PORTPBLE
AIR COmPRESSOR
NOISE Emission
STANDARDS
-------
-------
Title 40—PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT
Chapter I — Environmental Protection Agency
Part 204 — Noise Emission Standards for Construction Equipment
:)
CONTENTS
5
,v Page
O Subpart A
General Provisions 21
Subpart B
Portable Air Compressors 24
-------
-------
Title 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL 469-4]
PART 204—NOISE EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Portable Air Compressors
On October 29, 1974, notice was pub-
lished in the FEDERAL REGISTER (39 FR
38186) that the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA or Agency) was pro-
posing noise emission standards for new
portable air compressors distributed in
commerce. The purpose of this notice is
to establish final noise emission stand-
ards for new portable air compressors
distributed in commerce by establishing
a new Part 204 el Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. This final rulemak-
Ing is promulgated pursuant to section
6 of the Noise Control Act of 1972; 86
Stat. 1234; Pub. L. 92-574.
I. INTRODUCTION
Through the Noise Control Act of
1972 (86 Stat. 1234), the Congress estab-
lished a National policy "to promote an
environment for all Americans free from
noise that Jeopardizes their health and
welfare." In pursuit of that policy, Con-
gress stated, hi section 2 of the Act,
"that, while primary responsibility for
control of noise rests with State and local
governments, Federal action is essential
to deal with major noise sources in com-
merce, control of which require national
uniformity of treatment." As part of this
essential Federal action, section 6 of the
Act requires that the Administrator
identify products which are major
sources of noise, and if such products
fall into certain specified categories, one
of which is construction equipment, to
prescribe regulations unless in his judg-
ment noise emission standards are not
feasible. The Admlnistratof has identi-
fied portable air compressors as a major
source of noise (39 FR 22297).
Under section 6 of the Act, such reg-
ulations are to include noise emission
standards, setting limits on noise emis-
sions from new products, which are
requisite to protect public health and
welfare, taking into account the magni-
tude and conditions of use of such prod-
ucts, the degree of noise reduction
achievable through the application of
best available technology, and the cost of
compliance. The final regulation being
promulgated contains a performance-
type noise emission standard and speci-
fies the testing procedure necessary to
assure compliance with the emission
standard.
Under section 15 of the Act, the Ad-
ministrator shall certify as a low-noise-
emission-product (LNEP) any product
which emits noise in amounts signifi-
cantly below the levels specified by any
noise emission standard included m a
regulation promulgated pursuant to sec-
tion 6, for which certification application
has been properly filed and which the
Administrator determines is suitable for
use as a substitute for a type of product
in use by agencies of the Federal Govern-
ment. At this time the specific LNEP
noise level (s) for portable air compres-
sors has not been determined; however,
the Agency will continue to study various
options for LNEP criteria and assign
specific level(s) in the future. Accord-
ingly, a subsection in the regulation has
been reserved for LNEP standard and
selection criteria.
The Agency believes that the standard
contained hi the regulation represents
the level of noise emission protective of
health and welfare and achievable by
the best technology currently available,
taking into account the cost of compli-
ance; however, the Agency will consider
all new information and data which be-
»comes available or is presented to it,
and may hi time revise the regulations
in accordance with section 6(c) (3).
The final regulation being promulgated
reflects the desire of Congress to pro-
tect both health and welfare and inter-
state commerce through establishment
of uniform national noise emission
standards for new portable air compres-
sors which require national uniformity
of treatment in order to facilitate Inter-
state commerce. Such treatment is re-
quired for those manufacturers who
would be burdened by conflicting State
and local noise controls.
Under section 6(e)(l) of the Noise
Control Act, after the effective date of a
regulation promulgated under section 6
regarding product noise emission levels,
no State or political subdivision thereof
may adopt or enforce any law or regu-
lation which sets a limit on noise emis-
sions from new products regulated by
EPA, unless such law is identical to the
applicable EPA regulation. Thus, the pre-
emption is against nonidentical State
and local laws regulating the noise emis-
sion level of a Federally-regulated new
product. The requirement of "identity"
applies to the standard and those ele-
ments of the measurement methodology
which define the standard; these must be
identical to those in the EPA regula-
tion. However, other elements of the
-------
State or local law need not be identical.
Such elements include the list of persons
subject to the regulations, sanctions, en-
forcement procedures and correlatable or
equivalent "short tests" used for en-
forcement purposes.
Section 6(e)(2) of the Act specifies
that nothing in section 6 shall preclude
or deny the right of any State or polit-
ical subdivision thereof to establish
and enforce controls on environmental
noise and sources thereof through the
licensing, regulation, or restriction of the
use, operation, or movement of any
product or combination of products. Such
controls which are reserved to State and
local authority under this section include,
but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Controls on the time of day dur-
ing which products may be used.
(2) Controls on the places or zones
in which products may be used.
(3) Controls on the noise emission level
of products during use and operation en-
forceable against the consumer.
(4) Controls on the number of prod-
ucts which may be operated at the same
time.
(5) Controls on noise emission level
from the properties on which products
are used.
(6) Controls on the licensing of prod-
ucts.
(7) Controls on the manner of opera-
tion of products.
Thus, Federal regulations promulgated
under section 6 preempt State and local
time of sale noise emission standards for
a product only after the effective date of
a Federal regulation applicable to such
product and only to the extent that State
or local noise emission standards (and
the measurement methodology which de-
fines the standard) are different from the
Federal standards relating to that
product.
Conversely, State and local authorities
are free to enact regulations on new
products offered for sale with standards
identical to the Federal standards. The
Environmental Protection Agency en-
courages the adoption of such regulations
so that State and local governments may
aid in the enforcement of the standards.
- State and local time-of-sale noise
emission regulations applicable to prod-
ucts which are not covered by Federal
regulations are in no way preempted by
these regulations.
Recognizing that the Noise Control
Act was enacted to protect the public
from adverse health and welfare effects
due to noise, EPA is carrying out its
regulatory responsibilities for abating
noise from construction equipment, and
in the present instance, portable air
compressors, through regulatory action
under section 6.
The portable air compressor is one of
approximately twenty major pieces of
construction equipment that contribute
to construction site noise. The Agency
intends to commence regulatory action
on other construction equipment prod-
ucts in the near future, and the levels
chosen for the standards in this regula-
tion are consistent with the overall re-
quirements to quiet all products in order
to ultimately reduce noise at all con-
struction sites to an acceptable level.
The legal basis and factual conclusions
which support promulgation of this reg-
ulation were set forth in substantial de-
tail in the notice of proposed rulemaking
published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on
October 29, 1974 (39 FR 38186). This
publication solicited public comment
with the comment period extending ini-
tially from October 29, 1974, to Decem-
ber 2, 1974, and subsequently extended
by FEDERAL REGISTER notice (39 FR
42379) to December 31, 1974.
To ensure that all Hie issues involved
in the proposed regulation would be fully
addressed prior to the promulgation of
the final regulation, public hearings
were held in Arlington, Virginia on Feb-
ruary 18, 1975, and in San Francisco,
California on February 25, 1975. In con-
junction with these hearings, an addi-
tional comment period was allowed, ex-
tending from February 18, 1975, to
March 10, 1975. The principal issues re-
viewed at these meetings related to the
lead time set forth for manufacturer
compliance with the standard, the en-
forcement program specified in the reg-
ulation, and the projected impact of the
regulation on manufacturers, users, the
construction Industry, and the general
public.
Public comments received during each
of the three public comment periods, as
well as the transcripts of the public
hearings, are maintained at the EPA
Headquarters, 401 M Street, SW., Wash-
ington, D.C. 20460, and are available to
the public during normal working hours
(Monday to Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30
II. SUMMARY OF THE REGULATION
The regulation establishes standards
for noise emissions resulting from the
operation of newly manufactured porta-
ble air compressors distributed in com-
merce. The standard specifies A-
welghted sound pressure level, measured
at a distance of 7 meters (23 feet) from
-------
the surface of the portable air compres-
sor enclosure, using slow meter response.
The standard measurement procedure
used to obtain the data Is presented In
more detail In § 204.54, Subpart B.
Effective January 1, 1978, portable air
compressors with maximum rated ca-
pacity between 75 and 250 cubic feet per
minute (cfm), Inclusive, shall not pro-
duce an average sound level In excess of
76 dBA when measured and evaluated
according to the methodology provided
by this regulation.
Effective July 1, 1978, portable air
compressors with maximum rated ca-
pacity greater than 250 cfm shall not
produce an average sound level in excess
of 76 dBA when measured and evaluated
according to the methodology provided
by this regulation.
The regulation also incorporates a de-
tailed enforcement program which in-
cludes production verification, selective
enforcement auditing procedures, war-
ranty, compliance labeling, and anti-
tampering provisions.
m. STTMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED
The EPA has carefully considered all
of the comments received regarding the
proposed noise emission regulation for
portable air compressors. A discussion
of these comments with the Agency's
response thereto follows:
A. TECHNOLOGY
(1) One commenter stated that the 76
dBA limit does not represent currently
available technology.
The "Background Document for Pro-
posed Portable Ah- Compressor Noise
Emission Regulation" presents data from
several compressors that emit noise levels
of 76 dBA and lower at 7 meters. Tech-
nological availability is, EPA believes,
adequately met when mass-produced
commercially available products are in
commerce today which produce noise at
or below the standard.
(2) Several commenters asserted that
data relating to degradation of noise
emission characteristics are insufficient
to predict degradation patterns for air
compressors.
The Agency pursued this issue by so-
liciting Industry comment and supportive
data regarding the escalation of com-
pressor noise that would accrue during
compressor usage. Responses to the so-
licitation Indicated that data were not
available at this time, since In the past
there was not a need for the assessment.
Accordingly, EPA has undertaken
studies to develop these data. Industry
representatives have also agreed to be-
gin to collect and to make available to
the Agency such noise emission degrada-
tion data so that proper analysis and
decisions regarding useful life standards,
including degradation effects, can be
made at a later date.
(3) Several industry commenters stated
that fuel consumption can be expected
to increase as a result of the regulation,
while another Industry commenter stated
that fuel consumption could be expected
to remain the same or actually decrease.
As has been indicated, there is sub-
stantial disagreement within the indus-
try itself regarding the impact of the
regulation on fuel consumption. Prom
a technical standpoint, those com-
menters contending that fuel consump-
tion may Increase Indicate that it will
be due primarily to an increase in static
pressure rise within the portable air com-
pressor enclosure due to added noise
control components. This in turn would
cause Increased fan loading and a con-
comitant increase in fuel consumption
on the order of 3-8 percent. Another in-
dustry commenter stated that there
would be no fuel consumption Increase
that would result from the quieting ef-
forts. That commenter Indicated that
the fuel savings derived from the use of
more efficient fans would balance In-
creased fuel consumption resulting from
increased fan loading.
The Agency, in the course of its tech-
nology studies, attempted to assess fuel
usage differences between standard and
quieted compressors of the same model.
All attempts proved futile because
changes in fuel usage were within the
manufacturing tolerance variances and
thus there was no apparent significant
effect.
(4) Several commenters stated that
the quieting technology Is not the same
for all sizes and configurations of air
compressors.
The Agency assessed the quieting tech-
nology applied to several models of com-
pressors on the market today. The as-
sessment revealed that, while the large,
high air flow capacity compressors gen-
erally require a greater silencing effort
than did the smaller, lower air flow ca-
pacity units, similar techniques were
applied to achieve the silencing. Accord-
ingly, the effective date of the regulation
has been modified to provide manufac-
turers with a longer lead time to inte-
grate noise control features into the de-
sign and manufacture of larger portable
air compressors.
(5) Several commenters were con-
cerned about the problems they may en-
counter regarding availability of com-
-------
ponent parts, especially quieter engines,
necessary to manufacture portable air
compressors which will comply with the
standard.
The" withdrawal from the market of
certain engines used by portable air
compressor manufacturers because of
reasons other than noise control became
known during the comment period. In
assessing the impact of this action, the
Agency questioned the portable ah- com-
pressor manufacturers about the prob-
lems they anticipated as a result of this
action by engine manufacturers. All who
responded to the questions indicated
that the action would have a dramatic
adverse impact on the engineering de-
sign and manufacturing time required to
develop compressors meeting the stand-
ard and further indicated that com-
ponent delivery problems could be
handled If the effective date of the regu-
lation were extended. The Agency con-
sidered all aspects of this problem and,
accordingly, extended the time for com-
pliance with the regulation since the re-
sults of studies showed that such exten-
sion would not significantly compromise
health and welfare benefits to be derived
from the regulation. It is the Agency's
belief that the additional time allotted
affords the lead time stipulated by the
manufacturers to allow them to over-
come any delivery problems they are
likely to encounter regarding component
parts.
(6) Two commenters stated that
"band-aid" measures for controlling
noise emissions are more expensive than
integrated design changes.
The Agency recognized this and, ac-
cordingly, solicited comments from port-
able air compressor manufacturers as to
the time it would take to make and im-
plement the necessary design changes to
produce quiet machines. The effective
date of the regulation is based to a sub-
stantial degree on the data supplied by
the respondent manufacturers. It is the
Agency's opinion that the time span be-
fore the regulation becomes effective
provides manufacturers with the requi-
site lead time to accomplish the neces-
sary design changes, if they so desire, to
preclude the "band-aid" approach.
(7) Two commenters responded to the
solicitation, in the preamble of the pro-
posed regulation, for views as to whether
a standard should be imposed on port-
able air compressors measured in C-
weighted sound pressure level.
The Intent of the solicitation was to
elicit information in regard to imposing
a C-weighted noise emission standard to
guard against design practice that would
shift the major spectral components of
portable air compressor noise to low fre-
quencies discriminated against by the A-
weighted sound pressure, at the possible
expense of escalated low frequency noise,
which in turn could cause vibration prob-
lems in structures located in proximity
to construction sites.
At the time the proposed regulation
was developed, the Agency had limited
data to support a C-weightmg sound
pressure level standard. The public solic-
itation for data in this regard has pro-
vided little information and no new data
to show the need for a dBC standard.
Accordingly, only a dBA standard is be-
ing promulgated.
(8) One commenter suggested that
devices be installed that would shut down
a compressor if the access doors were
opened.
The Agency considered the validity
and practicality of such a requirement
and decided not to require the installa-
tion of such devices for the following
reasons: (1) One use of portable air
compressors is to supply breathing air to
workmen involved in activities under-
ground where the naturally occurring air
supply is minimal. An inadvertent shut-
down of the compressor in this situation
could have catastrophic consequences.
(2) Users could easily circumvent auto-
matic shutdown devices if such devices
proved to be an annoyance or otherwise
hindered the user's normal operating
procedures. However, the Agency recog-
nizes that the doors of portable air com-
pressors may be an element of design in-
corporated into the product to achieve
compliance with the regulation. Accord-
ingly, and as stated in the tampering
section of the regulations, the removal
or rendering inoperative, for purposes
other than maintenance, repair or re-
placement, of such a device is prohibited.
(9) Several commenters responded to
the solicitation, in the preamble of the
notice of proposed rulemaking, for com-
ments in regard to the proposed meas-
urement methodology and/or the advisa-
bility of expressing the portable air
compressor standard in terms of sound
power rather than average sound pres-
sure level.
During the development of the pro-
posed regulation, EPA carefully con-
sidered the various measurement meth-
odologies and sound descriptions suitable
for the assessment and characterization
of portable air compressor noise. As a
result of these studies, it is EPA's opin-
ion that the methodology as proposed
-------
will provide data to accurately char-
acterize portable air compressor noise
with the simplicity that is requisite to
facilitate product verification at the
manufacturer's plant and enforcement
in the field. The following private and
public proclamation by portable air com-
pressor manufacturers is significant in
this regard:
Members of CAGI have carefully studied
the measurement methodology and at the
January 19. 1975, meeting of the Compressed
Air and Gas Institute, Portable Air Compres-
sor Section, It was resolved the physical
measurement procedures contained in the
proposed EPA measurement methodology be
accepted by CAGI.
While the Agency has opted for a
measurement methodology with which
industry is most familiar at this time,
and which supports its compliance re-
quirements, and has opted to use A-
weighted sound pressure level as the
descriptor of portable air compressor
noise, it recognizes that situations may
exist or arise where other methodologies
and descriptors may be just as appro-
priate and, for that matter, have more
utilitarian use. Such instances or situa-
tions may exist within a particular prod-
uct industry when one wishes to describe
the energy output of devices for noise
emission diagnostic evaluation and for
comparing the noise emission of devices
which are similar in size and kind. Ac-
cordingly, the Agency encourages Indus-
try to proceed toward standardization
of methods to determine sound power
with attendant sound energy descriptors,
as it is endeavoring to do at this time.
The Agency has carefully reviewed two
recent efforts toward standardization de-
veloped by the National Bureau of
Standards (NBS) and Technical Com-
mittee 43 of the International Standards
Organization (ISO), and it is EPA's
opinion that these test methodologies are
feasible and viable and EPA would rec-
ommend their use for the determination
of portable air compressor sound power
in situations requiring such assessment.
(10) One commenter stated that the
test specification for a fifth microphone
above the compressor should be recon-
sidered.
The Agency included an overhead
microphone location to guard against
compressor design that would direct ma-
jor sound energy upwards which could
be of significance to persons working or
residing in high rise buildings adjacent
to construction sites and/or where port-
able air compressors are located below
ground level and the noise impacts on
those above the equipment affected. The
Agency reconsidered the need for the
overhead microphone position and con-
cluded that its imposition is indeed re-
quisite to control upward radiated com-
pressor noise, for without it there is no
practicable way to assure that upward
radiated noise will not exceed the stipu-
lated level.
(11) Several commenters stated that
in order to comply with the regulation,
manufacturers must design for levels
well below the standard.
In developing the regulation, the
Agency recognized that a class of com-
pressors, for that matter a single com-
pressor, may emit noise levels that vary
by as much as ±2 dBA as the result of
manufacturing tolerances. Accordingly,
the Agency does not recognize the need
for manufacturers to design "well be-
low" the standard to ensure compliance
with the Regulatior..
(12) Several commenters stated that
the EPA measurement methodology is
not suitable for in-use testing at a con-
struction site, with reasons such as an-
ticipated difficulty in measuring seven
meters above a compressor, difficulty in
teaching noise inspectors to perform
noise level averaging on energy basis,
and problems with high ambient noise
as the rationale for the statement.
In the development of the proposed
measurement methodology, it was the
Agency's intent to arrive at a test method
that could facilitate both noise emission
testing in the controlled environment at
the manufacturer's test site as well as
noise emission level assessment hi the
uncontrolled environment of construc-
tion sites. What has evolved is"a simple,
practicable test method which, while not
patently ideal for both test environments,
provides manufacturers of portable air
compressors a method to assure compli-
ance with the noise emission standard.
It also provides State and local noise in-
spectors with a methodology or, at a
minimum, a methodology base on which
to build or modify, as local conditions
may dictate, for their development of
equivalent test procedures for in-use
noise emission evaluation.
(13) One commenter stated that no
machine larger than 1200 cfm was tested
as the basis for the EPA background
document.
While it is true that the Agency did
not conduct tests on portable ah" com-
pressors larger than 1200 cfm, test data
on machines with air flow capacities up
to 2000 cfm were made available to the
Agency and are in fact included in a
listing presented in Table 7-5 (c) of the
"Background Document for Proposed
-------
Portable Air Compressor Noise Emission
Regulations."
(14) One commenter stated that a con-
flict between noise suppression technol-
ogy and safety considerations may exist
regarding the flame retardant properties
of acoustical insulation laggings.
EPA interprets this comment to mean
that acoustical materials that may be
employed within compressor enclosures
might tend to support combustion. In
addition, those materials that might be
employed would act as a sponge to soak
up fuel and oil and thus create a poten-
tially hazardous condition should the
oil/fuel flash point temperature be ex-
ceeded. As most acoustical materials
may be chemically treated with a flame
retardant to prevent combustion, and it
is common practice to encapsulate
acoustical foams and fiberglass in mylar
and other thin filmed impervious protec-
tive coverings to preclude absorption of
liquids, EPA is of the opinion that no
conflict exists between safety considera-
tions and noise suppression technology.
(15) One commenter responded to the
preamble solicitation for comment on
whether the Regulation should address
portable air compressor pure tones.
Currently, major pure tone spectral
components generated by today's porta-
ble air compressors occur at low fre-
quencies, less than 500 hertz, and are
not particularly annoying as the fre-
quencies are below the range of acute ear
sensitivity. However, the Agency recog-
nizes that as portable air compressor de-
signs change so too may the spectral
character of the pure tone generating
components to cause annoying pure
tones. Accordingly, the Agency will con-
tinue to address the potential problems of
pure tone noise with respect to portable
air compressors, and it solicits on a con-
tinuing basis such information from con-
cerned parties. Should evidence in the
future show this to be a significant prob-
lem, the Agency is prepared to propose
such control measures as may be neces-
sary.
(16) Several commenters felt that
some tolerance on the standard should be
allowed on field tests to account for en-
vironmental and instrumentation vari-
ances likely to occur when portable air
compressors are tested in environments
different from the controlled environ-
ment of the manufacturer's facility.
The Agency recognizes that, due to en-
vironmental and instrumentation differ-
ences, noise emission data measured at
State and local test sites may differ from
that measured during SEA and PV test-
ing, and the Agency will take this into
account when reviewing test data.
B. HEALTH AND WELFARE
(1) Several commenters stated that, in
setting the regulation, consideration
should be given to usage conditions and
amount of exposure to the public for dif-
ferent types of machines.
In developing the regulation, the Agen-
cy considered the usage conditions and
amount of exposure to the public for dif-
ferent types of machines In the anlysis,
the Agency employed portable air com-
pressor usage factors and noise levels to
investigate health and welfare benefits
derived from the regulation of the total
population of portable air compressors.
A second analysis was conducted for the
population of compressors split into units
typically used in urban areas and those
typically used in rural areas. The studies
considered the usage of compressors in
five phases of construction: Domestic
housing, nonresidential, industrial, and
public work construction. The "Back-
ground Document for Portable Air Com-
pressors" presents further details of the
analysis.
(2) Several commenters stated that
the benefits to public health, and welfare
do not justify the economic impact of
the Regulation.
It must be kept in mind that society is
now paying billions of dollars for noise
pollution associated with lost produc-
tivity, higher medical bills and health
insurance premiums, payments in suc-
cessful noise offense litigation and as-
sessment of property value in high noise
exposure areas without accruing any di-
rect benefit for such payments. Imple-
mentation of the Noise Control Act of
1972 will accomplish t. shift in the eco-
nomic burden from the impacted popula-
tion to the users of the products and their
customers and hence will provide society
with direct benefits in the form of quieter
products and a quieter environment.
It is estimated that over 27 million
people are exposed to construction site
noise levels that jeopardize their health
and welfare. Since construction site noise
is typically comprised of contributions
from more than twenty different types
of construction equipment, regulation of
the majority of the pieces of equipment
will be required to appreciably and ef-
fectively reduce this type of noise. The
portable air compressor has been iden-
tified as the first piece of construction
equipment requiring noise emission con-
trol to foster, in the long term, less con-
site noise. While portable air
-------
compressors may not provide the high-
est sound level at construction sites, they
do contribute significantly to communi-
ty noise exposure. Air compressors rank
with dump trucks and concrete trucks
in producing the highest sound energy
per day. The noise emission regulation
for portable air compressors is requisite
to protecrthe health and welfare of the
American public.
Studies performed in accordance with
the requirements of the Noise Control Act
of 1972 indicate that compliance with
the regulation will reduce the impact
upon people from construction site noise
by 14.7 percent with an estimated attend-
ant 12.3 percent increase in the list price
of portable air compressors. Upon reg-
ulation of noise emissions from dump
trucks and concrete trucks, a reduction
in total impact by approximately 45 per-
cent is anticipated when the current pop-
ulation of compressors and trucks is re-
placed by quiet units. Further reduc-
tion in total impact is contingent upon
effective noise emission regulations of
other construction equipment. Consider-
ing the health and welfare benefit ob-
tained from the regulation, the Agency
believes that the added cost of compres-
sors is a productive expenditure and
therefore justified.
(3) Several commenters suggested
that EPA undertake a more thorough
cost/benefit study.
The Agency conducted additional eco-
nomic impact and health and welfare
impact analyses employing data and in-
formation made available to it as the
result of the written comment period
and public hearings regarding the pro-
posed regulation. The Agency also so-
licited information from portable air
compressor manufacturers regarding the
lead time necessary to comply with vari-
ous standard levels. The regulation being
promulgated is based, in part, on the
result of these analyses.
c. ECONOMICS
(1) Several commenters indicated that
they felt that the Portable Air Compres-
sor Regulation is inflationary.
The EPA, in promulgating a noise
source emission regulation for newly
manufactured products, is directed by
the Noise Control Act of 1972 to consider
the cost of compliance, best available
technology, and impact on the public
health and welfare. The Agency has
carefully weighed the potential adverse
economic impacts associated with the
promulgation of the regulation and com-
pared them to the benefits that would
accrue to the population affected by the
reduction in noise emitted by portable
air compressors. The conclusion is that
the 12.3 percent list price increase is cost
effective in terms of the benefits derived.
The health and welfare benefits of the
proposed regulations have been discussed
previously in paragraph (2) of section B.
(2) Several commenters indicated
that they felt that the smaller manufac-
turers will be more severely impacted
and their costs per unit will be higher
than those for larger portable air com-
pressor manufacturers.
The Environmental Protection Agency
pursued this issue through visits and
communications with large, medium, and
small portable air compressor manufac-
turers in an effort to determine the va-
lidity of the comment. As a result of the
Agency's investigations and data sur-
faced in pursuit of the issue, it became
apparent that the effective date of the
Regulation was the single major factor
controlling the degree of economic im-
pact on the portable air compressor in-
dustry of the proposed standard, particu-
larly on the smaller manufacturer. Ac-
cording to the data, a smaller manufac-
turer faced a greater potential for seri-
ous economic impact from the proposed
twelve-month effective date because of
limited resources and manpower to ac-
complish the requisite redesign of his
product line to achieve product compli-
ance in a timely fashion. As such, the
smaller manufacturer could be con-
strained by the Regulation from intro-
ducing his units into commerce and
thereby accrue a severe economic impact.
Accordingly, after determining that a
limited extension of the effective date of
the Regulation would not severely im-
pact the health and welfare benefits to
be derived, the Agency has extended the
effective date of the regulation to twenty-
four months for compressors with air
flow capacity less than or equal to 250
cfm and thirty months for compressors
with air flow capacity greater than 250
cfm. It is the Agency's belief that this
extension allows adequate lead time for
an orderly readjustment by all manufac-
turers to preclude potential economic
hardships associated with time con-
straints imposed by the proposed effec-
tive date.
(3) Many commenters indicated that
the economic impacts of the useful life
provision contained in the proposed reg-
ulation were not included in the cost of
compliance studies that were under-
taken.
The Agency reviewed the useful life
provision contained in the proposed reg-
ulation in light of the comments made
-------
in the various dockets. The Agency has
elected not to specify at this time a
specific requirement for portable air
compressor useful life noise emission
standard. The Agency has chosen, how-
ever, to defer a useful life provision in
the portable air compressor regulation
until further studies regarding the deg-
radation of noise emissions of portable
air compressors and the associated costs
of compliance have been completed and
assessed against the health and welfare
benefits which could result from the Im-
position of such a useful life standard.
(4) Several conimenters stated that
the cost of constructing a test facility at
a manufacturer's location is econom-
ically unfeasible.
The Agency does not feel that the re-
quired measurement/testing procedure
will necessitate the construction of
elaborate, expensive test facilities for
portable air compressor manufacturers.
Accordingly, the test procedure, includ-
ing the description of the test site, as it
appeared in the proposed regulation
stands as the EPA test procedure which
will be utilized to determine compliance
with the standard. However, as now
stated in the regulation, alternate test
procedures which are approved by EPA
by virtue of demonstrated correlation
with the prescribed procedure, may be
employed by the manufacturers.
(5) Many commenters stated that the
estimated 16 percent per unit price in-
crease underestimates the true cost to
comply with the regulation due to the en-
forcement provisions.
The 16 percent preliminary estimate of
list price increase included in the pre-
amble to the proposed regulation did not
include costs for enforcement and useful
life provisions. In the final analysis per-
formed by the Agency, the deferment of
a useful life standard and further con-
sideration of the enforcement scenario
led to the following estimated list price
increases for newly manufactured port-
able air compressors:
1. 11.2 percent for compressors with rated
flow capacity less than or equal to 260 dm.
2. 13.0 percent for compressors with rated
flow capacity greater than 250 cfm.
3. An additional estimated 0.4 percent list
price Increase may accrue through the costs
of the revised enforcement scenario of the
regulation.
(6) One commenter indicated that
there was no need for Federal regulation
of portable air compressors because
marketplace pressures will force the pro-
duction of quieted machines without a
regulation.
This assertion has, In fact, not been
demonstrated. Although there are models
of compressors that are quieted, the noise
emissions of the compressor population
as a whole has not been reduced to a
level that Is protective of the public
health and welfare. Additionally, there
are no indications that the industry as a
whole was moving in the direction of
quieting the compressor fleet to levels
that are considered to be protective of
the public health and welfare.
(7) Several commenters indicated
that the Regulation will have a harmful
impact on the foreign trade patterns in
the industry.
The Agency assessed the Impact of the
Regulation on trade patterns. The
analysis showed that there would be no
change in import patterns and no
material impact on the balance of trade.
Since the Noise Control Act specifically
exempts units manufactured solely for
export, there will be no changes in port-
able air compressor export patterns re-
sulting from this rulemaking.
(8) One manufacturer indicated that
the regulation will have the effect of in-
creasing air compressor rentals, to the
detriment of industry sales volume.
The Agency reviewed this issue during
Its 'background study to assess the im-
pact of the proposed regulation. Today
without , Federal regulation, approxi-
mately 50 percent of portable air com-
pressor unit shipments reach the end
user through rental or rental/purchase
agreements. The reason for this rests
with cost effectiveness; that is, In many
instances it is probably more economical
to rent a unit for a specific job taking
place in a finite period of time than to tie
up capital in a unit not receiving full
usage.
While it is recognized that rental usage
could increase, by virtue of its apparent
economic advantage, the Agency has no
quantitative data to show any increase
solely due to imposition of the Regula-
tion. The Agency has, however, esti-
mated that imposition of the regulation
would cause no more than a 4.3 percent
decrease in total unit sales.
'9) One manufacturer suggested that
a board of review be established to en-
sure that manufacturers' costs are not
excessive.
The Noise Control Act of 1972 does not
contain any provision for the establish-
ment of such a panel. The EPA has, how-
ever, made every attempt to estimate the
economic impact on the portable air com-
pressor manufacturing industry. The
regulation does not in EPA's judgment
impose any unreasonable or excessive
-------
costs on the industry.
(10) One commenter stated that large
manufacturers can be expected to stock-
pile standard machines before the ef-
fective date of the regulation.
The Noise Control Act prohibits dis-
tribution In commerce of products man-
ufactured after the effective date which
do not meet the standard. Thus, under
the Act, Congress Intended that products
manufactured earlier shall be exempt
and may be distributed in commerce at
any time even If they do not meet the
standards. The nature of portable air
compressor manufacturing and market-
Ing is such that distributors are expected
to have several pre-regulation compres-
sors available for sale at the time the
regulation becomes effective, and this
probability was considered In the assess-
ment of health and welfare Impact on
the regulation.
The analysis of this issue focused on
Industry production capacity, i.e., basic
ability to stockpile. On an average across
the Industry current production capacity
Is such that limited stockpiling Is possi-
ble, if the assumption Is made that the
compressor market will remain relatively
stable until the regulation Is effective.
Combined in this analysis is the his-
torical flexibility of the portable air com-
pressor industry in responding to'•mar-
ket demand fluctuations. Consideration
of these factors and the general expense
of stockpiling inventory led to the
Agency conclusion that the stockpiling
possibility will be evenly assessed by In-
dustry and that Individual manufactur-
ers will be able to avert market disrup-
tions in that event.
(11) Several manufacturers stated
that the one-year effective date of the
regulation Is an insufficient amount of
time and will cause anHncreased eco-
nomic burden on the industry.
In further study and discussions with
the various manufacturers, the Agency
was able to better estimate the time de-
pendency of successful compressor rede-
sign. The presence In the industry of
several manufacturers who have little or
no quieting experience, and additional
Information which showed that quieting
Is more difficult to achieve In the larger
compressors, led us to extend the time
for compliance. In addition, our further
study revealed that many of the costs
for redesign are fixed, and lengthening
of the time for compliance should allow
for more orderly adjustment In the in-
dustry.
(12) Various industry members com-
mented that the regulation will force the
discontinuation of some manufacturers'
compressor models.
This issue was considered In further
economic Impact studies following the
public comment period. Obviously, for
those manufacturers who now market
both standard and quiet compressors In
identical cfm categories, it would be Im-
plied that they would discontinue the so-
called standard model as a result of the
regulation. The more critical possibility
is the unforeseen, forced temporary or
permanent discontinuation of a compres-
sor model because of added expense to
quiet in the time frame specified, or be-
cause of assembly delays resulting from
component part deliveries approaching
or exceeding the effective date of the
regulation. Analysis of the problem in-
cluded this possibility and the Agency
concluded that the extended time now
allowed for compliance with the stand-
ard as opposed to the time frame orig-
inally proposed will allow manufactur-
ers to effectively compensate for design
and assembly problems of this nature.
However, some manufacturers now mar-
ket marginally profitable models, and the
possibility of discontinuation of these
models because of this regulation exists.
In instances of discontinuance of mar-
ginally profitable models, It Is the Agen-
cy's position that this is not necessarily
a detrimental effect of the regulation;
the Agency has no specific Information
Indicating the likelihood of this occur-
ring.
(13) Three commenters stated that the
regulation will cause the non-productive
expenditure of labor and materials.
During the development of the regula-
tion, the Agency conducted studies to ar-
rive at a noise emission standard req-
uisite to protect the public health and
welfare with an adequate margin of safe-
ty, taking Into account the magnitude
and conditions of use of portable air
compressors, the degree of noise reduc-
tion achievement through the applica-
tion of best available technology, and the
cost of compliance. The standard that
has evolved, is, in the Agency's opinion,
technically feasible, non-inflationary,
and protective of the public health and
welfare. Accordingly, the regulation will
cause productive expenditure of labor
and materials.
D. ENFORCEMENT
(1) Two of the commenters felt the
compliance and enforcement aspects of
the proposed portable air compressor
regulation, "which are derived from air
pollution control regulations, could not
realistically or practically be applied to
the air compressor manufacturing Indus-
try.
-------
The regulations being promulgated
contain production verification require-
ments and selective enforcement audit-
Ing requirements. The production ver-
ification scheme differs from certification
under the Clean Air Act. No extensive
endurance testing is required by produc-
tion verification, and the manufacturer
is not precluded from selling his product
until he has accomplished the require-
ments of the production verification
process. In essence, the Clean Air Act
certification process is merely used to
allow the manufacturer to demonstrate
that he has the requisite technology in
hand to produce conforming products.
The production verification process Is
based on the assumption that the manu-
facturer has the technology available to
quiet compressors and must demonstrate
that he is able to apply that technology
in practice to produce compressors com-
plying with the standard.
The selective enforcement auditing
scheme is very similar to that which
EPA. has proposed for use under the
Clean Air Act to verify compliance of
production vehicles with the standard.
It is a noncontinuous scheme, wherein
samples of products are tested to deter-
mine whether they conf orm to the stand-
ards. Such a scheme is equally applicable
to the testing of completed motor vehi-
cles as it is to testing completed portable
air compressors. It should be kept in
mind that this testing will only be done
on the specific request of the Agency.
(2) One commenter felt the regulations
manifested a basic distrust of American
industry accompanied by a desire for
EPA to keep its responsibilities to a
minimum.
The basic EPA enforcement strategy
under Uie Noise Control Act of 1972
places a major share of the responsibility
on the manufacturer for testing to de-
termine compliance of new portable air
compressors with these regulations and
emission standards. This does not re-
lieve EPA of its responsibilities but
merely allows a manufacturer to have
his personnel in control of many as-
pects of the compliance program, thereby
minimizing the burden of these regu-
lations on his business. Such manu-
facturer responsibility and control re-
sults from the fact that EPA has faith
in the integrity of manufacturers to com-
ply with these regulations. EPA, how-
ever, does reserve the right to verify that
the manufacturer is in fact complying
with the regulations. It is for this
reason that EPA provides for monitoring
by EPA personnel of tests performed
by the manufacturer and other manu-
facturer actions taken in compliance
with these regulations. The final pur-
pose of such monitoring is to assure the
Administrator that the information he
is receiving is accurate to enable him to
make the proper determination that
compressors being distributed in com-
merce by a manufacturer are in fact in
compliance with these regulations.
(3) Some manufacturers commented
that production verification would delay
and unnecessarily burden the manu-
facturer's distribution process since dis-
tribution in commerce could not take
place until production verification has
been completed.
The regulations have been modified to
permit manufacturers to distribute com-
pressors in commerce as soon as pro-
duction begins. The requirement still re-
mains that the manufacturer must test
certain models of his early production
units, which for the most part are the
loudest configuration of a category. How-
ever this testing must now take place,
as soon as weather conditions permit,
within a 45-day grace period, during
which production verification is waived.
The 45-day period is designed to ac-
commodate a manufacturer's transpor-
tation needs and to accommodate poor
weather conditions. In addition, the re-
quirement that the manufacturer pro-
vide a 10-day notice of his intent to test
has been removed.
(4) Some manufacturers suggested
that the number of configurations be
minimized and only those parameters for
configurations that directly affect noise
emissions be used. One manufacturer en-
dorsed a revision of the definition of
configuration to cfm, engine type and
rpm, with category being defined by cfm
only.
Although the definition of category has
remained the same and is based on those
elements which most directly affect
noise, the definition of configuration has
been changed, with the defining param-
eters significantly reduced. The Agency
has calculated, based on available in-
formation, the total number of cate-
gories that would require testing based
on production verification if carried out
in accordance with these regulations, and
has found that it results in a nominal
number of products requiring testing.
Any further reduction in the criteria
used to define category would not be
warranted, on the basis of reducing test
burden, since the number of units re-
quiring testing is now realistic.
(5) Some manufacturers commented
10
-------
Khat the sampling plans are based on
high volume production and that the
concept of using a modification of a well-
known attribute plan Is inconsistent with
small volume production.
As a result of such comments, the
sampling plans contained in the pro-
posed regulation have been modified to
provide for situations in which produc-
tion volume is small. Additionally, the
revised sampling plan significantly re-
duces the number of products requiring
testing.
(6) One commenter suggested that the
selective enforcement auditing (SEA)
strategy, which had a proposed accept-
able quality level (AOL) of 6.5 percent,
contradicts the requirement that every
new compressor conform to the appli-
cable noise emission standard, since in-
herent in such a strategy is the assump-
tion that some nonconforming products
will be distributed in commerce.
The regulation being promulgated now
contains an AQL of 10 percent and, al-
though this AQL may result in some non-
conforming products being distributed in
commerce, the basic requirements still
remain that a manufacturer is pro-
hibited from distributing into commerce
any products which do not conform with
the standard. The basic intent is that
all products being distributed in com-
merce must conform to the standard.
Any product that is tested and which is
known not to conform to the standards
may not be distributed into commerce
until the nonconformity is remedied.
Furthermore, every compressor is war-
ranted to conform to the standard at the
time of sale. It is merely the intent of
EPA not to take enforcement action
which adresses the aggregate of the
products or the process by which they
are produced until the process average
as determined by SEA testing exceeds the
AQL of 10 percent. That is not to say
the EPA permits the distribution in com-
merce of products that exceed the stand-
ard, but only that no enforcement action
will be taken on the aggregate by EPA
unless an AQL of 10 percent is exceeded.
A batch which meets the AQL of 10 per-
cent is considered to indicate compliance
by virtually 100 percent of the compres-
sor population. The 10 percent allowance
provides for test variability and random
human error.
(7) One commenter suggested that
the SEA process placed an unnecessary
burden on a manufacturer and all that
is required is the "certification" from the
manufacturer that he has tested a num-
ber of units and that they conform to
the regulations.
The selective enforcement auditing
scheme is not a continuing requirement.
Testing is performed at the request of
the Administrator. The testing burdens
will exist only when deemed necessary
by the Administrator for purposes of
gathering information in order to make
a determination regarding the conform-
ity of products being distributed in com-
merce by a particular manufacturer.
The issuance of a test request may not
be necessary where the manufacturer
can demonstrate through his own test
data on production units, using a sam-
pling plan similar to or better than the
promulgated plan, that his process aver-
age is below the AQL of 10 percent. This
amounts to the "certification" procedure
suggested by the commenter.
(8) One commenter suggested that
SEA should be invoked only when the
Administrator had cause to believe a
configuration Is being sold in commerce
that fails to comply with the regulation.
Although EPA agrees with the spirit
of that comment, the Administrator pre-
fers to maintain the discretion that Con-
gress intended by not having placed any
such limitations on his testing authority.
It is the EPA's intent, however, that such
test requests be issued when the need
arises and that such need be clearly
demonstrated.
(9) One commenter felt that produc-
tion verification and the selective en-
forcement auditing scheme would pro-
vide a high assurance of product
conformity and further, that a major
savings in administrative costs for both
the manufacturer and EPA should be
realized because this particular enforce-
ment scheme has definite benefits over
the enforcement scheme employed in
certification of automobiles pursuant to
the Clean Air Act of 1970.
(10) Several commenters were con-
cerned with the Administrator's discre-
tion to refuse to grant a hearing in situa-
tions where section 11 (d) orders were
Issued.
The regulations have been modified to
provide that in situations where section
11 (d) orders are issued, notification and
an opportunity for a hearing are
afforded.
(11) Several commenters criticized
the attempt by the regulations to limit
the right of counsel and recommended
that such limitation be stricken from the
regulations.
As a result of those comments, por-
tions of the regulation that would, to
fact, limit the right of counsel have been
deleted.
11
-------
(12) Several commenters questioned
the need and the validity of EPA to
make broad inspections and to have the
right to inspect and photograph all lit-
erature and test records. The comment-
ers indicated that such provisions ex-
tend far beyond the authority conveyed
to EPA and far in excess of any Agency
needs.
The regulations have been modified to
limit Inspections and acquisition of data
to information necessary for the Admin-
istrator to make a determination that
the manufacturer is distributing con-
forming products in commerce. The au-
thority of EPA personnel is limited to
examining records of tests conducted on
production verification products or prod-
ucts tested pursuant to SEA; inspecting
areas where testing is conducted and
where products are stored prior to test-
Ing; and inspecting areas of the assem-
bly plant where the products are being
assembled. EPA has no interest in forced
entry Into developmental laboratory
areas. However, where such areas are
part of the test site used for compliance
testing. It is the Intent of the regulations
to permit access to such areas regardless
of the fact that developmental labs or
test sites are near by. If a manufacturer
wishes to preclude EPA Enforcement Of-
ficers from visiting or inspecting their
development testing or laboratory areas,
they must be separated from areas
where compliance testing is performed.
(13) Several commenters stated that
the Information recording and reporting
requirements are burdensome and costly.
The regulations have been revised so
that Information needed to describe a
product may be satisfied by the submit-
tal of sales literature and data needed to
demonstrate compliance may be satisfied
by submittal of information accrued
during manufacturer self-Imposed diag-
nostic testing to assure themselves that
conforming products are being distrib-
uted in commerce. The regulations have
also been revised so that all data may be
mailed to EPA In lieu of the proposed
telephone reporting requirements.
(14) Several commenters Indicated
that the proposed regulations in some
Instances required the repetitive submis-
sion of information.
The final regulations provide that
where information has been previously
submitted and has remained unchanged,
subsequent reports need only refer to the
previous submissions.
The regulations have been revised so
as to permit execution by an authorized
company representative in lieu of a Cor-
porate Vice President of reports required
to be filed by a manufacturer.
(]5) One commenter felt that cease to
distribute orders went beyond the stat-
ute and should be modified.
The Agency has interpreted section 11
(d) of the Act, which provides for the
issuance of administrative orders, as In-
clusive of the power to issue cease to dis-
tribute orders and recall orders. Any
such orders would be preceded by notice
and opportunity for a hearing.
(16) One commenter felt that the
statement contained in the proposed
regulation, "all costs associated with re-
call and remedy of noncomplying com-
pressors shall be borne by the manufac-
turer" could be interpreted very broadly.
The costs normally associated with a
recall are the costs of conducting the
campaign itself, as well as the cost of
remedying the nonconformity, including
parts and labor. These are the costs the
manufacturer would be required to ab-
sorb.
(17) Several commenters felt the costs
of the administrative enforcement pro-
visions would be significant because of
the large number of products that would
be required to be tested as a result of the
production verification and audit tests,
the recordkeeping and reporting re-
quirements, and the costs of construct-
ing added test facilities to accomplish
all the required testing.
EPA has reexamined the cost Impact
of the; administrative enforcement pro-
visions of production verification and se-
lective enforcement auditing and has
found them to be reasonable. As a re-
sult of Information gathered during the
rulemaking process, which Included a
public hearing and many written sub-
missions to the docket, modifications
were made to the regulations In the area
of the administrative enforcement pro-
visions. These modifications have re-
duced the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, and have made the pro-
duction verification and selective en-
forcement auditing processes more flexi-
ble and tailored to the Industry. These
changes In themselves have resulted In
additional reductions in cost to the man-
ufacturer over those that would have
been incurred based on the proposed reg-
ulation.
Significant capital expenditures can
be eliminated by those manufacturers
who avail themselves of the EPA En-
forcement Test Facility at Sandusky,
Ohio, in lieu of constructing additional
facilities.
(18) Several commenters were con-
12
-------
cemed that th6 warranty required by
§ 204.58-1 of the proposed regulation was
a useful life performance warranty.
The warranty required of the manu-
facturer is a performance warranty that
the air compressor met the noise emission
standards on the date of sale to the ulti-
mate purchaser. Because performance
Is warranted for the date of sale only,
warranty claims must relate back to a
non-conformity on that day. To make
the best case in relating back to the date
of sale, the claimant should be able to
point to a defect in design, materials, or
workmanship which existed on the sale
date and which caused noise emissions to
exceed the standard. Thus, although the
claim may be made against the manu-
facturer at any time during the life of
the compressor, such claim must relate
back to non-compliance on the date of
sale.
(19) One commenter wished clarifi-
cation regarding which "manufacturer"
must Issue the noise emission warranty.
The manufacturer who Is required to
Issue and to honor the noise emission
warranty is the manufacturer who is re-
quired to production verify. The fact that
a defective part, component, or system
was purchased from another manufac-
turer does not alter this warranty. Man-
ufacturers who production verify may
seek indemnification from suppliers for
liability which Is attributable to the sup-
plier.
(20) Some commenters asked for a def-
inition of what constitutes tampering
and whether the use of aftermarket parts
(parts not manufactured or authorized
by the original equipment manufac-
turer) would constitute tampering.
A list of acts which could adversely
affect the noise control system of a com-
pressor and would constitute tampering,
as determined by EPA, will be published
In the owner's manual. This will give spe-
cific Indications of those acts which will
be considered tampering by the Agency
unless It can be shown that noise emis-
sions are not adversely affected by the
act.
In general, In terms of noise-related
aftermarket parts, any nonoriglnal
equipment aftermarket part (Including
a rebuilt part) may be Installed In or an
a compressor subject to these regulations
If the Installer has & reasonable basis for
knowing that It will not adversely affect
noise emissions. For noise-related re-
placement aftermarket parts, a reason-
able basis exists If (a) the installer rea-
sonably believes that the replacement
part or rebuilt part is designed to per-
form the same function with respect to
noise control as the replaced part, or
(b) the replacement part or rebuilt part
Is represented in writing by the part
manufacturer or rebuilder to perform
the same function with respect to noise
control as the replaced part.
For noise-related add-on, auxiliary.
augmenting, or secondary parts or sys-
tems, a reasonable basis exists If (a) the
Installer knows of noise emissions tests
which show that the part does not cause
noise emissions to exceed the time-of-
sale standards, or to increase emissions,
if the noise emissions already exceed the
tlme-of-sale standards; or (b) the part
or system manufacturer represents in
writing that tests have been performed
with similar results (to (a) above); or
(c) a Federal, State or local environ-
mental control agency with appropriate
jurisdiction expressly represents that a
reasonable basis exists.
(21) Some commenters indicated that,
in the tampering requirement, submis-
sion of information 90 days before intro-
duction into commerce of the compressor
represents an excessively long time
period for the manufacturer.
The 90-day requirement in the pro-
posed regulation was established to allow
EPA sufficient time to evaluate the tam-
pering data, prepare a list of the acts
which tampering enforcement would
focus on, and then forward this list to
the manufacturer for incorporation into
the owner's manual. Howeve ', to account
for the varying production schedules of
manufacturers, the flnal regulation has
been changed to allow for a time period
based on the need of the manufacturer.
The regulation now requires that the
manufacturer submit the requested in-
formation within an adequate amount of
time to provide EPA with 30 days to re-
view the data and return a tampering
list to the manufacturer for printing in
the owner's manual. If the Administrator
fails to provide the list to the manu-
facturer within 30 days of the date the
information was submitted, the manu-
facturer is not precluded from distribut-
ing the compressors into commerce. In
this case, the list of tampering acts re-
quired in the owner's manual shall be
omitted until the list is provided and
the owner's manual Is otherwise re-
printed.
(22) Several commenters considered
unreasonable and burdensome the re-
quirements for the submission of listings
of noise control devices ant: elements of
design (including performance specifi-
cations) and acts which might constitute
tampering.
13
-------
The purpose of these requirements in
the proposal was to enable the Adminis-
trator to determine what acts will con-
stitute tampering. Information submitted
by the manufacturer is not to be con-
sidered as a final judgment of what con-
stitutes tampering, but will only provide
the basic information for determination
by the Administrator. The final regula-
tions have been modified so that no
separate submission of the list of noise
control devices and elements of design
is required; this is part of the informa-
tion required to be provided in the
product verification report. The require-
ment for submission of noise-related per-
formance specifications has been deleted.
The generation of the required informa-
tion by the manufacturer can be per-
formed concurrently with the develop-
ment of appropriate noise control sys-
tems. The testing that will normally be
performed in the development of the
noise control systems and the manufac-
turer's engineering experience should
provide a substantial basis from which
the required information can be
generated.
E. MISCELLANEOUS
(1) One commenter stated that noise
regulations directed at the end product
are preferable to those for individual
component parts.
The Agency has carefully reviewed
the possibility of regulating equipment
components, for example, an engine as
opposed to the total final end product,
and reached the conclusion that on a cost
effective basis, it is indeed preferable to
regulate end products. This is so because
in the synthesis of a final product from
various regulated components there is no
guarantee that the noise emissions of the
final product will be within acceptable
limits. Accordingly, there probably still
would be a need for a final product
regulation.
(2) One commenter stated that the
regulation should be rewritten to improve
the language related to the numerical
descriptions of noise.
The Agency has taken the comment
under advisement, and, accordingly,
changes have been made to the text of
the regulation.
(3) One commenter suggested that the
definition of portable air compressor
should be clarified to exclude any
products not intended to be subject to the
regulation.
The suggested changes presented by
this commenter were studied and the def-
initions of portable air compressors now
appearing in the Regulation incorporated
language which the Agency feels ade-
quately defines the product intended for
regulation.
TV. CONTINUING AGENCY RESPONSE TO
PUBLIC COMMENTS
As mentioned in the foregoing Agency
responses to public comments, additional
study is required in some areas.
If data collected by or made available
to the Agency indicate the existence of
any problem curtailing the effectiveness
of the regulations, these regulations may
be revised pursuant to section 6(c) (3) of
the Act.
V. REVISION OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION
PRIOR TO PROMULGATION
The portable air compressor noise
emission regulation which is now be-
ing promulgated incorporates several
changes from the proposed regulation
which was published on October 29,1974.
These changes are based upon the public
comments received and the results of
additional studies performed by the
Agency to assess the impact of the regu-
lation. In most instances, changes were
made to merely clarify the intent of the
regulation. However, three substantive
changes were made.
(a) EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE REGULATION
In the proposed regulation, the effec-
tive date for compliance with the stand-
ard was 12 months after promulgation of
the Regulation. During the public com-
ment period attendant to the proposed
regulation, many comments were re-
ceived from manufacturers of portable
air compressors indicating that the 12-
month effective date time period would
adversely affect their economic viability
because they would not be able to produce
units complying with the standard in
the specified time frame.
The Agency conducted studies which
showed that if the 12-month effective
date were maintained, approximately 59
percent of the total industry unit sales
volume (amounting to a potential $86
million loss) might be unavailable for
introduction into commerce at the end
of the 12-month period with the added
effect of potentially causing four smaller
or marginally viable firms to withdraw
from the market. The Agency reviewed
several effective date options with the
portable air compressor manufacturers
to assess how this potential disruption
and withdrawal could be mitigated. Data
supplied by manufacturers showed that
a 24-month effective date for portable
air compressors with a flow capacity
less than or equal to 250 cfm and an
14
-------
effective date of 30 months for units
with capacity above 250 cfm would pro-
duce no disruption and therefore cause
no lost sales for the standard levels con-
sidered. From this it may be inferred
that the four smaller or marginally vi-
able firms would not withdraw from the
market. Agency analysis of the impact
of these effective date extensions on the
projected health and welfare benefits, to
be derived by the proposed regulation,
showed an insignificant loss in benefit.
The reason for this is that benefits de-
rived from the regulation are based on
a 100 percent compressor population re-
placement by quieted compressors, and
since it takes on the average ten years
for a compressor to lose its usefulness,
the extension of the compliance time by
12 and 18 months, respectively, for the
two categories of compressors (^250
cfm, >250 cfm) would merely mean
that the full public health and welfare
benefits .would be realized in late 1987
and early 1988 as opposed to late 1986.
Therefore, the Agency modified the ef-
fective date to the 24- and 30-month.
periods for compliance.
The percent list price increase was
previously estimated to be approximately
16 percent for the 12-month effective
date initially proposed. Studies further
showed that this Increase in list prices
might cause a 4.8 percent decrease in
unit sales volume. The new effective date
is estimated to reduce the previously
estimated list price Increase by 3.7 per-
centage points to 12.3 percent with an
attendant .3 percentage point reduction
in the estimated unit sales volume de-
crease associated with the list price
change.
(B) USEFUL LIFE STANDARD
As it appeared in the proposed regu-
laj^ion, the standard for portable air com-
pressors was to extend over the useful
life of compressors. The intent behind
this requirement was to ensure that the
public health and welfare benefits de-
rived from the portable air compressor
standard would be fully achieved over
time. The Agency maintains that prod-
uct noise emission levels developed to
protect public health and welfare must
not degrade during the product's life.
However, where degradation cannot be
reasonably prevented through periodic
preventive maintenance and repair,
standards may include a degradation
allowance.
Currently, no data are available to
determine whether and to what degree
the noise from a properly maintained
and repaired portable air compressor
would degrade in time. Accordingly, the
Agency is reserving a section for useful
life requirements in the regulation and
will defer action on setting a useful life
standard until necessary and sufficient
data are collected on which to base a
standard. The delay in promulgating a
useful life standard should not be con-
strued as a deemphasis of this require-
ment, but merely as a means to assure
that an accurate and fair useful life re-
quirement may be imposed.
VI. ENFORCEMENT
A. GENERAL
The EPA enforcement strategy under
the Noise Control Act of 1972 will place
on the manufacturer the major share of
the responsibility for testing to deter-
mine the compliance of new portable air
compressors with the emission standard.
This approach benefits the manufacturer
by leaving his personnel in control of
many aspects of the compliance program
and Imposes only a minimum burden on
his business. At the same time, the in-
evitable conflict of Interest Imposed on
the manufacturer makes monitoring by
EPA personnel of these tests and manu-
facturers' actions taken. hi compliance
with these regulations advisable to en-
sure that compressors distributed in
commerce are in fact in compliance with
these regulations. Accordingly, the regu-
lations provide that EPA enforcement
officers may be present and observe any
testing required by these regulations, or
the Administrator may require that a
manufacturer supply him with compres-
sors for testing either at the manufac-
turer's facility or at the EPA Enforce-
ment Test Facility. In addition, enforce-
ment officers will be empowered to in-
spect records and facilities in order to
assure that manufacturers are carrying
out their responsibilities properly.
The enf ocement strategy promulgated
today in these regulations consists of
three main parts: (1) Production Verifi-
cation, (2) Selective Enforcement Audit-
ing, and (3) In-use Compliance Provi-
sions. A detailed description of these
parts, including other important admin-
istrative parts, follows.
B. PRODUCTION VERIFICATION
Production verification is the testing
by a manufacturer or EPA of early pro-
duction models to verify whether a man-
ufacturer has the requisite noise control
technology in hand and is capable of
applying the technology hi a manufac-
15
-------
turlng process. Models selected for test-
Ing must have been assembled using the
manufacturer's normal assembly method
and must be units assembled for sale.
Models tested must conform with the
standard or the manufacturer may be
required to cease distribution in com-
merce of compressors of that model.
The production unit selected for test-
Ing is of a compressor configuration. A
compressor configuration is defined on
the basis of compressor type, delivery
rate, cooling system, air intake and in-
duction system, engine system, and ex-
haust system. Most of the testing re-
quired by these regulations will be per-
formed by the manufacturer at his test
site, using his equipment and personnel,
although the Administrator reserves the
right to be present to monitor or perform
any tests. Production verification does
not Involve any formal EPA approval or
Issuance of certificates subsequent to
manufacturer testing, nor is any exten-
sive testing required of EPA.
To avoid delays of shipment of early
production models, due to weather con-
ditions which preclude testing, these reg-
ulations provide that production verifi-
cation of a configuration is automati-
cally and conditionally waived for a
manufacturer for a period of up to 45
consecutive days from distribution in
commerce of toe first compressor of that
configuration. The manufacturer must
test a compressor on the first day weather
conditions at his site permit. Failure to
test on such first suitable day will result
In automatic and retroactive withdrawal
of the waiver and will render the manu-
facturer liable for illegally distributing
compressors into commerce.
A manufacturer may production verify
a configuration any time during the
model year or in advance of a model
year, If he desires.
A manufacturer shall verify produc-
tion compressors by one of two methods.
The first method will involve testing of
a production compressor (intended for
sale) of each configuration.
Alternatively, production verification
testing of all configurations produced by
a manufacturer may not be required
where a manufacturer determines that
the noise levels of some configurations
are consistently higher than others or
are always representative of other con-
figurations. In such a case, the higher
emitter would be the only configuration
requiring verification testing.
The manufacturer must production
-verify each model year. In some In-
stances, a manufacturer may verify new
models based on data submitted during
previous model years.
C. SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT AUDITING
These regulations provide for sample
testing based on an audit of production
compressors (Selective Enforcement
Auditing). Selective Enforcement Audit-
ing (SEA) is the term used hi this regu-
lation to describe the testing pursuant to
an administrative request, in accordance
with the proposed test procedure, of a
statistical sample of production com-
pressors, from a particular compressor
category or configuration selected from a
particular assembly plant in order to
determine whether production com-
pressors conform to the standards and
to provide the basis for further action
In the case of non-conformity.
The sampling strategy adopted by
EPA does not attempt to impose a qual-
ity control or quality assurance scheme
upon a manufacturer but merely audits
the conformity of his products.
A selective enforcement audit is initi-
ated by a test request issued to the
manufacturer by the Administrator (or
his designated representative). One im-
portant factor which will influence the
decision of th,e Administrator to issue a
test request is whether the manufacturer
is conducting noise emission testing of
production compressors on his own
cognizance. If a manufacturer can pro-
vide evidence that his compressors are
meeting standards based on tests and
sampling methods acceptable to EPA, is-
suance of a test request may not be
necessary. The criteria for such a sam-
pling plan is discussed in the "Back-
ground Document for Portable Air
Compressors."
The general type of sampling strategy
developed by EPA employs attributes-
type sampling plans applied to a specific
number of batches. Under inspection by
attributes, items are inspected or tested
to determine whether they meet the pre-
scribed specification. The basic decision
criterion is the number of products
whose parameters meet specification
rather than the average value of some
parameter. The particular criterion for
compressors is the noise emission stand-
ard established by this regulation.
As applied to compressor noise emis-
sions, the Acceptable Quality Level
(AQL) is the maximum percentage of
failing compressors that for purposes of
sampling inspection can be considered
satisfactory, where a compressor is con-
sidered a failure if it exceeds the noise
16
-------
emission standard. An AQL of 10 percent
was chosen to take Into account some
test variability and random production
errors.
D. LABELING
These regulations require that com-
pressors shall be labeled to provide no-
tice that the compressor conforms to the
standards contained herein. The label
shall contain a notice of tampering pro-
hibitions in the Act, which prohibit the
removal or rendering inoperative of any
noise control features which are identi-
fied in the owners manual.
E. INSPECTION AND MONITORING
Because of the inevitable conflict of
interest which results from any compli-
ance system where a significant part of
the regulatory activity is controlled by
those being regulated, it is essential that
EPA personnel have access to aspects of
the system in order to determine whether
the requirements of the regulations are
being followed and whether conforming
compressors are being distributed into
commerce. Specifically, the inspection
and monitoring activities shall be for the
purpose of gathering information to en-
able the Administrator to satisfy himself
that required records are being kept, that
products which will be tested are being
selected and properly prepared for test-
ing, that tests are being properly con-
ducted and that the manufactured prod-
uct is one which conforms to the reg-
ulations, Including the applicable noise
emission standard. Such inspection and
monitoring activities will include access
to (1) facets of the testing program re-
quired by the regulations; (2) records,
reports, and test results which must be
maintained; and (3) facilities (produc-
tion, test and storage) which are con-
nected with the manufacturing of com-
pressors.
Normally, a minimum of 24 hours prior
written or oral notice will be given to a
manufacturer by the Director of the
Mobile Source Enforcement Division or
his representative advising him of any
visit of EPA Enforcement Officers. How-
ever, the regulation does provide for no-
tice only at the time of the visit, pro-
vided the visit is authorized In writing
by the Assistant Administrator for En-
forcement.
F. RECORD KEEPING
These regulations describe the records
and other documents concerning test-
ing of compressors which must be main-
tained and the retention period.
The regulations require that the man-
ufacturer have available a description of
his product line and maintain records
on specific individual compressors he has
tested. For the most part, these infor-
mation requirements can be satisfied by
keeping on hand updated copies of pro-
duction vertification reports. Addition-
ally, to preclude issuance of test requests
under the Selective Enforcement Audit-
ing procedures for compressors that may
not be available, the Administrator may
request production information for par-
ticular compressor models.
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
Section ll(d)d) of^the Act provides
that:
Whenever any person Is In violation of sec-
tion 10(a) of this Act, the Administrator may
Issue an order specifying such relief as he
determines Is necessary to protect the public
health and welfare.
Clearly, this provision of the Act is
intended to grant to the Administrator
discretionary authority to fashion civil
sanctions to supplement the criminal
penalties of section 11 (a). The regula-
tions provide for two types of civil rem-
edies: (1) Recall orders, and (2) cease
to distribute orders.
If compressors have been distributed
in commerce which were not designed,
built and equipped to conform with these
regulations, such act would be a viola-
tion of section 10 (a) and remedy of such
nonconformity would be appropriate.
Remedy of the affected compressors
might be carried out pursuant to a recall
order.
In some instances, the Administrator
may wish to issue a cease to distribute
order. If a manufacturer fails to properly
production verify, the Administrator
may issue an order requiring the manu-
facturer to cease the distribution in com-
merce of compressors of that category or
configuration pending compliance with
the production verification requirements.
The Administrator will provide the man-
ufacturer notice and the opportunity for
a hearing prior to the issuance of such
an order.
These regulations also provide for rem-
edy when any manufacturer refuses to
allow EPA personnel access to his facility
to conduct activities authorized by the
regulations. This remedy is in the form
of an order issued by the Administrator
to cease distribution in commerce of
compressors of the specified configura-
tion being manufactured at that facility.
The Administrator will provide a manu-
facturer notice and the opportunity for a
17
-------
hearing prior to the issuance of such an
order.
H. EXEMPTIONS
The proposed regulations also outline
the procedures by which EPA will admin-
ister the granting of exemptions from the
prohibitions of the Act to various prod-
uct manufacturers, pursuant to section
10 (b). The substantive scope of the ex-
emption provisions of section 10(b) (1)
and (2) are defined and procedures
whereby exemptions may be requested
are set forth. Exemptions will be granted
for testing and national security reasons
only. Export exemptions will be auto-
matically effective, without request, upon
the proper labeling of the products in-
volved. Testing exemptions must be jus-
tified in writing by a sufficient demon-
stration of appropriateness, necessity,
reasonableness, and control. Requests for
national security exemptions must be en-
dorsed by an agency of the Federal Gov-
ernment charged with the responsibility
for national defense. This would preclude
the granting of exemptions for products
used for public welfare, such as; munic-
ipal fire trucks.
I. ENFORCEMENT TEST FACILITY
EPA intends to have operational in
early 1976 a Noise Enforcement Test Fa-
cility. This facility will be located in San-
dusky, Ohio at Plum Brook Station.
EPA intends to conduct confirmatory
tests on products already tested by man-
ufacturers in addition to Independent
compliance testing on products not spe-
cifically tested by the manufacturer.
Because some manufacturers may not
have available to them a facility which
meets the requirements of these regula-
tions, the EPA Enforcement Test Facility
would be available, to the extent prac-
ticable and necessary, for use by such
manufacturers to conduct EPA required
testing. Additionally, manufacturers
with access to facilities may wish to test
or retest some of their products at the
EPA Enforcement Test Facility in order
to assure themselves that they have suc-
cessfully production verified their prod-
ucts.
In the instance where compliance test-
ing is conducted at the EPA Enforcement
Test Facility at the manufacturer's re-
quest, the manufacturer would be
charged a fee which is representative of
the actual expense to the government.
J. IN-tJSE COMPLIANCE
The manufacturer is required to de-
sign, build and equip compressors sub-
ject to these regulations so that they do
not exceed the prescribed noise emission
standard at the time of distribution and
ultimate sale. The requirement that the
product be manufactured to meet the
standard without degradation over a
period of useful life is not presently in-
cluded in the final regulation due to the
lack of adequate data to determine the
precise period of useful life and the
amount of degradation (if any) which
may be allowed to occur with use of the
product. However, the Administrator has
expressly reserved a section to include
the useful life requirement when suffi-
cient data are collected. In-use compli-
ance provisions are included to minimize
degradation from initial noise emission
levels.
The in-use provisions include a re-
quirement that the manufacturer pro-
vide a noise emission warranty to pur-
chasers (required by section 6(d) of the
Noise Control Act), provide information
to the Administrator which will assist
in fully defining those acts which consti-
tute tampering (under section 10(a) (2)
(A) of the Act), and provide retail
purchasers with instructions specifying
the maintenance, use, and repair re-
quired to reasonably assure elimination
or minimization of noise level degrada-
tion (authorized by section 6(c) (1) of
the Act).
Under the warranty provisions, in-
tended to more fully implement 6(d) (1)
of the Act, it is required that the manu-
facturer warrant to the ultimate and
subsequent purchasers that new port-
able air compressors subject to these
regulations are designed, built, and
equipped so as to conform at the time
of sale with the Federal noise control
regulations. The manufacturer must
furnish this time-of-sale warranty to the
ultimate purchaser in a prescribed writ-
ten form, which will be reviewed by EPA
in order that the Agency can determine
whether the manufacturer's warranty
policy is consistent with the intent of
the Act.
The tampering provisions require the
manufacturer to furnish a list of acts
which may be done to compressors in
use and which, if done, are likely to have
a detrimental impact on noise emissions.
The Administrator will then use this
information to develop a final list of
those acts which are presumed by EPA
to constitute tampering. A statement of
the Federal law on tampering, which will
include the final list of acts which con-
stitute tampering as determined by EPA,
must be provided in written form to the
ultimate purchaser.
The sections dealing with instructions
for proper maintenance, use, and repair
18
-------
of the compressor are intended to en-
sure that purchasers know exactly what
is required' to minimize or eliminate
degradation of the noise level of the com-
pressor during its life. These instructions
must be both necessary to reasonably
assure nondegradation and reasonable
in the burden placed on purchasers. A
record or log book also must be provided
to the ultimate purchaser in order that
the purchaser may record maintenance
performed during the life of the prod-
uct. The instructions may not contain
language which tends to give the manu-
facturer or his dealers an unfair com-
petitive advantage over the after-
market. Finally, the regulations provide
for Agency review of instructions and
related language.
VII. IMPACT OF THE REGULATION
Using data and information accrued
to develop the proposed regulation, com-
plemented by additional technological
and economic data and information
made available to the Agency during the
public comment periods, the Agency re-
evaluated the impact of the portable -Ur
compressor regulation being promul-
gated. Summarized below are the im-
pacts anticipated.
A. NOISE REDUCTION
The average noise level of portable air
compressors employed today at construc-
tion sites is 88 dBA at 7 meters. Com-
pliance with the standard established
for portable compressors with rated
air flow capacities of less than or equal
to 250 cfm and for those with rated air
flow capacities above 250 cfm will reduce
compressor noise by an average ±2 dBA.
It is estimated that compliance with
the portable air compressor regulation
will reduce the contribution (on an
energy basis) of the portable air com-
pressor to construction site noise from
16.9 percent (in the worst present case)
to approximately one percent. It will also
decrease the portable air compressor as a
source of acoustic energy at a construc-
tion site, from the second noisiest source,
exceeded only by medium and heavy
trucks, to the 16th noisiest piece of equip-
ment comprising the hardware mix of
approximately 20 pieces of equipment at
a typical construction site. Compliance
with this regulation should eliminate the
portable air compressor as a major source
of noise at construction sites.
B. HEALTH AND PUBLIC WELFARE
It is estimated that over 27.4 million
people are exposed to construction site
noise levels in excess of Ldn 55, the level
identified as protective of public health
and welfare with an adequate margin of
safety. Compliance with the regulation
being promulgated is projected to reduce
the severity of impact from construction
site noise by approximately 15 percent
from current objectionable conditions;
concomitant regulation of truck noise
to either 83 or 75 dBA at 50 feet, for
example, could provide total relief on
the order of 37 to 46 percent, respec-
tive^. In terms of the acoustic energy
contribution to constructioi. site noise,
compliance with the regulation will re-
duce the acoustic energy contribution of
portable air compressors to approxi-
mately one percent of the total site noise
which moves the portable air compressor
from the 2nd most predominant con-
struction site noise source to the 16th
noisiest piece of construction equipment
on a list of 20 pieces of equipment typi-
cally used at construction sites. In terms
of the actual benefits from the regulation
being promulgated, the regulation will
reduce the extensity and severity of im-
pact on the entire 27.4 million people ex-
posed to noise levels above 55 Ldn at con-
struction sites by 14.7 percent.
C. COST AND ECONOMIC IMPACT
Analysis of the impact of this regula-
tion included the expected average list
price increase for both categories of
portable air compressors. For compres-
sors with capacities less than or equal
to 250 cfm the estimated average list
price increase is 11.2 percent; for com-
pressors with capacities greater than 250
cfm the list price increase may be as
much as 13.0 percent. Considering the in-
dustry market this is an average list
price increase of 12.3 percent.
Based on estimated 1977-1978 and re-
tail sales of $206 million and estimated
increased sales prices of 12.3 percent, the
annual aggregate increase in purchase
cost is estimated to be $25.4 million.
Various aspects of potential economic
impact were assessed to evaluate
changes that may occur due to promul-
gation of this regulation. Upper and
lower bound cost values were used to
provide an average case estimate of eco-
nomic impact. The results of the analy-
sis are:
1. Potential decreases in total sales are
estimated to be approximately 4 percent,
with the major impact falling on diesel
driven compressors with more than 250
cfm capacity. These impacts are equiva-
lent to one to two years of sales growth
at the rates experienced by the industry
from 1967 to 1972, but are less than one-
19
-------
fifth of the industry sales growth from
1972 to 1973.
2. There should be little effect on up-
stream component suppliers. Distribu-
tors and users may be affected in that
alternative sources of compressed air,
e.g., electric and hydraulic systems, will
become competitive for many present
uses of portable compressors.
3. No unemployment is expected to
occur as the result of the portable air
compressor regulation.
4. Exports are approximately 10 per-
cent of total sales, and no changes in ex-
port patterns are expected because of
these noise regulations. Imports make
up approximately 7 percent of the mar-
ket and no change is expected due to the
standards being promulgated.
5. There will be no impact on ihe bal-
ance of trade.
6. There will be no significant increase
in transportation costs from the manu-
facturers' plant to distribution or end
user locations due to these regulations
VIII. FUTURE INTENT
The Agency is pursuing a strategy
through which major contributors to
overall construction site noise will be
identified and subsequently regulated.
This coordinated approach is necessary
because in most sites, a number of dif-
ferent construction equipment products
may be operating at the same time and
the quieting of only one such product
may not in itself be sufficient to ade-
quately reduce the noise from the site to
a level the Agency believes required to
protect the public health and welfare.
As indicated in the EPA Identification
of Major Sources of Noise Report (39 FR
22297-99, June 21, 1974), the principal
candidates for future regulatory efforts
are known. On May 28, 1975, the Agency
identified the following pieces of con-
struction equipment as major sources of
noise: Wheel and track loaders and doz-
ers (40 PR 23105). At this time the Agen-
cy is analyzing the alternative methods
of regulating construction equipment to
determine whether regulation of indi-
vidual products or categories of products
is more appropriate.
The Agency intends to commence reg-
ulatory action on other construction
equipment products in the near future,
and the levels chosen for the standards
in this proposed rulemaking are consist-
ent with the overall requirements to
quiet all products in order to ultimately
quiet all construction sites.
IX. BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
Notice of the availability of the Docu-
ment entitled "Background Document
For Proposed Portable Air Compressor
Noise Emission Regulations" was pub-
lished in the FEDERAL REGISTER on Octo-
ber 29, 1974 (39 FR 38186). This docu-
ment has been revised and new data have
been added. This new document entitled
"Background Document For Portable Air
Compressors" is quite lengthy, and it
would be impractical to publish it in its
entirety in the FEDERAL REGISTER. Copies
may be obtained from the EPA Public
Information Center, PM-215, Room
2104D, Waterside Mall, 4th and M
Streets, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. To
the extent possible, the significant as-
pects of the material have been presented
in summary form in the foregoing pre-
amble.
This regulation is promulgated under
the authority of 42 U.S.C. 4905, 86 Stat.
1237.
It is hereby certified that the economic
and inflationary impacts of this proposed
regulation have been carefully evaluated
in accordance with Executive Order
11821.
Dated: December 31,1975.
JOJIN QTTARLES,
Acting Administrator.
Part 204 of Title 40 shall read as
follows:
Subpart A—General Provisions
Sec.
204.1 General applicability.
204.2 Definitions.
204.3 Number and gender.
204.4 Inspection and monitoring.
204.5 Kxemptions.
204.5-1 Who may request an exemption.
204.5-2 Testing exemption.
204.5-3 Pre-veriflcation exemptions.
204.5-4 National security exemptions.
204.5-5 Export exemptions.
204.5-6 Granting of exemptions.
204.5-7 Submission of exemption requests.
Subpart B—Portable Air Compressors
204.50 Applicability.
204.51 Definitions.
204.52 Portable air compressor noise
emission standards.
204.53 Maintenance of records: Submlt-
tal of information.
204.54 Test procedures.
204.55 Production verification.
204.55-1 General standards.
2O4.55-2 Production verification: Compli-
ance with standards.
204.55-3 Configuration identification.
204.55-4 Production verification report:
Required data.
204.55-5 Test compressor sample selection.
204.55-6 Test compressor preparation.
204.55-7 Testing.
204.55-8 Labeling.
20
-------
204.55-9 Addition of, changes to, and devi-
ation from a compressor config-
uration during the model year.
204.55-10 Production verification baaed on
data for a previous model year.
204.55-11 Cessation of distribution.
204.56 Testing by the Administrator.
204.57 Selective enforcement auditing.
204.57-1 Test request.
204.57-2 Test compressor sample selection.
204.57-3 Test compressor preparation.
204.57-4 Testing.
Sec.
204.57-5 Reporting of test results.
204.67-6 Acceptance and rejection of
batches.
204.57-7 Acceptance and rejection of batch
sequence.
204.57-8 Continued testing.
204.57-9 Prohibition of distribution In
commerce; manufacturer's rem-
edy.
204.58 In-use requirements.
204.58-1 Warranty.
204.58-2 Tampering.
204.58-3 Instructions for maintenance, use,
and repair.
204.59 Recall of noncomplying compres-
sors.
AUTHORITY: (42 U.S.C. 4905), 86 Stat. 1237
Subpart A—General Provisions
§ 204.1 General applicability.
The provisions of this subpart are ap-
plicable to all products for which regu-
lations have been published under this
part and which are manufactured after
the effective date of such regulations.
§ 204.2 Definitions.
(a) As used in this subpart, all terms
not defined herein shall have the mean-
ing given them in the Act.
(1) "Act" means the Noise Control Act
of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-574, 86 Stat. 1234).
(2) "Administrator" means the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency or his authorized repre-
sentative.
(3) "Agency" means the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
(4) "Export exemption" means an ex-
emption from the prohibitions of section
10(a) (1), (2). (3), and (4) of the Act,
granted by statute under section 10(b)
(2) of the Act for the purpose of export-
Ing regulated products.
(5) "National security exemption"
means an exemption from the prohibi-
tions of section 10(a) (1), (2), (3), and
(5) of the Act, which may be granted
under section 10(b) (1) of the Act for
the purpose of national security.
(6) "Pre-veriflcation exemption"
means a testing exemption which is ap-
plicable to products manufactured prior
to product verification, and used by a
manufacturer from year to year in the
ordinary course of business, for product
development, production method assess-
ment, and market promotion purposes,
but in a manner not involving lease or
sale.
(7) "Testing exemption" means an ex-
emption from the prohibitions of section
10(a) (1), (2), (3), and (5) of the Act,
which may be granted under section
10(b) (1) of the Act for the purpose of
research, investigations, studies, demon-
strations, or training, but not including
national security where lease or sale of
the exempted product is involved.
(8) "Warranty" means the warranty
required by section 6(c) (1) of the Act.
(9) "Tampering" means those acts
prohibited by section 10 (a) (2) of the
Act.
(10) "Maintenance instructions"
means those instructions for mainte-
nance, use, and repair, which the Admin-
istrator is authorized to require pursuant
to section 6(c) (1) of the Act.
(11) "Type I Sound Level Meter"
means a sound level meter which meets
the Type I requirements of American Na-
tional Standard Specification Sl.4-1971
for sound level meters. This publication
is available from the American National
Standards Institute, Inc., 1430 Broad-
way, New York, New York 10018.
(12) "dBA" is the standard abbrevia-
tion for A-weighted sound level in deci-
bels.
(13) "Reasonable assistance" means
providing timely and unobstructed access
to test products or products and records
required by this part and opportunity for
copying such records or testing such test
products.
(14) "Slow meter response" means the
meter ballistics of meter dynamic char-
acteristics as specified by American Na-
tional Standard Sl.4-1971 or subsequent
approved revisions.
(15) "Sound level" means the
weighted sound pressure level measured
by the use of a metering characteristic
and weighing A, B, or C as specified in
American National Standard Specifica-
tion for Sound Level Meters Sl.4-1971 or
subsequent approved revision. The
weighting employed must be specified,
otherwise A-weighting is understood.
(16) "Sound pressure level" means, in
decibels, 20 times the logarithm to the
base ten of the ratio of a sound pressure
to the reference sound pressure of 20
micropascals (20 micronewtons per
square meter). In the absence of any
modifier, the level is understood to be
that of a root-mean-square pressure.
(17) "Product" means any construc-
tion equipment for which regulations
-------
have been promulgated under this part
and includes "test product."
(18) "Test product" means any prod-
uct that is required to be tested pursuant
to this part.
§ 204.3 Number and gender.
As used in this part, words in the sin-
gular shall be deemed to import the
plural, and words in the masculine
gender shall be deemed to import the
feminine and vice versa, as the case may
require.
§ 204.4 Inspection and monitoring.
(a) Any inspection or monitoring ac-
tivities conducted under this section shall
be for the purpose of determining: (1)
Whether required records are being
properly maintained, (2) whether test
products are being selected and prepared
for testing in accordance with the pro-
visions of these regulations, (3) whether
test product testing is being conducted
in accordance with these regulations,
and (4) whether products being pro-
duced for distribution into commerce are
as described in the production verifica-
tion report.
(b) Any manufacturer subject to reg-
ulation under this part shall admit or
cause to be admitted any Environmental
Protection Agency (hereafter EPA) En-
forcement Officer during operating hours
upon demand after having received 24-
hour prior written or oral notification,
except as provided for by paragraph (e)
of this section, and upon presentation of
credentials and authorization In writ-
Ing signed by the Director, Mobile Source
Enforcement Division or his designee to
any of the following:
(1) Any facility or site where any
product to be distributed into commerce
is manufactured, assembled, or stored;
(2) Any facility or site where any tests
conducted pursuant to this part or any
procedures or activities connected with
such tests are or were performed;
(3) Any facility or site where any test
product is present; and
(4) Any facility or site where records,
reports, other documents or information
required to be maintained or provided
to the Administrator are located.
(c) (1) Upon admission to any facility
or site referred to in paragraph (b) of
this section, any EPA Enforcement Offi-
cer shall be allowed:
(i) To inspect and monitor test prod-
uct manufacture and assembly, selec-
tion, storage, preconditioning, noise
emission testing, and maintenance, and
to verify correlation or calibration of test
equipment;
(ii) To Inspect products prior to their
distribution In commerce;
(iii) To inspect and make copies of
any records, reports, documents, or in-
formation required to be maintained or
provided to the Administrator under the
Act;
(iv) To inspect and photograph any
part or aspect of any such product and
any component used in the assembly
thereof that are reasonably related to the
purpose of his entry.
(2) Any EPA Enforcement Officer
shall be furnished by those in charge of
a facility or site being inspected with
such reasonable assistance as he may re-
quest to help him discharge any function
listed in this section. A manufacturer is
required to cause those in charge of a
facility or site operated for its benefit
to furnish such reasonable assistance
without charge to EPA whether or not it
controls the facility.
(3) The duty to admit or cause to be
admitted any EPA Enforcement Officer
applies whether the facility or site is
owned or controlled by the manufacturer
or by one who acts for the manufacturer
and applies both to domestic and foreign
manufacturer facilities and sites. ^PA
will not attempt to make any inspections
which it has been informed that foreign
law forbids. However, if foreign law
makes it Impossible to do what is neces-
sary to ensure the accuracy of data genr
crated at a facility, no informed judg-
ment that a product has been properly
tested in accordance with these regula-
tions can properly be based on that data.
It is the responsibility of the manufac-
turer to locate its testing ar.d manufac-
turing- facilities in jurisdictions where
this situation will not arise.
(d) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Presentation of credentials" shall
mean display of the document designat-
ing a person as an EPA Enforcement
Officer.
(2) Where test product storage areas
or facilities are concerned, "operating
hours" shall mean all times during which
personnel other than custodial person-
nel are at work in the vicinity of the area
or facility and have access to it.
(3) Where facilities or areas other
than those covered by paragraph (d) (2)
of this section are concerned, "operating
hours" shall mean all times during which
product manufacture or assembly is in
operation or all times during which prod-
uct testing or maintenance, production,
or compilation of records is takinr place,
or any other procedure or activity related
22
-------
to production verification testing, selec-
tive enforcement audit testing or to prod-
uct manufacture or assembly is being
carried out.
(e) Any entry without 24 hour prior
written or oral notification to the
affected manufacturer shall be author-
ized in writing by the Assistant Adminis-
trator for Enforcement.
(f) (1) Pursuant to section ll(d)d)
of the Act, the Administrator may issue
an order to the manufacturer to cease
the distribution in commerce of particu-
lar products being manufactured at a
particular facility if:
(i) Any EPA Enforcement Officer is
denied the access required in paragraph
(b) and (c) of this section.
(ii) Any EPA Enforcement Officer is
denied "reasonable assistance" (as de-
fined in §204.1 (a) (13)).
(2) The sanction of issuing rn order
to cease distribution of products into
commerce may be imposed for the rea-
sons in paragraph (f) (1) (i) and (ii) of
this section only when the infraction is
substantial.
(3) Any such order shall be issued only
after notice and opportunity for a hear-
ing.
§ 204.5 Exemptions.
§ 204.5-1 Who may request an exemp-
tion.
(a) Any manufacturer may request an
an exemption provided by this subpart
or exempt products as provided by
§ 204.5-5.
§ 204.5-2 Testing exemption.
(a) Any manufacturer requesting a
testing exemption must demonstrate
that the proposed test procram:
(1) Has a purpose which constitutes
an appropriate basis for an exemption
in accordance with section ?0(b)(l) of
the Act;
(2) Necessitates the granting of an
exemption;
(3) Exhibits reasonableness in scope;
and
(4) Exhibits a degree of control con-
sonant with the purpose of the program
and the Environmental Protection
Agency's monitoring requirements. Para-
graphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) of this sec-
tion describe what constitutes a sufficient
demonstration for each of the four ibove
identified elements.
(b) With respect to the purpose of the
proposed test program, an appropriate
purpose is one which is consistent with
one or more of the basis for exemption
set forth under section 10(b) (1), namely
research, investigations, studies, demon-
strations, or training, but not including
national security. (See § 204.5-4.) A con-
cise statement of purpose is a required
Item of information.
(c) With respect to the necessity that
an exemption be granted, necessity arises
from an inability to achieve the stated
purpose in a practicable manner without
performing a prohibited act under sec-
tions 10(a) (1), (2), (3), or (5). In ap-
propriate circumstances time con-
straints may be a sufficient basis for
necessity.
(d) With respect to reasonableness, a
test program must exhibit a duration of
reasonable length and affect a reasonable
number ef products. In this regard, re-
quired items of information include:
(1) An estimate of the program's dura-
tion;
(2) The absolute number of products
involved;
(3) The duration of the test;
(4) The ownership arrangement with
regard to the products involved in the
test;
(5) The intended final disposition of
the products;
(6) The means or procedure whereby
test results will be recorded.
(e) Paragraph (a) of this section ap-
plies irrespective of the product's place of
manufacture.
§ 204.5—3 Pre-verification exemptions.
Section 204.5-2 does not apply for pre-
verification products. In such cases, a re-
quest for exemption is also necessary;
however, the only information required
is a statement setting forth the general
nature of the pre-verification products
program, the number of products in-
volved and a demonstration that ade-
quate record keeping procedures for con-
trol purposes will be employed.
§ 204.5—4 National security exemptions.
A manufacturer requesting a national
security exemption must state the pur-
pose for which the exemption is required,
and the request must be endorsed by an
agency of the Federal government
charged with responsibility for national
defense.
§ 204.5—5 Export exemptions.
(a) A new product intended solely for
export, and so labeled or marked on the
outside of the container and on the
product itself, shall be exempt from the
prohibitions of section 10(a), (1), (2),
(3), and (4) of the Act.
(b) No request for an export exemption
is required.
23
-------
(c) It is a condition of any export
exemption under section 10<.b)<2) that
such exemption shall be void ab initio
with respect to each new product in-
tended solely for export which is dis-
tributed in commerce for use in any state.
(d) Any manufacturer or person sub-
ject to the liabilities of section ll(a) with
respect to any product, originally in-
tended for export, but distributed in com-
merce for use in any state, may be ex-
cluded from the application of section
11 (a) with respect to such product based
upon a showing that such manufacturer:
(I) Had no knowledge of such product
being distributed in commerce for use
in any state; and
(2) Made reasonable efforts to ensure
that such product would not be distrib-
uted in commerce for use in any state.
Such reasonable efforts would include
investigations, prior dealings, contract
provisions, etc.
§ 204.5—6 Granting of exemptions.
(a) If upon completion of the review
of an exemption request, the granting
of an exemption is deemed appropriate,
a memorandum of exemption will be
prepared and submitted to the manu-
facturer requesting the exemption. The
memorandum will set forth the basis
for the exemption, its scope, and such
terms and conditions as are deemed nec-
essary to protect the public health and
welfare. Such terms and conditions will
generally include, but are not limited to,
agreements by the applicant to conduct
the exempt activity in the manner de-
scribed to EPA, create and maintain ade-
quate records accessible to EPA • at rea-
sonable times, employ labels tor the
exempt products setting forth the na-
ture of the exemption, take appropriate
measures to assure that the terms of the
exemption are met, and advise EPA of
the termination of the activity and the
ultimate disposition of the products. EPA
may limit the scope of any exemption
by placing restrictions on time, location
and duration. EPA may also withdraw
the exemption at any time, based upon
information that the public health and
welfare is being endangered.
(b) Any exemption granted pursuant
to paragraph (a) of this section shall be
deemed to cover any subject product
only to the extent that the specified
terms and conditions are complied with.
A breach of any term or condition shall
cause the exemption to be void ab initio
with respect to any product. Conse-
quently, the distribution in commerce
for use of any subject product other than
in strict conformity with all terms and
conditions of this exemption shall con-
stitute a violation of section 10(a) (I)
and (3) of the Act, and shall render the
manufacturer to whom the exemption
is granted, and any other person to
whom the provisions of section 10 are
applicable, liable to sanction under sec-
tions 11 and 12 of the Act.
§ 201.5—7 Submission of exemption re-
quests.
Requests for exemption or further in-
formation concerning exemptions and/or
the exemption request review procedure
should be addressed to:
Director, Mobile Source Enforcement Divi-
sion (EN-340), Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington,
D C. 20460
Subpart B—Portable Air Compressors
§ 204.50 Applicability.
The provisions of this subpart shall
apply to portable air compressors which
are manufactured after the effective
dates specified in § 204.52, and which
are "New Products" as defined in the
Act. These provisions apply only to port-
able air compressors with a rated ca-
pacity equal to or above 75 cubic feet
per minute which deliver air at pressures
greater than 50 psig. The provisions do
not apply to the pneumatic tools or
equipment that the portable air com-
pressor is designed to power.
§ 204.51 Definitions.
(a) "Portable air compressor" or
"compressor" means any wheel, skid,
truck, or railroad car mounted, but not
self-propelled, equipment designed to
activate pneumatic tools. This consists
of an air compressor (air end), and a
reciprocating rotary or turbine engine
rigidly connected in permanent align-
ment and mounted on a common frame.
Also included are all cooling, lubricating,
regulating, starting, and fuel systems,
and all equipment necessary to consti-
tute a complete, self-contained unit with
a rated capacity of 75 cfm or greater
which delivers air at pressures greater
than 50 psig, but does not include any
pneumatic tools themselves.
(b) "Maximum Rated Capacity" means
that the portable air compressor, oper-
ating at the design full speed with the
compressor on load, delivers its rated cfm
output and pressure, as defined by the
manufacturer.
(c) "Model year" means the manufac-
turer's annual production period which
includes January 1 of such calendar
year; Provided, that if the manufacturer
has no annual production period, the
24
-------
term "model year" shall mean the cal-
endar year.
(d) "Compressor configuration" means
the basic classification unit of a manu-
facturer's product line and is comprised
of compressor lines, models or series
which are identical in all material re-
spects with regard to the parameters
listed in § 204.55-3.
(e) "Category" means a group of com-
pressor configurations which are iden-
tical in all aspects with respect to the
parameters listed in paragraph (c) (1)
(i) of § 204.55-2.
(f) "Production verification compres-
sor" means any compressor selected for
testing, tested, or verified pursuant to
the requirements of this subpart.
(g) "Noise emission test" means a test
conducted pursuant to the measurement
methodology specified in § 204.54.
(h) "Inspection Criteria" means the
rejection and acceptance numbers asso-
ciated with a particular sampling plan.
(i) "Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) "
means the maximum percentage of fail-
ing compressors that, for purposes of
sampling inspection can be considered
satisfactory as a process average.
(j) "Batch" means the collection of
compressors of the same category or con-
figuration, as designated by the Admin-
istrator in a test request, from which a
batch sample is to be randomly drawn
and inspected to determine conformance
with the acceptability criteria.
(k) "Batch sample" means the collec-
tion of compressors of the same category
or configuration from which test sam-
ples are randomly drawn.
(1) "Batch sample size" means the
number of compressors of the same cate-
gory or configuration in a batch sample.
(m) "Test sample" means the collec-
tion of compressors from the same cate-
gory or configuration which is randomly
drawn from the batch sample and which
will receive emissions tests.
(n) "Batch size" means the number,
as designated by the Administrator in
the test request, of compressors of the
same category or configuration in a
batch.
(o> "Test sample size" means the num-
ber of compressors of the same config-
uration in a test sample.
(p) "Acceptance of a batch" means
that the number of non-complying com-
pressors in the batch sample is less than
or equal to the acceptance number as
determined by the appropriate sampling
plan.
(q) "Rejection of a batch" means that
the number of non-complying compres-
sors in the batch sample is greater than
or equal to the rejection number as de-
termined by the appropriate sampling
plan.
(r) "Acceptance of a batch sequence"
means that the number of rejected
batches in the sequence is less tha» or
equal to the sequence acceptance number
as determined by the appropriate sam-
pling plan.
(s) "Rejection of a batch sequence"
means that the number of rejected
batches in a sequence is greater than or
equal to the sequence rejection number
as determined by the appropriate sam-
pling plan.
(t) "Shift" means the regular produc-
tion work period for one group of work-
ers.
(u) "Failing compressor" means that
the measured noise emissions of the com-
pressor, when measured in accordance
with the applicable procedure, exceeds
the applicable standard.
(v) "Acceptance of a compressor"
means that the measured noise emissions
of the compressor, when measured in ac-
cordance with the applicable procedure,
conforms to the applicable standard.
(w) "Test Compressor" means a com-
pressor in the test sample or a produc-
tion verification compressor.
(x) "Tampering" means those acts
prohibited by section 10(a)(2) of the
Act.
§ 204.52 Portable air compressor noise
emission standard.
(a) Effective January 1, 1978, portable
air compressors with maximum rated
capacity of less than or equal to 250 cubic
feet per minute (cfm) shall not produce
an average sound level in excess of 76
dBA when measured and evalauted ac-
cording to the methodology provided by
this regulation.
Effective July 1,1978, portable air com-
pressors with maximum rated capacity
greater than 250 cfm shall not produce
an average sound level in excess of 76
dBA when measured and evaluated ac-
cording to the methodology provided by
this regulation.
(b) In-Use Scandard [Reserved]
(c) Low Noise Emission Product [Re-
served]
§ 204.53 Maintenance of records: Sub-
mittal of information.
(a) The manufacturer of any new
compressor subject to any of the stand-
ards or procedures prescribed in this sub-
part shall establish, maintain, and retain
the following adequately organized and
indexed records:
(1) General records, (i) Identification
-------
and description by category and config-
uration parameters of all compressors
comprising the manufacturer's product
line, including the identification and de-
scription of all devices incorporated into
the compressor for the purpose of noise
control and attenuation.
(ii) A description of any procedures,
other than those contained in these reg-
ulations, used to perform noise tests on
any test compressor.
(iii) A record of the calibration of the
acoustical instrumentation, as required
by § 204.54.
(2) Individual records for test com-
pressors, (i) A complete record of all
noise emission tests performed (except
tests performed by EPA directly), in-
cluding all individual worksheets and/or
other documentation relating to each
test, or exact copies thereof.
(ii) A record and description of all re-
pairs, maintenance, and other servicing
performed, giving the date and time of
the maintenance or service, the reason
for it, the person authorizing it, and the
names of supervisory personnel respon-
sible for the conduct of the maintenance
or service.
(3) A properly filed production verifi-
cation report following the format pre-
scribed by the Administrator fulfills the
requirements of paragraphs (a)(l) (i),
(ii), (iii) and (a) (2) (i) and (ii) of this
section.
(4) All records required to be main-
tained under this part shall be retained
by the manufacturer for a period of
three (3) years from the production ver-
ification date. Records may be retained
as hard copy or alternatively reduced
to microfilm, punch cards, etc., depend-
ing on the record retention procedures
of the manufacturer; however, if. an al-
ternative method is to be used, all of the
information contained in the hard copy
shall be retained.
(b) The manufacturer shall, pursuant
to a request made by the Administrator,
submit to the Administrator the follow-
ing information with regard to new com-
pressor production:
(1) Number of compressors, by cate-
gory or configuration, scheduled for pro-
duction for the time period designated
in the request.
(2) Number of compressors, by cate-
gory or configuration, produced during
the time period designated in the re-
quest.
§ 204.54 Test procedures.
(a) General. This section prescribes
the conditions under which noise emis-
sion standard compliance testing must
be conducted and the measurement pro-
cedures that must be used to measure
the sound level and to calculate the aver-
age sound level of portable air compres-
sors on which the test is conducted.
(b) Test site description. The location
for measuring noise employed during
noise compliance testing must consist of
an open site above a hard reflecting
plane. The reflecting plane must consist
of a surface of sealed concrete or sealed
asphalt and must extend one (1) meter
beyond each microphone location. No re-
flecting surface, such as a building, sign
board, hillside, etc., shall be located
within 10 meters of a microphone loca-
tion.
(c) Measurement equipment. The
measurement equipment must be used
during noise standard compliance test-
Ing and must consist of the following or
its equivalent:
(1) A sound level meter and micro-
phone system that conform to the Type
I requirements of American National
Standard (ANS) SI.4-1971, "Specifica-
tion for Sound Level Meters," and to the
requirements of the International Elec-
trotechnical Commission (IEC) Publica-
tion No. 179, "Precision Sound Level
Meters."
(2) A windscreen must be employed
with the microphone during all measure-
ments of portable air compressor noise
when the wind speed exceeds 11 km/hr.
The windscreen shall not affect the A-
weighted sound levels from the portable
air compressor in excess of ±0.5 dB.
(3) The entire acoustical instrumen-
tation system including the microphone
and cable shall be calibrated before each
test series and confirmed afterward. A
sound level calibrator accurate to within
±0.5 dB shall be used. A calibration of
the instrumentation shall be performed
at least annually using the methodology
of sufficient precision and accuracy to
determine compliance with ANS SI.4-
1971 and EEC 179. This calibration shall
consist, at a minimum, of an overall fre-
quency response calibration and an at-
tenuator (gain control) calibration plus
a measurement of dynamic range and
instrument noise floor.
(4) An anemometer or other device
accurate to within ±10 percent shall be
used to measure wind velocity.
(51 An indicator accurate to within
±2 percent shall be used to measure
portable air compressor engine speed.
(6) A gauge accurate to within ±5
percent shall be used to measure porta-
ble compressor air pressure.
(7) A metering device accurate to.
26
-------
within ±10 percent shall be used to
measure the portable air compressor
compressed air volumetric flow rate.
(8) A barometer for measuring at-
mospheric pressure accurate to within
±5 percent.
(9) A thermometer for measuring
temperature accurate to within ±1 de-
gree.
(d) Portable air compressor operation.
The portable air compressor must be op-
erated at the design full speed with the
compressor on load, delivering its rated
flow and output pressure; during noise
emission standard compliance testing.
The air discharge shall be provided with
a resistive loading such that no sig-
nificant pressure drop or throttling oc-
«urs across the compressor discharge
valve. The air discharge shall be piped
clear of the test area or fed into an ef-
fective silencer. The sound pressure level
due to the air discharge shall be at least
10 dB below the sound pressure level gen-
erated by the portable air compressor.
(e) Test conditions. Noise standard
compliance testing must be carried out
under the following conditions:
(1) No rain or other precipitation,
(2) No wind above 19 km/hr,
(3) No observer located within 1 meter,
in any direction, of any microphone lo-
cation, nor between the test unit and any
microphone,
(4) Portable air compressor sound
levels, at each microphone location, 10
dB or greater than the background
sound level,
(5) The machine shall have been
warmed up and shall be operating in a
stable condition as for continuous serv-
ice and at its maximum rated capacity.
All cooling air vents in the engine/
compressor enclosure, normally open
during operation, shall be fully open
during all sound level measurements.
Service doors that should be closed dur-
ing normal operation (at any and all
ambient temperatures) shall be closed
during all sound level measurements.
(f) Microphone locations. Five micro-
phone locations must be employed to
acquire portable air compressor sound
levels to test for noise standard com-
pliance. A microphone must be located
7±.l meters from the right, left, front,
and back sides and top of the test unit.
The microphone position to the right,
left, front, and back sides of the test
unit must be located 1.5 ± .1 meters above
the reflecting plane.
(g) Data required. The following data
must be acquired during noise emission
standard compliance testing:
(1) A-weighted sound level at one
microphone location prior to operation
of the test unit and at all microphone
locations during test unit operations, as
defined in section (d).
(2) Portable air compressor engine
speed.
(3) Portable air compressor com-
pressed gas pressure.
(4) Portable air comprecsor flow rate.
(5) All other data contained on Ap-
pendix I, Table IV.
(h) Calculation of average sound level.
The average A-weighted sound level from
measurements at the specified micro-
phone locations must be calculated by
the following method:
where:
L —average A-weighted sound level, in decibels,
L =A-weighted sound level, in decibels,
^n=A-weighted sound levels, in decibels,
n — number of measuring positions.
(i) The Administrator may approve
applications from manufacturers of
portable air compressors for the approval
of test procedures which differ from
those contained in this Part so long as
the alternate procedures have been dem-
onstrated to correlate with the prescribed
procedure. To be acceptable, alternate
testing procedures shall be such that the
test results obtained will identify all
those test units which would not com-
ply with the noise emission limit pre-
scribed in § 204.52 when tested in accord-
ance with the procedures contained in
§ 204.54(a)-(h). Tests conducted by
manufacturers under approved alter-
nate procedures may be accepted by the
Administrator for all purposes, includ-
ing, but not limited to, production veri-
fication testing, selective enforcement
audit testing, and quality control or
quality assurance testing on the manu-
facturer's own cognizance.
(j) Presentation of information. All
information required by this section may
be recorded using the format recom-
mended on the Noise Data Sheet shown
in Appendix I, Table IV.
§ 204.55 Production verification.
§ 204.55-1 General standards.
(a) Every new compressor manufac-
tured for distribution in commerce in
the United States which is subject to the
standards prescribed-in this subpart and
not exempted in accordance with i 204.5:
(1) Shall be verified in accordance
with the production verification proce-
dures described in this subpart;
(2) Shall be represented in a produc-
tion verification report, as required by
27
-------
§ 204.55-4;
(3) Shall be labeled in accordance
with the requirements of § 204.55-8; and
(4) Shall conform to the applicable
noise emission standard established in
§ 204.52
§ 204.55—2 Production verification; com-
pliance with standard^.
(a) (1) Prior to distribution in com-
merce of compressors of a specific con-
figuration, such configuration must have
undergone production verification in ac-
cordance with the requirements of this
subpart; Except, that production verifi-
cation of a configuration is automatically
and conditionally waived by the Admin-
istrator without request by a manufac-
turer for a period of up to 45 consecutive
days from the date of distribution in
commerce by the manufacturer of the
first compressor of that configuration in
order to enable a manufacturer to dis-
tribute compressors in commerce and
thus avoid disruption of the manufac-
turing process: Provide/I, That a manu-
facturer conducts the necessary tests re-
quired in paragraph (b) and/or (c) of
this section as soon as weather condi-
tions at a manufacturer's test facility
permit after distribution in commerce
of the first compressor of a configura-
tion. Failure to test on such first suit-
able day will result in automatic and
retroactive rescission of the waiver and
will render the manufacturer liable for
illegally distributing compressors in
commerce.
(2) At the completion of any 45-da.y
period the conditional production veri-
fication granted under paragraph (a) (1)
of this section is rescinded for that con-
figuration unless the manufacturer has
complied with the requirements of para-
graph (b) and/or (c) of this section as
appropriate; Except, that upon applica-
tion by a manufacturer and -a showing
that the weather conditions at the
manufacturer test facility or other con-
ditions beyond the control of the manu-
facturer made it impossible to conduct
the required testing and such conditions
are documented by the manufacturer
and submitted with an application, the
Administrator, at his option, may ex-
tend, for a specified period (not to ex-
ceed 45 days), conditional production
verification for a configuration to enable
the manufacturer to. comply with the re-
quirements of paragraph (b) and/or (c)
of this section or he may require that the
manufacturer ship the test compressor to
the EPA test facility for testing by the
Administrator.
(b) Production verification require-
ments with regard to each compressor
configuration consist of:
(1) Testing in accordance with
§ 204.54 of a compressor selected in
accordance with § 204.55-5.
(2) Compliance of the test compres-
sor with the applicable standards when
tested in accordance with § 204.54.
(3) Submission of a production veri-
fication report pursuant to § 204.55-4.
(c) (1) In lieu of testing compressors
of every configuration, as described in
paragraph (b) of this section, the man-
ufacturer may elect to verify the con-
figuration based on representative test-
ing, the requirements of which consist
of:
(i) Grouping configurations into a
category where each category will be
determined by a separate combination
of at least the following parameters (a
manufacturer may use more parame-
ters) :
(A) Engine type
(.1) • Gasoline—two stroke cycle
(2) Gasoline—four stroke cycle
(3) Diesel—two stroke cycle
(4) Diesel—four stroke cycle
(5) Rotary—Wankel
(6) Turbine
(7) Other
(B) Engine manufacturer
(C) Compressor d2livery rate (at
rated pressure)
(ii) Identifying the configuration
within each category which emits the
highest sound level in dBA based on
best technical judgment, emission test
data, or both.
(iii) Testing in accordance with
§ 204.54 of a compressor selected in
accordance with § 204.55-5 which must
be a compressor of the configuration
which is identified pursuant to para-
graph (c) (1) (ii) of this section as hav-
ing the highest sound level (estimated
or actual) within the category;
(iv) Compliance of the test compres-
sor with applicable standards when
tested in accordance with § 204.54;
and
(v) Submission of a production veri-
fication report pursuant to § 204.55-4.
\2) Where the requirements of para-
graph (c)(l) of this section are com-
plied with, all those configurations con-
tained within a category are consid-
ered represented by the tested com-
pressor and are considered to be produc-
tion verified.
(3) Where the manufacturer tests a
compressor configuration which has not
been determined as having the highest
sound level of a category, but all other
requirements of paragraph (c)(l) of
28
-------
this section are complied with, all those
configurations contained within that
category which are determined to have
sound levels no greater than the tested
compressor are considered to be repre-
sented by the tested compressor and
are considered to be production verified.
However, a manufacturer must produc-
tion verify according to the require-
ments of paragraph (b) (1) and/or
(c) (1) of this section any configurations
in the subject category which have a
higher sound level than the compressor
configuration tested.
(d) A manufacturer may elect to pro-
duction verify using representative
testing, pursuant to paragraph (c) of
this section, all or part of his product
line.
(e) The manufacturer may, at his
option, proceed with any of the follow-
ing alternatives with respect to any
compressor determined not in compli-
ance with applicable standards:
(1) Delete that configuration from
the production verification report.
Configurations so deleted may be in-
cluded in a later report under § 204.55-4.
However, in the case of representative
testing, a new test compressor from
another configuration must be selected
and production verified according to the
requirements of paragraph (c) of this
section in order to production verify
the configurations represented by the
non-compliant compressor.
(2) Modify the test compressor and
demonstrate by testing that it meets ap-
plicable standards. All modifications and
test results must be reported in the pro-
duction verification report. The manu-
facturer must modify all production
compressors of the same configuration
in the same manner as the test compres-
sor before distribution into commerce.
(f) Upon oral or written request by
Director, Mobile Source Enforcement Di-
vision, the manufacturer shall notify
such Director of any production verifies -
tion testing scheduled by the manufac-
turer pursuant to this section so that
EPA Enforcement Officers may be pres-
sent and observe such testing or conduct
the testing in lieu of the manufacturer.
§ 204.55—3 Configuration identification.
(a) A separate compressor configura-
tion shall be determined by each combi-
nation of the following parameters:
(1) The compressor type (screw, slid-
ing vane, etc.)
(2) Number of Compressor stages
<3) Maximum pressure (psi)
(4) Air intake system of compressor:
(i) Number of filters
(ii) Type of filters
(5) The engine system:
(i) Number of cylinders and config-
uration (L-6, V-8, V-12)
(ii) Displacement
(iii) Horsepower
Full load rpm
(6) Type cooling system, e.g., air
cooled, water cooled;
(7) Pan:
(i) Diameter
(ii) Maximum fan rpm
(8) The compressor enclosure:
(i) Height, length, and width
(ii) -Acoustic material manufacturer,
type, part number
(9) The induction system (engine) :
(i) Natural
(ii) Turbocharged
(10) The muffler:
(i) Manufacturer
(ii) Manufacturer part number
(iii) Quantity of mufflers used
(11) Category parameters listed at
§ 204.55 2
§ 204.53—4 Production verification re-
port ; required data.
-------
may satisfy the compressor configuration
description requirements of this para-
graph by submitting as part of the pro-
duction verification report a copy of his
sales data literature that describes his
product line including options: Provided,
That this literature is supplemented with
any additional information to fulfill the
requirements of this section. If a manu-
facturer elects to production verify pur-
suant to § 204.55-2(c) the configuration,
within each category, which is estimated
to have the highest sound level - shall
be identified. The manufacturer may es-
timate the average sound level based on
his best technical judgment and/or data.
The criteria used to estimate each sound
level shall be stated with the estimates.
(4) The following information for
each test conducted:
(i) The completed data sheet required
by § 204.54 for all official tests conducted
in accordance with § 204.55-7, including
for each invalid test and the reason for
invalidation.
(11) A complete description of any
preparation, maintenance or testing,
which was performed on the test com-
pressor and which will not be performed
on all other production compressors.
(ill) The reason for replacement,
where a replacement compressor was
necessary, and test results, If any, for
replaced compressors.
(5) The following statement and
endorsement:
This report Is submitted pursuant to sec- •
tlon 6 and section 13 of the Noise Control '
Act of 1972. All testing for which data Is re-
ported herein Is conducted In strict conform-
ance with applicable regulations under 40
CFR Part 204 et seq. All the data reported
herein are a true and accurate representa-
tion of such testing. All other Information
reported herein Is, to the best of (company
name) knowledge, true and accurate. I am
aware of the penalties associated with viola-
tions of the Noise Control Act of 1972 and
the regulations thereunder.
(authorized representative)
(c) Where a manufacturer elects to
submit separate production verification
reports for portions of his product line,
as provided for in paragraph (a) of this
section, Information provided in previous
reports need not be resubmitted; Except,
that Information necessary to update or
make current previously submitted In-
formation must be submitted.
(d) Any change with respect to In-
formation reported pursuant to this sub-
part shall be reported as soon as the In-
formation becomes available.
§ 204.55—5 Test compressor sample se-
lection.
(a) A test compressor of a configura-
tion for which production verification
testing Is required by § 204.55-2 shall be
a compressor of the subject configuration
which has been assembled using the
manufacturer's normal production proc-
esses and which will be sold or offered
for sale in commerce.
§ 204.55—6 Test compressor preparation.
(a) Prior to the official test, the test
compressor selected In accordance with
§ 204.55-5 shall not be prepared, tested,
modified, adjusted, or maintained in any
manner unless such adjustments, prep-
arations, modifications and/or tests are
part of the manufacturer's prescribed
manufacturing and inspection proce-
dures and are documented In the manu-
facturer's internal compressor assembly
and inspection procedures or unless such
adjustments and/.or tests are required or
permitted under this subpart or are ap-
proved in advance by the Administrator.
The manufacturer may perform adjust-
ments, preparations, modifications and/
or tests normally performed by a dealer
to prepare the compressor for delivery to
a customer or the adjustments, prepara-
tions, modifications and/or tests nor-
mally performed at the port-of-entry by
the manufacturer to prepare the com-
pressor for delivery to a dealer or cus-
tomer.
(b) Equipment or fixtures necessary to
conduct the test may be installed on the
compressor: Provided, That such equip-
ment or fixtures shall have no effect on
the noise emissions of the compressor, as
determined by the appropriate measure-
ment methodology.
(c) In the event of compressor mal-
function (i.e., failure to start, misfiring
cylinder, etc.), the manufacturer may
perform the maintenance necessary to
enable the compressor to operate in a
normal manner: Provided, That such
maintenance is documented and reported
in the final report prepared and sub-
mitted in accordance with this subpart.
(d) No quality control, testing, assem-
bly, or selection procedures shall be used
on the completed test compressor or any
portion thereof, including parts and sub-
assemblies, that will not normally be used
during the production and assembly of
all other compressors of that category
which will be distributed In commerce,
unless such procedures are required or
permitted under this subpart or are ap-
proved In advance by the Administrator.
§ 204.55-7 Testing.
(a) The manufacturer shall conduct
30
-------
one valid test In accordance with the test
procedures specified In § 204.54 for each
compressor selected for verification
testing.
(b) No maintenance will be performed
on test compressors, except as provided
for by § 204.55-6. In the event a com-
pressor Is unable to complete the emis-
sion test, the manufacturer may replace
the compressor. Any replacement com-
pressor will be a production compressor
of the same configuration as the re-
placed compressor or a noisier configura-
tion and will be subject to all the provi-
sions of these regulations. Any replace-
ment shall be reported In the production
verification report Including the reason
for the replacement.
(c) In the event a compressor fails
to comply with the standards of this sub-
part when tested in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (a) of
this section, the manufacturer may pro-
ceed in accordance with § 204.55-2 (e).
§ 204.55-8 Labeling.
(a)(l) The manufacturer of any
compressor subject to the standards pre-
scribed in § 204.52 shall, at the time of
manufacture, affix a permanent, legible
label, of the type and In the manner
described below, containing the Informa-
tion hereinafter provided, to all such
compressors to be distributed In
commerce.
(2) The label shall be permanently
attached, in a readily visible position, on
the compressor enclosure.
(3) The label shall be affixed by the
compressor manufacturer, who has
verified such compressor, In such a man-
ner that it cannot be removed without
destroying or defacing the label, and
shall not be affixed to any equipment
that is easily detached from such
compressor.
(4) The label shall contain the fol-
lowing information lettered in the
English language in block letters and
numerals, which shall be of a color that
contrasts with the background of the
label:
(i) The label heading: Compressor
Noise Emission Control Information;
(ii) Full corporate name and trade-
mark of manufacturer;
(in) Date of manufacture;
(iv) The statement:
This Compressor Conforms to U.S. E.P.A.
Regulations for Noise Emissions Applicable
to Portable Air Compressors. The following
acts or the causing thereof by any person
are prohibited by the Noise Control Act of
1972:
(A) The removal or rendering Inoperative,
other than for the purpose of maintenance,
repair, or replacement, of any noise centred
device or element of design (listed In the
owner's manual) Incorporated Into this
compressor In compliance with the Noise
Control Act;
(B) The use of this compressor after such
device or element of design has been removed
or rendered Inoperative.
(b) Compressors manufactured solely
for use outside the United States shall
be clearly labeled "For Export Only."
§ 204.55—9 Addition of, changes to and
deviation from a compressor config-
uration during the model year.
(a) Any change to a configuration with
respect to any of the parameters stated In
i 204.55-3 shall constitute the addition
of a new and separate configuration or
category to the manufacturer's product
line.
(b)(l) When a manufacturer Intro-
duces a, new category or configuration to
his product line, he shall proceed to ac-
cordance with § 204.55-2.
(2) If the configuration to be added
can be grouped within a verified category
and the new configuration is estimated
to have a lower sound level than a pre-
viously verified configuration within the
same category, the configuration shall be
considered verified: Provided, That the
manufacturer submits a report pursuant
to § 204.55-4 with respect to such con-
figuration.
§ 204.55-10 Production verification
based on data from previous model
years.
(a) Production verification of each
configuration will be required at the be-
ginning of each model year, except that
in certain instances the Administrator,
upon request by the manufacturer, may
permit the use of production verification
data for specific configurations from pre-
vious production verification reports.
Considerations relevant to his decision
are:
(1) The standard In effect for the
model years in question;
(2) Performance based on production
verification data for previous years;
(3) Performance based on data ob-
tained from selective enforcement test-
Ing during previous model years; and
(4) The number and type of noise
emission design changes incorporated
into the new models.
§ 204.55—11 Cessation of distribution.
(a) If a category or configuration is
found to be in nonconformity with these
31
-------
regulations by reason of failure to be
properly production verified, as required
by § 204.55-2, the Administrator may
Issue an order to the manufacturer to
cease to distribute In commerce com-
pressors of that category or configura-
tion: Provided, however, That such an
order shall not be issued if the manu-
facturer has made a good faith attempt
to properly production verify the cate-
gory or configuration. The burden of
establishing such good faith shall rest
with the manufacturer.
tb) Any such order shall be issued after
notice and opportunity for a hearing.
§201,56 Testing by the Administrator.
(a) (1) The Administrator may require
that any compressor tested or scheduled
to be tested pursuant to these regulations
or any other untested compressors be
submitted to him, at such place and time
as he may designate, for the purpose of
conducting tests in accordance with the
test procedures described in § 204.54 to
determine whether such compressors
conform to applicable regulations.
(2) The Administrator may specify
that he will conduct such testing at the
manufacturer's facility, in which case
instrumentation and equipment of the
type required by these regulations shall
be made available by the manufacturer
for test operations. The Administrator
may conduct such tests with his own
equipment, which shall be equal to or
exceed the performance specifications of
the instrumentation or equipment speci-
fied by the Administrator in these regu-
lations.
(b)(l) If, based on tests conducted by
the Administrator, the Administrator
determines that the test facility is inap-
propriate for conducting the tests re-
quired by this part, he will notify the
manufacturer in writing of his deter-
mination and the reasons therefor.
(2) After the notification in para-
graph (b) (1) of this section, no data
derived from the subject test facility will
be acceptable for the purposes of this
Part and the Administrator may issue an
order to the manufacturer, with respect
to the compressor category or configura-
tion in question, to cease to distribute in
commerce compressors of such category
or configuration; Except, that any such
order shall be issued only after notice
and opportunity for a hearing. Such no-
tification may be included in any noti-
fications under paragraph (b) (1) of this
section. A manufacturer may request
that the Administrator grant a hearing;
request shall be made not later than fif-
teen (15) days, or other such period as
may be allowed by the Administrator,
subsequent to notification of the Admin-
istrator's intent to issue an order to cease
to distribute.
(3) The manufacturer may request in
writing that the Administrator recon-
sider his determination in paragraph (b)
'!> of this section based on data or in-
formation which indicates that changes
have been made to the test facility and
such changes have resolved the reasons
for disqualification.
(4) The Administrator will notify the
manufacturer of his determination with
regard to the requaliflcation of the test
facility within 10 days of the manufac-
turer's request for reconsideration pur-
suant to paragraph (b) (3) of this
section.
(c) (1) Whenever the Administrator
conducts a test on a test compressor, the
results of that test shall constitute the
official test data for that compressor.
(2) The Administrator may accept the
manufacturer's test data in lieu of his
data upon a showing by the manufac-
turer that the data acquired under para-
graph (a) of this section are erroneous
and that the manufacturer's data are
correct.
§ 20'1.57 Selective enforcement auditing.
§ 204.57-1 Test request.
(a) The Administrator will request all
testing under this subpart by means of
a test request addressed to the manu-
facturer.
(b) The test request will be signed by
the Assistant Administrator for En-
forcement or his designee. The test re-
quest will be delivered by an EPA En-
forcement Officer to the plant manager
or other responsible official, as desig-
nated by the manufacturer.
(c) The test request will specify the
compressor category or configuration se-
lected for testing, the batch selected for
testing and the batch size, the manufac-
turer's plant or storage facility from
which the compressors must be selected,
and the time at which compressors must
be selected. The test request will also pro-
vide for situations in which the selected
configuration or category is unavailable
for testing. The test request may include
an alternative category or configuration
sele-cted for testing in the event that
compressors of the first specified cate-
gory or configuration are not available
for testing because the compressors are
not being manufactured at the specified
plant and/or are not being manufac-
tured during the specified time or not
32
-------
being stored at the specified plant or
storage facility.
(d) Any manufacturer shall, upon re-
ceipt of the test request, select and test
a batch sample of compressors from two
consecutively produced batches of the
compressor category or configurations
specified in the test request in accord-
ance with these regulations and the con-
ditions specified in the test request.
(e) (1) Any testing conducted by the
manufacturer pursuant to a test request
shall be initiated within such period as
is specified in the test request; Except,
that such initiation may be delayed for
increments of 24 hours or one business
day where ambient test site weather con-
ditions in any 24-hour period do not per-
mit testing: Provided, That ambient test
site weather conditions for that period
are recorded.
(2) The manufacturer shall complete
noise emission testing on a minimum of
five compressors per day, unless other-
wise provided for by the Administrator or
unless ambient test site conditions only
permit the testing of a lesser number:
Provided, That ambitnt tast site weather
conditions for that period are recordr 1.
(3) The manufacturer will be allowed
24 hours to ship compressors from a
batch sample from the assembly plant to
the testing facility if the facility is not
located at the plant or in close proxim-
ity to the plant; Except, that the Ad-
ministrator may approve more time based
upon a request by the manufacturer ac-
companied by a satisfactory justification.
(f) The Administrator .nay issue an
order to the manufacturer to ce-se to
distribute into commerce compressors of
a specified category or configuration be-
ing manufactured at a particular facility
if:
(1) The manufacturer refu es to com-
ply with the provisions of a test request
issued by the Administrator pursuant to
this section; or
(2) The manufacturer refuses u> com-
ply with any of the requirements of this
section.
(g) A cease-to-distribute order shall
not be issued under paragraph (?) of this
section if such refusal is caused by condi-
tions and circumstances outride the con-
trol of the manufacturer which render
it impossible to comply with the pro-
visions of a test request or any other re-
quirements of this section. Such condi-
tions and circumstances shall include,
but are not limited to, any uncontrollable
factors which result in the temporary
unavailability of equipment and person-
nel needed to conduct the required
tests, such as equipment breakdown or
failure or illness of personnel, but shall
not include failure of the manufacturer
to adequately plan for and provide the
equipment and personnel needed to con-
duct the tests. The manufacturer will
bear the burden of establishing the
presence of the conditions and circum-
stances required by this paragraph.
(h) Any such order shall be issued
only after a notice and opportunity ."or a
hearing.
§ 204.57—2 Test compressor sample se-
lection.
(a) Compressors comprising th» batch
sample which are required to be tested
pursuant to a test request in accordance
with this subpart will be randomly
selected from a batch of compressors of
the category or configuration specif ed In
the test request. The random selection
will be achieved by sequentially num-
bering all of the compressors in the batch
and then using a table of random num-
bers to select the number of compressors,
as specified in paragraph (c) of this sec-
tion, based on the batch size designated
by the Administrator in the test request.
An alternative selc ,tion plan may be used
by a manufacturer: Provided, That such
a plan is approved by the Administrator.
(b) The Acceptable Quality Level is 10
percent. The appropriate sampli~g plans
associated with the designated AQL are
contained in Appendix I, Table II.
(c) The appropriate batch cample size
will be determined by reference to Ap-
pendix I, Tables I and II. A code letter is
obtained from Table I based on the batch
size designated by the Administrator in
a test request. The batch oample size will
be equal to the maximum ciuralative
sample size as listed in Table II for the
appropriate code letter obtained from
Table I plus an additional ten percent
rounded off to the next highest number.
(d) Individual compressors comprising
the test sample will be randomly selected
from the batch sample using the same
random selection plan as in paragraph
(a) of this section. Test sample size will
be determined by entering Table n.
(e) The test compressor of the cate-
gory or configuration selected for testing
shall have been assembled by the manu-
facturer for distribution in commerce us-
ing the manufacturers normal produc-
tion process.
(f) Unless otherwise indicated in the
test request, the manufacturer will select
the batch sample from the production
batch next scheduled after receipt of the
test request of the category or configura-
tion specified in the test request.
33
-------
(g) Unless otherwise Indicated in the
test request, the manufacturer shall se-
lect the compressors designated in the
test request for testing.
(h) At tieir discretion, EPA Enforce-
ment Officers, rather than the manufac-
turer, may select the compressors des-
ignated in the test request.
(i) The manufacturer will keep on
hand all compressors in the batch sample
until such time as the batch is accepted
or rejected in accordance with § 204.57-
6; Except, that compressors actually
tested and found to be in conformance
with these regulations need not be kept.
§ 204.57—3 Test compressor preparation.
Prior to the official test, the test com-
pressor selected in accordance with
f 204.57-2 will be prepared in accordance
with § 204.55-6.
§ 204.57-4 Testing.
(a) The manufacturer shall conduct
one valid test in accordance with the test
procedures specified in § 204.54 for each
compressor selected for testing pursuant
to this subpart.
(b) No maintenance will be performed
on test compressors, except as provided
for by § 204.57-3. In the event a com-
pressor is unable to complete the emis-
sion test, the manufacturer may replace
the compressor. Any replacement com-
pressor will be a production compressor
of the same configuration, and the re-
placement compressor will be randomly
selected from the batch sample and will
be subject to all the provisions of these
regulations.
§ 204.57-5 Reporting of test result*.
(a)(l) The manufacturer shall sub-
mit a copy of the test report for all test-
ing conducted pursuant to I 204.57 at the
conclusion of each twenty-four hour pe-
riod during which testing is done.
(2) For each test conducted the man-
ufacturer will provide the following in-
formation :
(i) Configuration and category iden-
tification, where applicable
(ii) Year, make, assembly date, and
model of compressor
(iii) Compressor serial number
(iv) Test results by serial numbers
(3) The first test report for each batch
sample will contain a listing of all serial
numbers in that batch.
(b) In the case where an EPA En-
forcement Officer is present during test-
ing required by this subpart, the writ-
ten reports requested in paragraph (a)
of this section may be given directly to
the Enforcement Officer.
(c) Within five days after completion
of testing of all compressors in a batch
sample, the manufacturer shall submit
to the Administrator a final report which
will include the information required by
the test request in the format as stipu-
lated, in addition to the following:
(1) The name, location, and descrip-
tion of the manufacturer's noise test
facilities which meet the specifications
of § 204.54 and were utilized to conduct
testing reported pursuant to this section;
Except, that a test facility that has been
described in a previous submission under
this subpart need not be described again
but must be identified as such.
(2) A description of the random com-
pressor selection method used, referenc-
ing any tables of random numbers that
were used, and the name of the person in
charge of the random number selection.
(3) The following information for
each test conducted:
(i) The completed data sheet required
by § 204.54 for all noise emission tests
including, for each invalid test, the rea-
son for invalidation.
(ii) A complete description of any
modification, repair, preparation, main-
tenance, and/or testing which was per-
formed on the test compressor and will
not be performed on all other produc-
tion compressors.
(iii) The reason for the replacement,
where a replacement compressor was au-
thorized by the Administrator, and, if
any, the test results for replaced com-
pressors.
(2) The following statement and en-
dorsement:
This report Is submitted pursuant to sec-
tion 6 and section 13 ot the Noise Control
Act of 1972. All testing for which data Is
reported herein was conducted In strict con-
formance with applicable regulations under
40 CFB Part 204 et seq. All the data reported
herein are a true and accurate representa-
tion of such testing. All other Information
reported herein Is, to the best of (company)
knowledge .true and accurate. I am aware
of the penalties associated with violations ol
the Noise Control Act of 1972 and the reg-
ulations thereunder.
(authorized representative)
§ 204.57-6 Acceptaance and rejection
of batches.
(a) A failing compressor is one whose
measured sound level is in excess of the
applicable noise emission standard.
(b) The batch from which a batch
sample is selected will be accepted or re-
jected based upon the number of failing
34
-------
compressors in the batch sample. A suf-
ficient number of test samples will be
drawn from the batch sample until the
cumulative number of failing compres-
sors is less than or equal to the accept-
ance number or greater than or equal to
the rejection number appropriate for the
cumulative number of compressors
tested. The acceptance and rejection
numbers listed In Appendix I, Table H
at the appropriate code letter obtained
according to § 204.57-2 will be used In
determining whether the acceptance or
rejection of a batch has occurred.
(c) Acceptance or rejection of a batch
takes place when a decision is made on
the last compressor required to make a
decision under paragraph (b) of this
section.
§ 204.57—7 Acceptance anl rejection of
batch sequence.
(a) The manufacturer will continue
to inspect consecutive batches until the
batch sequence is accepted or rejected.
The batch sequence will be accepted or
rejected based upon the number of re-
jected batches. A sufficient number of
consecutive batches will be inspected
until the cumulative number of rejected
batches is less than or equal to the
sequence acceptance number or greater
than or equal to the sequence rejection
number appropriate for the cumulative
number of batches inspected. The ac-
ceptance and rejection numbers listed
in Appendix I, Table III at the appro-
priate code letter obtained according to
§ 204.57-2 will be used in determining
whether the acceptance or rejection of a
batch sequence has occurred.
(b) Acceptance or rejection of a batch
sequence takes places when the decision
is made on the last compressor required
to make a decision under paragraph (a)
of this section.
(c) If the batch sequence is accepted,
the manufacturer will not be required to
perform any additional testing on com-
pressors from subsequent batches pur-
suant to the initiating test request.
(d) The Administrator may terminate
testing earlier than required in para-
graph (b) of this section based on a re-
quest by the manufacturer accompanied
by voluntary cessation of distribution in
commerce, from all plants, of compres-
sors from the configuration in question:
Provided, That once production is re-
initiated, the manufacturer must take
the action described in § 204.57-9 (a) (1)
and (a) (2) prior to distribution in com-
merce of any compressors from any plant
of the compressor category or configura-
tion in question.
§ 204.57-8 Continued testing.
(a) If a batch sequence Is rejected in
accordance with paragraph (b) of
{j 204.57-7, the Administrator may re-
quire continued 100 percent testing with
respect to all compressors of that cate-
gory ior configuration produced at that
plant.
(b) The Administrator will notify the
manufacturer in writing of his intent to
require any 100 percent testin? of com-
pressors pursuant to paragraph (a) of
this section.
(c) Any tested compressor which
demonstrates conformance with the ap-
plicable standards may be distributed
into commerce.
(d) Any knowing distribution Into
commerce of a compressor which does
not comply with the applicable stand-
ards is a prohibited act.
§ 204.57-9 Prohibition of distribution
in commerce; manufacturer's rem-
edy.
(a) Once 100 percent continuous test-
ing has been instituted on a category or
configuration pursuant to § 204.57-8, the
manufacturer must take the following
actions before the Administrator will
consider discontinuing such testing:
(1) Submit a written report to the Ad-
ministrator which identifies the reason
for the noncompliance of the compres-
sors, describes the problem, ana describes
the proposed quality control and/or
quality assurance remedies to be taken
by the manufacturer to correct the prob-
lem, or follows the requirements for an
engineering change pursuant to § 204.55-
9; and
(2) Demonstrate that the specified
compressor category or configuration
complies with the applicable emission
standard by testing compressors from'
consecutively produced batches of that
compressor category or configuration in
accordance with these regulations and
the conditions specified in the initial
test request.
(b) Any compressor failing the pre-
scribed noise emission tests conducted
pursuant to this Subpart B may not be
distributed in commerce until necessary
adjustments or repairs have been made
and the compressor passes a retest.
(c) No compressors of a rejected batch
which are still in the hands of the manu-
facturer may be distributed in commerce
unless the manufacturer has demon-
strated to the satisfaction of the Ad-
35
-------
minlstrator that such compressors do, in
fact, conform to the regulations; Except,
that any compressor that has been tested
and does, in fact, conform with these
regulations may be distributed in com-
merce.
§ 204.58 In-use requirements.
§ 204.58-1 Warranty.
(a) The portable air compressor man-
ufacturer who is required to production
verify under this part shall include, in
.the owner's manual or in other informa-
tion supplied to the ultimate purchaser,
the following statement:
NOISE EMISSIONS WARRANTY
The manufacturer warrants to the ulti-
mate purchaser and each subsequent pur-
chaser that this air compressor was designed,
built, and equipped to conform at the time
of sale to the first retail purchaser, with all
applicable U.S. E.P.A. noise control regula-
tions.
This warranty Is not limited to any partic-
ular part, component, or system of the air
compressor. Defects In the design, assembly,
or In any part, component, or system of the
compressor which, at the tune of sale to the
first retail purchaser, caused noise emissions
to exceed Federal standards are covered by
this warranty for the life of the air com-
pressor.
(b) Not later than the date of submis-
sion of the production verification report
required by § 204.55-4, the manufacturer
shall submit to the Administrator two
(2) copies of the written noise emission
warranty required by paragraph (a) of
this section and two (2) copies of all
other information provided to the ulti-
mate purchaser which could reasonably
be construed as impacting on the war-
ranty.
(c) Not later than ten (10) days after
dissemination, the manufacturer shall
submit two (2) representative copies of
all information of a general nature, or
modifications thereto, which is provided
to dealers, zone representatives, or other
agents of the manufacturer regarding
the administration and application of
the noise emission warranty. Informa-
tion regarding noise emission warranty
claims which is provided to a dealer or
representative in response to a partic-.
ular warranty claim or dealer inquiry is
not considered to be information of a
general nature: Provided, That such in-
formation does not receive broad dis-
semination to dealers.
(d) All information required to be for-
warded to the Administrator pursuant to
this section shall be addressed to: Direc-
tor, Mobile Source Enforcement Division
(EN-340), U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 401 M Street SW., Wash-
ington, D.C.20460.
§ 204.58-- Tampering.
(a) For each model year and for each
configuration of air,, compressors covered
by this part, the manufacturer shall sub-
mit to the Administrator a list of those
acts which, in the manufacturer's esti-
mation, might be done to the air com-
pressor in use, on more than an occa-
sional basis, and result in an increase in
noise emissions above the standards pre-
scribed in § 204.52. The manufacturer
should indicate, wherever possible, the
amount of this increase in noise level.
(b) The above information shall be
submitted to the Administrator within
adequate time prior to the introduction
into commerce of each configuration to
allow for the development and printing
of tampering lists, as provided in para-
graphs (c) and (d) of this section.
(c) On the basis of the above infor-
mation, the Administrator will develop
a list of acts which, in the Administra-
tor's judgment, constitute the removal
or rendering inoperative, other than for
purposes of maintenance, repair, or re-
placement, of noise control devices or
elements of design of the compressor.
Tliis list shall be provided to the manu-
facturer and may be updated from time
to time. The list shall be included in the
statement to the ultimate purchaser, as
required by paragraph (d) (2) of this
section. If the list is not provided by the
Administrator within 30 days of the date
on which the information required in
paragraph (a) of this section is sub-
mitted, the manufacturer shall include
only the statement in paragraph (d) (1)
of this section, until such time as the
list has been provided and the owner's
manual is reprinted for other purposes.
(d) The manufacturer shall include
in the owner's manual the follow-
ing information:
U'" The statement:
TAMPERING WITH NOISE CONTROL SYSTEM
PROHIBITED
Federal law prohibits the following acts or
the causing thereof:
(1) The removal or rendering Inoperative
by any persons, other than for purposes of
maintenance, repair, or replacement, of any
device or element of def Igu incorporated Into
any new compressor for the purpose of noise
control prior to Its sale or delivery to the
ultimate purchaser or while It is In use; or
(2) the use of the compressor after such
device or element of design has been removed
or rendered Inoperative by any person.
36
-------
(2) The statement:
Among those acts Included in the prohibi-
tion against tampering are the acts listed
below.
Immediately following this statement,
the manufacturer shall include the list
developed by the Administrator under
paragraph (c) of this section.
(e) Any act included in the list pre-
pared pursuant to paragraph (c,) of this
section is presumed to constitute tamper-
ing; however, in any case in which a
proscribed act has been committed and
it can be shown that such act resulted
in no increase in the sound level of the
compressor or that the compressor still
meets the noise emission standard of
§ 204.52, such act will not constitute
tampering,
(f) The provisions of this section are
not intended to preclude any State or
local jurisdiction from adopting and en-
forcing its own prohibitions against the
removal or rendering inoperative of noise
control systems on compressors subject
to this part.
(g) All information required by this
section to be furnished to the Admin-
istrator shall be sent to the following
address: Director, Mobile Source En-
forcement Division (EN-340), U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, D.C 20460.
§ 204.58—3 Instructions for mainte-
nance, use, and repair.
(a) (1) The manufacturer shall pro-
vide to the ultimate purchaser of each
portable air compressor covered by this
part written instructions for the proper
maintenance, use, and repair of the com-
pressor in order to provide reasonable
assurance of the elimination or minimi-
zation of noise emission degradation
throughout the life of the compressor.
(2) The purpose of the instructions is
to inform purchasers and mechanics of
those acts necessary to reasonably as-
sure that degradation of noise emission
levels is eliminated or minimized during
the life of the compressor. Manufac-
turers should prepare the instructions
with this purpose in mind. The instruc-
tions should be flea; and, to the extent
practicable, written in iiort-technical
language.
(3) The instructions must not be used
to secure an unfair competitive advan-
tage. They should not restrict replace-
ment equipment to original equipment or
service to dealer service. Manufacturers
who so restrict replacement eaulpment
must make public any performance
specifications on such equipment.
(b) For the purpose of encouraging
proper maintenance, the manufacturer
shall provide a record or log book which
shall contain a performance schedul*"
for all required noise emission control
maintenance. Space shall be provided in
this record book so that the purchaser
can note what maintenance was done, by
whom, where and when,
(c) Not later than the date of sub-
mission of the production verification
report required by S 204.55—4, the manu-
facturer shall submit to the Adminis-
trator two (2) copies of the maintenance
instructions (including the record book)
required by paragraphs and tb"* of
this section.
(d) The Administrator will require
modifications to the instructions if they
are not both necessary and reasonable.
(e) Information required to be sub-
mitted to the Administrator pursuant lo
this section, shall be sent to the foliou -
ing address: Director, Mobile Source En-
forcement Division (EN-340J, U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
§ 204.5*) Recall of noii-compijing com-
pressors.
(a) Pursuant to section 11 (did) of
the Act, the Administrator may .issue an
order to the manufacturer to recall and
repair or modify any compressor dis-
tributed in commerce not in compliance
with this subpart.
(b) A recall order issued pursuant to
this section shall be based upon a de-
termination by the Administrator that
compressors of a specified category or
configuration have been distributed in
commerce which do not conform to the
regulations. Such determination may te
based on:
(1) A technical analysis of U'e noise
emission characteristics of the category
or configuration in question; or
(2) Any other relevant information,
Including test data.
(c) For ths purposes of this section,
noise emissions may be measured by any
test, prescribed in § 204.54 for testing
prior to sale or any other test which nas
been demonstrated to correlfU- with the
prescribed test procedure.
id) Any such order shall be Issued culy
after notice and an opportunity for u
hearing.
(e) All costs, including labor and patts,
associated with the recall and repair or
modification ol" non-complying compres-
scrs under this section shall be borne by
the manufacturer.
(f) This section shall not limit the
discretion of the Administrator to u
37
-------
any other actions which are authorized
by the Act.
APPENDIX I
TABLE I SAMPLE SIZE CODE LETTERS
Batch size: Code letter
4 to 8 A
9 to 15 B
16 to 25 C
28 and larger D
TABLE II.—Sampling plans for inspecting batches
A
B._ ..
C
D..
Test
sample
.. 1st ..
1st
1st-..
2d
. lst_.
2d
3d
4th
5th i
6th
7th
Test
sample At*
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cumulative
•fee
4
3
3
6
2
4
a
8
10
12
14
•Batch inspection erltera
Acceptance Rejection
number number
0
o
0
1
(1)
0)
0
0
1
1
2
1
1
f:
1
•>
9
?
3
S
X
1 Batch acceptance not permitted at this sample site.
TABLE III.—Batch sequence plans
Sample size code letter
A
B
C
D
Number
batches
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
CnmtuatlTe
number
batches
2
4
8
2
4
6
8
10
12
2
4
6
8
10
12
2
4
6
8
Sequence Inspection criteria
Acceptance
number
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
6
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
Rejection
number
S
S
5
2
2
4
4
2
9
4
' Batch sequence rejection not permitted /or this number of batches.
: Batch sequence acceptance not permitted for this number of batches.
38
-------
TABLE IV.—Recommended format for portable air compressor noise data sheet
Test report number:
Subject:
Manufacturer. Model: ___ . Serial No.:...
Rated speed: _ Rpm: __ Rated capacity: cftn(m»/min).
Configuration Identification: _ _ Category identification:
Portable air compressor Identification No.: Build Date:
Test conditions:
Manufacturers test site identification and location: _ __
Reflecting plane composition: _
Operating speed as tested:
Beginning of test rpm.
End of test i rpm.
Air pressure supplied: psl (kg/cm'.) Ambient wind speed mph(km/hr).
Actual flow rate: cfm (m'/min.) , Atmospheric pressure psi (kg/cin>).
Temperature: °F (°C).
Instrumentation:
• Microphone manufacturer: Model No.: Serial No
Sound Level Meter Manufacturer:.-_ Model No.: Serial No
Calibrator Manufacturer: ModelNo.: SerialNo
Other and Manufacturer: _. Model No.: Serial No
Data:
Sound levels Background sound level at Location Average
(decibels) ' location 1 (decibels) sound level
1 2 8 4 5 (decibels)
A-Weighted
Tested by: Date: ;
Reported by: Date: ;
Supervisory personnel: Title: j
Title: ^
[FR Doc.7«-731 Piled l-13-76;8:45 *m]
39
U S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1976- 622-496/155
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
En'.:.--• .
ttc-.o'. \ .
230 '_':»•_'•:..;
Chic/^.wj "' • .'. . ,j i:''^>':~i
-------
O m
3 I
o '
S, o
o
4:
o'
2L
00
j2_
i
(A
It »
£ O a ..-
a I o
s S g
s" * 2.
a 5
Q. ,-»._.
* C w
n o
o
r+ O
111
< 3 3
=• <» ,2
•D
O
•3
-s
P
0
IS}
O
*.
S
I -o
3 3D
9 O
3 H
m m
S 2
a H
f i
3 >
2. O
m
O
O> D
-c r >
5
------- |