacts which can roughly be termed stress”
(Zwerling, et al., “Local Noise Enforcement Options and Model Noise Ordinance
With Pre-Approved Language for the State of New Jersey”, Rutgers Cooperative
Extension – New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, p. 1. Date unknown); and
Whereas, According to Paul Schomer, Ph.D.,
P.E., author of “A White Paper:
ASSESSMENT OF NOISE ANNOYANCE” (Schomer
and Associates, April 22, 2001, p. 1), “The effects of noise are seldom
catastrophic, and are often only transitory, but adverse effects can be
cumulative with prolonged or repeated exposure. Sleep disruption, the masking of speech and television, and the
inability to enjoy one’s property or leisure time impair the quality of
life. In addition, noise can interfere
with the teaching and learning process, disrupt the performance of certain
tasks, and increase the incidence of antisocial behavior. There is also some evidence that noise can
adversely affect general health and well being in the same manner as chronic
stress”; and
Whereas, According to the World Health
Organization’s (WHO) definition of health, “noise impacts such as population
annoyance, interference with communication, and impaired task performance are
health issues” (Schomer, p. 1); and
Whereas, A New York Times article, entitled “New York
Quiet? Never. Quieter? Maybe. Listen Up”,
correctly notes, “New York is bloated with sound. In what is probably the world’s noisiest city…raising stress
levels and lowering the quality of life” (N.R. Kleinfield, New York Times at
http://www.tenant.net/Rights/Noise/noise4.html, p. 1. Date unknown); and
Whereas, One specific source of noise is
audible car alarms; and
Whereas, Pursuant to section 2337 of the New York State Insurance Law,
the State of New York requires insurers to provide a discount on the
comprehensive portion of the automobile insurance premium to automobile
insurance policyholders that have installed an anti-theft device in their
automobile; and
Whereas,
According to the Automobile Club of New York, insurance companies in New York
State typically provide a discount of five percent for audible car alarms, ten
percent for passive disabling devices that cut off the ignition, fifteen
percent for electronic homing devices, such as LoJack, and five percent for
window etching; and
Whereas, The State of New York would encourage owners of motor
vehicles to choose anti-theft
technology that does not cause needless noise pollution by authorizing insurers
to give an automobile insurance discount to only those policyholders that have
silent anti-theft devices installed in their automobiles; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Council of the City of New York calls upon the New
York State Legislature to amend the State Insurance Law to authorize insurers
to give an automobile insurance discount to only those policyholders that have
silent anti-theft devices installed in their automobiles.
RC 5-13-04
LS # 1099