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

-------