EPA 550/9-77-250
NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS
FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
PROPOSED WHEEL
AND CRAWLER TRACTOR
NOISE EMISSION REGULATION
PART 1.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT
PART 2.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
JUNE 1977
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
FOREWORD
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Economic
Impact Statement and Background Document were pre-
pared in support of the Environmental Protection
Agency's proposed regulation which sets noise emission
standards for newly manufactured wheel and crawler
tractors. The proposed regulation has been published
pursuant to the mandate of Congress as expressed in
the Noise Control Act of 1972 (86 Stat.1234).
-------
EPA 550/9-77-250
NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS FOR
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
PROPOSED WHEEL AND CRAWLER TRACTOR
NOISE EMISSION REGULATION
PART 1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT
JUNE 1977
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
This document has been approved for general avail-
ability. It does not constitute a standard,
specification or regulation.
-------
SUMMARY SHEETS
FOR
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PREPARED BY
OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1. Title of Action: Noise Emission Regulation for Wheel
and Crawler Tractors in Construction Site Activities. This is
an Administrative Action.
2. Description of Action: The Environmental Protection Agency's
proposed regulation is intended to reduce the level of noise emissions
from wheel and crawler tractors used in construction activities
for loading and dozing operations. The regulation is also intended
to establish a uniform national standard for this equipment distributed
in commerce, thereby eliminating inconsistent State and local noise
source emission regulations that may impose an undue burden on
the wheel and crawler tractor manufacturing industry. The recommended
action proposes to establish noise emission standards for newly
manufactured wheel and crawler tractors and to establish enforcement
procedures to ensure that this equipment complies with the standard.
-------
The proposed regulation is based on health and welfare
benefits to the public which are anticipated to result from reducing
noise emissions from wheel and crawler tractors. In arriving at the
proposed regulation, the Environmental Protection Agency investigated
in detail the wheel and crawler tractor industry, noise control technology,
noise measurement methodologies, and costs of compliance. Four major
issues were identified which required resolution: (1) identification
of machines to be regulated, (2) measurement methodology to be
employed, (3) noise levels and effective dates, and (4) accoustical
assurance period.
Three types of machines were included as subject to the proposed
regulation; \crawler tractors, wheel loaders, and wheel tractors.
Studies show that the size of the large machines (crawler tractors
over 450 horsepower and wheel loaders over 500 horsepower) essentially
precludes their transport to and use in areas where significant
population noise impact would result. Therefore, these horsepower
levels were adopted as upper bounds for machines subject to the
proposed regulation.
It was concluded that incremental reductions in equipment noise
levels were preferable to a one-step requirement that all equipment meet
the most stringent levels achievable and desirable. Identical effective
dates were set for all equipment subject to the standaard in order to minimize
market impacts from substitution of unregulated machines and to discourage
possible shifts in horsepower ratings at the breakpoints of 200 and 250
horsepower.
VI
-------
3. Environmental Impact: Compliance with the proposed standards
should, on the average, reduce noise emissions from wheel and crawler
tractors by 5 dBA. In terms of reduced impact on the nations' population,
the 5 dBA reduction, when considered in combination the portable air
compressor and truck regulations, should result in a reduction of approx-
imately 37 percent in the severity and extensiveness of construction site
noise impact by the year 1991 (when all trucks, compressors and wheel and
crawler tractors in the field will be quieted units). This represents an
increase of approximately 10 percent over the benefits that are anticipated
from current Federal noise regulation of construction equipment.
Air quality, water quality, land use, solid waste disposal requirements
and energy consumption are not expected to be significantly impacted by the
noise levels proposed.
4. Economic Impact: List price increases to quiet new wheel and crawler tractors
are estimated to range from 2.3 to 7.2 percent, depending on machine type and
size. The average list price increase for all machines is estimated to
be 4.6 percent.
An economic analysis of the wheel and crawler tractor manufacturing industry
indicates a significant price elasticity of demand. Demand could decrease
by 3 to 5 percent as a result of the proposed regulation, but total revenues
should remain constant as a result of price increases.
Annualized costs to users of wheel and crawler tractors, beginning in 1978
through the year 2000, are expected to increase about $228 million as a result
VII
-------
of tractor manufacturer cost pass through plus normal mark-ups, an increase
of about 3.4 percent. Compared to projected $189 billion annual construction
receipts for the year 1976, this represents a potential increase of 0.12 percent
in construction costs per year commencing in 1978.
Employment, regional economics, foreign trade and national GNP
will not b e significantly effected by the regulation.
The proposed regulation will support the efforts of the Federal
Trade Commission and other organizations to inform and protect consumers.
Vlll
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT
Page
Number
ABSTRACT 1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 3
INTRODUCTION 3
Wheel and Crawler Tractors 5
PROPOSED NOISE REGULATION 7
Statutory Basis 7
Alternatives Considered 7
Proposed Regulation 8
Regulatory Schedule 8
Enforcement 9
Production Verification 9
Selective Enforcement Auditing 10
Relationship to Other Efforts 10
Federal Government Agencies 10
State and Local Government 10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 12
Impact on the Population of the U.S. 12
Impact on Other Environmental Considerations 12
Land Use 12
Water Quality 12
Air Quality 12
Solid Waste Disposal Requirements 13
Wildlife 13
IX
-------
Page
Number
ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT 15
SUMMARY 15
ECONOMIC IMPACT ESTIMATES 16
Cost of Compliance 16
Effects on Manufacturers 16
Demand Decline 16
Profits 16
Competitive Effects 17
Direct Effect on Prices 17
Effect on List Price 17
Effect on Operating and Maintenance Costs 18
Productivity Effects 18
Indirect Effects 19
Impact on Suppliers 19
Impact on Exports 19
Impact on Imports 19
Impact on Energy Use 19
-------
PART 2
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
Page
Section Number
1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2 THE INDUSTRY AND THE PRODUCT 2-1
3 MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY 3-1
4 NEW WHEEL AND CRAWLER TRACTOR
NOISE LEVELS 4-1
5 EVALUATION OF EFFECTS OF WHEEL AND
CRAWLER TRACTOR NOISE ON PUBLIC
HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE U.S.
POPULATION 5-1
6 NOISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 6-1
7 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 7-1
8 ENFORCEMENT 8-1
9 EXISTING LOCAL, STATE AND FOREIGN
NOISE REGULATIONS 9-1
APPENDIX A - Docket Analysis (Reserved) A-l
APPENDIX B - Development of Regulatory
Options B-l
APPENDIX C - Individual Options C-l
APPENDIX D - Background Information D-l
APPENDIX E - Inputs to the Construction
Site Model E-l
XI
-------
WHEEL AND CRAWLER TRACTOR
ENVIRONMENTAL AND INFLATIONARY
IMPACT STATEMENTS
ABSTRACT
These Environmental and Economic Impact Statements address
a proposed noise emission regulation for wheel and crawler tractors.
In arriving at the proposed regulation, the Agency carried out
detailed investigations of wheel and crawler tractor design; manufactur-
ing and assembly processes; noise measurement methodologies; available
noise control technology; costs attendant to noise control methods;
costs to test machines for compliance; costs of record keeping;
possible economic impacts; and the potential environmental and
health and welfare benefits associated with the application of
various noise control measures. Data and information generated
as a result of these investigations are the basis for the statements
made in Part I of this document. Part I has been designed to present,
in the simplest form, all relevant information regarding the environ-
mental and economic impacts expected to result from the proposed
action. Where greater detail is desired, the Agency encourages
perusal of Part II, the "Background Document".
- 1 -
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
INTRODUCTION
Congress passed the Noise Control Act (NCA) of 1972, in part,
as a result of their findings that inadequately controlled noise
presents a growing danger to the health and welfare of the nation's
population, particularly in urban areas. For this and other reasons,
the Congress established a national policy to "promote an environment
for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes their health
or welfare". To further this policy, the NCA provides for the
establishment of Federal noise emission standards for products
distributed in commerce and specifies four categories of important
noise sources for regulation, of which construction equipment is
one.
It has been estimated that over 30 million people located
in urban, suburban, and rural areas in the United States are exposed
to materials handling, earthmoving, road building, impact and/or
special function construction equipment noise levels that jeopardize
their health or welfare during the usage of equipment in the following
construction activities:
- 3 -
-------
Domestic housing - including residences for one or several
families
Nonresidential buildings - including offices, public buildings,
hotels, hospitals, and schools
Industrial - including industrial buildings, religious
and recreational centers, stores and service and repair
facilities
Public works - including roads, streets, water mains,
and sewers
Inasmuch as a number of different types of construction equip-
ment operate at the same time the quieting of only one product
type is often not in itself sufficient to adequately reduce the
noise from construction sites to a level requistite to protect health
and welfare. Accordingly, the EPA's noise regulatory program has
effected a coordinated aproach to control overall construction
site noise in which pieces of construction equipment, alone or
in combination, are evaluated to asses their contribution to con-
struction site noise and attendant impact on the natiom's population.
Pursuant to the mandate of the NCA and EPA's approach to the
control of construction site noise, noise emission regulations were
promulgated on January 14, 1976, for portable air compressors (41 FR
2162) and on April 13, 1976, for medium and heavy trucks (41 FR 15538).
To furthur control construction site noise, noise emission
standards for wheel and crawler tractors are being proposed at this
time.
- 4 -
-------
Wheel and Crawler Tractors
The Agency determined that regulation of the following machine
types is requisite to protect the public health or welfare:
1. crawler tractor - tractor which moves on tracks with or
without dozer blades, loader buckets or other attachments
2. wheel loader - tractor with articulated steering and
integral bucket apparatus
3. wheel tractor - tractor with rigid frame and integral
or non-integral loader bucket or dozer blade and other
non-integral apparatus.
Figure 1 shows line drawings of a crawler tractor, a wheel loader
and a wheel tractor. Details regarding identification of these
machines as candidates for regulation, their design features and
functional characteristics are contained in Part 2, the "Background
Document".
Machines excluded from this regulation because they have minimal
impact on public health and welfare or are not primarily used for loading
and dozing operations in construction activities include:
1. wheel loaders with integral backhoes
2. wheel tractors with integral dozer blade linkage
3. skid steer loaders
v
4. wheel and crawler tractors with attachments - other than
bucket or blade apparatus - integral to the machine frame
5. machines manufactured primarily for agricultural, mining or
logging operations
6. trenching equipment - self propelled machines used exclusively
to produce a continuous trench by means of a digging chain
or similar device.
- 5 -
-------
r
Crawler Tractor
Wheel Loader
Wheel
Tractor
FIGURE 1
Illustration of Three Basic Machine Types
-------
PROPOSED NOISE REGULATION
This proposed regulation is intended to reduce the level of
noise emitted from wheel and crawler tractors used in construction
activities for loading and dozing operations. It also establishes
a uniform national standard for this equipment when it is distributed
in commerce, thereby eliminating differing State and local time-of-sale
noise emission regulations which may impose a burden on the wheel and
crawler tractor manufacturing industry.
Statutory Basis
The proposed action establishes noise emission standards for
newly manufactured wheel and crawler tractors and enforcement pro-
cedures to ensure that this equipment complies with the standard.
This proposed rulemaking is being issued under the authority of
the Noise Control Act of 1972 (P.L.92-574, 86 Stat. 1236).
Alternatives Considered
Two alternatives to regulation are available to EPA: no action
and labeling. These actions may be taken only if (a) the product
does not contribute to the detriment of the public health and welfare,
or (b) in the Administrator's judgment regulation is not feasible.
Wheel and crawler tractors were identified, pursuant to section
5(b)l of the Noise Control Act of 1972, as major noise sources
on May 28, 1976 (40 FR 23069). Subsequent to this identifiecation,
comprehensive studies were performed to evaluate wheel and crawler
tractor moise emission levels requisite to protect the public health
and welfare, taking into account the magnitude and condition of
use, the degree of noise reduction achievable through application
- 7 -
-------
of the best available technology and the cost of compliance. The
results of these studies show that the regulation of wheel and
crawler tractor noise is feasible through available technology
taking the cost of compliance into account. Accordingly, the
Act permits no alternative action to be taken.
Proposed regulation
Regulatory Schedule The proposed noise emission standards
and effective dates are shown in Table 1.
The Agency selected identical effective dates for all regulated
equipment in order to minimize market impacts resulting from possible
substitution of unregulated machines and to discourage the shifting of
horsepower ratings at the breakpoints of 200 and 250 horsepower. An
incremental, rather than a single step reduction in noise levels for
this equipment was selected because it yields substantial near term
benefits with a minimum of industry dislocations.
Table 1
Proposed Noise Emission Standards
Not-to-Exceed A-Weighted
Sound Level
(dBA @ 15 Meters)
Effective Dates
Machine Type Horsepower March 1,1981 March 1,1984
Crawler Tractor 20-199 77 74
Crawler Tractor 200-450 83 80
Wheel Loader 20-249 79 76
Wheel Loader 250-500 84 80
Wheel Tractor 20+ 74 74
— ft —
-------
The estimated health and welfare benefits from this propoosed
noise emission regulation can only be attained if wheel and crawler
tractors meet their not-to-exceed levels for a reasonable period of
time. Therefore the Agency has developed the concept of an Acoustical
Assurance Period (AAP) to be defined as that period during which the
product must meet the standard when the product is properly used and
maintained. In the case of wheel and crawler tractors, the AAP will
be 5 years or 9000 operating hours, which ever comes first, after sale
of the product to the ultimate purchaser.
To ensure compliance with the AAP, the Agency requires manufacturers
to develope a Sound Level Degradation Factor (SLOP) for each machine
configuration, the SLDF is the degradation (sound level increase) which
the manufacturer expects to occur on a given configuration during the
specified AAP. This SLDF will be factored into the results of production
verification and selective enforcement audit tests of compliance. Compli-
ance will be determined by the ability of the newly manufactured product
to emit a sound level equal to or less than the applicable standard.
Enforcement. The EPA will use the following two methods to determine
whether wheel and crawler tractors comply with the acceptable noise
emission standard:
Production verification - Prior to distribution into
commerce of any wheel and crawler tractor, as defined
in this regulation, a manufacturer must submit information
to EPA which demonstrates that his product conforms to the
standard.
- 9 -
-------
Selective enforcement auditing - Pursuant to an admin-
istrative request, a statistical sample of wheel and
crawler may be tested to determine if the units, as they
are produced, meet the standard.
Relationship with Other Federal, State, and Local Government
Agencies. The proposed regulation will affect several other govern-
ment regulatory effortsz. It will also require supplementary actions
by State and local government.
Federal Government Agencies. General Services Administration
(GAS) regulations seet maximum sound emission levels for equipment
operating on Government property. These will remain in effect.
State and Local Government. Although the Noise Control Act
prohibits an State or political subdivision there of from adopting
or enforcing any law or regulation which sets a limit on noise
emissions from such new products, or components of such new products,
which are not identical to the stnadard prescribed by the Federal
regulation, primary resoponsibility for control of noise rests
with State and local govewrnments.
Nothing in the Act precludes or denies the right of any State
or political subdivision thereof from establishing and enforcing
controls on environmental noise through the licensing, regulation
or restriction of the use, operation or movement of any product
or combination of products.
The noise controls which are reserved to State and local authority
include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Controls on the manner of operation of products
- 10 -
-------
2. Controls on the time in which products may be operated
3. Controls on the places in which products may be operated
4. Controls on the number of products which may be operated
together
5. Controls on noise emissions from the property on which
products are used
6. Controls on the licensing of products
7. Controls on environmental noise levels.
By use of the noise controls reserved to them, State and local
governments are able to supplement Federal noise emission standards
and to effect near-term relief from construction site noise. The
EPA has developed a model ordinance to indicate the form and content
of an instrument whereby State and local governments may control
construction site noise in the absense of Federal regulation or
in the time frame before Federal regulations become effective.
The model ordinance is contained in section 9 of Part 2 of this
document, the "Background Document.
An EPA sponsored survey of existing regulations applicable to
construction equipment revealed few laws, regulations or ordinances
which mention wheel and crawler tractors specifically, although some
legislation setting limits on construction equipment includes wheel
+
and crawler tractors as examples of such equipment. Most regulation
of wheel and crawler tractor noise is presently accomplished indirectly
by limiting construction site noise or construction equipment noise.
- 11 -
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The environmental impacts of the proposed regulation include
the primary impact which is reduced annoyance from construction
noise resulting from lower wheel and crawler tractor noise and
the secondary impacts on other environmental considerations.
Impact on the Population of the United States
Compliance with the most stringent proposed standards will,
on the average, reduce noise emissions from wheel and crawler tractors
by 5 dBA. In terms of reduced impact on the nation's population,
the 5 dBA reduction, when considered in combination with existing
Federal standards for new portable air compressors and medium and
heavy trucks, should result in a reduction of approximately 37
percent in the severity and extensiveness of construction site
noise impact by the year 1991. This represents an increase of
approximately 10 percent in additional benefits over those anticipated
to accrue from current Federal noise regulations of construction
equipments (air compressors and trucks).
Impact on Other Environmental Considerations
Land Use. The proposed regulation will have no adverse impact
on land use.
Water Quality. The proposed regulation will have no adverse
impact on water quality or supply.
Air Quality. The proposed regulation will have no adverse
impact on air quality.
- 12 -
-------
Solid Waste Disposal Requirements. The proposed regulation
will have no adverse effects on solid waste disposal requirements.
Wildlife. Although wildlife may possibly benefit from reduced
noise levels of construction equipment, not enough is known to
conclude that the extent of noise reduction achieved by the proposed
regulation will actually result in such a benefit.
- 13 -
-------
ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT
SUMMARY
The establishment of noise standards for newly manufactured wheel and
crawler tractors gives rise to expenditures which would otherwise not be
directly incurred by the private and public sectors. However, it should
be understood that we really do not have the option of not paying for noise
pollution costs. The only question is in what form do we pay; for example,
lost worker productivity due to noise induced task interruption, lost
sleep due to intrusive noise, or successful litigation for hearing loss.
Recognizing that certain expenditures are necessary to protect
the public health and welfare from inadequately controlled noise, the
Agency performed analyses to estimate the magnitude and potential impact
of these expenditures. Examined in the analyses were the structure
of the industry, the estimated cost of abatement by machine type, the
price elasticity of demand, the capital and annual costs of enforcement,
the impact of enforcement on annual operating and maintenance costs
and the indirect impacts of the proposed regulations.
The following conclusions were reached in these studies:
1. The aggregate list price of wheel and crawler tractors may
increase by 4.6 percent.
2. The demand for wheel and crawler tractors could decrease by
3 to 5 percent, but total manufacture revenue in such a case
should remain unchanged due to increased prices.
3. The increase in annualized costs to users (including increased
capital cost, operation and maintenance) through the year 2000
is estimated to be about $228 million or an increase of approxi-
mately 3.4 percent.
- 15 -
-------
ECONOMIC IMPACT ESTIMATES
Cost of Complinace.
Total capital and annual costs accruing from the proposed regulatory
schedule are displayed in Table 2.
Table 2
Estimates of Manufacturer Incurred
Capital and Annual Costs of Abatement
($ Millions 1976)
Year
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987
Capital
Cost 4.3 3.7 3.7 2.8 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cumulative 4.3 8.0 II,7 14.5 15.5 16.5 17.3 17.3 17.3 17.3
Annual
Cost 3.7 3.7 3.7 50.0 50.0 50.0 97.0 97.0 97.0 97.0
Effects on Manufacturers
Demand Decline. Theoretically, based on economic theory and
statistical estimates of demand elasticity, unit demand could be expected
to decline in direct dollar-to=dollar proportion to price increases
resulting from noise control. Further dampening of demand could also
ensue from the imposition of higher ownership expenses resulting from
the increased costs for operation and maintenance (O&M). Because the
O&M cost elasticity is small, dollar sales should remain approximately
the same, with price increases offsetting unit sales decline.
Profits. Profits are expected to decline only slightly, possibly
0.3 to 0.4 percent over the 22 year period.
- 16 -
-------
Competitive Effects. Nineteen wheel and crawler tractor manufacturers
comprise the industry affected by the proposed action in 1977: Eight
may be classified as small to medium firms and eleven classified as large.
Six of the eight small and medium firms may be placed under capital
availability pressures; however three of these firms are already encounter-
ing capital availability problems. Five of the eleven large firms would
have capital cost of abatement/sales ratios greater than five percent
and, because of this, may encounter higher capital borrowing rates than
the other firms in the industry in seeking to comply with the regulations.
Direct Effect on Prices
Effect on List Prices. The average estimated increase in list
price for each of the five machine classes is displayed in Table 3.
The potential cost increases on a per model basis may vary from the
average since abatement costs are relatively insensitive to variations
between machines. Lower priced vehicles (wheel tractors and small
wheel loaders produced by small firms) may have significantly higher
cost increase/price ratios.
Table 3
Estimated Average Cost Increase as a Percentage
of List Price for Five Machine Classes
Machine Class Percent Increase
Crawler tractors 20-249, ,. 5.4
Crawler tractors 250-500 2.6
Wheel loaders 20-199 5.7
Wheel loaders 200-450 2.3
Wheel tractors-
Industrial/Utility 20+ 7.2
All Machines 4.6
- 17 -
-------
Effect on Operation & Maintenance Costs. The estimated average
annual dollar and percentage O&M cost increases to be faced by users,
primarily in the construction, mining and forestry industries, are displayed
in Table 4 for each machine class, using a 22-year time frame.
Table 4
Estimated Average Annualized Dollar and Percentage
User O&M Cost Increase by Machine Class
(1978-2000)
Crawler tractors
Crawler tractors
Wheel loaders
Wheel loaders
Wheel tractors
All Machines 113.7 2.1
Productivity Effects
Regulation of the noise emissions from wheel and crawler tractors
is expected to have a negligible overall effect on employment. There
may be a modest increase in manufacturing labor required to design,
build, and install the necessary noise abatement materials which in
turn may be offset by a decline in regular production personel due to
a possible decrease in demand for regulated equipment.
20-199 hp
200-450 hp
20-249 hp
250-500 hp
20+
Dollars
(Millions)
44.5
10.0
25.0
7.7
26.5
Percentage
3.0
2.3
2.5
2.4
1.2
- 18 -
-------
Indirect Effects
Impact on Suppliers. Some component suppliers may increase their
sales depending on their ability to reduce the noise emissions of their
product and thereby contribute to the reduction in overall machine noise.
Furthermore, those suppliers specializing in the manufacture of sound
damping and sound absorbent materials and other products required for
abatement would be expected to experience increased sales.
Impact on Exports. Products manufactured for export only are not
required under the Act to comply with the regulation. Accordingly,
because the technology studied is essentially modular, machines for
export can generally be produced without noise abatement equipment:
Therefore, the impact on U.S. exports should be minimal.
Impact on Imports. The proposed regulations will apply to all
imported machines. However, the percentage (approximately 2 percent
of wheel and crawler tractor sales) is very small. There is no reason
to believe that imports will be unable to comply competitively with
the standards and thus the proposed regulation should have little or
no effect on foreign trade.
Impact on Energy Use. Noise abatement treatments may cause some
increased weight for regulated machines resulting in potentially reduced
fuel economy, although this is not expected to be significant. The 6-year
lead time provided to implement the more stringent noise standards should
enable manufacturers to minimize this problem. Some techniques not
being generally applied to these machines at this tijne, such as the
use of turbocharging, will both decrease engine noise levels and improve
fuel economy.
- 19 -
-------
EPA 550/9-77-250
NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS FOR
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
PROPOSED WHEEL AND CRAWLER TRACTOR
NOISE EMISSION REGULATION
PART 2
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
JUNE 1977
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
This document has been approved for general avail-
ability. It does not constitute a standard,
specification or regulation.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Section 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
Construction Site Noise 1-1
Statutory Basis for Action 1-7
Compliance Labeling 1-9
Imports 1-9
Outline and Summary of Background Document 1-10
Section 2 THE INDUSTRY AND THE PRODUCT 2-1
The Industry 2-1
Firms 2-1
Products 2-2
Plants 2-4
Competitive Factors of Machine Selection 2-8
Vertical Integration and Suppliers 2-14
Product Distribution 2-16
Foreign Trade 2-18
Sales Patterns - 1974 2-22
Prices 2-23
Price Trends 2-24
The Product 2-24
Machine Types 2-28
Section 3 MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY 3-1
Overview 3-1
Measurement Requirements 3-1
Wheel and Crawler Tractor Noise Sources 3-2
Relationship of Sound Levels, Health/Welfare
and Measurement Methodology 3-2
Current Test Procedures and Standards 3-11
Technical and Operational Considerations 3-13
Machine Operation 3-13
Acoustical Considerations 3-17
Test Site Considerations 3-19
Cost Considerations 3-22
EPA Noise Emission Test Method for Wheel and
Crawler Tractors 3-22
Definitions 3-25
Test Site Description 3-26
Measurement Equipment 3-28
Machine Operation 3-29
Test Conditions 3-31
Microphone Locations 3-33
Calculation of Average Stationary Machine
Sound Level Data 3-34
Data Reporting 3-35
111
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Section 4 NEW WHEEL AND CRAWLER TRACTOR NOISE
LEVELS 4-1
Baseline Noise Emission Levels 4-2
Noise Data Obtained from Manufacturers 4-2
Relationship Between Noise Emissions and
Machine Classification 4-4
Average Sound Levels vs Horsepower Used in
Health/Welfare Analysis 4-6
Noise Emitted with Noise Kits 4-14
Sound Levels Based on Currently Used
Technology 4-14
Model Noise Variability 4-15
Degradation of Noise Emission Levels 4-16
Increase in Noise Emissions with Time 4-11
Average Time Before First Overhaul 4-21
Field Measurement Program 4-23
EPA/MERADCOM Test Program at Fort Belvoir, Va. 4-25
Test Procedures 4-26
Results of Test Program 4-29
Section 5 EVALUATION OF EFFECTS OF WHEEL AND
CRAWLER TRACTOR NOISE ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE 5-1
Introduction 5-1
Measures of Benefits to Public Health and
Welfare 5-2
Description of the Health and Welfare
Construction Site Noises Impact Model 5-3
Definition of Leq and Ldn 5-8
Relationship of Ldn to Health and Welfare
Criteria 5-11
Construction Site Model 5-15
Construction Site Noise Impact 5-28
Section 6 NOISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 6-1
Component 6-1
Fan and Cooling System Noise 6-2
Engine Surface (Casing) Noise 6-4
Exhaust Noise 6-8
Air-Intake Noise 6-10
Transmission Noise 6-11
Hydraulic Pump Noise 6-12
Track Noise 6-13
Methods of Noise Control for Wheel and Crawler
Tractor Noise 6-13
General 6-13
Currently Used Component Noise Reduction
Techniques 6-17
Application of Currently Used and Best Available
Technology 6-22
Noise Control Techniques to Achieve Level I 6-24
Noise Control Techniques to Achieve Level II 6-26
Noise Control Techniques to Achieve Level III 6-32
Summary 6-26
iv
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Section 7 COST AND ECONOMIC IMPACT 7-1
Data Analysis 7-1
Market Trends - Short Run Outlook 7-1
1976 Demand 7-3
Effect of Price on Demand 7-3
Cost of Compliance 7-10
Introduction 7-10
Basic Compliance Costs 7-12
General Methodology 7-13
Research and Development Costs 7-14
Capital Costs 7-18
labor and Material Costs 7-20
Operating and Maintenance Cost Increases 7-20
Variations in Lead Time 7-26
Noise Emission Testing Costs 7-26
Costs Applicable to Existing Machines 7-33
Costs Applicable to Quieted Machines 7-33
Economic Impact Analysis 7-36
Cost Increases 7-38
Paying for the Cost Increases 7-43
Capital Availability 7-50
Competition 7-55
Brand Switching 7-54
Small Wheel Loaders 7-55
Wheel Tractors 7-55
Production Line Closures 7-56
Inflationary Impacts 7-61
Impacts oa Suppliers 7-62
Impacts on Foreign Trade 7-64
Employment and Regional Impacts 7-65
Effects on Gross National Product (GNP) 7-65
Summary of Cost and Economic Data for
Regulatory Schedules 7-66
Section 8 ENFORCEMENT 8-1
General 8-1
Production Verification 8-2
Selective Enforcement Auditing 8-7
Administrative Orders 8-12
Compliance Labeling 8-13
Applicability to Previously Promulgated
Regulations 8-13
In-Use Compliance 8-15
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Section 9 EXISTING LOCAL, STATE AND FOREIGN NOISE
REGULATIONS 9-1
Local Ordinances Regulating Wheel and Crawler
Tractor Noise Levels 9-2
State Laws and Regulations Governing Wheel and
Crawler Tractor Noise Levels 9-10
Foreign Regulations
Model Ordinance 9-16
Definition 9-16
Authorities (and Duties) of Administra-
tive Agency 9-18
Local Contracts and Purchases 9-22
Time Limitation on (Construction Work)
(Operating Wheel and Crawler Tractors) 9-24
Performance Standards 9-26
Variances (Permits) 9-29
Enforcement Provisions 9-34
APPENDIX A DOCKET (Reserved) A-l
APPENDIX B DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATORY STUDY LEVELS B-l
APPENDIX C INDIVIDUAL OPTIONS C-l
APPENDIX D BACKGROUND INFORMATION D-l
APPENDIX E INPUTS TO THE CONSTRUCTION SITE MODEL E-l
FIGURES
Figure Page
2-1 Sales Volume of Impacted Firms 2-3
2-2 Market Share Estimates for Wheel and Crawler 2-5
Tractors
2-3 Geographical Distributions of Domestic Wheel 2-9
and Crawler Tractor Manufacturing Plants
2-4 Comparative Wholesale Price Trends of 2-25
Impacted Equipment and Other Commodities
2-5 Line Drawings of Tractor Types 2-31
2-6 Identification of Tractor Types - 2-35
Classification by Design Features
3-1 Effect of Noise Control on Work Cycle Laq 3-5
3-2 Noise Level Reduction in Stationary and 3-8
Moving Modes
3-3 Leq vs. Fraction of Work Cycle Time in 3-10
Stationary Mode or Moving Mode
3-4 Test Site Configuration for Noise Emission 3-27
Test for Wheel and Crawler Tractors
3-5 Microphone Location for Test Methodology 3-30
3-6 Major Reference Surfaces 3-33
vi
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
4-1 Estimated Percentage of Machines in 4-5
Existance with Sound Pressure Levels below
a Particular High-Idle Sound Pressure Level
4-2 High Idle Sound Level vs Net Horsepower 4-7
for Crawler Dozers
4-3 High Idle Sound Level vs. Net Horsepower 4-8
for Crawler Loaders
4-4 High Idle Sound Level vs. Net Horsepower 4-9
for Wheel Loaders
4-5 High Idle Sound Level vs. Net Horsepower 4-10
for Wheel Tractors
4-6 High Idle Sound Level vs. Net Horsepower 4-11
for Skid Steer Loaders
4-7 Bucket Size vs. Net Horsepower for Wheel 4-12
Loaders
4-8 Sound Level vs Age for an Individual Tractor 4-17
Model
4-9 Sound Level vs Age for Individual Wheel 4-18
Loader
4-10 Sound Level vs Age for Several Wheel Loader 4-19
Models ( 250)
4-11 Souond Level vs Age for Several Crawler 4-21
Tractor Models
4-12 Observed Sound Levels at Construction Sites 4-24
(High Idle Sound Levels vs Net Horsepower for
Crawler Dozers
4-13 Percent of Readings a Range is Exceeded 4-32
4-14 Directivity Pattern at 50 Feet for Machine #3
(Crawler Tractor) 4-34
4-15 Directivity Pattern at 50 Feet for Machines
#9 (Crawler Tractor) and #10 (Crawler Loader)
in High Idle Mode 4-35
5-1 Schematic of Construction Site Model Used to 5-25
Compute ENI
6-1 Cooling System Nomenclature 6-5
6-2 Fan Shrouds 6-6
6-3 Water-Cooled 6-Cylinder Diesel Engine, Noise
Radiated by Engine Surfaces 6-9
6-4 Water-Cooled Diesel Engine,Methods of
Improvement and Epirical Data in dBA for
Noise Reduction of External Engine Surfaces 6-20
6-5 Illustration of an Engine Component Shielding 6-28
Cover
7-1 Research and Development Costs by Study Level 7-16
7-2 Labor and Material Costs by Study Level 7-21
7-3 Operating and Maintenance Costs by Study 7-23
Level
7-4 RSeD Expenses as a Percent of Wheel and 7-39
Crawler Tractor Sales at Li,st Price for
Level I '
7-5 R&D Expenses as a Percent of Wheel and 7-40
Crawler Tractor Sales at List Prices for
Level II in 3 years
vii
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
7-6 R&D Expenses as a Percent of Wheel and 7-41
Crawler Tractor Sales at List Prices for
Level II in 6 years
7-7 R&D Expenses as a Percent of Wheel and 7-42
Crawler Tractor Sales at List Prices for
Level III in 6 years
7-8 Capital Availability Impact of Abatement 7-53
7-9 Relative Impact to Firms of Achieving 7-57
Level I in 2 years
7-10 Relative Impact to Firms of Achieving 7-58
Level II in 3 years
7-11 Relative Impact to Firms of Achieving 7-59
Level II in 6 years
7-12 Relative Impact to Firms of Achieving 7-60
Level III in 6 years
B-l Population Impact Reduction vs. Noise B-3
Emission Level for Wheeled Loaders by
Horsepower Class (with Ambient)
B-2 Population Impact Reduction vs. Noise B-4
Emission Level for Crawler Loaders by
Horsepower Class (with Ambient)
B-3 Population Impact Reduction vs. Noise B-5
Emission Level for Crawler Dozers by
Horsepower Class (with Ambient)
B-4 Population Impact Reduction vs. Noise
Emission Level for Utility Tractors and B-6
Skid Steer Loaders (with Ambient)
TABLES
Table Page
1-1 Typical Energy Average Noise Level, L 1-2
(dBA) 1-2 at Construction Site Boundaries
2-1 Distribution of Impacted Equipment Product 2-6
Qasses Manufactured by Firms
2-2 Estimated U.S. Sales of Construction 2-7
Tractors, by Firm Size (Units), Year-1976
2-3 Distribution of Firms by Domestic and 2-11
Foreign Plants Producing Machines for
Domestic Sales
2-4 Engine Use in Impacted Products 2-15
2-5 Tractor and Loader Import Shipments 1974 2-21
2-6 Shipments of Impacted Equipment, by Type, 2-23
1974 Estimates
2-7 Impacted Equipment Applications 2-26
2-8 Estimated Number of Machines in Existence 2-29
and Number Used in Construction by Type,
January 1, 1974
2-9 Estimated Numbers of Machines in 2-30
Construction by Site Type
3-1 Spectator Noise Measurement Procedures 3-12
for Loaders and Dozers
viii
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
3-2 SAE/J88a vs Simplified Test Cost Comparison 3-24
(One Manufacturers Estimate for Crawler
Tractors)
3-3 Wheel and Crawler Tractor Noise Emission 3-36
Test Data Sheet
4-1 Summary of Noise Data Received from 4-3
Manufacturers
4-2 Comparison of Average & Regression Line 4-13
Sound Levels in Each Horsepower Class
4-3 Average Time to First Major Overhaul of 4-22
Wheel and Crawler Tractors
4-4 Machines Tested at Fort Belvoir 4-27
4-5 Noise Level Measurements at Ft. Belvoir 4-28
4-6 Repeatibility of Test Results 4-30
4-7 Variabiity of Operator Ear Sound Levels for 4-33
Different Machines of the Same Mean
4-8 Relationship Between Operator and Spectator 4-36
Position Sound Levels at High Idle
4-9 Results of Improved Muffler 4-38
4-10 Noise Source Levels at High Idle for Typical 4-39
Loaders and Dozers - dBA
4-11 Comparison of Sound Levels in Moving Mode 4-40
of Operation
4-12 Work Cycle Test Results 4-42
4-13 Comparison of High Idle to Work Cycle Noise 4-44
Level
5-1 Summary of Regulatory Schedule 5-4
5-2 Construction Site Types i 5-16
5-3 Usage Factors of Equipment in Domestic 5-17
Housing Construction
5-4 Usage Factors of Equipment in Non- 5-18
Residential Construction
5-5 Usage Factors of Equipment in Industrial 5-19
Construction
5-6 Usage Factors of Equipment in Public Works 5-20
Construction
5-7 Summary of Construction Activity and 5-22
Population Density Data Inputs to
Construction Site Model
5-8 Background Ambient Ldn (dBA) Used in 5-27
Construction Site Model
5-9 Percent Recution in Impact Due to 5-30
Regulation of Wheel and Crawler Tractors
5-10 Reduction in ENI 5-31
5-11 Overall Percent Reduction in Impact Due to 5-33
Regulation of Construction Equipment from
Pre- Regulatory Baselines
IX
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
5-12 Reduction in ENI 5-34
5-13 Relative Percent Reduction and Change in ENI 5-37
in Year 2000
5-14 Relative Percent Reduction in Impact by 5-38
Year 2000 by Phase of Construction and Site
Type
6-1 Major Noise Producting Components of 6-1
Wheel and Crawler Tractors
6-2 Currently Used Component Noise Reduction 6-15
Techniques
6-3 Wheel and Crawler Tractor Study Levels 6-23
6-4 Wheel and Crawler Tractor Sound Level 6-25
Reduction to Achieve Level I, Level II,
6-5 Typical Noise Source Reductions Used to 6-29
Develop Estimate of Level II Design Goals (dBA)
6-6 Typical Noise Source Reductions Used to 6-33
Develop the Level III Design Goals (dBA)
7-1 Estimated Value of New Construction Put in 7-2
Place 1975-1976
7-2 1975-1976 Construction Machinery Sales
(Percent Change) 7-4
7-3 1975-1976 Crawler Tractor Sales (Percent
Change) 7-5
7-4 1975-1976 Wheel Loader Sales (Percent Change) 7-6
7-5 Best Guess Values and Likely Brackets on 7-9
the Price Elasticity of Demand for Construction
Machine Service, 1960-1974
7-6 Estimated R&D, Capital, L&M, O&M Costs to 7-11
Achieve Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3.
7-7 Manufacturer's Total R&D Costs by Machine 7-17
Type/Classification Category
7-8 Total Manufacturer's Capital Costs by 7-19
Machine Type/Classification Category
7-9 Manufacturer's Average Increase in Labor and 7-22
Material Costs by Machine Type/Classification
Category
7-10 Average Annual Increase in Operating and 7-24
Maintenance Costs Per Machine
7-11 Baseline Data (Prior to Effective Date of 7-25
Regulation
7-12 Cost Estimate for Construction of Test Site 7-29
Measurement Area
7-13 Measurement Equipment Required for the 7-30
Proposed Test Procedure
7-14 Total Increase in Manufacturer's Initial 7-34
Investment Cost Prior to Regulation by
Machine Type/Classification Category
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
7-15 Average Annual Increase in List Price per 7-35
Machine
7-16 Average Annual Manufacturer's Cost Increase 7-36
for Noise Abatement
7-17 Capital Cost Impacts 7-37
7-18 Manufacturer's Abatement Cost/Machine List 7-44
Price Percentage by Firm Size for Wheel
loaders
7-19 Manufacturer's Abatement Cost/Machine List 7-45
Price Percentages for Firms Manufacturing
Crawler Tractors
7-20 Manufacturer's Abatement Cost/Machine List 7-46
Price Percentages for Firms Manufacturing
Utility Tractors
7-21 Estimated Decrease in Profit by Firm Under 7-49
Full Pass-Through of Costs
7-22 Total Capital Coat of Abatement for Wheel 7-51
and Crawler Tractors
7-23 Total Capital Costs of Abatement as 7-52
Percent of Wheel and Crawler Tractor Sales
7-24 Annual Manufacturer's Abatement Costs as a 7-61
Percent of Estimated Wheel and Crawler
Tractor Sales at List Price, by Machine
Type for Each Study Scenario
7-25 Percent Contribution of Noise Abatement 7-62
Costs to the Wholesale Price Index (All
Commodities)
7-26 Summary of Costs for Regulatory Schedules 7-67
9-1 Types of Performance Standards Found in 9-3
local Ordinances that Applied to Construction
Noise or Construction Equipment
9-2 Sale Standards Showing Maximum dBA Level 9-5
for New Construction Equipment
9-3 Use Level Per Piece of Equipment 9-6
9-4 Use Standard Limiting Total Construction 9-7
Site Noise Emission Levels
9-5 New York State Construction Site Noise 9-11
Levels
9-6 French Construction Equipment Noise 9-13
Regulation
9-7 German loader and Dozer Regulations 9-14
XI
-------
Section 1
INTRODUCTION
CONSTRUCTION SITE NOISE
In recent years, the noise associated with construction projects
has been increasingly responsible for the degradation of the urban
environment. Equipment associated with construction has grown more
numerous. At the same time, the trend towards urban renewal and high-
rise structures has resulted in an increase in the amount and duration
of construction site activity in densely populated areas. Consequently,
many people are now residing or working near construction sites where
they may be exposed to unacceptable noise levels for long periods of time.
The most prevalent noise source in construction equipment is the
internal combustion engine (usually of the diesel type) used to pro-
vide motive and operational power. Engine-powered equipment may be
categorized according to its mobility and operating characteristics
as:
1) earthmoving equipment (highly mobile),
2) handling equipment (partly mobile),
3) stationary equipment.
Wheel and crawler tractors belong to the first category.
Construction is carried out in several reasonably discrete steps each
of which has its own mix of equipment and its own noise characteristics.
The phases are: ground clearing, excavation, foundation, erection and
finishing. Typical average noise levels [1] at construction site boundaries
for each phase of construction activity are shown in Table 1-1.
1-1
-------
Table 1-1
TYPICAL ENERGY AVERAGE NOISE LEVEL, Leq (dBA)
AT CONSTRUCTION SITE BOUNDARIES
I
to
Office Building Industrial Highways
Domestic Hotel, Hospital Recreation, Store, Roads, Sewers
Housing School, Public Works Service Station Trenches
Ground Clearing
Excavation
Foundation
Erections
Finishing
83
88
81
81
88
84
89
78
87
89
84
89
77
84
89
84
88
88
88
84
-------
Regulating the noise emissions of individual pieces of equipment
is one method of alleviating construction site noise. Other methods
include:
o Replacing individual operations and techniques by less
noisy ones.
o Selecting the quietest of alternate operations to keep average
levels low.
o Locating noisy equipment away from site boundaries, particularly
near noise sensitive land use areas.
o Providing enclosures for stationary items of equipment and
barriers around particularly noisy areas on the site.
These alternate methods may be used, by themselves or in combination,
in noise sensitive areas or to meet local environmental noise ordi-
nances. However, noise emission levels for individual products must be
regulated on nation-wide basis to avoid the confusion of conflicting
local requirements.
If no costs were attendant to the reduction of noise emissions,
the construction equipment industry would undoubtedly take voluntary
steps to-quiet their products. Since noise reduction techniques may
increase prices without improving marketability, regulations are
needed to ensure that the basic steps are taken uniformly by all
components of the industry.
Regulations promulgated earlier by EPA for new medium and heavy
trucks and portable air compressors require that a product manufac-
turer be responsible to the ultimate purchaser for assuring :
1. that the product meets the specified standard(s) when introduced
into commerce;
1-3
-------
2. that components or parts of the product are not patently defective
at time of sale (if the product exceeds the standards as a
result of a part which was essentially "defective" a manufacture,
the purchaser has recourse to obtain redress from the man-
facturer);
3. that the ultimate purchaser is provided with the maintenance require-
ments necessary for the product to continue to meet the levels
required at introduction into commerce, and
4. that parts or components which, if tampered with, will result in the
product exceeding the noise standards, are identified.
These is, however, no assurance to the purchaser that the product has been de-
signed and built so that the it will continue to meet its noise emission standard
for a stipulated period of time or use when it is properly used and maintained.
The attainment of the estimated health and welfare benefits, requisite
v.o a regulated product or class of products, is dependent upon its continuing
to comply with the Federal not-to-exceed noise emission standard for a
prescribed period of time or use.
The question of "Useful Life" with respect to product noise
regulations was first addressed in the proposed rule making for medium
and heavy trucks and for new portable air compressors. The initially
proposed useful life provisions required the manfacturer to assume
that his product would continue to meet the EPA noise emission standard
throughout the product's useful or operational life. This requirement
1-4
-------
was intended to ensure that the public health and welfare benefits derived
from the product standards would not degrade during the product's life
as a result of the product's sound level increasing over time. The
Agency deferred action on setting a useful life standard in the final
regulations for new medium and heavy trucks and portable air compres-
sors based on a need on the part of EPA to further assess to what degree
the noise from a properly used and maintained product would increase
with time. However, the Agency reserved a section in the regulations
for the proposal of useful life standards at a later time.
The Agency has given considerable attention to this question of
product noise degradation (increase in noise level with time) and
firmly believes that if a product is not built such that it is even
minimally capable of meeting the standard while in use over a specified
initial period, when properly used and maintained, the standard itself
would become a nullity and the anticipated health and welfare benefits
will be illusory.
Consequently, the Agency has developed the concept of an
"Acoustical Assurance Period" (AAP). The AAP is defined as that
specified initial period of time or use duriing which a product must
continue in compliance with the Federal standard provided it is properly
used and maintained according to the manufacturer's recommendations.
In contrast to the previously proposed "Useful Life" requirements,
the Acoustical Assurance Period is independent of the product's opera-
tional (useful) life which is the the period of time between sale of
the product to the first purchaser and last owner's disposal of the
product.
1-5
-------
The Acoustical Assurance Period is product-specific and thus may be
different for different products or classes of products. The AAP is
predicated, in part, upon (1) the Agency's anticipated health and welfare
benefits over time resulting from noise control of the specific product,
(2) the product's known or estimated periods of use prior to its first
major overhaul, (3) the average first owner turnover (resale) period
(where appropriate), and (4) known or best engineering estimated of
product-specific noise level degradation (increase in noise level)
over time.
The AAP will require the product manufacturer to assure that the
product is designed and'built in a manner that will enable it to comply
with the noise emission regulation which exists at the time the product
is introduced into commerce and that it will continue to conform with
the applicable regulation for a period of time or use not less than
that specified by the AAP.
While the Agency believes that products, which are properly designed
and durably built to meet a product specific noise emission standard, should
continue to meet the standards for an extended period of time, it recognizes
that some manufacturers may wish to stipulate, based on test results or best
engineering judgment, the degree of anticipated noise emission degradation their
product(s) may experience during a specified Acoustic Assurance Period. A
procedure has been developed by the Agency that permits manufacturers to account
for sound level degradation in his compliance testing and verification program.
This procedure, if used, would require a manufacturer to apply a "Sound Level
Degradation Factor" (SLDF) to the Agency's not-tc—exceed noise emission standard
and thus would result in a manufacturer specific production test level that
is lower than that specified by the EPA standard. For example, a manufacturer
1-6
-------
who estimates that the noise level of a given product model may increase
by 3 dBA during the prescribed MP would specify an SLDF of 3 dBA. For
production verification the manufacturer would then test to ensure that
his product's sound level is 3 dBA below that specified in the applicable
Federal standard. For those products not expected to degrade during the
AAP the manufacturer whould specify an SLDF of zero.
STATUTORY BASIS FOR ACTION
Through the Noise Control Act of 1972 (86 Stat. 1234), Congress establish-
ed a national policy "to promote an environment for all Americans
free from noise that jeopordizes their health and welfare." In pursuit
of that policy, Congress stated in section 2 of the Act "while primary
responsibility for control of noise rests with state and local governments,
Federal action is essential to deal with major noise sources in commerce,
control of which requires national uniformity of treatment." As part
of this essential Federal action, subsection 5(b)(l) requires that the
Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, after consultat-
tion with appropriate Federal agencies, publish a report or series
of reports "identifying products (or a classes of products) which in his
judgement are major sources of noise." Section 6 of the Act requires
the Administrator to publish proposed regulations for each product
identified as a major source of noise and for which, in his judgment,
noise standards are feasible.
Pursuant to subsection 5(b)(l), the Administrator has published
in the Federal Register (40FR 23105, May 28, 1975) a report identifying
wheel and track loaders and wheel and track dozers as major sources
of noise. As required by section 6, EPA shall prescribe regulations
1-7
-------
on the noise emissions from new wheel and crawler tractors which are
requisite to protect the public health and welfare, taking into account
the magnitude and conditions of use, the degree of noise reduction
achievable through the application of the best available technology
and the cost of compliance.
After the effective date of a regulation on noise emissions from a
new product, section 6 of the Noise Control Act requires that no State
or political subdivision thereof may adopt or enforce any law or regulation
which sets a limit on noise emissions from such new products, or components
of such new products, which is not identical to the standard prescribed
by the Federal Regulation. Subsection 6(e)(2), however, provides that
nothing in section 6 precludes or denies that right of any State or political
subdivision thereof to establish and enforce controls on environmental
noise through the licensing, regulation or restriction of the use, operation
or movement of any product or combination of products.
The noise controls which are reserved to State and local authority
by subsection 6(e)(2) include, but are not limited to the following:
1. Controls on the manner in which products may be operated.
2. Controls on the time in which products may be operated.
3. Controls on the places in which products may be operated.
4. Controls on the number of products which may be operated
together.
5. Controls on noise emissions from the property on which products
are used.
6. Controls on the licensing of products.
7. Controls on environmental noise levels.
The designation has since been changed to wheel and crawler tractors
to comply with standard industry nomenclature.
1-8
-------
To assist EPA in enforcing regulations on noise emissions from
new products, State and local authorities are encouraged to enact reg-
ulations on new products offered for sale which are identical to
Federal regulations.
Compliance Labeling
The enforcement procedures outlined in section 9 of this document
will be accompanied by the requirement for labeling products distributed
in commerce. The label will provide notice to a buyer that a product
is sold in conformity with applicable regulations. The label will also
make the buyer and user aware that wheel and crawler tractors possess
noise attenuation devices and that such items should not be removed
or rendered inoperative. The label may also indicate the associated
liability for such removal or tampering.
Imports
The determination of whether individual new imported products comply
with the Federal regulation will be made by the U.S. Treasury Department
(Customs), based on ground rules established through consultation with
the Secretary of the Treasury.
It is anticipated that enforcement of the actual noise standard
by the use of a standard test procedure would be too cumbersome for
Customs to handle, especially in view of the tremendous bulk of
merchandise which they handle each day. A case in point occurs with
imported automobiles, in which Customs inspectors presently assess compliance
with requirements of the Clean Air Act solely on the basis of the presence
1-9
-------
or absence of a label in the engine compartment. A similar mechanism
(labeling) appears viable for use to assess compliance of wheel and
crawler tractors with the proposed regulations.
OUTLINE AND SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
Background information used by EPA in developing regulations limiting
the noise emissions from new wheel and crawler tractors is presented
in the following Sections of this document:
Section 2 - The Industry and the Product: contains general informa-
tion on the manufacturers of wheel and crawler tractors and descriptions
of the product, and a discussion of the data used in the development
of an Acoustical Assurance Period.
Section 3 - Measurement Methodology: presents the measurement
methodology selected by EPA to measure the noise emitted by this product
and to determine compliance with the proposed regulation.
Section 4 - Baseline Noise Levels for New Wheel and Crawler Tractors:
presents current noise levels for existing new wheel and crawler tractors.
Section 5 - Health and Welfare: discusses the benefits to be
derived from regulating noise emissions from wheel and crawler tractors.
Section 6 - Technology: provides information on available noise
control technology and the criteria for determining the levels to which
wheel and crawler tractors can be quieted.
Section 7 - Economic Analysis: examines the economic impact of
noise emission standards on the wheel and crawler tractor industry and
society.
Section 8 - Enforcement: discusses the various enforcement actions
open to EPA to ensure compliance.
1-10
-------
Section 9 - Existing Local, State and Foreign Regulations: suntnarizes
current noise emission regulations on wheel and crawler tractors.
Appendix A - The Docket Analysis (Reserved).
Appendix B - Discusses development of regulatory study levels.
Appendix C - Presents details of individual options.
Appendix D - Lists sources of information consulted in completing
this document.
1-11
-------
Section 2
THE INDUSTRY AND THE PRODUCT
THE INDUSTRY
The wheel and crawler tractor (loader and dozer) industry is a
mature and highly competitive industry. Manufacturers vary significantly
in size, financial strength, manufacturing capability, applied technology,
marketing ability, and extent of product diversification. Firms in
the industry include automobile manufacturers, farm equipment manufacturers,
industrial materials handling equipment manufacturers and forestry equipment
manufacturers.
Nineteen firms produce tractors domestically. In 1974 these firms
had over $1.87 billion in sales and shipped more than 50,000 units
worldwide. Domestic sales were $1.195 billion and more than 38,000
units were shipped. These figures exclude utility tractors which had
1974 total sales of $165 million and shipments of 34,000 units.
Firms
Firms in the industry were identified from information provided
by industry trade associations, trade publications, other firms, and
equipment dealers. Specifications for individual models were obtained
from the identified manufacturers and their dealers. Available financial
reports, including Value Line, Mpodyjjs, and Dun and Bradstreet, as well
as information provided by individual firms, was used to assess the
financial strength of each firm.
The wheel and crawler tractor industry is comprised of eleven very
large and eight small firms. The large firms are: Allis-Chalmers,
J. I. Case, Caterpillar Tractor Company, Clark Equipment Company, Deere
/
and Company, Eaton Corporation, Fiat-Allis, Ford Motor Company, General
2-1
-------
Motors Corporation, International Harvester, and Massey Ferguson Limited.
Each of these firms had 1974 assets of over $250 million with eight
having assets in excess of $1 billion. Ten of the firms had 1974 sales
of over $1 billion. All of these firms manufacture lines of products
other than construction equipment, with the exception of Fiat-Allis,
which was formed by two large diversified firms, Fiat and Allis-Chalmers,
exclusively to manufacture construction equipment.
The smaller firms are ATP, Digmor Equipment & Engineering Company,
Dynamic Industries Incorporated, Hy-Matic Corporation, Owatonna Manufac-
turing Company Incorporated, Taylor Machine Works Incorporated, TCI
Power Products Incorporated, and Waldon Incorporated. Assets of these
firms in 1974 ranged from $0.1 million to $15 million, and 1974 sales
ranged from $0.2 million to $30 million. Taylor is the only firm that
does not market tractors for construction use. However, the equipment
it does manufacture is quite comparable to construction equipment.
Figure 2-1 illustrates the range of sales volume for these firms.
On the whole, the 11 large firms dominate the market accounting for
nearly 98 percent of unit sales volume, and over 99 percent of dollar
sales volume.
All but two of these are American firms; Massey-Ferguson is a Canadian
firm, Fiat-Allis is a joint venture of Allis-Chalmers and Italy's Fiat
S.P.A.
Products
Approximately 175 models of the wheel and crawler tractors produced
by domestic manufacturers may be subject to regulations. Wheel loaders
dominate the list with 81 models, followed by 70 models of crawler tractors,
and 24 wheel tractor models.
2-2
-------
to
I
CO
8-
7-
6-
co
I 5-
H
En
S 4-
M
(1)
| 3-
2
2-
1-
s*
I
X/v
I
$0-1M
$1-10M
$10-100M
$100M-$1B
$1-10B
>$10B
FIGURE 2-1 . Sales Volume of Impacted Firms
-------
Figure 2-2 shows estimated 1976 market shares for these categories,
together with estimated unit sales. Historical sales data, divided
into 14 product classes, are reported by the Bureau of Census in Current
Industrial Reports (CIR), Series MA 35D and MA 35S. Additional inventories
on individual model sales were obtained for 12 of the 19 manufacturers.
These submissions, together with the CIR data, were used to make model-by-
model estimates for the entire industry which are the basis for Figure
2-2. However, estimated sales of each model are not shown in this document
to avoid release of any company-proprietary information supplied voluntarily
to EPA by individual manufacturers [2,5].
All of the firms produce a wheel loader line. The eight smaller
firms and four of the larger firms - Allis-Chalmers, Clark, Eaton and
Ford - build only wheel loaders. Six firms - Case, Caterpillar, Deere,
Fiat-Allis, International Harvester, and Massey Ferguson - produce crawler
tractors. Five of the firms - Deere, Case, Ford, International Harvester,
and Massey Ferguson - produce wheel tractors. Table 2-1 shows distribution
of impacted equipment produced by these firms. Table 2-2 shows market
\^
shares for product classes by size of firms.
Plants
The 19 firms maintain 28 plants within the United States and 6
plants abroad which perform final assembly of impacted equipment for
the domestic market. Most of the domestic plants are located in the
o
In 1976, unit sales of impacted equipment totaled approximately 76,899.
2-4
-------
Wheel Loaders
20.9%
(16,059)
Crawler Tractors
43.3*
(33,324)
Wheel Tractors
35.8%
(27,516)
Source: EPA Estimates
FIGURE 2-2
Market Share Estimates for Wheel and Crawler Tractors
(1976 Unit Sales)
2-5
-------
Table 2-1
DISTRIBUTION OF IMPACTED EQUIPMENT PRODUCT CLASSES
MANUFACTURED
BY FIRMS
FIRMS
Allis-Chalmers
ATP
Case
Caterpillar
Clark
Deere
Digmor
Dynamic
Eaton
Fiat-Allis
Ford
General Motors
Hy-Matic
International
Harvester
Massey Ferguson
Owatonna
Taylor
TCI
Waldon
NUMBER OF MACHINES
NUMBER OF FIRMS
WHEEL
LOADERS
3
1
6
7
7
2
1
3
8
7
3
7
1
12
6
2
2
1
2
81
19
CRAWLER WHEEL NUMBER OF
TRACTORS TRACTORS IMPACTED PRODUCTS
3
(1) I3
10 3 19
13 20
7
5 5 12
1
3
8
15 22
3
3 7 17
1
13 4 29
11 5 22
2
2
1
2
70 24 175
7 5 19
ATP makes only one machine but it is a cross between a wheel loader and
utility tractor.
2-6
-------
TABLE 2-2
ESTIMATED U.S. SALES OF CONSTRUCTION
SMALL FIRMS
(Sales
-------
Midwest, particularly in Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan; Figure 2-3 shows
the geographical distribution of these plants. Eleven of the firms,
including all of the small firms, maintain only one final assembly plant
for impacted equipment. While several of the firms producing two or
more classes of tractor equipment have only one plant, most have multiple
plants. Most of these firms do not segregate equipment classes by plant;
Segregation is more likely to occur by vehicle size. Table 2-3 lists
distribution of plants by firm.
Competitive Factors of Machine Selection
Competition among producers takes on many forms, including price,
equipment durability, service and optional equipment features. Small
firms generally use price and equipment innovations to compete in the
market for smaller machines.
The buyers of the larger equipment generally are more sophisticated
and are concerned with total operation costs over the life of the machine,
including purchase price, operation and maintenance, expected machine
life, and quality and reliability of manufacturer's service.
A large number of financial, climatic and job-specific factors
influence a customer's selection of a specific wheel or crawler tractor
and the subsequent decision to purchase or to lease. Generally, a prospec-
tive buyer will first determine the type and size of equipment needed
and then decide which brand he wants. It is not uncommon for an equipment
user to buy one firm's equipment exclusively, allowing his dealer to
help him choose the equipment he may need.
2-8
-------
I
IO
-v
Figure 2-3 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF DOMESTIC WHEEL AND
CRAWLER TRACTOR MANUFACTURING PLANTS
-------
FIGURE 2-3
(Continued)
KEY;
Code
1A
IB
2
3A
3B
3C
4A
4B
4C
5A
5B
6
7
8
9
10A
10B
IOC
11
12A
12B
13
14A
14B
14C
14D
14E
ISA
15B
15C
15D
16
17
18
19
Firm
Allis-Chalmers
Allis-Chalmers
ATP
Case
Case
Case
Caterpillar
Caterpillar
Caterpillar
Clark
Clark
Deere
Digmor
Dynamic
Eaton
Fiat-Allis
Fiat-Allis
Fiat-Allis
Ford
General Motors
General Motors
Hy-Matic
International Harvester
International Harvester
International Harvester
International Harvester
International Harvester**
Massey Ferguson
Massey Ferguson
Massey Ferguson
Massey Ferguson
Owatonna
Taylor
TCI
Waidon
Location
Deerfield, IL
Topeka, KS
Longview, TX
Bettendorf, IA
Terre Haute, IN
Wichita, KS
Aurora, IL
E. Peoria, IL
Sigami, Japan*
Benton Harbor, MI
St. Thomas, Ontario*
Dubuque, IA
Redlands, CA
Barnesville, MN •
Batavia, NY
Springfield, IL
Deerfield, IL
Lecce, Italy*
Romeo, MI
Hudson, OH
Cleveland, OH.
Sparks, NV
Melrose Park, IL
Libertyville, IL
Louisville, KY
Hamilton, Ontario*
Tokyo, Japan*
Detroit, MI
Akron, OH
Hanover, Germany*
Aprilia, Italy*
Owatonna, MN
Louisville, MS
Yankton, SD
Fairview, OK
*Plants outside the United States.
**Two International Harvester wheel loaders are made at
the Komatsu plant in Tokyo, Japan.
2-10
-------
Table 2-3
DISTRIBUTION OF FIRMS
BY DOMESTIC AND
PRODUCING MACHINES
Name of Firm
Allis-Chalmers
ATP
Case
Caterpillar
Clark
Deere
Dynamic
Eaton
Fiat-Allis
Ford
General Motors
Hy-Matic
International Harvester
Massey Ferguson
Owatonna
Taylor
TCI
Waldon
FOREIGN PLANTS
FOR DOMESTIC SALES
Number
Domestic
2
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
of Firms
Foreign
1
1
1
3
2-11
-------
The type of equipment selected depends upon the kind of material
to be moved, as well as the climate, terrain, and other site-specific
factors. Among loaders, crawler loaders are generally designed for
digging and moving applications, while wheel loaders, with larger buckets,
often without a cutting edge or teeth, are usually used for loading
loose materials. Crawler tractors are designed primarily for bulldozing,
while wheel tractors can be put to a variety of uses, depending upon
their attachments. Three of the most common attachments for wheel tractors
are loaders, backhoes, and trenching equipment.
The size of equipment chosen would optimally depend upon the most
efficient application for a particular job; i.e., the earthmoving capacity
of the machine would be commensurate with the volume to be moved. Thus
equipment size is generally dependent upon the type of service provided,
financial strength and work backlog of the customer's company and sometimes
on the availability of machines. The cost of a given loader or tractor
depends, to a great extent, upon its size. The cost of operation, main-
tenance, and repair, as well as purchase price, generally are commensurate
with machine size.
An important competitive edge can be gained through technical
innovation. Most firms maintain research and development programs in
order to develop machines with improved performance and durability.
New models are continuously entering the market and existing models
are constantly being updated with new features. Increases in machine
productivity have kept the cost of moving dirt constant from 1930 to
1972 even though machine and labor costs have risen continuously [2],
2-12
-------
Research and development expenditures usually run at 2 to 3 percent
of sales. Given a $2 billion domestic market and healthy exports, this
allows for a conservative estimate of $50-60 million annual expenditures
for R&D for affected equipment alone.
All the large firms maintain large ongoing R&D programs to constantly
improve products. While smaller firms do not have the resources for
major R&D programs, they often come into existence because they offer
a radically new concept. These firms are generally formed by former
engineers of larger corporations who set out on their own to develop
their new techniques. ATP, Dynamic, Hy-Matic, and Waldon exemplify
this type of firm. While their equipment is in the same horsepower
range with machines produced by the larger firms, these small manufacturers
compete more with each other for their specialized markets.
Four of the major improvements in tractors and loaders are:
1. tractor shovel loader (combined operations of power shovel
and front end loader)
2. articulated wheel loader (reduced cycle times by facilitating
positioning and turning)
3. hydraulic systems (improved bucket loading capability, brake
systems and steering)
4. power shift transmission (increased efficiency of load handling
and power and speed changes).
While construction and forestry firms are continuously updating
equipment, most industrial and mining firms expect to keep their equipment
indefinitely. They purchase machines expecting full amortization of
2-13
-------
their equipment. Large contractors and municipalities have historically
purchased new equipment. As more advanced equipment becomes available,
these firms will trade in their present equipment, often after only
a year of use.
Noise regulations will probably cause a short-term increase in
used equipment sales because the price of new quieted machines may
rise and make unabated machines more economical for more buyers.
Vertical Integration .apA S\xggili&s:s_
All construction equipment contains components purchased from
other manufacturers. The degree of supplier involvement varies widely
throughout the industry. Suppliers make such important components as
engines, drive trains, axles, tires, and attachments that are often
sold as standard equipment.
Among the manufacturers of impacted equipment, the degree of vertical
integration of component manufacture correlates directly with firm size.
The larger producers manufacture most of their component parts, while
smaller producers rely heavily on outside suppliers. In some cases
these suppliers are the larger firms; in other cases they are independent
manufacturers of engines, parts, or attachments. The engine is an important
component in the cost of a wheel or crawler tractor. It is also a major
noise source. The engine contains the most moving parts and requires
considerable service and maintenance.
There are three categories of engine users among the impacted firms:
1. Those which use their own engines exclusively;
2. Those which use their own engines and also
purchase those of other manufacturers; and
2-14
-------
3. Those which purchase all of their engines.
The distribution of firms by this categorization is displayed in
Table 2-4. The nine companies which manufacture their own engines all
have sales and assets in excess of $100 million.
TABLE 2-4
ENGINE USE IN IMPACTED PRODUCTS
USE OWN ENGINES
EXCLUSIVELY
Caterpillar
Deere
Ford
General Motors
International
Harvester
USE OWN AND
OTHERS'
Allis-Chalmers
Case
Fiat-Allis
Massey
Ferguson
USE OTHERS'
EXCLUSIVELY
ATP
Clark
Digmor
Dynamic
Eaton
Hy-Matic
Owatonna
TCI
Taylor
Waldon
Of the ten manufacturers using engines supplied by other manufacturers,
those producing large machines rely on the engines of Cummins, GM, and
Perkins, while the smaller manufacturers, who usually produce smaller
machines, are primarily dependent upon Wisconsin, Deutz, and Ford.
Of the eleven largest firms, only Clark and Eaton do not manufacture
their own engines.
Because of the significant contribution of fan and engine noise
to vehicle noise, engine manufacturers are likely to be significantly
impacted by noise regulations.
In addition to engines, major components obtained from outside
suppliers include:
2-15
-------
o drive train components (transmissions, torque
conver ter s, etc.);
o hydraulic components;
o undercarriage parts;
o accessories (blades, buckets).
Certain of the manufacturers specialize in manufacturing components
for their own use and/or outside sale, while others buy most of their
components and parts. Among the large firms, Caterpillar, Ford
and GM make most of their own components, while Eaton and Clark specialize
in axles, axle housings, transmissions, and torque converters for use
in their own products and for sale to the heavy earthmoving equipment
industry. The smaller companies purchase most of their parts and components
and engage almost exclusively in final assembly.
Although these components and accessories are only marginally important
for noise abatement, a number of independent suppliers could be impacted
by noise regulations. If the regulations result in a decrease in demand
for new machines, there is likely also to be some decrease in demand
for parts and accessories.
Conversely, suppliers of mufflers and other noise abatement equipment
may benefit from the promulgation of noise standards.
Product Pistribution
Most construction equipment is sold through independently-owned
dealerships that practice varying degrees of specialization. Dealers
may handle the product line of one major manufacturer or several, and
they may limit themselves exclusively to construction equipment or may
market everything from lawnmowers to mining equipment.
2-16
-------
Company stores include outlets that are either wholly or partially
owned by the equipment manufacturer. Their sales in both cases are
limited to the owning company's product line and supporting equipment
accessories which may be complementary but not competitive. Case is
the only one of the impacted firms which sells exclusively through company
stores.
Most of the firms in the industry occasionally sell equipment directly
to large customers, such as the Federal government. Taylor, among others,
has a regular practice of selling directly to commercial or industrial
consumers. In most other cases, sales may be directly negotiated with
the company, but are actually transacted through a company store.
Dealers (and company stores) have gone to great lengths in order
to maintain a solid relationship with customers for their service backup.
Dealer service often includes regular weekday shop service, off-hour
•
service, as well as field service. In addition, dealers or manufacturers
will often instruct end-users in the proper periodic maintenance of
their equipment. Such instructions usually make the contractor independent
of the dealer between major breakdowns or overhauls and lowers the cost
to the contractor of excessive dependence upon dealer service. Many
dealers maintain fleets or radio dispatched service trucks able to perform
all but major repair work, on the job site. Dealers also develop large
in-house service facilities to provide rapid repair of machines.
2-17
-------
For e ign Tr ade
Exports. The producers of wheel and crawler tractors in the United
States currently enjoy an export market approximately 30 percent of
total sales. For larger size machines, the export market is greater
than its U.S. counterpart. Not surprisingly, the larger firms dominate
the export market. They specialize in the larger machines, and they
have well-developed service networks, an essential factor in export
marketing. Foreign competition is most intense in smaller size machines,
which often are assembled by U.S. firms with overseas facilities.
The smaller manufacturers generally concentrate their sales
efforts on the domestic market and export only a small percentage of
their production. The foreign sales of the smaller companies range
from zero to 11 percent of gross sales, and all are direct exports rather
than sales by subsidiaries overseas.
Barriers to Trade. Barriers to trade may influence exporting patterns
as well as total exports. In particular, tariffs imposed by consuming
nations frequently protect domestic industries from competition from
abroad.
Another group of trade barriers, used primarily in developing countries,
involves "local content" requirements. Foreign nations require that
a minimum percentage of the value of a product be contributed by national
manufacturers. This trade barrier has caused several domestic manufacturers
to open factories in other nations in order to gain entry into the local
\
equipment market. Because of this practice, exports are reduced, even
though foreign sales of domestic firms continue to increase. Under
this arrangement intra-company transfers and parts shipments still occur,
but most sales are generated from locally produced equipment.
2-18
-------
Several nations require that local branches of multinational firms
be owned in part (generally over 50 percent) by domestic firms. This
restriction has caused the formation of numerous joint ventures between
domestic manufacturers and foreign firms. Some examples of this are
Massey-Ferguson's tractor and engine venture with the government of
Iran, International Harvester's venture with Komatsu in Japan, Caterpillar's
involvement with Mitsubishi in Japan, and Massey-Ferguson's industrial
cooperation agreements with Poland and the Polish tractor industry.
Imports. Imports of impacted equipment are minuscule relative
to total sales. Unlike exports, imports are concentrated in smaller
machines. In 1974 recorded imports accounted for 2.7 percent of the
total apparent unit consumption and 1.9 percent of total dollar
consumption. Compared to total domestic shipments including exports,
imports accounted for 1.8 percent of the total units and 1.2 percent
of total dollars.
The above figures may be somewhat understated since manufacturers
often misclassify construction equipment as agricultural. Under the
current tariff structure agricultural tractors are allowed free passage
3Apparent consumption equals total sales from U.S. plants, plus imports,
less exports, plus or minus estimated changes in inventory.
2-19
-------
into the United States, while construction equipment is subject to a
5 to 5.5 percent duty. Any equipment that can be classified as agricultural
(particularly smaller machines) is so listed on its bill of lading and
counted as such by the Bureau of Census.
Table 2-5 shows that over 50 percent of all imports, measured in
either units or dollars, originate in Japan, with Italy next (22 percent of
dollars and 24 percent of units), followed by Canada (14 percent of dollars,
6 percent of units). Wheel loaders represent 56 percent of unit imports and
48 percent of dollar imports of the three types of equipment. Crawler
tractors represent 28 percent of unit ijnports and 37 percent of import
value.
Two basic types of firms import equipment into the United States:
1. Larger domestic manufacturers who build certain models outside
of the United States;
2. Large foreign manufacturers, who provide parts and service
backup.
Some domestic manufacturers who have opened foreign manufacturing
facilities import these foreign-produced models for sale in the United
States, with sales and backup provided by the distribution organization
of the domestic manufacturers. Importing is often preferable to producing
the line domestically because lower labor costs as well as production
economies of scale often outweigh shipping and tariff costs. These
plants account for some of the equipment from Japan, Canada, Italy and
West Germany.
2-20
-------
ho
I
TABLE 2-5
TRACTOR AND LOADER IMPORT SHIPMENTS 1974
WHEEL LOADERS CRAWLER TRACTORS WHEEL TRACTORS TOTAL
ORIGIN
Japan
Italy
Canada
U.K.
Sweden
W. Germany
TOTAL
UNITS
360
170
28
201
13
3
775
$
5,347,046
3,040,563
715,464
1,894,614
159,186
142,244
11,299,117
UNITS
361
169
62
19
2
-
389
$
6,987,487
2,209,503
2,590,180
344,160
9,637
-
8,623,747
UNITS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
$
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
UNITS
721
339
90
220
15
3
1,388
$
12,345,533
5,250,066
3,305,644
2,228,774
168,823
142,244
23,430,084
Data are not maintained for industrial wheel tractors.
Source: Bureau of the Census Report IM 146.
-------
Foreign manufacturers whose equipment is sold in North America
include:
o Aveling Barford
o Bray Construction Machinery
o JCB Excavators
o Karl Schaeff
o Komatsu Limited
o Kubota Tractor Limited
o Matbro
o Volvo
Only Komatsu, a Japanese firm, is expected by domestic manufacturers
to become a serious competitor. Though still only a minor force in
the U.S. market, Komatsu appears willing to maintain the large investment
necessary to make significant inroads into the American market.
Sales Patterns - 1974
Table 2-6 shows 1974 sales of impacted equipment, by machine type,
and compares these sales to the estimated stock as of January 1, 1974.
Due to expansion and retiring of old equipment, new shipments amount
to nearly 20 percent of existing equipment. Wheel tractors are the
largest category of impacted equipment considered here. Almost
33,000 of these machines were produced in 1974, representing 46 percent
of the total production of impacted equipment. Crawler tractors contributed
33 percent of the total, while wheel loaders comprised 21 percent of
the total production of impacted equipment.
2-22
-------
TABLE 2-6
SHIPMENTS OF IMPACTED EQUIPMENT, BY TYPE
1974 Estimates
IMPACTED EQUIPMENT
TYPE
Wheel Loaders
Crawler Tractors
Wheel Tractors
TOTAL
NUMBER OF
MACHINES
SHIPPED
(1974)
15,416
22,923
32,014
71,353
PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL
EQUIPMENT
SHIPPED
(1974)
21
33
46
100
PERCENTAGE OF
MACHINE
PRESENT
19
19
16.9
17.4
IN
USE
Prices
The prices suggested by manufacturers are known as list prices.
Manufacturers set them as an early guide to the relative cost of their
machines. List prices vary substantially for machines of similar horse-
power. This is due to the lack of comparability among machines of different
manufacturers. While two machines of identical horsepower may be able
to perform the same work initially, product durability and operating
maintenance expenditures may vary significantly.
Equipment users are concerned with the total life cycle cost
(amortized initial equipment cost, labor, maintenance downtime, and
repair) of getting a job done. Accordingly, manufacturers' prices are
comparable only when considering total costs.
2-23
-------
While list prices are set competitively, dealers seldom sell a
machine at its list price. Rather, they generally have a margin of
23 to 24 percent above their purchase cost out of which they must pay
their overhead, take their profit and bargain with customers. As with
automobiles, the amount of discount a dealer is willing to give (which
is inversely related to his profit) to make a sale will vary slightly
from dealer to dealer and can be important in determining whether the
dealer makes a sale. However, the 23 to 24 percent margin is relatively
constant and no dealers gain particular advantage through discounting.
Pr ice Tr ends
The 1955-1975 wholesale price indices for tractors and parts for
all commodities since 1955 are displayed in Figure 2-4. This figure
shows .that the wholesale prices of impacted equipment have been rising
more rapidly than the overall wholesale prices. The one exception of
this pattern occurred in 1973, when strict price controls were placed
on construction equipment. When the controls were lifted, the prices
resumed their previous pattern. The more rapid rise of impacted equipment
prices is due to the increase in size and sophistication of the machines.
A price index controlling for increased machine size and productivity would
have remained relatively consistent over this period.
THE PRODUCT
Crawler and wheel tractors employed in the construction industry
are used primarily in road building and excavating for building foundations.
The major activities for which they are employed are loading, leveling,
and some shallow excavating. Table 2-7 displays the uses of various
equipment in the different industries.
2-24
-------
to
to
CO
o
G
195-
180-
165-
§ 150-J
(Ti
H
m 12°H
S
i
> 105H
X
H 90H
75H
6(H
45
All Commodities
Tractors and Parts
I I I I I I I I I I I I | I I I | I | i i
1955 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75
Y E.A R :
Figure 2-4 COMPARATIVE WHOLESALE PRICE TRENDS OF
IMPACTED EQUIPMENT AND OTHER COMMODITIES
-------
Table 2-7
Impacted
Equipment Applications
(Equipment — Generic Ki nd
Racir" Tnflns-t-TV
/ /
-------
Table 2-7
(Continued)
Equipment — Generic Kind
1 I/ / ^ 1 -t, /
/ & 1 L. §! 1 v 1 -8 ~~\ I ^ & 1 o
/ <& :-/ /^® > / v / v &' / tr TI if
1 t3 t« 1 ^j ±i 1 n / i? «j / .AT A / 0 /
Basic Industry
; jMlNING AND "MILLING-
i (Continued)
Dozing
Scarifying
Materials Loading
Materials Hauling
Materials Mixing
Materials Pumping
Materials Hoisting
Materials Lifting
Road Grading
Drilling and Boring
Rock Crushing
, FORESTRY
Land Clearing
Tree Harvesting
Log Hauling
Log Loading
Log Hoisting
Road Grading
AGRICULTURE
Planting — Spraying
Digging — Trench and Ditch
Backfilling
Land Clearing
Materials Loading
Materials Hauling
Materials Lifting
Mowing and Chopping
Plowing
Cultivating
Power Take-Off Drives
Dozing/Land Leveling
Snow Removal
Terracing
/ ^ ^ / o / v / & ® /
-------
Estimates of impacted machines in existence are shown in Table 2-8.
Approximately two-thirds are used in construction, with the remaining
one-third used in a variety of applications. The estimated 286,790
machines used in construction are distributed by type of construction
site as shown in Table 2-9.
Mach ine Type s
Six broad classes of tractors - (1) wheel loaders, (2) crawler
tractors, (3) wheel tractors, (4) wheel dozers, (5) skid-steer loaders
and (6) integral backhoe-loaders - comprise the wheel and crawler tractor
industry for which the major activities of loading, leveling and shallow
excavating are product design objectives. Figure 2-5 shows line drawings
of these broad classes of tractors.
Wheel Loaders. Wheel loaders are characterized by a loader bucket
linkage which is an integral part of the machine. They are normally
four-wheel drive with articulated steer. An articulated steer loader
is hinged midway between the front and rear axles. The front end axle
can swing either side of the straight forward position. Wheel loaders
usually have diesel engines. Transmissions are designed for forward
and reverse cycling and usually have three or four gears in both forward
and reverse. Bucket sizes range from less than 1 cu. yard to about 25
cu. yards. The bucket is used to dig, load, lift, carry, and dump earth
and material. At construction sites, loaders are used to load material
for hauling, for excavating foundations, for clean up and for other
similar tasks.
2-28
-------
Table 2-8
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF MACHINES IN EXISTENCE AND NUMBER USED
IN CONSTRUCTION BY TYPE
January I, 1974
Machine Type and
Horsepower Class
Total in
Construction
Total in
Existence
Percent in
Construction
Crawler Tractor
91,746
132,183
69.4
Wheel Loaders
48,341
80,586
60.0
Wheel Tractors
128,700
195,000
66.0
Total Above
268,790
4077769
6579
2-29
-------
Table 2-9
Estimated Number of Machines in Construction
by Site Type
Machine Type
and
Horsepower
Class
Crawler Dozers
20-89
90-199
200-259
260-450
Crawler Loaders
20-89
90-199
200-275+
Wheel Loaders
20-134
135-241
242-348
349-500
Utility Tractors
20-90+
Site Type
Residential
13,660
8,764
1,056
426
11,240
5,355
108
7,092
8,174
3,020
668
46,330
Nonresi-
dential
9,478
10,050
3,486
2,132
7,642
5,239
108
5,910
5,686
1,937
433
21,880
Industrial/
Commercial
1,951
1,069
370
142
1,349
233
5
4,491
1,955
627
124
41,180
Public
Works
2,788
1,496
370
142
2,248
815
24
6,146
1,955
114
12
19,310
Total in
Construction
27,880
21,380
5,282
2,843
22,480
11,640
244
23,640
17,770
5,698
1,237
128,700
Total in
Existence
36,680
33,929
11,004
9,170
25,254
15,732
414
35,816
30,118
11,396
3,256
195,000
-------
Skid Steer Loader
Wheel Loader
Wheel Dozer
Figure 2-5 LINE DRAWING OF TRACTOR TYPES
2-31
-------
Crawler Tractors. Crawler tractors can be equipped with or without
integral linkage for dozer blades or loader buckets. In construction,
dozers are used for land clearing, loosening and moving earth, filling,
backfilling, compacting, and clean up. Horsepower ranges from under
50 to over 500 hp. Engines are usually diesel, with from three to six
cylinders. Machines are offered with the option of power shift or direct
drive transmissions and typically provide three to four forward and
reverse operating speeds. Crawler tractors with loader buckets are used
when the site terrain is too rough or muddy for wheel loaders to operate.
They are usually less than 300 horsepower and their loader buckets are
on the lower end of the range of bucket sizes.
Wheel Tractors. These machines may also be called industrial tractors
or utility tractors. They are general purpose machines usually designed
for use with bucket, blade, and/or backhoe attachments for light construc-
tion work, and other attachments for operations such as mowing, snow-
blowing, street cleaning, and landscaping. The design features are
rigid frame, front engine, rear cab, two wheel drive, large tires in
the rear and small front tires for steering. Most models are offered
with gasoline and diesel engine options. Engines are typically four
cylinder, with horsepower ranging betwen 20 and 100 hp. The transmission
is often direct drive and provides up to eight operating speeds.
2-32
-------
Wheel tractors commonly used in construction are very similar in
design to agricultural tractors and one may be confused for the other.
No specific engineering distinctions have currently been established
which have consensus acceptance by industry, to clearly define the
agricultural tractor. There are, however, some general characteristics
which distinguish the agricultural type tractor from the utility/industrial
wheel tractor. Agricultural tractors are characterized by a rear power
takeoff, draw bar, and design features for the towing of farm implements
in the cultivation of crop fields. Frequently there are as many as
eight to twelve forward gear speeds with one to four reverse speeds.
The transmission of the agricultural tractor is designed for constant
speed rather than the forward and reverse cycling required of tractors
used in construction. The machine is not manufactured with the heavy
casting around the radiator and engine component necessary to protect
construction equipment from debris and vandalism.
The agricultural tractor is more likely to have a direct drive
transmission. The tractor is likely to ride higher for crop clearance
and wheel separation is typically adjustable.
Because the agricultural tractor need not be designed for large
overload and the ranges of operating conditions necessitated by construc-
tion work, the tractors are lower in weight and cost when compared with
wheel tractors of similar horsepower. The agricultural tractor is excluded
from this regulation.
2-33
-------
Skid Steer Loaders. These machines are small loaders that are
maneuvered by varying the speed and/or direction of rotation of the
right or left set of wheels independently of each other. The frame
of the machine is rigid and the wheel base is shorter, than that of other
loader types. Engines are small—40 hp or less—and are usually air-
cooled and gasoline powered. Loader linkages are integral to the frame.
Skid steer loaders find limited use in construction. Their lightweight
design is optimized for materials handling applications. They are not
usually able to compete economically with the larger machines in loading
operations. Skid steer loaders are excluded from this regulation.
Loader/Backhoe. This refers to a wheel tractor with both an integral
loader bucket apparatus and an integral excavating bucket (backhoe
apparatus. The loader bucket is generally placed on the front and the
excavating bucket (backhoe) generally located on the rear of the machine.
The machine can perform loading operations but its primary use is for
excavating. Manufacture and construction contractor estimates indicate
that the loader/backhoe is used 60 to 80 percent of operating time for
excavating purposes. The integral loader/backhoe is excluded from this
regulation.
A family tree which illustates the relationship for the various
equipment is presented in Figure 2-6.
2-34
-------
TRACTOR
CRAWLER
TRACTOR
WHEELED
TRACTOR
CRAWLER
LOADER
CRAWLER
DOZER
WHEELED
LOADER
(REAR ENG.)
1X3
* NOT INCLUDED IN IDENTIFICATION/
CLASSIFICATION
WHEELED*
I
DOZER '
SKID *
"• STEER
I
G.PURPOSE
TRACTOR
(FRONT ENG)
I ("INTEGRAL
- -J BACKHOE/ J
I_LOADER ,
I
i
I
*
FARM
TRACTOR
FIGURE 2-6
Identification of Tractor Types/Classifications
by Design Features
-------
Table 2-9
Estimated Number of Machines in Construction
by Site Type
Machine Type
and
Horsepower
Class
Crawler Dozers
20-89
90-199
200-259
260-450
Crawler Loaders
20-89
90-199
200-275+
Wheel Loaders
20-134
135-241
242-348
349-500
Utility Tractors
20-90+
Site Type
Residential
13,660
8,764
1,056
426
11,240
5,355
108
7,092
8,174
3,020
668
46,330
Nonresi-
dential
9,478
10,050
3,486
2,132
7,642
5,239
108
5,910
5,686
1,937
433
21,880
Industrial/
Commercial
1,951
1,069
370
142
1,349
233
5
4,491
1,955
627
124
41,180
Public
Works
2,788
1,496
370
142
2,248
815
24
6,146
1,955
114
12
19,310
Total in
Construction
27,880
21,380
5,282
2,843
22,480
11,640
244
23,640
17,770
5,698
1,237
128,700
Total in
Existence
36,680
33,929
11,004
9,170
25,254
15,732
414
35,816
30,118
11,396
3,256
195,000
to
-------
SECTION 3
MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY
OVERVIEW
The proposed measurement methodology involves the arithmetic averaging
of noise levels measured at four orthogonal positions, 15 meters from
the machine, with the wheel and crawler tractor operated at high idle
in a stationary mode with all controls in neutral.
In deriving this procedure, EPA has endeavored to arrive at a simple,
low cost, test method that will provide the accurate data requisite
to product verification at a manufacturer's plant and compliance testing
in the field. The Agency believes the proposed measurement methodology
will accomplish these desired objectives.
Measurement Requirements
In developing a noise emission test procedure, EPA recognized the
need for a relatively simple method of accurately determining wheel
and crawler tractor noise emissions which would be suitable for production
verification by manufacturers, selective enforcement auditing by EPA
and compliance determination by local enforcement officials. A methodology
was chosen consistent with the objective that it should:
o ensure that noise emissions characteristic of major noise
sources are being represented.
o correlate well with the known effects of environmental noise
upon public health and welfare.
o be uniformly applicable to the wheel and crawler tractor industry.
o provide repeatable sound level data in the simplest manner.
o be economically effective.
3-1
-------
Wheel and Crawler Tractor Noise Sources
The measurement methodology must monitor the contribution of all
major noise sources resulting from equipment operation that significantly
affect public health and welfare. The major engine-related noise sources
for wheel and crawler tractors have been identified as the:
- cooling fan
- engine casing
- exhaust
- air intake
- transmission or power conversion unit.
Peculiar to noise emissions from wheel and crawler tractors is the consider-
ation of track noise for crawler tractors and the operation of either
installed or attached loader buckets and dozer blades related to machine
motion or attachment cycling. The development of the noise emission
test methodology required that each of these noise sources be evaluated
in tests of the individual effect upon public health and welfare. It
was determined that engine related noise sources provided the dominant
contribution.
Relationship of Sound Levels, Health/Welfare and Measurement Methodology
The current test procedures used by industry to measure sound levels
generated by construction equipment are engineering development type
tests aimed at acquiring data representative of the higher range of
sound levels generated by equipment operation under actual conditions
[3]. Due to the wide range of conditions under which construction equipment
operates, industry sources have not been able to define a typical work
cycle for machinery in order to assess spectator noise impact Meaningful,
if not typical, work cycles are currently being considered [4].
3-2
-------
The usage cycle or typical work cycle is needed in relationship
to the measurement methodology, because operating conditions, as
encountered in the field, determine the extent of noise impact.
To base a noise emission test methodology only on the acquisition
of higher sound levels as reported by the SAE/J88a procedure would
weight the noise impact unrealistically towards higher values.
In order to assess quantitatively the effect upon values of work
cycle L resulting from noise source control and its implications for
a test methodology, a conceptual work cycle was formulated. This work
cycle model was then used to determine the change in the equivalent
A-weighted sound levels, L__, resulting from either implementation
^
of noise control or alteration in the operational mode of the machine.
Using both manufacturer-supplied sound level data and additional
independent field measurement data, calculations were made to determine
whether a stationary or moving test procedure - or both - would
be required in order to insure that health and welfare benefits
were achieved.
The conceptual work cycle considers two time segments or opera-
tional modes and the associated sound levels at a spectator location,
as well as accumulated times for each of the two operational modes.
The A-weighted sound level pressure associated with static machine operation
4L is defined in Section 5, Equation 5-1.
eq
5A-weighted sound level, generally denoted by L& with units in dBA,
is defined in the detailed description of the measurement methodology.
3-3
-------
is denoted by L and is assumed to be the time-average mean sound
O
level for the time span T . The A-weighted sound pressure level
s
associated with moving machine operation is denoted by L^ and is assumed
to be the time-averaged mean sound level for the time span t^ .
During static machine operation, the sound level at the receiver
will vary with time primarily as a result of component operation, engine
speed, and (static) distance between source and receiver. During
»
moving machine operation, the sound level at the receiver will vary
primarily as a result of engine speed, traction noise, and changing
distance between the source and receiver. The effect of these variations
in sound level and the effect of noise control techiques as related
to work cycle L__, values was assessed using noise emission test data.
eq
The results of this investigation indicate that trends estimated and
indicate the benefits accrued from implementing noise control [23].
The conceptual work cycle which is depicted in Figure 3-1 presents
a relationship between accumulated time and A-weighted sound pressure level.
The moving sound level L , is assumed to be AdBA above the static sound
level L . It has been further assumed that two types of noise control
O
are applied to quiet the machine. First, it has-been assumed that the
noise sources prominent during static operation are decreased L which
O
also results in a decrease in moving noise of A . Next, it has been
assumed that noise sources prominent during moving operations are
decreased L.
3-4
-------
OJ
I
Cn
AL = AL + 10 log
eq m •
m
f
w
Q
O
Machine
Stationary
.T =
tAms
AL = AL - AL
m s
Machine
Moving
,T =T T
m 2
AL
m
Accumulated
Cycle Time
where T_=1-T,
Figure 3-1 EFFECT OF NOISE CONTROL ON WORK CYCLE AL
eq
-------
also results in a decrease in moving noise ofA^s. Next, it has been
assumed chat noise sources prominent during moving operations are
decreased 1^.
Using a simplified form of construction site model described in
section 5 and the health/welfare relationships discussed in EPA "Levels
Document" [6], a mathematical relation for the equivalent A-weighted
sound pressure level, L. has been obtained for the original machine configur-
eq
ation and the "quiet" machine for the work cycle presented in Figure 3-1.
The positive decrease in L resulting from implementing noise control
eq
is obtained as:
The quantities expressed in Equation 3-1 are defined in
Figure 3-1. The utility of this result is that the equivalent
A-weighted sound level change for the work cycle L can be directly
eq
related to both the degree of static source and moving source noise
control achieved in each operational mode.
In order to evaluate quantitatively the significance of the moving
and static noise sources and the effects of their control on the value
of L for the conceptual work cycle, estimates were obtained using
the sound level descriptors indicated in Figure 3-1. Values of L
eq
were then calculated by varying the parameters T and T corresponding
m s
to L for the conceptual work cycle, estimates were obtained using
the sound level descriptors indicated in Figure 3-1. Values of L
eq
3-6
-------
were then calculated by varying the parameters Tm and T corresponding
to moving and stationary accumulated time (work cycle variation). In
particular, estimates were obtained for the magnitudes of the parameters
ALS , AL, and Ams .
Data were collected using SAE J88a procedures for identical wheel
and crawler tractor machine types both before and after implementing noise
control treatments. The available data pertained to machines featuring
noise control treatments designed to meet either OSHA requirements or
the French Construction Equipment Noise Regulation [7].
Next, the high-idle static sound levels of standard machine types
and for identical machines with OSHA kits or French Regulation Noise
Control Treatment were averaged to establish mean sound levels for both
machine configurations. This effort resulted in an estimated value
of L_ = 5.6 dBA. Sound levels from moving-mode conditions for
s
standard machines and for machines with noise kits were averaged
to establish mean sound levels for both machine configurations. Assuming
that A = 0 (i.e., no noise control for moving sources was implemented
since the French Regulation or OSHA requirements are the applicable
criteria), the estimated value of A^ is 6.4 dBA. The data are based
upon averages of manufacturer supplied test data and cover both wheeled
and crawler tractors. The data developed is presented in Figure 3-2.
As shown, the decrease in moving-mode sound levels is significantly related
to the level of static noise control. This implies that a measurement
3-7
-------
85
~ 81.4
ra
2 80
w
w
S 75.5
S 75
70
©
©
0
©
AL = 5.6
s
82.7
A = 6.45
ms
2 POINTS
CONSTANT SPEED
MOVING
HIGH IDLE
STATIONARY
MACHINE OPERATING MODE
O STANDARD MACHJMF.
• MACHINE WITH NOISE KITS
NOTES: DATA INCLUDES BOTH WHEELED & CRAWLER
MACHINE TYPES
HP RANGE 39 - 170
WT. RANGE 5900 - 32400 LBS.
FIGURE 3-2
NOISE LEVEL REDUCTION IN STATIONARY
AND MOVING MODES
3-8
-------
methodology which monitors stationary (engine-related) noise sources
will correlate well with L^ which, in turn is related to health/
eq
welfare impacts. The following values of sound level parameters, defined
in Figure 3-1, have been determined from the data in Figure 3-2.
A = 82.7 - 81.4 = 1.3
AL,, = 81.4 - 75.8 = 5.6
AL = 6.5 - 5.6 = 0.9
Using these valuse in Equation 3-1, the resulting expression is:
1 = 0.2587^
AL = 6.5 + 10 log (3-2)
eg —•
1 - 0.0880^
where the relation T^= 1 -T has been used.
The parameter T is the fraction of the total work cycle time that the
machine operates in a stationary mode )i.e., not productive). The variation
in L with r, and T0 is presented in Figure 3-3. It is seen that AL
eg^ J- £ eg
increases as the machine spends more time moving than stationart. This
result stems from the fact that A is shown to be greater thanAL (i.e.,
luS S
stationary source noise control apparently has decreased moving mode
sound levels more than the decrease in stationary mode sound levels).
This analysis indicates that a noise emission test procedure monitoring
3-9
-------
8 -i
7 -
6 •
o>
•s
I 4
Of *
0)
o
o
-------
the reduction of engine-related noise sources correlates well with health/
welfare benefits via the L descriptor for noise emissions above 75 dBA.
eq
CURRENT TEST PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS
Numerous test procedures and standards for noise measurement have
been proposed by organizations such as the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE), the International Organization of Standardization (ISO), the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Diesel Engine Manufac-
turers Association (DEMA) to standardize the measurement methodology
used by industry, consumers and government regulatory bodies. A comparison
of existing and proposed standards is shown in Table 3-1.
The basic nature of these test procedures is to provide standardized
methods to be used by industry to evaluate noise emissions from equipment.
As such, these procedures are essentially engineering tools for manufacturers
and are not well suited for regulatory methods. These test procedures
have established an extensive data base and provide an indication of
the potential measurement difficulties associated with translating these
engineering tools into a meaningful regulatory procedure. Due to the
extensive industry wide data bank that is based on the SAE test pro-
cedure, that procedure was given high priority in the development of
the proposed noise emission measurement methodology.
3-11
-------
Table 3-1
Spectator Noise Measurement Procedures
for Loaders and Dozers
Procedure
Measurement
Pad Surface
Cleared Area
Radius(m)
Test Machine
Operation
Number of
Microphone
Positions
Location of
Microphone
Positions (m)
Number of
Measurements
Per Position
Modes of
Machine
Operation
Datum9
ui g
Concrete or
asphalt, or
hard-packed
earth
30.5
stationary
forward
4* /
15.2* /
/.**
1.2.3 ./
/C,
•low,
maximum
S §
Concrete or
asphalt, or
hard-packed
earth
30
stationary
forward
4 /
/
/ 2
1Sa /
/ 15b
KHI) /
> 3 Icy cling)
^X>3
1,4.5 .S
sS 6
clow,
maximum
3
n
Concrete or
asphalt, or
hard-packed
earth
30
stationary
forward
reverse
6 /
/
/ 2
7C /
/+
1 .S
//
/**
1.4^ ,/
./ 7,10
slow,
average of
maxima
«
§UI
in o n
K w di
U. Q E
i- P i-
Concrete or
asphalt, or hard-
packed earth*;
compacted earth
30
stationary
forward
reverse
8 .S
.S
s/
7° //
./ 10*
1 s^
./
/'
1 ^^
.S 10.11
fast avg of* ^ maxima
o)
• e
in Q
§o
_i
Concrete or
asphalt, or
hard-packed
earth
30
stationary
forward
reverse
7° /
/ 10-20*
1 /
/ 7,11
fast avg of /
locations/^
/avg of
>/ maxima
e
< a <
ftS
Concrete or
asphalt, or
hard -packed
earth*
30
stationary
forward
reverse
7C /
/ 10-20*
1 /
/
/'
i X^
/ 11
fast, avg of /
location^'
/*^ avg of
/ maxima
NOTES: -STATIONARY TEST: TMOVING TEST
*FROM SIDE OF BOX ENCLOSING MACHINE EXCLUDING BLADE OR BUCKET
bFROM MAJOR SIDE SURFACE PARALLEL TO MACHINE PATH
CFHOM SIDES AND CORNERS OF BOX INCLUDING BLADE OR BUCKET
dFROM SIDES OF ENGINE ENCLOSURE
'FROM BOTH SIDES OF MACHINE PATH CENTERLINE
'OPERATING MODES:
1 HIGH IDLE (MAXIMUM GOVERNED ENGINE SPEED)
2 - MAXIMUM ATTAINABLE ENGINE SPEED - TORQUE CONVERTER STALL
3 • ENGINE CONDITION OF MAXIMUM SOUND LEVEL
4 IDLE - MAXIMUM GOVERNED SPEED - IDLE (IMI)
6 APPARATUS CYCLING
6 • MAXIMUM FORWARD SPEED-INTERMEDIATE GEAR
7 • MAXIMUM FORWARD SPEED
8 - HALF-MAXIMUM FORWARD SPEED
9 ~- ACCELERATION
10 • MAXIMUM REVERSE SPEED
tl • SIMULATED WORK CYCLE
•A-WEIGHTED SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL, SLM RESPONSE AS INDICATED
3-12
-------
TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The majority of the data used as a basis for the development of
an EPA test methodology has been compiled from SAE J88 and SAE J88a
test procedures. These procedures, however, require both stationary
and moving operating modes and are time consuming and costly. The
SAE/J88a procedure includes a stationary mode test comprising the low
idle-maximum governed speed-low idle operation sequences (IMI).
One problem which is associated with either wide open throttle
tests or low idle-maximum governed egine speed - low idle tests is
that these modes can result in governor "overshoots" at high engine
and fan speed conditions. Since almost all significant stationary-mode
noise sources are highly dependent upon engine speed, higher than normal
noise emissions would be measured with these test modes than would be
measured if the steady maximum governed engine speed was utilized as
in actual field conditions.
Machine Operation
Moving Mode vs. Stationary Testing. Except for the French Regulation,
all procedures studied call for moving-mode tests for equipment. However,
moving-mode tests result in increased land area for test facilities,
machine refurbishing efforts, and altered production sequence for the
machine configuration.
For rubber tire vehicles, moving-mode tests represent potential
damage or wear for tires so it would be necessary to install production/
test tires prior to noise emission testing and after testing install
original equipment tires for vehicle delivery. (It is common production
practice to use dummy tires for vehicles produced for inventory rather
than immediate sale. This practice results from the fact that deterioration
of rubber tires would occur if the machine was so equipped during storage.)
A stationary mode noise emission test, of course, avoids this problem.
3-13
-------
For tracked (or crawler) vehicles, moving-mode tests for regulation
noise emission testing represent a singular impact upon the production
sequence. Each test vehicle must be refurnished subsequent to testing
and prior to delivery because moving-mode testing must be conducted
along an earthen test track and the track, track driver and support
rollers, and track guides become clogged with compacted dirt. To
restore the vehicle to a new condition, the vehicle must be washed and
perhaps painted.
Fortunately, the analyses detailed earlier in this section indicated
that stationary noise sources, e.g., engine and cooling fan, predominate
for both crawler and wheel vehicles in most construction environments
and that stationary noise control will correspondingly lower the noise
levels measured under moving modes. As discussed earlier, work cycle
and component noise source evaluation have been conducted for crawler
tractors by U.S. Army MERADCOM personnel at Fort Belvoir, Virginia to
establish limits below which moving-mode sound levels would have to
be monitored.
Tests conducted at Fort Belvoir (Section 4) are in general agreement
with the data in Figure 3-2 arid indicate that the monitoring of noise
source reduction to approximately 75 dBA during a stationary maximum
governed engine speed test results in a corresponding decrease in moving-
mode machine sound levels.
Below this range it is possible that noise generated by tracks,
transmissions under load, etc., will become the predominant noise sources.
In this instance, the noise sources monitored by a stationary test may
not be accurate descriptors of the machine noise emission characteristics
for the machines in field use.
3-14
-------
Attachment Cycles. Another machine operating mode required as
part of the SAE J88a procedure is the attachment cycle mode used to
simulate the field operation of loader buckets and dozer blades. This
test mode requires that the engine be at a stabilized maximum governed
engine speed and the appropriate controls be activated to cycle the
attachments. The typical variation between the stabilized stationary
maximum governed engine speed mode and the attachment cycle mode is
2 dBA or less with the attachment cycle levels being higher. These
higher levels generally result from highly transient noise related to
attachments striking stops rather than component operational noise.
Since hydraulic systems are employed for attachment actuation and since
the hydraulic pumps are usually driven directly from the engine, high
idle engine speeds are typical for this mode of operation for machines
in field use. Thus, attachment cycle modes yield sound level data
representative of the stationary maximum governed engine speed mode
with transient peak levels superimposed that result from attachment
cycling.
Any test methodology requires that the machine being tested should
be operable and at least simulate the configuration in which the machine
will appear in field use. The operation of wheel and crawler tractors
for conditions specified by a noise emission regulatory test procedure
implies that the machine is assembled to the extent that the predominant
noise sources being monitored are installed and operable. Effects
of machine configuration that may influence noise regulatory testing
are components and/or attachments that may not represent significant
3-15
-------
noise sources in themselves but may influence the noise emission character-
istics of the vehicle. These components are, specifically, loader buckets
and dozer blades that may not be supplied by the manufacturer but will
only be installed at a dealership or in the field.
The consideration of implementing a noise emission test on an operable
machine or set of operable machines as may be dictated by the sampling
plans for regulation testing implies that, in general, the emission
tests will be performed at the manufacturer's assembly plant. However,
in the case of very large machines and/or machines requiring extensive
shipping - such as foreign imports - these units may be transported
unassembled. (For imported machines that are shipped unassembled, the
noise emission tests must be applied at the point of assembly if it
is not economically feasible to assemble and test the machine at the
manufacturing plant.)
The measurement of noise emissions from a machine on which the operable
attachment will not be installed at the point of final assembly is not
a significant problem if attachment cycling noise emission tests are
not required. As described previously, the attachment cycle test in
reality repeats the static mode maximum governed engine speed test for
3AE J88a procedures with the higher sound levels reported resulting
from short duration transient sounds which do not significantly increase
the value for L for the machine work cycle. If the configuration
eq
requirements for the machine being tested are relaxed, then it is feasible
for a manufacturer to provide a mock simulation of either a loader bucket
or dozer blade to provide the geometrical configuration of the end product
and avoid problems with assembly and disassembly of a unit solely for
noise emission testing.
3-16
-------
Acoustical Considerations
Four-side Arithmetic Average. The previous analysis has indicated
that moving mode measurements can be eliminated in favor of a stationary
mode test in which the machine operates at a maximum governed engine
speed (high-idle). Additionally, the four-side arithmetic, rather than
energy average of high idle measurements, bears a good correlation [Section
4] to average in-the-field I, values; therefore, it has been selected as
eq
both the measurement procedure and the method for reducing the noise
emission data base for use in the health/ welfare analysis (Section 5).
Overhead Measurement. The possible need for an overhead measure-
ment position was also investigated. Machines tested by MERADCOM at
Fort Belvoir, Virginia had lower levels at the overhead position of
the machines than at the spectator (side) position. Due to the physical
size of the facility, the sound levels recorded were adjusted to provide
an equivalent 50-foot reading. The results indicate that, in almost
all cases, the overhead levels are significantly less than
the spectator levels (levels measured in the horizontal plane) and, on
the average, the spectator levels were 3.7 dBA higher than overhead.
Another consideration for overhead measurements concerns the effort
involved in purposely redirecting noise to defeat a regulation. Such
an effort, at the minimum, would require well sealed engine compartments
and rather large ducts directing the engine noise (including the exhaust
noise) in a vertical direction. Engine cooling, operator visibility
(field & vision) and cost considerations make it unlikely that manufact-
3-17
-------
urers would purposely attempt to redirect noise in order to reduce
levels at the spectator location at the expense of increased noise in
the overhead position. In addition, since 15 meter measurements at
the side positions are in the free field of sound propagation from these
machines, intentional attempts to defeat a regulation by redirecting
the noise could be difficult to achieve.
Another factor mitigating against a desire to include an overhead
measurement is that measurement equipment for a vertical position will
be extremely complex, especially for manufacturers that have a large
variation in machine size throughout their line. Whenever there is
a remote microphone calibration, connecting cable, etc. problems increase.
If the various regulated equipment vary in size, the changeability
of microphone height to correct machine-to-microphone distance would
require a significant amount of personnel time. In use compliance
tests performed by local enforcement officials will also become quite
difficult to perform.
An unresolved issue concerning the possible need for an overhead
measurement concerns the fact that data are not available to determine
the extent, if any, of population impact from directional noise. The
procedures for calculating health and welfare impacts resulting from
construction site noise, as described in section 5, do not consider
vertical directivity. Additionally, population density data above ground
level are not available for various site types nor does a sound theoretical
basis for determining transmission loss through exterior partitions
resulting from grazing incidence sound wave exist.
3-18
-------
Until more information is obtained ,it is difficult to justify an overhead
microphone position using purposful direction of Wheel and Crawler
Tractor noise upwards and attendant population impact as an argument.
It is noted that the normal operation of wheel and crawler tractors
involves movement within a construction site, so that a constant angle
of incidence and distance from surrounding buildings is not maintained.
This fact complicates the procedures for calculating vertical population
impacts. Also the movement of wheel and crawler tractors is in contrast
to the stationary mode of operation of portable air compressors where
the compressors' close proximity to surrounding buildings provided
a defensible basis for an overhead measurement.
In summary, EPA believes that an overhead measurement position
does not seem to be required at this time because: (1) it will needlessly
increase the cost and complexity of the test; and (2) existing machines
have the sound energy directed along a horizontal direction. Should
the need arise in the future, the additional overhead microphone location
may be added.
Test Site Considerations
The basic requirement of any noise emission test is that the test
procedure must define conditions that allow for accurate and repeatable
measurement of the sound levels of the noise source being monitored.
Two requirements associated with construction equipment noise emission
testing are that testing must be conducted, in general, outdoors due
to the physical size of the machines and that the ambient sound levels
at the test site must be at least 10 dBA below the noise emission levels
being monitored. These considerations require that the limiting environ-
mental conditions at the test site be specified so that the noise emission
3-19
-------
test at different sites can be expected to determine the machine noise
levels on an industry basis.
Test Pad. The review of current test methodologies indicates a general
agreement that noise emission testing should be conducted in an acoustically
free field condition with an acoustically hard (i.e., reflective) ground
surface between the machine and monitoring positions. However, the
Fort Belvoir test data [39] indicate no more than a 1 dBA difference
between machines operated on hard-packed earth surfaces and concrete
surfaces. Therefore, individual manufacturers may elect to verify
such correlations and to test machines over hard-packed earth in order
to minimize costs associated with test pad construction.
Fifteen-Meter Measurement. Since much of the noise emission test
data used in this study is based upon a 50-foot (15.2-meter) distance
between the source and the monitoring location and since this separation
distance is accepted as a representative location for a nearby spectator
location in field use, a 15-meter separation distance appears to be
an appropriate location to ensure both acoustical free-field conditions
and direct determination of repeatable sound levels at a spectator location.
Acoustical Environment. The impact of the acoustical environment
upon the propagation of sound from the source to the microphone location
must be considered. For typical microphone heights (1.2 meters),
experience indicates that the sound levels measured are influenced by
atmospheric pressure, by characteristics of the reflecting plane such
as acoustic impedance and flatness, and temperature gradients above
the reflecting plane. In addition, wind velocity and humidity conditions
at the time of measurement represent factors which must be accounted
for in the test procedure.
-------
Outdoor Testing. Many domestic construction equipment manufacturers
and, in particular, the production facilities for wheel and crawler tractors,
are located in the mid-western portion of the United States. The require-
ment for out-of-door noise emission testing places a severe constraint
upon both test scheduling and machine inventory in that environmental
conditions suitable for noise emission testing may not exist for extended
periods of time. Unless a simplified noise emission test procedure is
adopted that can allow a large number of machine tests to be accomplished
in a short period of time, there exists a distinct possibility that schedule
delays for equipment delivery and possible accumulation of a large inventory
of completed machines may result from delays associated with unsuitable
weather conditions for noise emission testing.
N Test Site Configuration. Test site configuration presents both a
technical and a practical consideration with respect to methodology.
Since the size of wheel and crawler tractors (and construction equipment
in general) indicates out-of-door noise emission testing, a site must
be provided that is convenient to manufacturing operations and that can
be expected to retain its required acoustical environment for a sufficient
time to allow for amortization of any capital expenditure to provide the
site. Using the methodology recommended by SAE J88a, approximately 2 to
5 acres of cleared land plus isolated surroundings must be acquired or
allocated from land near to the manufacturing facility to avoid additional
costs for equipment transportation and inventory. One construction equip-
ment manufacturer has estimated that - exclusive of land acquisition costs -
from $100K to $200K of capital investment would be required to develop a
test site complying with the SAE J88a procedures [8] . A stationary-mode
3-21
-------
noise emission test would reduce the land area required and the capital
expenditures required for testing. Additionally, in anticipation of
future noise regulations, the test site geometry could reflect the
consideration of other machine types produced at a facility so as to
ensure the future compatibility of the site in relation to machines
produced at the plant. The availability of a suitable test site area
at each manufacturing facility or assembly plant may not be realistic
and can only be determined on an individual facility site review by
each manufacturer.
Cost Considerations
Several manufacturers have provided data allowing a cost comparison
of performing the full SAE J88a test versus a simplified test methodology.
Table 3-2 provides one manufacturer's estimate of a comparison of the
test costs involved for a typical wheel or crawler tractor. It is
noted that this manufacturer was able to eliminate transportation costs,
which may not be typical.
These costs are exclusive of the costs of a J88a approved test
site which could cost more that $200,000 for and acquisition and capital
investment. Elimination of a moving test will reduce land requirements
by a factor of approximately 10 percent to 30 percent and therefore
reduce land acquisition and preparation costs by a comparable amount.
EPA NOISE EMISSION TEST METHOD FOR WHEEL AND CRAWLER TRACTORS
This test procedure describes the test site, measurement equipment,
machine operation, test conditions, microphone positions, required data,
data reduction, and a suggested data reporting format for documenting
3-22
-------
sound levels for construction equipment classified as wheel and crawler
tractors.
The A-weighted sound pressure level is the sole noise level measure
in this test procedure. The A-weighted sound pressure level is widely
used at present to describe noise and is often used in single-number
descriptors of community noise. In addition, many state and local agencies
and private concerns already have equipment that measures the A-weighted
sound pressure level, are familiar with the descriptor and employ the
descriptor in their communication of noise levels to their audiences.
The procedure specifies an exterior test site for measuring sound
levels and is thus dependent upon local weather conditions. Machines
under test are operated in a stationary mode only. For the test, the
machine is operated with no load. All sound levels are reported as
A-weighted sound pressure levels. Average sound levels are determined
arithematically with all sound level data used in the caculation, tabulated
and reported.
The test procedure is based upon current industry practices for
measuring exterior sound levels at spectator locations resulting from
the operation of mobile construction equipment [5]. The required data,
obtained as a result of this test procedure, will provide an index of
the higher sound levels generated by the machine under field conditions
and is relatable to conceptual work cycle sound levels. With presently
available data, it is believed that the procedure described herein is
the minimum effort required to establish current noise emission charac-
teristics of the machine under test such that the data obtained are
repeatable within the bounds of acceptable experimental error.
3-23
-------
TABLE 3-2
SAE/J88a VS. SIMPLIFIED TEST COST COMPARISON
(ONE MANUFACTURER'S ESTIMATE FOR CRAWLER TRACTORS)
Item
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Disassemble to
transport
Transportation
Reassemble
Testing
Disassemble to
transport
Transport
Reassemble ,
clean-up, touch-up
TOTALS
Manhours
( SAE/Recommended
Test)
10/0
12/0
3/2
10/0
16/0
SAE
J88a
$ 250
350
300
66
250
350
400
Estimated
Item Cost
4-Side High- idle
Stationary Test
£
44
$1966
$ 44
3-24
-------
Definitions
The following definitions are presented for reference:
o A-weighted Sound Level - The sound level measured using a sound
level meter set to the electrical frequency weighting network
designated as the A-weighting relative response in dB, defined
in American National Standard Institute (ANSI) Specification
51.4-1971, "American National Standard Specification For Sound
Level Meters".
o Clear Zone - The portion of the test site area between the
measurement surface and the test site boundary that is free of
any large reflecting surfaces such as buildings, signboards,
hillsides, etc. See test site description.
o dB - Abbreviation for decibel. The decibel is defined as 10 times
the logarithm to the base 10 of the square of the ratio of the
rms value of the acoustic pressure to a reference pressure of
-5 2
2x10 N/m (pascals).
o High Idle - The maximum governed engine speed of the test
machine.
o Machine - The piece of mobile construction equipment subject to
noise emission testing including major machine components or
simulated components.
o Major Machine Component - The primary device and/or other attach-
ments to the machine for which the machine is designed or equipped
to perform the construction operation for which it is sold.
3-25
-------
o Simulated Major Machine Component - A mock version of the major
machine component position statically about but not attached to
the machine to simulate the major machine component in geometry
and acoustical properties as if it were to be installed at the time
of the test.
o Microphone Location(s) - The position of the microphone relative
to the machine orientation determined at a distance from a major
machine surface and at an elevation above the test site measurement
surface.
o Noise Emission Test - The entire procedure comprising machine configu-
ration, microphone locations, and acquisition of required data
as described in this procedure.
Test Site Description
The location for measuring sound levels for noise compliance testing
must comprise a large, flat open area generally exposed to ambient
sound levels at least 10 dBA below the sound levels generated by the
test machine under test conditions. A minimum area measurement surface
for sound level measurements is described below. Use of this configuration
requires reorientation of the test machine for each measurement point
for stationary machine tests. This test site configuration is illustrated
in Figure 3-4. Alternatively, the measurement surface can be greater
in extent to allow microphone relocation or multiple microphone locations
rather than machine reorientation using criteria described below and
criteria presented in Test Conditions and Microphone Locations.
3-26
-------
Measurement
Area
(Reflecting
Surface)
OUTER BOUNDARY- OF CLEAR ZONE
MICROPHONE
LOCATION
NOTES:
- All dimensions in meters
- L: = Longer vehicle dimension;
length or width
- No scale
Figure 3-4
TEST SITE CONFIGURATION FOR
NOISE EMISSION TEST FOR
WHEEL AND CRAWLER TRACTORS
3-27
-------
Test Site Area. The test site area shall comprise a measurement
surface and a clear zone. The clear zone comprises the surface area
between the measurement surface and the test site boundary.
The minimum area measurement surface for noise compliance testing
shall comprise a rectangular area formed by the points A, B, C, D, E
and F and a circular area of radius 10 meters connecting points C and
D as illustrated in Figure 3-4.
Test Site Surface. The test site surface shall comprise a hard
reflecting plane of smooth concrete or smooth and sealed asphalt.
The clear zone shall be free of any large reflecting surfaces such
as buildings, signboards, hillsides, etc., within 30 meters of either
a microphone location or the machine being tested.
Measurement Equipment
The measurement equipment required for noise standard compliance
testing shall comprise the equivalent of the following items:
o Sound Level Meter - For all sound level measurements, a
sound level meter and microphone system that conforms to the
Type 1 requirements of the American National Standard Institute
(ANSI) Specification SI.4-1971, "American National Standard
Specification for Sound Level Meters," and to the requirements
of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)
Publication 179, "Precision Sound Level Meters," shall be used.
o Microphone Windscreen - For all sound level measurements, a
microphone windscreen shall be used that shall not change
measured sound levels in excess of + 0.5 dB to 5 kHz and +
2.0 dB from 5kHz to 12 kHz.
3-28
-------
o Calibration - The entire acoustical instrumentation system shall
be calibrated before and after each test series on a given machine.
A sound level calibrator accurate within +; 0.5 dB shall be used.
A complete frequency response calibration of the instrumentation
over the entire range of 25 Hz to 12.5 kHz, shall be performed
at least annually using a technique of sufficient precision and
accuracy to determine compliance with ANSI Si.4-1971 and IEC 179
Standards. This calibration shall consist, as a minimum, of an
overall frequency response calibration and an attenuator (gain
control) calibration plus a measurement of dynamic range and
instrument noise floor.
o Anemometer - An anemometer or other device, accurate to within
+_ 10 percent, shall be used to measure ambient wind velocity.
o Power Source Speed Indicator - An indicator accurate to within
+_ 2 percent shall be used to measure power source speed (rpm).
o Barometer - A barometer accurate to within +_ 1% shall be used
to measure atmospheric pressure.
o Thermometer - A thermometer accurate to within +; 1 percent shall
be used to measure ambient temperature.
Machine Operation
During noise emission compliance testing, the machine shall operate
in a stationary mode. The machine shall be centrally located within
the rectangular measurement surface areas defined by the points A, B,
E and F in Figure 3-4 and oriented to the microphone positions as shown
in Figure 3-5.
3-29
-------
1.2
Measurement Surface Extends
1m beyond microphone
1.2
1.2
NOTES:
- All dimensions in meters
- Not to scale
- Reorient machine for
measurement surface indicated
in Figure 5.3-1.
Figure 3-5 MICROPHONE LOCATIONS FOR
TEST METHODOLOGY
3-30
-------
High Idle and No Load. With the ground propulsion transmission
shift selector in the neutral position and with all component drive
systems in the neutral position, operate the engine at no load
and maximum governed engine speed (throttle simply fully open)
at a stabilized operational condition.
Test Conditions
Noise standard compliance testing must be carried out under the
following conditions:
Test Environmental Conditions. Noise standard compliance testing
shall not be conducted during rain or other precipitation. During
the measurements, the ambient wind speed at the test site shall
be below 19 km/hr. The ambient sound level at the test site shall
be 10 dBA less than the sound levels generated by the test vehicle
at each microphone location. The test site surface under and between
the test vehicle and microphone shall be smooth and free of acousti-
cally absorptive material such as snow or grass.
Test Operational Procedures. During the sound level measurements,
no one other than the person reading the meter shall be located
within 2 meters of the microphone and no person or object shall
be positioned between any microphone and the machine.
The test machine shall be operating in a stable condition as for
continuous service. All cooling air vents service doors and/or inspect
on panels normally open during service operation shall be at their
design maximum opening during all sound level measurements. Service
doors and/or inspection panels, that should be closed during normal
operation, at any and all ambient temperatures, shall be closed during
all sound level measurements.
3-31
-------
The test machine shall be configured with either the major
machine component or a simulated major machine component located in
the lowered position with the bottom edge of the component resting on
the test pad surface. Pads of anti-vibration material may be installed
between the major machine component and the test pad surface to prevent
the major machine component from vibrating and radiating sound.
Machine Operational Conditions. For all stationary machine noise
emission tests, the test machine shall be operated at the conditions
described as Machine Operation.
Microphone Locations
Four microphone locations must be employed to acquire machine sound
level data. If a single fixed microphone is used, it should be placed
on the test pad as shown In Figure 3-4. The machine would then be
reoriented in relation to the microphone as indicated in Figure 3-5.
Machine Major Surface Outlines. The four major surfaces of the
machine refer to the front, rear, and sides of the imaginary
rectangular box that will just fit over the vehicle but does not
include components such as buckets or dozer blade. See Figure 3.6.
Stationary Machine Noise Emission Tests. Locate the microphone
at a distance of 15 meters, measured normal to the centers of the
four major surfaces of the test machine at a height of 1.2 meters
above the measurement surface. All linear dimensions shall have
a tolerance of +_ 0.1 meter.
3-32
-------
Ti res
Body
Bucket
WHEEL TRACTOR
Tracks
Body
Bucket or Blade
CRAWLER TRACTOR
Figure 3-6 MAJOR REFERENCE SURFACES
3-33
-------
Test Site Environmental Conditions. A-weighted ambient sound pressure
level at one microphone location, wind speed, temperature, and barometric
pressure shall be measured and reported at the beginning and at the end
of the test.
Physical Characteristics of Test Machine. The machine model number,
serial number, engine horsepower at rated speed, the stabilized
maximum governed engine speed at no load and the major machine
component shall be reported for each test.
Sound Level Data - General: The highest A-weighted sound pressure
levels with the indicating meter set for slow response shall be measured
at each microphone location as described in Microphone Location for
the machine operating in the stationary condition described as Machine
Operation.
Calculation of Average Stationary Machine Sound Level Data
The average dBA sound level from measurements at each of the
microphone locations and the machine operational condition shall be
calculated by the relationship:
I N
L = N y^ L
^ i
"i = 1
where L = average sound level in dBA for each test condition
L = measured sound level in dBA (See Figure 3-5)
i
i = 1, 2, ..., N an index denoting microphone location
N = number of measurement positions.
3-34
-------
Data Reporting
All data acquired and the calculated averages shall be reported. A
recommended format for reporting data required for noise emission
compliance testing is presented in Table 3-4.
3-35
-------
TABLE 3-3
WHEEL AND CRAWLER TRACTOR NOISE EMISSION TEST DATA SHEET
Test No.
I. Machine Characteristics
Manufacturer:
Model No.
Model No.
Serial No.
Serial No.
Engine Manufacturer:
Rated H.P. RPM; Maximum Governed Engine Speed at No. Load
Attached Simulated Major Component: Dozer Blade, Loader Bucket (Strike
out inappropriate items)
Component Description: Dozer Blade; height
Loader Basket; Capacity m^
m, width
m:
m-
II. Test Conditions
Manufacturer's Test Site Identification and Location:
Measurement Surface Composition:
Ambient Sound Levels (a) Beginning of Test;
(b) End of Test;
dBA
dBA
III. Instrumentation
Microphone Manuracturer: Model No.
Sound Level Meter Manufacturer: Model No.
Acoustical Calibrator Manufacturer: Model No.
Other: Model No.
Serial No.
Serial No.
Serial No.
Serial No.
IV. Sound Level Data (dB Reference 2 x 10 pascals)
A-Weighted Sound Levels (dBA)
Stationary Machine
Test
High Idle No Load
Test Engine Speed
SLDF
Machine
Front
Reference
L.H.
Side
Rear
Surface
R.H.
Side
Calculated
Average
Level
Average
Plus
SLDF
Notes
V. Test Personnel and Witnesses
Tested by:
Reported by:
Checked by: ^
Date:
Date:
Date:
3-36
-------
Section 4
NEW WHEEL AND CRAWLER TRACTOR NOISE LEVELS
A comprehensive survey of noise emissions from wheel and crawler
tractor machines was undertaken by EPA to supply information needed
for the following purposes:
(1) to establish the relationship of these measurements to
selected machine engineering characteristics, e.g., net
flywheel horsepower, as a basis for the development of
classification categories;
(2) to establish a baseline for determining the benefits afforded
to the health/welfare of the United States population
by reducing noise emissions within each machine classification;
(3) to select a measurement methodology, which is consistent
with the health/welfare analysis and the noise emission
data base, for prescribing "not to exceed" noise emission
level standards;
(4) to develop diagnostic data concerning the relative ranking
of component noise sources as a basis for determining
the technological potential for quieting wheel and crawler
tractors; and
(5) to determine noise emission variability for samples of
the same machine measured under different test conditions.
(6) to determine the change in the noise emission characteristics
of machines with time as they are used in construction.
4-1
-------
BASELINE NOISE EMISSION LEVELS
In order to establish baseline noise emission levels for
current new wheel and crawler tractors, data were obtained from
the following sources:
o manufacturers (in response to EPA requests).
o a limited field measurement program conducted
by a contractor for EPA;
o a test program conducted at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia,
by EPA and U.S. Army MERADCOM personnel.
Noise Data Obtained from Manufacturers
The noise emission data obtained from manfacturers were based
principally on a survey form and personal visits to nine manufacturers.
All nine manufacturers responded with useful data. Briefly, nine
manufacturers supplied acoustical measurements on over 225 machines,
of which there were over 115 different models. Table 4-1 presents
a summary of this data base.
A more detailed breakdown of the data supplied by manufacturers
for various models is not shown here in response to manufacturers
who requested that noise emission levels for their machines not
be made public.
In general manufacturers tested their equipment for environmental
(spectator) noise emission utilizing either of two standard procedures,
SAE J88 [9] or SAE J88a [3]. These two standards prescribe noise
measurement procedures in both the stationary and moving machine modes
at a 50 foot distance from the machine. Manufacturers also submitted
data as per the "French Regulation" [7] and other miscellaneous
tests, including some data recorded at the operator's ear utilizing
SAE 919a [10].
4-2
-------
TABLE 4-1
Summary of Noise Data Received from Manufacturers
Machine Type
& Horse
Power Class
No. of
Manufacturers
No. of
Models
Range of
Sound Level
lowest
Noise Kit
Measurement
Crawler Dozers
20-89 4
90 - 199 .3
200 - 259 2
260 - 450 limit 4
Crawler Loaders
20-89 3
90 - 275+ 4
Wheel Loaders
20 - 134 4
135 - 241 5
242 - 348 5
349 - 500 limit 2
Utility Tractors 4
Skid-Steer Loaders 2
7
7
2
8
6
10
13
9
9
2
8
76
78
81
82
84
82
84
86
78 - 85
79 - 88
76
80
80
84
86
84
86
85
74 - 81
66 - 77
74
74
75
74
74
73
83
Sound level represents the Hi-ldlef four-position arithmetic average
range at 50', i.e., the lowest machine average to the highest
machine average of particular models.
4-3
-------
The discussion in this subsection is limited to noise emission"
data provided by manufacturers that are in accordance with the SAE
J88 or SAE J88a recommended procedures. In addition, some results
obtained from the EPA/MERADCOM Test Program are also included here.
Figure 4-1 depicts for each machine type an estimate of the
percentage of machines in existence currently emitting sound levels
(dBA at 50') below specified levels. These curves are based upon
the estimated number of machines in existence and the noise emission
data base both supplied by the manufacturers and verified in the
*
EPA/MERADCOM test program.
Relationship Between Noise Emissions and Machine Classification
Since the numbers of equipment and their associated sound levels
both affect their impact on the population, it was desirable to
classify machines into smaller groups based on some machine parameter
which correlated well with emitted sound levels. This allowed for
a more specific health/welfare analysis to be performed to indicate
the relative contributions to the population impact of various groups
of equipment.
To determine a machine parameter for classification of equipment
two criteria were applied:
o significant correlation with noise emissions levels.
o availaibilty of relevant machine parameter data.
Various engineering parameters (e.g. net flywheel horsepower,
weight, size, etc.) were examined and net flywheel horsepower was
selected as a relevant parameter for classification and analysis
4-4
-------
100 -
I
U1
I I I I I I I I I I
III
SKID STEER LOADERS
UTILITY TRACTORS
CRAWLER LOADERS
CRAWLER DOZERS
WHEEL LOADERS
74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82
SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL AT 50 FEET (dBA)
FIGURE 4-1
ESTIMATED PERCENTAGES OF MACHINES IN EXISTENCE WITH SOUND LEVELS BELOW
A PARTICULAR HIGH-IDLE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL
-------
purposes. As illustrated in Figures 4-2 through 4-6, horsepower,
in general, was statistically correlated with measured sound levels
(i.e. four sided High Idle arithmetic average at 50'). Furthermore,
horsepower is the parameter used by the U.S. Census Bureau and the
Farm and Industrial Equipment Institute (FIEI) for reporting shipment
data. One exception to the reporting is that loaders are classified
by bucket sizes; however, a linear regression analysis on bucket
size (Figure 4-7) showed a high degree of correlation with horsepower.
Thus, for consistency and siirplicity, horsepower was considered
suitable for classifying all equipment types including wheel loaders.
Average Sound Levels vs. Horsepower Used in Health/Welfare Analysis
Although the linear regression lines are useful in establishing
the general trend in noise emissions as a function of horsepower,
the sound levels used as baseline inputs to both the health/welfare
calculations and the noise control technology analysis for each
classification category have been based upon the use of average
sound levels in each identified horsepower class. These average
levels are based upon the manufacturer supplied data and EPA test
data. Table 4-2 shows the comparison of the average levels, used
in the health/welfare analysis, with the corresponding values obtained
from the regression lines. Since the classifications cover rather
large horsepower ranges, an average based on actual sample data
within these classes is more representative of machines in that
class than a regression line based on data over all horsepower
categories. The results strongly indicated a significant difference
4-6
-------
90
m
•o
LU
o
in
LU
_l
LU
o
z
LU
Q
I
85
80
75
70
O
O
o o o o
Currently
Used
Technology
I
100
200 300
NET HORSEPOWER
400
Regression Line:
SPL (dBA) =
r =
1T =
78.7+ 0.014 (HP)
0.67, n = 25
81.5
Average Measure for a
Particular Model
Noise Kit Measurement
(Not Included in Regression
Line Analysis)
500
Figure 4-2 HIGH IDLE SOUND LEVEL VS. NET HORSEPOWER FOR CRAWLER DOZERS
-------
I
00
85
CO
T3
80
LU
>
CO
O
uj 75
Q
I
70
— O
O
O
Currently
Used
Technology
i i i
i i i i
i i i i
100 200
NET HORSEPOWER
Regression Line:
SPL (dBA) = 79.3 + 0.006 (HP)
r = 0.21, n= 16
~ = 80.5
o Average Measurement for a
Particular Model
• Noise Kit Measurements
(Not Included in Regression
Line Analysis)
300
Figure 4_3 HIGH IDLE SOUND LEVEL VS. NET HORSEPOWER FOR CRAWLER LOADERS
-------
*>.
I
vo
CO
73
LU
01
O
IT)
CO
O
HI
Q
I
(3
90
85
80
75
70
O
O
O
000
O
Currently
Used
Technology
O
SPL (dBA) = 80.2 + 0.009 (HP)
r = 0.49, n = 33
x" = 82.0
o Average Measurement for a
Particular Model
• Noise Kit Measurement (Not
Included in Regression Line
Analysis)
I
I
I
100
200
400
300
NET HORSEPOWER
Figure 4-4 HIGH IDLE SOUND LEVEL VS. NET HORSEPOWER FOR WHEEL LOADERS
500
-------
o
80
m
UJ
tt: 75
g
UJ
CO
g
i
70
65
. , 1
O
O
D
a
a
25
. 1 1
50
NET HORSEPOWER
75
Average Sound Level = 77.0
Currently Used Technology
o Measurements for a Particular
Model (Manufacturer Supplied)
D EPA Sponsored Field Measurement
100
Figure 4_5 HIGH IDLE SOUND LEVEL VS. NET HORSEPOWER FOR WHEEL TRACTORS
-------
OQ
TJ
LU
HI
O
ID
111
>
CO
O
LU
_l
Q
85
80
75
- 70
I
a
65
O
O
O
t
^
4
o
o
^
o
Regression Line:
SPL(dBA) = 67.1 +0.16 (HP)
r = 0.84. n = 8
T = 73.5
o Average Measurement for a
Particular Model
I i i I
I I i
I i i I
25
50
NET HORSEPOWER
75
100
Figure 4-6 HIGH IDLE SOUND LEVEL VS. NET HORSEPOWER
FOR SKID STEER LOADERS
-------
700
600
500
K
400
HP
w
K 300
O
U
200
100
HP = 28 + 43'(Bucket Size)
Sample Size = 31
Correlation Coefficient = 0.99
O
O O
O
8 10
BUCKET SIZE (YD3)
12
14
16
FIGURE 4-7 NET HORSEPOWER VS. BUCKET SIZE FOR WHEEL LOADERS
-------
TABLE 4-2
COMPARISON OF AVERAGE
AND
REGRESSION LINE SOUND LEVELS IN EACH HORSEPOWER CLASS
Machine Type
&
Horsepower Class
Crawler Dozers
20-89
90-199
200-259
260-450 limit
Crawler Loaders
20-89
90-275
Wheel Loaders
20-134
135-241
242-348
349-500 limit
Wheel Tractors
Skid Steer Loaders
Number
of
Models
7
7
2
8
6
10
13
9
9
2
3
8
Sound Pressure Levels
(Hi-idle dBA @ 50')
Average Regression
79.5 80.0
80.0 81.0
84.0 82.0
84.0 83.5
79.5 79.5
80.0 80.0
81.5 81.0
81.5 82.0
84.0 83.0
84.0 84.0
77.0 *
73.5 73.5
NOTES: (1) All numbers are rounded off to the nearest .5 dBA.
(2) Average values are based on the arithmetic average of
sound level measurements for each model (without a specific
noise kit).
(3) Regression values are based on mid-point of the regession
line for each class.
* Insufficient data to support regression analysis.
4-13
-------
in sound levels for large horsepower machines (i.e., >200 hp) vs.
small horsepower machines (i .e., <200 hp).
Noise Emitted with Noise Kits
Several manufacturers provided limited data for machines equipped
with noise kits. Average measurements for each particular model
for which noise kit data were provided are shown in Figure 4-2 through
4-6.
Conclusions concerning "noise kit" effects are based on a small
sample. However, these data have been useful for estimation of
currently used (i.e., off-the-shelf) technology levels and for use
in conjunction with the health/welfare analysis and the noise control
technology analysis to set the study levels for each equipment type.
Sound Levels Based on Currently Used Technology
Figures 4-2 through 4-6 also illustrate a lower bound on sound
levels based on currently used techniques described in Section 6.
These levels, as a function of horsepower and machine type, are
assumed to be attainable using "retrofit" noise control techniques,
i.e., not major equipment redesign. The levels shown were based
on the data received from manufacturers for machines equipped with
noise control kits coupled with an engineering analysis of component
noise sources and quieting techniques currently in use. (Section 6
discusses quieting techniques.)
4-14
-------
Model Noise Variability
An important aspect of the analysis for use in establishing
"not to exceed" emission levels is a determination of the variability
in noise measurements on different machines of the same model and
also for the same machine measured under different test conditions.
Several manufacturers provided sufficient information to allow an
analysis of machine variability for different machines of a particular
model.
The standard deviation of sound level measurements for different
machines of the same model was typically less than 1.5 dB. However,
it is noted that the results were not consistent among manufacturers.
Variation in sound level measurements for the same model appear
to be a function of manufacturer and equipment type. It may be antici-
pated that the larger manufacturers with better quality assurance
and control programs will likely have less variability and can design
with less tolerance than smaller manufacturers.
Assuming a conservative estimate of a 1.5 standard deviation
to represent all machine types, a manufacturer "design to" difference
of 2 dB from a "not to exceed" standard was calculated using the
assumptions that noise emission variability is normally (gaussian)
distributed and that an acceptable quality level (AQL) is 10 percent.
4-15
-------
Degradation of Noise Emission Levels
In its study of the degradation of noise emission levels, the agency
sought information and data to answer two basic questions addressing the
noise signature and usage of wheel and crawler tractors.
(1) Is it expected that the noise emission levels of typical
wheel and crawler tractors will change with time as they are
used in construction?
(2) How long are wheel and crawler tractors typically used before
the first major overhaul which would potentially affect the
noise emission levels of these machines?
Increase in Noise Emissions with Time
Utilizing information contained in a publication of the American
Building Associating (AREA) [35] augmented by manufacturer and construction
contractor data, the Agency has concluded that there is no clearly
observable trend for noise levels of wheel and crawler tractors to either
increase or decrease with age. Individual machine noise data compiled by
AREA, as typified in Figures 4-8 and 4-9, show reverse noise trends. For
one machine, the noise may escalate with age, while for another model,
the machine may become quieter. Furthermore, a statistical sample of
several models within a product class, as shown in Figure 4-10 and 4-11,
indicates a similar result. Some groups of machines become noisier while
other groups become quieter with age. In the absence of detailed use and
maintenance information no definitive conclusions can be drawn at this
time concerning the magnitude of the change in noise emissions, as a
function of age and use, expected for each machine.
4-16
-------
110
CO
T5
>
LLJ
_1
Q
O
CO
100
90
10
15
AGE (YEARS)
Figure 4-8 Sound Level vs Age for an Individual Crawler Tractor Model
-------
110
_ 100
<
m
2.
_i
ui
>
LU
_l
Q
Z
•u
(-•
00
90
80
10
15
20
AGE (YEARS)
Figure 4-9 Sound Level vs Age for an Individual Wheel Loader
-------
100
CQ
•a
>
LU
_l
D
o
CO
5 10 15
AGE (YEARS)
Figure 4-10 Sound Level vs Age for Several Wheel Loader Models (<250)
20
-------
ro
O
90
CD 80
LU
>
UJ
O
co
70
60
WITH POINTS = 90dB
-WITHOUT POINTS = 80dB—
10
AGE (YEARS)
15
20
-------
Additionally, one major manufacturer has stated that, if normal and
periodic maintenance is performed, it is not expected that machine noise
levels would increase during the economic life of his machines. In fact,
a decreasing trend might occur since older machines are operated at lower
RPM's resulting in reduced engine noise. This decrease in the primary
source level may outweigh any increase in noise level resulting from
a greater number of rattling parts. In general, engine noise would
not increase until such time as internal clearances become excessive.
Fan noise should not increase (in time) except in the cases of mechanical
failure of parts which would prompt immediate repair, damaged. Exhaust
noise is not expected to increase unless perforation of the exhaust
pipes on muffler shells occurs as a result of internal corrosive effects
or accidental external puncturing. With proper maintenance, those effects,
that would tend to increase a product's overall noise signature, are not
likely to occur before the time of the first major overhaul of the machine.
Average Time Before First Overhaul
Table 4-3 shows the average time in years, before first major
overhaul for categories of wheel and crawler tractors. These times
correlate with both increased repair costs as machines age and with
possible increases in engine noise. The times also correspond closely
with the period of first owner usage. In general, machines of the age of
five to seven years are sold to a second owner and tend to be used at
reduced frequency and in more rural applications where their noise
emissions impacts are less pronounced.
4-21
-------
Table 4-3
Average Time to First Major Overhaul of Wheel and Crawler Tractors
Product Average Time to First
Overhaul (yrs.)
Crawler Tractors
20 - 199 HP 5
200 - 450 HP 7
Wheel Loaders
20 - 249 HP 5
250 - 500 HP 7
Wheel Tractors
20 + HP 5
Source: Contractors Equipment Manual, Associated General Contractors
of America, Seventh Edition, 1974.
4-22
-------
FIELD MEASUREMENT PROGRAM
EPA conducted a limited field measurement program to obtain
noise measurements of machines for comparison with the manufacturer-
supplied High-idle noise data. Noise emission data were obtained
for several crawler and wheel machine types during actual work
conditions at construction sites at the request of EPA.
All on-site measurements were made during various operating
modes at distances from the machine that varied depending on the
machine task. Due to actual field operation constraints, it was
not possible to obtain controlled experimental data for specified
modes or distances.
Based on the measurements and the operating times in each mode,
a work cycle was derived and work cycle L was calculated. Comparisons
eq
of these data were made with the manufacturer supplied noise data
base in order to assess whether L correlated with noise emissions
eq
in a specific operating mode. As a result, it was determined that
the four-side arithmetic average of high-idle measurements closely
correlated with differences less than 1 dBA, with the calculated
work cycle L . In addition, as indicated in Figue 4-8, it was
eq
observed that sound levels of moving machines at construction sites
are not significantly different from levels of a stationary machine
measured, during high idle, at four positions around the machine.
These data samples have provided a basis for using the four-side
arithmetic average of the high-idle measurements as direct, uncorrected
input into the health/welfare analysis.
4-23
-------
to
LU
LU
in
<
I
<3
I
90
85
> 80
LU
_J
LU
O
75 h
70
STALL
oo oo
00
100
MAXIMUM FORWARD
MOVING
LOW I OLE
I
_L
200 300
NET HORSEPOWER
400
500
O AVERAGE MEASUREMENTS FOR A
PARTICULAR MODEL
(MANUFACTURER SUPPLIED)
-^ EPA SPONSORED
FIELD MEASUREMENTS
Figure 4-12 Observed Sound Levels at Construction Sites
(High Idle Sound Levels vs. Net Horsepower for Crawler Dozers)
-------
EPA/MERADCOM TEST PROGRAM AT FORT BELVOIR, VA.
A field test program was implemented by EPA to provide additional
noise emission data under controlled conditions for the following
purposes:
o To obtain data on certain models for which limited
information was available (e.g., utility tractors).
o To obtain additional noise data under various mode of
operation, (e.g., reverse,) in order to develop a large
data base for relating actual work cycles with the pro-
posed measurement methodology as well as to provide an
input to the component noise source analysis.
o To obtain noise data on the directionality of the noise
emissions as a function of distance (e.g., overhead,
operator ear) to provide further validation.of the four-
position measurement procedure for estimating average
noise levels emitted from a source. An additional
objective was to determine whether measurements taken at
the operator's ear would correlate well with hi-idle
(4-position) average noise emissions. Overhead measure-
ments were also to be obtained to assess their impact
on overall noise emissions.
4-25
-------
o Tb obtain further noise data regarding repeatability of
measurement to assess the accuracy of measurements and the
variability among the same (and similar) machines.
o Tb verify manufacturer supplied data to develop more con-
fidence in the overall data base.
o To obtain data concerning site variation in order to show
the effects of various types of sites (e.g., concrete vs.
earth) on noise emission measurements.
o To determine the contribution of various components to
overall machine noise.
o To assess the attenuation of noise as a function of distance
for use in health and welfare analyses.
Test Procedures
Table 4-3 lists the machines tested. The machines were
tested at three sites:
o the "concrete loop site" with compact earth between
site and microphone,
o the "overhead measurement site", and
o a flat, hard compact site for tracked vehicles.
All sites essentially met requirements of SAE J88a tests. Table 4-4
summarizes the measurements taken. Stationary and moving modes,
following SAE J88 and SAE J88a procedures were used to obtain the
noise emission data. Also reverse mode, coast mode, etc., were
examined.
4-26
-------
MACHINES
MACHINE-TYPE
CASE 1700
IH 250OB
FORD 4000
JD 301A
IH 3414 (2 MACHINES)
AC 645
IH 3200
JD 401B
JD 401C
CIARK 17 5B
CAT D8K
CASE MW24B
CASE M450
CAT 966
CAT D7F
CAT D6
CASE 450 (Loader)
IH 125 (Loader)
JD 410D
CAT D7E
CAT 830MB
Table 4-4
TESTED AT FORT BELVDIR
CATEGORY
SKID STEER
UTILITY TYPE LOADER/BACKHOE
UTILITY TRACTOR
UTILITY TRACTOR
UTILITY TYPE LOADER/BACKHOE
LOADER
SKID STEER
UTILITY TRACTOR
UTILITY TYPE LOADER
LOADER
TRACKED DOZER
LOADER
TRACKED DOZER
TRACKED LOADER
TRACKED DOZER
TRACKED DOZER
TRACKED LOADER
TRACKED LOADER
LOADER/BACKHOE
TRACKED DOZER
WHEELED DOZER
4-27
-------
Table 4-5
Noise Level Measurements at Ft. Belvoir
Machine
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
High Idle
Arithmetic
Average
Level
(dBA)
75.5
78.7
77.2
76.1
83.2
79.5
83.5
75.4
78.8
78.1*
78.3*
82.4*
82.1
Adjusted
Overhead
Level (1)
(dBA)
74.9
73.8
74.1
70.4
83.3
76.6
77.1
70.5
74.3
78.4
High Idle
Level
Minus
Overhead
Level
0.6
4.9
3.1
5.7
-0.1
2.9
6.4
4.9
4.5
3.7
x = 3.7
s = 2.1
SAE J88a
Level
81.5
82.5
83
77
91
81.5
89.5
79
79
80.5
89
85
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
83.2*
74.2*
79.2*
76.3*
80.8*
72.1*
76.7*
89
81
88
81
89.5
80.5
Mode of
Operation (2)
D
C
B
B
B
B
B
C
B
D
C
D
B,C
B
B
D
B
* Not measured at over head position
1) Levels are adjusted for 15m from exhaust pipe by subtracting 6 dB
per doubling of distance. Original data was taken at 8.5m over
ground. Exhaust pipes varied from 1.5m to 3.5m above the ground.
2) Mode of operation for SAE J88a level
A Stationary - Hi, highest of 4 sides
B Stationary - IMI, highest of 4 sides
C Stationary - Component Cycle, highest of 4 sides
D Moving - Average of highest levels within 2 dB for highest side
while traveling at full speed in intermediate gear (no load).
4-28
-------
Results of Test Program
Significant findings and conclusions drawn from the results of
the test program are presented below.
o Overhead noise levels averaged 3.7 dBA less than
"spectator-height" levels. (Sample-10 machines; see
Table 4-4.) These results indicate that the overhead measure-
ment position is not required (unless a major redirection
of noise is made) since the horizontal directivity is signi-
ficantly greater than the vertical directivity in existing
machines. The exhaust, usually directed vertically, is
the major noise source in the vertical direction. The
engine casing shields, at least partially, the noise
radiating from the engine in the vertical direction. On
the other hand, the horizontal directivity is increased by
the gtill/engine openings and partial barrier of the
horizontal surfaces.
o The smooth concrete site produced, a relatively repeatable
1 dBA greater measured sound pressure level than a hard-
packed earth site. Indications are that the repeata-
bility of these results may offer manufacturers an oppor-
tunity to reduce the expenses involved in constructing a
truly reflective test plane, if they can verify this
correlation for their machines.
o Sound level data taken on separate days resulted in
repeatability of sound level measurements with average
differences of less than 1 dBA (see Table 4-5) for
most modes.
4-29
-------
Table 4-6
Fepeatibility of Test Results
Machine #3 Retest - Sound Levels (dBA) @ 50-feet
Concrete Loop Site
TEST DATE:
4 Position Arithmetic
Tested
31 January 1976
High Idle Mode
76.0
Tested
20 May 1976
High Idle Mode
76.6
Difference
+ .6
4 Position Arithmetic
Idle-Max-Idle Mode Idle-Max-Idle Mode
82.3
80.6
-1.7
Moving-Int. Gear
Moving-Int.Gear
2 Side Arithmetic Average 76.0
SAE J88a 83 (83.5)*
(highest side IMI Reading)
SAE J88 (72) 84.5 (85)*
(less side acceleration)
77
82.5 (83.5)*
84.5 (85.5)*
+1
- .5(0)*
0 (.5)*
*Numbers in parenthesis are for the highest observation, while all others
are the average to two observers.
4-30
-------
o For a careful measuring procedure using handheld sound level
meters, the range of readings at any given position exceeded
0.5 dBA between 50 percent to 60 percent of the time for the
Constant Speed Moving Mode (CSM) and High Idle (HI) mode,
respectively (see Figure 4-9).
o The standard deviation of sound levels among different machines
of the same model is less than 1 dBA. (See Table 4-6.)
The data shown in Table 4-5 and 4-6 are consistent with an
overall 1.5 dBA standard deviation which was developed
from the manufacturer's inputs.
o Directivity in the horizontal direction is dependent on
machine type and manufacturer; but in general, the noise
is non-directive as shown as in Figures 4-10 and 4-11.
o For propagation of sound levels, the attenuation rate of 6
dB per doubling of distance appears to be a reasonable
approximation to the average rate obtained for the distances
between 25' and 200'.
o Sound levels measured at the spectator level do not appear
to be related, in a consistent manner, to sound levels
measured at the operator position (see Table 4-7).
o Comparison of manufacturer supplied data with the EPA/MERADCOM
results indicated that, in general, the test program measure-
ments were lower. The exact reasons for this are not known,
although, site type difference could be a factor. This points to
4-31
-------
Q
UJ
Q
UJ
UJ
0
X
HI
t/0
cc
ts>
o
2
Q
<
UJ
tr
ALL MOVING MODES
HIGH IDLE AT 50
BOTH SITES
.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
90
95
RANGE OF LEVELS
Figure 4-13 Percent of Readings a Range is Exceeded
4-32
-------
Table 4-7
Variability of Operator Ear Sound Levels for Different
Machines of the Same Mean
High Idle Mode - Sound Levies (dBA)
:hine
A
B
C
D
*V\ i nc
.11 XI 1C
JO
iiine
! 1
96.5
98.0
97.0
98.5
Range 2.0
x" 97.5
s .91
Test
2
99.5
98.5
98.5
98.5
1.0
98.8
.50
Test to Test
3
97.0
97.5
97.5
98.0
1.0
97.5
.41
Range
3.0
1.0
1.5
.5
X
97.7
98.0
97.7
98.3
97.9
.29*
s
1.61
.50
.76
.29
.75'
*0verall machine-to-machine variation
**0verall test-to-test variation
3t = sample mean
s = standard deviations
4-33
-------
60
70
1 ,
•
dBA
H.I. MODE
I.M.I. MODE
Figure 4-14
Directivity Pattern at 50 Feet for
Machine #3 (Crawler Tractor)
4-34
-------
MACHINE #9
MACHINE #1
dBA
Figure 4-15
Directivity Pattern at 50 Feet for
Machines #9 (Crawler Tractor) and #10
(Crawler loader) in High Idle Mode
4-35
-------
Table 4-8
Relationship Between Opeator and Spectator Position
Sound Levels at High Idle
Sound Levels at Sound Levels at
Machine Operator Position Spectator Position Difference
No. dBA dBA dBA
1 89.5 74.3 15.2
2 96.8 78.6* 18.2
3 94.3 76.9 17.4
4 96 75.7 20.3
5 96 83 13.0
6 100.5 79.2 21.3
7 100 82.7 17.3
8 95.3 75.5 19.8
9 96.5 78.3 18.2
10 99.3 78.2* 21.1
11 87** 81.9* 5.1
12 100.5 81.5 19.0
13 96.5 81.9* 14.6
14 91.5 73.1* 18.4
15 93** 78.5* 14.5
16 93 75.6 17.4
17 98.5 80.6* 17.9
18 89 72.3* 16.7
19 97.5 76.0 21.5
*Loop Only
**Enclosed Cab
***4 Sided Arithmetic Average Over Both Sites
4-36
-------
the need for a site calibration technique that will allow
a method of adjustment of the readings (higher or lower)
to assure the same results of acoustical measurements for
the same machine and operating mode.
o Equipment tested with an improved muffler reduced High Idle
sound levels by approximately 7 dBA and Idle-Max-Idle sound
levels by approximately 10 dBA (see Table 4-8).
o Diagnostic tests on component noise contributions showed
that the exhaust and fan components were dominant noise
sources with the engine generally ranked next and all
"other sources and paths" third (see Table 4-9). For
wheeled tractors, noise produced in reverse motion was
not significantly different than noise produced in forward
motion. (See Table 4-10.) As a result, it has been
concluded that transmission noise is not a predominant
noise source relative to the engine casing. Since the
transmission for crawler tractors is essentially the
same as those for wheel tractors, the same conclusion
holds. The exact ranking of components varied among the
equipment types.
4-37
-------
Table 4-9
Results of Improved Muffler
Concrete Loop
Machine #6 Machine #5 Machine #5R Noise
(Good Muffler) (Poor Muffler) (Improved Muffler) Reduction
High Idle Sound Levies @ 50' (dBA)
4 Position
Arithmetic 78.7 83.6 77.0 6.6
Average
Idle Max Idle Sound Levels @ 50' (dBA)
SAE J88a 81.5 91 80.5 10.5
4-38
-------
Table 4-10
Noise Source Levels at High Idle
for Four Typical Loaders and Dozers - dB(A)
Machine Code
Total Machine
Exhaust
Fan
Engine (Airborne)
Other Sources
22
77
72.5(1)
64.5
71(2)
68.5(3)
7
82.5
75.5(2)
78.5(1)
74
74.5(3)
16
75.5
66.5
74(1)
67(2)
66.5
& Paths
1. Dominant Source
2. Second Major Source
3. Third Major Source
12
81
77(1)
75(3)
76(2)
73.5
4-39
-------
•Cable 4-11
Comparison of Sound Levels in Moving Mode of Operation
Machine
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12*
13
14*
15
16*
17*
18*
19*
Forward
Inter-
mediate
Gear(2)
dBA
78.2
78.5
76.2
76
85
80.2
84
—
77
80
84.5
84.8
85.5
77.5
81.2
80.8
85
(1)
High
Gear
dBA
79.4
79.7
78
77
87.7
79
85.5
76
77
80.2
85
87.5
85.2
80
83
84.8
90.2
77.8
*Tracked Machines
79.2
Reverse (1)
High
Gear
dBA
79
77
76
76
84
79
84
76
77
81
84.8
88.5
84.8
81
83.8
86
88.8
80.5
Intermediate
Gear Forward
Minus 4 Position
Arith. Average
HI dBA
5.3
.4
0.0
1.0
1.4
1.5
1.6
.8
1.1
3.2
4.0
3.6
4.4
2.9
5.2
4.4
1.8
(1) All levels given are average of both sides of the
machine using the SAE J88a technique of obtaining
the level for each side.
(2) Intermediate gear is defined in accordance with SAE J88a.
4-40
-------
A most important test phase was the comparison of
"work cycle" L with four-sided arithmetic average
of high idle noise. Table 4-11 summarizes character-
istics concerning the work cycle experiments. As
indicated in Table 4-12, the overall (across all
machines types) average difference between work cycle
L and the four-side arithmetic average of high idle noise
eq
was less than 0.5 dBA.
4-41
-------
Table 4-12
Work Cycle Test Results
Machl
2
H
10
19
20
16
24
16
^
18
23
12
Tapel
4
"
5
6
10B
11
15
16
17
18
20
21
23A
B
27
28
29
—
-
30A
B
31A
B
32
-
—
-
—
—
Machine/
Accessory Operation
IH2500 Backhoe Stockpile
n n M
" " Backhoe
n n n
JD401C Stockpile
n n
IH125E " Stockpile
n n
II II
ii n
JD410 Backhoe Stockpile
n n
n n n
n n n
D7F without Doze/
Panels Spread
D7E
D7F without "
Panels
n n n
n n n
n n n
D7F without Doze/
Panels Spread
450L - Stockpile
n n
n n
11
830MB Muffler Doze/
Spread
ii n n
M n n
D8K
II II
11 II
Distances
m/angles Speed Side
9-12/80°
11
11
8
11/80°
9/60°
II
M
II
14/60°
5/60°
"
12/18
11
H
11
11
"
12/18
11/80°
tl
11
11
12/18
II
9/15
18/27
II
II
Dump
Load
Right
Left
Dump
4F,1R Load
1 Load
2d,F&R Dump
Load
" Dump
" Load
Load
- Dump
1,1 Dump
" Load
1,2,2 Left
11 Right
Left
Right
n ii
1,2,3
1,2,2 Right
1,1 Left,
Load
ii n
ii n
2,2
1,1,2 Left
Right
1,1,1 Right
1,2,2 Left
11 Right
" n
Cycle
Time
Min:
Sec
:37.6
11
-
-
:57.3
:60
:46
:43.2
:37
:39
1:00.5
0:47.3
:30.1
II
1:04
1:09
1:06
1:17.5
:49.7
:58.5
1:03
1:00
1:05.4
:43.6
0:53
:55.6
:41.6
1:19.6
1:13.2
1:08
Time-Min
# of
cycles
12.0/19
8.2/13
19.6/-
10. 9/-
12.6/13
23.1/231
21.0/27
21.3/30
21.2/34
-
23.5/23
23.5/28
10. /20
"
4.8/4.5
15.0/6+7
14.3/6+7
15.5/6+6
5. /6
5.9/6
10.5/10
8.9/9
10.9/10
8. /ll
11.5/6+7
13.9/6+7
9.7/6+8
14.6/11
7.3/6
13.6/6+6
L
73.8
73.9
75
75.1
74.9
75
76.5
77.3
69.6
70
75.6
77.1
80.7
79.2
74.3
83.2
77.6
78.1
77.9
80.2
75.8
73.4
• 73.3
73.5
76.6
75.5
77.8
76.2
79.2
80.5
84.3
Re-
marks
1
1
D*
D
2
C*
C&B
C
D
D
B,5
II
A
»
D
C
A
4-42
-------
Table 4-12 (continued)
Work Cycle Test Results
Machine/
Machfl Tape! Accessory
12 - D8K
D8K
35 D8K
11 33A 175B -
B "
_ tl
175B
_ n
_ n
_ ii
_ ii
13 34 MW24 -
_ H
_ II
7 - AC645 -
_ ii
Distances
Operation m/angles Speed
Doze/
Spread
n
n
Backfill
Stockpile
n
Stockpile
Truck
loading
n
n
n
Excavation
Stockpile
"
n
Truck
Loading
n
15/23 1,2,2
1,2,3
12/18
30/90°
30/180°
" -
30/180°
8/60° 1,1
ll n
n ll
n n
22/90°
30/180° -
II _
II _
8/60°
II _
Side
Right
ii
n
Right,
Back
Front
Back
Front
Dump
load
Dump
Load
Right
Back
Front
Back
Dump
Load
Cycle
Time
Min:
Sec
:56
:55.8
:44.1
:52.5
:42
:44
:39.4
:45
II
:46.2
It
:53.4
:39.6
:41.4
II
:32.8
n
Time-Min
1 of
cycles
11.1/6+6
5.6/6
5.1/7
10/11+
4.9/7
11/15
13.1/20
15 /20
II
15.4/20
II
48.9/55
13.2/20
13.8/20
II
10.9/20
dS?A)
84.7
81
81.7
82
79.2
86
80.5
80.6
84.5
80.5
83
82.4
78.4
80.4
84.5
82.2
84.1
Re-
marks
A
D
D
3
4
4
3
3,E
3,E
F
F
3
4
4
*Letters refer to Operators
1. Measurement position 33 m from work path.
2. Doze blad malfunctioned, not a productive work cycle.
3. Back up alarm operating.
4, Operatgor gradually worked closer to back mic. and further from front mic.
5. Soil moisture content and compaction did not allow grouser penetration.
4-43
-------
Table 4-13
Comparison of High Idle to Work Cycle Noise Level
Type 4 side Leq Minus
of Operation Mach# Avg HI Leq(l) 4 side Avg
Mach dB(A) dB(A) HI - dB(A)
Utility
Stockpiling, 60° to 80° turn, 9 to 14m Travel Legs
29 78.6 73.8 -4.8
10 78.3 75. -3.2
20 78 76.8 -1.2
Stockpiling, 60° to 80° turn, 5m Travel Legs
20 78 80 2.0
Trenching
2 78.6 75 -3.6
Wheeled loader
Simulated Truck, loading, 60° turn, 8m Travel Legs
7 82.4 83.1 .7
11 81.9 81.8 -.1
Stockpiling, 180° turn, 30m Travel
11 81.9 82.6,81,5 .7,-.4
13 81.9 82.5 .6
Excavating .,
11 * 81.9 82.4 .5
Backfill
11 81.9 82J .1
Tracked loader
Stockpiling, llm Travel, Low Gear ->
18 72.2 73.4J 1.2
19 76 76.9 .9
Stockpiling, llm Travel, High Gear .,
18 72.2 76.6 4.4
Tracked Dozer
Doze/Spread 1,2,2
18/27 12 80.8 79.9-, -.9,
18/27 12 80.8 83.6, 2.8^
15/23 12,- 80.8 84. 3.2b
12/18 16° 77.2 77.9. .7
12/18 16? 75.6 75.6? 0
12/18 2l' 81.5 83.2J 1.7
4-44
-------
Table 4-13 (continued)
Comparison of High Idle to Work Cycle Noise Level
Type
of Operation
Mach
Tracked Dozer
Doze/Spread
12/18
Mach#
1,2,3,
16b
12
12
4 side
Avg HI
dB(A)
77.2
80.8
80.0
Leq(l)
dB(A)
4
804
81.1 .
80.4
Leq Minus
4 Side Avg
HI - dB(A)
2.8
.3
-.4
Wheeled Dozer
Doze/Spread
12/18
23
84'
76.7
-7.3
1. Arithmetic average of both sides.
2. Only Gasoline Utility Tractor.
3. One side only.
4. Estimated, assuming difference in sides is constant.
5. Machine with part of noise suppression kit removed.
6. This data is questionable but no specific error could
be found to justify excluding it.
7. Estimated from data for 2 sides and the directivity
of similar machines.
8. Distance in meters.
4-45
-------
SECTION 5
EVALUATION OF EFFECTS OF WHEEL AND CRAWLER
TRACTOR NOISE ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
INTRODUCTION
The proposed noise emission regulations for newly manufactured
wheel and crawler tractors specify levels not to be exceeded as
measured according to the measurement method presented in section
3. Potential public benefits are necessary inputs to the assessment
of trade-offs between the multiplicity of possible regulatory levels
and effective dates. The analysis presented in this section is
based on predictions of the potential health and welfare benefits
for selected noise emission levels and effective dates considered
achievable for new wheel and crawler tractors.
Because of the inherent differences in individual responses
to noise, the multiplicity of types and phases of construction
activity, the wide range of environments surrounding each construction
site, and the complexity of the associated noise fields, it is
not possible to examine all construction site situations precisely.
Thus, in this predictive analysis, certain stated assumptions
have been made to approximate typical or average situations. A
statistical approach has been taken to determine the benefits associ-
ated with wheel and crawler tractor noise emission reduction in
estimating the population that may be affected for each regulatory
option. Some uncertainties with respect to individual cases or
situations will remain.
5-1
-------
Measures of Benefits to Public Health and Welfare
The phrase "public health and welfare," as used here, includes
personal comfort and well-being as well as the absence of clinical
symptoms such as hearing damage. People are exposed to construction
site noise, of which wheel and crawler tractors are integral com-
ponents, in a variety of situations. Some examples are:
1. Inside a home or office
2. Around the home
3. As a pedestrian
4. As a construction site worker.
Reducing noise emitted by wheel and crawler tractors is expected
to produce the following benefits:
1. Reduction in overall construction site noise levels and
associated cumulative long-term impact upon the exposed
population.
2. Fewer activities disrupted by individual, intense noise
events.
3. Reduction in interference with speech communication and
warning signals at construction sites, thereby lessening
safety hazards, as well as reducing the risk of hearing
damage to tractor operators and other site workers.
The approach taken for the analysis was to evaluate the effects,
in terms of the percent change in the impact of construction site
noise, on the U. S. population resulting from reduction of wheel and
5-2
-------
crawler tractor noise alone and then in combination with the reduction
of truck and portable air compressor noise. These two products
are major contributors to construction site noise and are currently
subject to Federal noise emission regulations [11, 12].
Regulatory Schedules. The analysis predicts the population impacted
by construction noise based upon the 24 wheel and crawler tractor regu-
latory options shown in Table 5-1. Each regulatory option listed takes
into account each of the five major tractor types, lead times, and
regulatory levels.
DESCRIPTION OF THE HEALTH AND WELFARE CONSTRUCTION SITE NOISE
IMPACT MODEL
The assessment of potential reductions in construction site
noise through regulation of wheel and crawler tractor noise emissions,
requires that the average noise level produced by other types of
construction equipment also be determined. The derivation of noise
emission levels for wheel and crawler tractors is described in
section 4 while the noise emissions of other construction equipment
are summarized in this section. These average noise levels are
adjusted to account for typical use cycles during each type of
construction activity. The adjusted noise levels for each equipment
are then summed on an energy basis and adjusted for their proportion
of annualized activity. This process yields a measure which statisti-
cally describes the annualized energy average construction site noise
levels for each type of construction.
5-3
-------
TABLE 5-1 ,
SUMMARY OF REGULATORY SCHEDULES*
Regulatory
Schedules Types 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
74
80
76
80
70
74
80
76
80
70
74
80
76
80
74
74
83
76
84
70
74
83
76
84
70
74
83
76
84
74
74
83
76
84
74
Machine
Types
CTS
CTL
WLS
WLL
WT
CTS
CTL
WLS
WT
CTg
CTL
WLS
WLL
WT
CTg
CTL
WLS
WLL
WT
CTS
CTL
WLS
WLL
WT
CTg
CTL
WLS
WLL
WT
CTS
CTL
WLS
WLL
WT
1980
-
-
-
-
—
-
-
—
-
-
-
-
77
-
-
-
-
—
-
-
-
-
-
—
-
-
-
77
-
-
-
-
-
Level
1981
77
83
79
84
74
—
-
-
-
77
83
79
84
77
77
-
79
-
74
-
-
-
- .
-
77
-
' 79
-
77
_
-
-
-
_
Effective
1982
77
83
79
84
74
—
-
-
f-
77
83
79
84
77
77
83
79
84
74
_
-
-
-
-
77
83
79
84
77
_
83
-
84
_
Dates
1983
77
83
79
84
74
_
-
-
-
77
83
79
84
77
77
83
79
84
74
_
-
-
-
-
77
83
79
84
77
^
83
-
84
mm
5-4
-------
TABLE 5-1
SUMMARY OF REGULATORY SCHEDULES
(continued)
Regulatory Machine Level Effective Dates
Schedules Types. 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
CTS - - - - 74
CTL . - - - - 83
8 WLS 76
WLL - - - - 84
WT - - - - 74
CTS 80 80 80 80 77
CTL - - 83 83 83
9 WLS 82 82 82 82 79
WLL - - 84 84 84
WT 74 74 74 70
CTS 77
CTL - - 83 83 83
10 WLS 79
WLL - - 84 84 84
WT 70
CTS - - - - 77
CTL - - - - 83
11 WLS - - - - 79
WLL 84
WT 70
CTS 80 80 80 80 77
CTL - - 83 83 83
12 WLS 82 82 82 82 79
WLL - - 84 84 84
WT 77 77 77 77 74
CTS 77
CTL - - 83 83 83
13 WLS - - - - 79
WLL - - 84 84 84
WT 74
CTS - - - - 77
CTL - - - - 83
14 WLS 79
WLL - - - - 84
WT 74
5-5
-------
Regulatory
Schedules
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
TABLE 5-1
SUMMARY OF REGULATORY SCHEDULES
(continued)
Machine
Types
CTS
CTL
WLS
WLL
WT
-CTS
CTL
WLS
WLL
WT
CTg
CTL
WLS
WLL
WT
CTS
CTL
WLS
WLL
WT
CTS
CTL
WLS
WLL
WT
CTS
CTL
WLS
WLL
WT
CTS
CTL
WLg
WL^
WT
Level Effective Dates
1980
80
-
82
-
77
80
86
82
86
77
—
-
-
.-
—
-
-
-
-'
—
-
86
-
86
—
-
-
-
-
—
-
-
-
-
77
1981.
80
-
82
-
77
80
86
82
86
77
77
-
79
-
74
77
83
-
-
—
77
86
79
86
—
-
-
-
-
—
—
-
-
-
77
1982
80
-
82
-
77
80
86
82
86
77
77
-
79
-
74
77
83
-
-
—
77
86
79
86
—
77
83
79
84
74
_
-
-
-
77
1983
80
-
82
-
77
80
86
82
86
77
77
-
79
-
74
77
83
-
-
-
77
86
79
86
—
77
83
79
84
74
_
-
-
-
77
1984
80
80
82
80
77
80
86
82
86
77
74
80
76
80
70
74
80
76
80
70
74
83
7.6
84
74
77
83
79
84
74
77
83
79
84
74
5-6
-------
Regulatory
Schedules
22
23
24
TABLE 5-1
SUMMARY OF REGULATORY SCHEDULES
Machine
Types
CTS
CTL
WLS
WLL
WT
CTg
CTL
WLS
WLL
WT
CTS
•CTL
WLg
WLL
WT
(continued
Levels
1980 1981
77
-
79
- -
- —
77
83
79
84
74
- -
-
-
-
-
^
Effective
1982
77
-
79
-
-
77
83
79
84
74
77
83
79
84
74
Date
1983
77
_
79
-
-
77
83
79
84
74
77
83
79
84
74
1984
74
80
76
80
70
74
80
76
80
74
74
80
76
80
74
CTS - Crawler Tractors (20 HP to 199 HP)
CTL - Crawler Tractors (200 HP to 450 HP)
WLS - Wheel Loaders (20 HP to 249 HP)
WLL - Wheel Loaders (250 HP to 500 HP)
Wi - Wheel Tractors
5-7
-------
Definition of L and L
eg dn
This analysis utilizes a noise measure that condenses the informa-
tion contained in the noise environment into a simple indicator of both
quantity and quality of noise. This general measure for environmental
noise is the equivalent A-weighted sound level in decibels. The general
symbol for equivalent level is L . This indicator correlates well with
eq
the overall long-term effects of noise on the public health and welfare
and was initially developed as a result of the Noise Control Act of 1972,
which required EPA to present information on noise levels "requisite to
protect the public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety."
The basic definition of L is:
eq
2 _2
PO
(5-1)
where t - t is the interval of time over which the pressure levels
2 1
are evaluated, p(t) is the time varying sound pressure of the noise,
and p is a reference pressure, standardized at 20 micropascals. When
o
expressed in terms of A-weighted sound level, L , the equivalent A-
A
weighted sound level, L , is defined as:
eq
5-8
-------
Leq = 10
io
[
L
dt
(5-2)
In describing the impact of noise on people, the measure called
the day-night average sound level (L ) is used [6]. This is a 24-hour measure
dn
with a weighting applied to nighttime noise levels to account for the
increased sensitivity of people to intruding noise associated with the
decrease in background noise levels at night. The L is defined as the
dn
equivalent noise level during a 24-hr period, with a 10 dB weighting
applied to the equivalent noise during the nighttime hours of 10 p.m. to
7 a.m. This may be expressed by the following equation:
Ldn • 10
_1_
24
0700
+ / 10
J 2200
2200
0700
10
LA(t)/10
(t)+ioyio
dt
dt
(5-3)
or,
1 I Ld/10 (L
Ldn = 10 log1Q ± ' llS x 10 a + 9 x 10 n
5-9
-------
where L is the "daytime" equivalent level, obtained between 7:00 a.m.
d
and 10:00 p.m. and L is the "nighttime" equivalent obtained between
n
10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of the following day.
In construction site situations, where the daytime level, L ,
d
usually consists of an eight hour construction site contribution
combined with an external ambient sound level, equation 5-3 may be
rewritten as:
10 10 e « ioL*/10 + 15 x io
+' 9 x
oi
io (& [
io(Lj+io)/io
Ldn = 10 lo?10 2T B x 10 + 24 x 10
c
where: L = daytime equivalent level due to the construction site
d
a
L = daytime equivalent ambient level
d
a
L = nighttime equivalent ambient level
n
Ambient
L = equivalent day-night ambient level =
' dn
5-10
-------
Hence, equation 5-4 allows computation of the day-night average
sound levels in areas around construction sites taking into account
construction site noise as well as ambient noise levels predominant
during those hours when construction activity is not taking place.
Relationship of L to Health and Welfare Criteria
dn
To assess the impact of construction noise, a relation between
the changes in construction site noise and the responses of the people exposed
to the noise is needed. The responses may vary depending upon previous
exposure, age, socioeconomic status, political cohesiveness, and other
social variables. In the aggregate, however, for residential locations,
the average response of groups of people is related to cumulative noise
exposure as expressed in a measure such as L . For example, the
dn
different forms of response to noise, such as hearing damage, speech
or other activity interference, and annoyance, were related to L
eq
or L in the EPA Levels Document [6]. For the purposes of this
dn
study, criteria based on L presented in the EPA Levels Document are
dn
used. Furthermore, it is assumed that if the outdoor level of L
eq
55 dB, which is identified in the EPA Levels Document as requisite
to protect the public health and welfare, is met, no adverse impact
in terms of general annoyance and community response exists.
The intelligibility of sentences (first presentation to listeners)
drops to 90 percent when the level of the noise environment is increased
approximately 19 dB above the level identified in the EPA Levels Document
and to 50 percent when the level is increased approximately 24 dB. The
5-11
-------
intelligibility of.sentences (known to listeners) drops to 90 percent
when the level is increased approximately 22 dB above the identified
level and to 50 percent when the level is increased approximately 26
dB [15]. Thus, since normal conversation contains a mixture of some
new and some familiar material, it is clear that when the level of environ-
mental noise is increased more than 20 dB above the identified level,
the intelligibility of conversational speech deteriorates rapidly with
each decibel of increase. For this reason a level 20 dB above L =
dn
55 dB is considered to result in 100 percent impact on the people exposed.
For environmental noise levels that are between 0 and 20 dB above L =
dn
55 dB, the impact is assumed to vary linearly with level.
A similar conclusion can be drawn from the community reaction and
annoyance data contained in Appendix D of the Levels Document [6].
The community reaction data show that the expected reaction to an identifiable
source of intruding noise changes from "none" to "vigorous" when the
day-night average sound level increases from 5 dB below the level existing with-
out the presence of the intruding noise to 19.5 dB above the level before
intrusion. Thus 20 dB is a reasonable value to associate with a change
from 0 to 100 percent impact. Such a change in level would increase
the percentage of the population that is highly annoyed by 40 percent
of the total exposed population [6]. Further, the data in the Levels
Document [6] suggest that within these upper and lower bounds the relation-
ship between impact and level varies linearly; that is a 5 dB excess
(L = 60 dB) constitutes a 25 percent impact and a 10 dB excess (L = 65dB)
dn dn
constitutes a 50 percent impact.
5-12
-------
For convenience of calculation, percentages of impact may be
expressed as Fractional Impact (FI). A FI of 1.0 represents an impact
of 100 percent, in accordance with the following formula:
PI
.05(L-C) for L > C
(5-6)
0 for L < C
where L is the observed or measured L of the environmental noise.
dn
In this study, C = 55 dB (L ) for residential and public works
dn
construction, and 65 dB for industrial and nonresidential construction
The impact of construction noise may be described in terms of both
extensiveness (i.e., the number of people impacted) and intensiveness
.4
(the severity of impact). The fractional impact method explictly accounts
for both the extent and severity of impact.
The equivalent noise impact (ENI) associated with a given level of
i
construction noise (L ) may be assessed by multiplying the number of
dn
people impacted by that level of construction noise by the fractional impact
associated with the level as follows:
ENI = (FI )P (5-7)
i i if
where ENI is the magnitude of the impact on the population exposed to
i
i
construction noise L and is numerically equal to the number of people,
dn
all of which would have a fractional impact equal to unity (100 percent
impacted). FI is the fractional impact associated with a day-night
i
5-13
-------
1
noise level L , and P is the population exposed to this level of
dn i
construction noise. To illustrate this concept, if there are 1000
people living in an area where the noise level exceeds the criterion
level by 5 dS (and thus are considered to be 25 percent impacted,
FI = 0.25), the environmental noise impact for this group is the same
as for 250 people who are 100 percent impacted (100 x 25% = 250 x 100%).
When assessing the total impact associated with construction
noise, the observed levels of noise decrease as the distance between the
source and receiver increase. The magnitude of the total impact may be
computed by determining the partial impact at each level and summing
over each of the levels. The total impact is given in terms of
the equivalent number of people impacted by the following formula:
EN I
A
i
i
where FI is the fractional impact associated with L and P is the
i dn i
i
population exposed at each L .
dn
5-14
-------
The change in impact associated with regulations of the noise
emissions from wheel and crawler tractors may be assessed by comparing
the magnitude of the impacts, both with and without regulations, in terms
of the percent reduction in impact ( ), which is calculated from the
following expression:
A = [EMI (before) - ENI (after)] (5-9)
ENI (before)
Construction Site Model
The analysis that follows considers various construction site types
including residential and nonresidential buildings, city streets, and
public works which normally occur in places where population density
is high. Heavy construction such as highways and civil works has been
omitted from the study since the bulk of this activity generally occurs
in thinly populated areas where the extensiveness of potential noise
effects on people are minor. In the framework of the analysis, construc-
tion is viewed as a process that can be categorized according to the
type of construction as well as to the separate and distinct activity
phases that occur.
The basic unit of construction activity is the construction site.
A construction site exists in both time and space. Four different types
of construction sites (see section 2) were evaluated in the analysis,
as shown in Table 5-2.
5-15
-------
Table 5-2
Construction Site Types
Total Annual Number
Construction Site Type Throughout United States
o Residential & Domestic Housing 728,000
o Non - Residential 87,100
o Industrial/Commercial 235,000
o Public Works 485,224
Construction activity is generally carried out in several discrete
steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and attendant noise
output. The phases of construction were those utilized in previous
analyses [13, 1]. The process involved in characterizing the noise
at each site consists of identifying the equipment found at each site
in each construction activity phase in terms of:
1. The number of equipment types typically present at the site
in a given phase.
2. The duty cycle of each type of equipment
3. The average noise emission level of each equipment type
during the construction activity operation.
Equipment type usage, and noise emission information is presented in
Tables 5-3 through 5-6 for each type of construction. These Tables pre-
sent updated data for wheel and crawler tractors combined with that
previously published [13]. Appendix E contains a description of the
5-16
-------
Table 5-3
USAGE FACTORS OF EQUIPMENT IN DOMESTIC HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
Ul
I
Equipment
Air compressor
Backhoe
Concrete mixer
Concrete pump
Concrete vibrator
Crane, derrick
Crane, mobile
Crawler tractor <200HP
Crawler tractor >200HP
Generator
Grader
Paving Breaker
Wheel loaders <250HP
Wheel loaders >250HP
Paver
Pile driver
Pneumatic tool
Pump
Rock drill
Roller
Saw
Scraper
Shove 1
Truck
Wheel tractor
(81)*
(85)
(85)
(82)
(76)
(88)
(83)
(80)
(83)
(78)
(85)
(88)
(81.5)
(84)
(89)
(101)
(85)
(76)
(98)
(80)
(78)
(88.)
(82)
(88)
(77)
Hours at site
Construction phase
Clearing
-
0. 02
-
-
-
-
0.65 [2]
0.06
0. 4
0.05
-
0. 61
0 . 16
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0. 05
-
0 .04
0. 86 [2]
24
Excavation Foundation Erection
0.1
0.2
0.4 0.08
_
- -
_
0.10
0.95
0 .04
_
_
_
0 . 30
0.08
_
_
0.04 0.1
0.1 0.2
0 . 005
_ -
0.04 [2]** 0.1[2]
- -
0.2
0.1
0.87
24 40 80
Finishing
0.25
0.02
0 . 16
-
-
-
0.04
0.38
0 .02
-
0.02
0.01
0.12
0.03
0 .025
-
0.04
-
-
0 .04
0.04 [2]
0.01
-
0.04
0. 35
Leq.@50 '
— Work
Periods
68.7
69.5
76.5
-
-
-
69 .5
-
-
64.5
65.0
61.0
-
-
66 .0
-
72.5
63.0
65.5
59 .0
68.5
67.0
65.5
70 .0
-
40 1=208 hrs.
=26 days
Total number of sites=728,000 (see appendix E)
* Numbers in pare.theses () represent average noise levels (dBA) at 50 ft.
** Numbers in brackets [] represent average number of items in use, if that number is greater
than one. Blanks indicate zero or very rare usage.
-------
Table 5-4
USAGE FACTORS OF EQUIPMENT IN NONRESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
($190K-4000K)
Ul
I
I-1
00
Equipment
Air compressor
Backhoe
Concrete mixer
Concrete pump
Concrete vibrator
Crane, derrick
Crane, mobile
Crawler tractor <200HP
Crawler tractor >200HP
Generator
Grader
Paving breaker
Wheel loader <250HP
Wheel loader >250HP
Paver
Pile Driver
Pneumatic tool
Pump
Rock drill
Roller
Saw
Scraper
Shovel
Truck
Wheel tractor
(81)*
(85)
(85)
(82)
(76)
(88)
(83)
(80)
(83)
(78)
(85)
(88)
(81.5)
(84)
(89)
(101)
(85)
(76)
(98)
(80)
(78)
(88)
(82)
(88)
(77)
Hours at site
Construction phase
Clearing Excavation Foundation Erection Finishing
1.0[2]** 1.0[2] 1.0[2] 0.4[2]
0.04 0.16 0.4 - 0.04
0.4 0.4 0.16
0.08 0.4 0.08
0.2 0.2 0.04
- - 0.16 0.04
0.16 [2] 0 .04 [2]
0.49 0.59[2] - - 0.46
0.09 0.22 - - 0.09
0.4[2] 1.0[2]
0.08 - - - - 0.02
0.1 0 .04 0.04 0 .04
0.175 0.42 - - 0 . 16
0.04 0.09 - - 0.04
0.1
0.10
0.04 0.16 [2] 0 .04 [2]
1.0 [2] 1 .0 [2] 0.4
0.04 - - 0 .005
0.1
0 .04 [3] 1 .0 [3]
0.55
0,4 -
0.16 [2] 0.4 - - 0.16
0 . 30 0 .725 - - 0.28
Leq. @50 '
— Work
Periods
83.5
76 .5
79 .0
74 .5
67.0
76 .0
74 .0
-
-
75 .0
63.5
75 .0
-
-
70 .0
85.0
76 .0
76. '5
78.0
60 . 5
76 .5
73.0
72 .0
80.0
-
80 320 320 480 160 2=1360 hrs .
=170 days
Total number of sites=87,100 (see appendix E)
* Numbers in paretheses () represent average noise levels (dBA) at 50 ft.
'* Numbers in brackets [] represent average number of items if number is greater than one.
indicate zero or very rare usage.
Blanks
-------
Table 5-5
USAGE FACTORS OF EQUIPMENT IN INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION
($30K-820K, no high-rise)
U1
I
M
VO
Equipment
Air compressor
Backhoe
Concrete mixer
Concrete pump
Concrete vibrator
Crane, derrick
Crane, mobile
Crawler tractor <200HP
Crawler tractor >200HP
Generator
Grader
Paving Breaker
Wheel loader <250HP
Wheel loader >250HP
Paver
Pile driver
Pneumatic tool
Pump
Rock drill
Roller
Saw
Scraper
Shovel
Truck
Wheel tractor
(81)*
(85)
(85)
(82)
(76)
(88)
(83)
(80)
(83)
(78)
(85)
(88)
(81.5)
(84)
(89)
(101)
(85)
(76)
(98)
(80)
(78)
(88)
(82)
(88)
(77)
Hours at site
Construction phase
Clearing Excavation
1.0
0.04 0 . 16
-
-
-
-
-
0.01 0.07
0.004 0.008
0.4 0.4
0.05
0.1
0.04 0.1
0.005 0.12
-
-
-
0.4
0.02
-
-
0.14
0.4
0.16 [2] 0.26 [2]
0.24 0.57
80 320
Foundation Erection
0.4 0.4
0.4
0.4 0.16
0.05 0 . 16
0.2 0.1
0.04
0.08
-
-
-
-
0.04 0.04
-
-
-
0.04
0.04 0.1[3]**
1.0 [2] 0.4
-
-
0.04 [2] 0.1(2]
-
-
-
™~ "~
320 480
Finishing
0.4
0.04
0.16
0.08
0 .04
0.02
0 .04
0 .007
0.007
-
0.02
0 .04
0 .009
0.001
0.12
-
0.04
-
0.003
0 . 1
-
0.08
0.06
0 .16
0 .05
Leq.@50'
— Work
Periods
78.0
76.5
77.5
71.0
65.5
70 .0
68.0
-
-
68.5
62.5
75.0
-
-
70.5
81 .0
76 .0
53.0
75 .0
60. 5
67.5
70 .5
72 .0
78 .5
~
160 2=1360 hrs.
=170 days
Total number of sites=235,500 (see appendix F )
* Numbers in parentheses () represent average noise levels (dBA) at 50 ft
** Numbers in brackets [] represent average number of items in use, if that number is greater than
one. Blanks indicate zero or very rare usage.
-------
USAGE FACTORS OF EQUIPMENT IN PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION
(Municipal streets and sewers)
Ln
NJ
o
Equipment
Air compressor
Backhoe
Concrete mixer
Concrete pump
Concrete vibrator
Crane, derrick
Crane, mobile
Crawler tractor <200HP
Crawler tractor >200HP
Generator
Grader
Paving breaker
Wheel loader <200HP
Wheel loader >200HP
Paver
Pile driver
Pneumatic tool
Pump
Rock drill
Roller
Saw
Scraper
Shovel
Truck
Wheel tractor
(81)*
(85)
(85)
(82)
(76)
(88)
(83)
(80)
(83)
(78)
(85)
(88)
(81.5)
(84)
(89)
(101)
(85)
(76)
(98)
(80)
(78)
(88)
(82)
(88)
(77)
Hours at site:
Construction phase
Clearing
1.0
0.04
-
-
-
-
-
0.42
0.03
1.0
0.08
0.5
0.48
0.0004
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.08
0.04
0.16[2]
0.53(2]
12
Excavation
1.0
0.4
-
-
-
0.1
-
0.51
0.04
0.4
-
0.5
0.48
0.0004
-
-
-
0.4(2]
0.02
-
-
-
0.4
0.16
0.52[2]
12
Foundation
0.4
-
0.1612]
-
-
0.04
-
0.28
0.02
0.4
-
-
0.32
0.0003
0.1
-
0.04 [21
1.0(2]
-
0 .01
0.0412]
0.2
0.04
0.4(2]
0.7(2]
24
Erection
0.4
-
0.4(2]
-
-
0.04
0.16
-
-
0.4
0.2
0.04
-
-
0.5
-
0.1
0.4(2]
-
0.5
0.04
0.08
-
0.2(2]
~
24
Finishing
0.4(2]**
0.16
0.16(2]
-
-
-
-
0.20
0.02
0.4
0.08
0.1(2]
0.24
0.0003
-
-
0.04
-
-
0.5
-
0.08
0.04
0.16(2]
0.52
Leq.@50'
— Work
Periods
79.0
74.5
81.0
-
-
74.0
69.5
-
-
75 .0
74.0
80.5
-
-
81.5
-
72.5
75 .5
82.5
73.5
63.5
78.0
71.0
84.5
—
12 £ =84 hrs.
=10% days
Total number of sites=485,224 (see appendix E )
* Numbers in parentheses () represent average noise levels (dBA) at 50 ft.
** Numbers in brackets [] represent average number of items in use, if that number is greater than
one. Blanks indicate zero or very rare usage.
-------
information collected during the course of this analysis to update
previously published equipment type, noise emission and usage data.
The noise emission and usage factors presented in Tables 5-3
through 5-6 were combined with typical periods of use (hours) of
equipment operated for each phase of construction, to yield a total
site L . at 50 feet. For the purpose of this analysis, a construction
site is viewed as a complex source in which equipment is centered 50
feet from an observer.
The L obtained using this model was converted to an L, for
a 24-hour day and then converted to an annual day-night average sound
level by adding 10 log (H/(8x365). Thus, each construction site was
viewed as a complex noise source with a fixed annual value of L, . The
analysis was repeated for each type of site.
The health/welfare impact of construction noise was entered
into the analysis by taking into account the number of construction
sites of various types in a number of geographic regions as well as
the population densities within these regions (Table 5-7) [1].
The number of sites per year was updated (see Appendix E) fron
that previously published [13] and the population density data were
taken from Table XI of Reference 1. For the nonresidential building
category, the transfer of people from the suburbs to the central city
during the average working day was considered by adjusting the population
data, consistent with the model presented in Reference 1, which is
summarized in Table XI of the reference. This adjustment was necessary
to account for the fact that most construction in cities occurs during
the working day. Thus, population estimates were obtained for 20
5-21
-------
Table 5-7
Summary of Construction Activity and Population Density
Data Inputs to Construction Site Model
Hours of Construction Per Day
Residential
Non-Residential
Industrial/
Commercial
Public Works
Clearing
Day
8
8
8
8
Night
0
0
0
0
Excavation
Day
8
8
8
8
Night
0
0
0
0
Foundation
Day
8
8
8
8
Night
0
0
0
0
Erection
Day
8
8
8
8
Night
0
0
0
0
Finishing
Day
8
8
8
8
Night
0
0
0
0
en
I
NJ
N)
Number of Days of Construction Activity
Residential
Non-Residential
Industrial/
Commercial
Public Works
Clearing
3
10
10
1.5
Excavation
3
40
40
1.5
Foundation
5
40
40
3
Erection
10
60
60
3
Clearing
5
20
20
1.5
-------
Table 5-7
Continued
Population Density (People per Square Mile)
Residential
Non-Residential
Industrial/
Commercial
Public Works
Large
High Density
Central
Cities
15,160
16,650
16,650
15,160
Large
Low Density
Central
Cities
4,410
4,860
4,860
4,410
Other
SMSA
3,710
4,070
4,070
3,710
Urban
Fringe
3,380
3,100
3,10C
3,380
Metropolitan
Area Outside
Urban Fringe
125
114
114
125
Ul
I
to
Number of Sites
Residential
Non-Residential
Industrial/
Commercial
Public Works
Large
High Density
Central
Cities
8,708
390
1,561
3,184
Large
Low Density
Central
Cities
21,578
980
3,922
25,120
Other
SMSA
102,559
2,404
9,617
96,600
Urban
Fringe
262,800
6,183
24,731
134,920
Metropolitan
Area Outside
Urban Fringe
118,779
2,752
11,006
252,400
-------
different cases corresponding to the four construction types
(residential, nonresidential, industrial and public works) and five
categories of regions, as follows:
1. Large high-density central city
2. Large low-density central city
3. Other Standard Metropolitan Statistical
central cities
4. Urban Fringe
5. Metropolitan areas outside the urban fringe
Two models have been used for the propagation of site noise into
the community. For residential and public work site types which are
representative of lightly built up areas, noise has been assumed to be
attenuated at the rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance away from the
source. Accordingly, around each site there exists a series of annuli,
each of which represents successive areas of 1 dB decrease due to
attenuation as indicated in Figure 5-1.
A mean annual L^ has been associated with each annulus, as
well as the total area. The area, when multiplied by the population
density typical of the region yields the average number of people, (P),
living within the annulus. It has been assumed that, on the average,
only half of the rooms in structures in proximity to these site types
are assumed to face the site. This assumption appears reasonable but
must be recognized as being somewhat arbitrary.
5-24
-------
en
I
ro
en
o
O 3
REGION OF
COMPLETE IMPACT
0) rt
M H-
O
G
tn O *J
ro H> H
a o
n c
rt O »
0 3 W
(0
O rt en
O M 1
3 C t-
'O O
C rt
rt H-
(D O
M
P
W
2 CO
H H-
rt
MACHINE
LOCATED
AT CENTER
or^MC'pTDr
l-UIMo 1 KL
D/"
BC
REGION OF
PARTIAL IMPACT
BOUNDARY
LDN = 55
-------
In case of the nonresidential (office) building and industrial/
commercial site types, a different model was considered. For these
situations, it was assumed that noise confined in a built up area is
attenuated by only 3 dB per doubling of distance for the first 400 feet,
due to the canyon effect which prevents noise decay by classical spherical
divergence, and then attenuates at 6 dB per doubling of distance, since
at that point noise is free to decrease by classical spherical divergence.
Further, it was assumed that only 33 percent of the people in each annulus
were affected by the construction noise since in most office industrial/
commercial buildings less than half of the rocms have outside exposure.
This assumption appears reasonable, but it is also somewhat arbitrary.
For all site types, it was assumed that no residences or affected
activities were located closer than 50 feet from the construction site
boundary.
As indicated earlier, EPA has incorporated into the model a
provision for including daytime and nighttime ambient levels external
to the construction site. Table 5-8 provides the levels used for each
site type and region. [14] Where ambient levels exceeded the criteria
levels, the ambient levels were arbitarily set instead to a level of
1 dBA under the criteria level under the assumption that the ambient
levels would be lowered as a result of other regulations, e.g., cars,
buses, trucks, etc. Otherwise, the distance from the center of a con-
struction site at which Ldn reaches the criteria level would mathematically
approach infinity and thereby nullify the utility of the model.
5-26
-------
Table 5-8
Background Ambient L, (dBA) Used in Construction Site Model
Residential
Non-Residential
Industrial/
Commercial
Public Works
Large
High Density
Central
Cities
64.00
64.35
64.35
64.00
Large
Low Density
Central
Cities
59.35
59.71
59.71
59.35
Other
SMSA
58.70
59.05
59.05
58.70
Urban
Fringe
58.35
58.03
58.03
58.35
Metropolitan
Area Outside
Urban Fringe
46.11 .
45.77
45.77
46.11
Ul
I
to
-------
CONSTRUCTION SITE NOISE IMPACT
As discussed earlier, the impact of an environmental noise source
has two basic dimensions: extensiveness and intensiveness. Extensiveness
of imact is measured in terms of the total number of people impacted
irrespective of the severity of individual impact. Tntensiveness, or
severity, of an individual's impact is measured in terms of the level
of the emvironmental noise.
For analytic purposes, it is desirable to have a single number
representing the magnituded of the total noise impact in terms of both
•extensiveness and intensiveness in a specific environmental situation.
With a single number descriptor of noise impact, relative changes in
impact can be described in terms of simple percentage changes in relief
from an initial population impact value.
In the procedure presented in this section, the intensity of an
environmental noise impact at a specific location is characterized by
the Fractional Impact (FI). In the computation of the FI associated with
each annulus around a site involving residential or public works
constructrion, computations were performed relative to an exterior
threshold of Ldn = 55 dB. This is the outdoor noise level where impact
may begin in a community (assumming an interior L, attributable to outdoor
noise sources of 45 dB) [6]. For office building (nonresidential)
and industrial type construction, on the other hand, computations were
performed relative to an exterior threshold of L, = 65 dB. The
an
rationale for this assumption was that in office buildings adjoining
5-28
-------
these construction sites, windows are normally closed which increases
the noise reduction between outside and inside [15]. The window closed
condition provides approximately 10 dB more attenuation than does the
window open condition. Accordingly, exterior noise levels of 65 dB
in the window closed condition, and 55 dB in the window open condition,
could produce identical interior noise levels.
From determination of the outdoor noise levels and the number of
people contained within each 1 dB annulus of successive levels as described
in Figure 5-1, the equivalent population impacted within each annulus
was obtained and the summed over all annuli contained within the region
extending from the construction site boundary out to a radius at which
Ldn *s e(3ual to tne threshold value for each site type to obtain the
total impact (ENI). Computations were first performed to assess the
change in ENI of construction site noise due to implementation of each
of the regulatory schedules presented in Table 5-1 relative to a baseline
with air compressor noise reduced to levels of 76 dB(A) at seven meters
and trucks reduced to 80 dB(A) at 50 feet. Furthermore, total cumulative
benefits attributable to regulations of trucks, air compressors, and
wheel and crawler tractors relative to a pre-regulatory baseline were
also computed. The benefits of reducing wheel and crawler tractor noise
(from a baseline with regulated air compressors and trucks) are summarized
in Table 5-9 and Table 5-10. Table 5-9 shows the projected percent
reductions in construction site ENI for the years 1978, 1980, 1983,
1985, 1987, 1990 and 2000 for each of the regulatory schedules constucted
for new wheel and crawler tractors. Table 5-10 indicates the actual
reduction in ENI for the corresponding years.
5-29
-------
Table 5-9. Percent Reduction in Impact Due to
Regulation of Wheel and Crawler Tractors*
Regulatory
Schedule
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Year
1978
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1980
0
0
0.3
0
0
1.5
0
0
1.0
0
0
1.4
0
0
1.4
1.0
0
0
0
0
0.3
0
0
0
1983
8.8
0
8.3
8.7
0
9.3
0.7
0
6.1
0.7
0
5.6
0.7
0
4.8
3.6
7.9
4.0
6.1
6.0
1.3
6.1
8.8
. 6.0
1985
12.6
8.1
11.6
12.0
7.4
12.3
10.3
7.05
9.6
6.6
6.4
6.5
6.2
6.0
6.5
3.8
12.5
10.0
10.1
10.2
6.9
10.9
12.3
11.9
1987
13.9
13.4
13.0
13.0
12.6
12.3
12.3
11.9
11.3
10.9
10.9
7.1
10.2
10.2
6.8
3.8
13.8
13.4
12.1
10.6
10.4
13.4
13.2
13.2
1990
13.9
13.9
13.2
13.1
13.1
12.3
12.3
12.3
11.4
11.4
11.4
7.3
10.6
10.6
6.8
3.8
13.9
13.9
12.5
10.6
10.6
13.9
13.2
13.2
2000
13.9
13.9
13.2
13.1
13.1
12.3
12.3
12.3
11.4
11.4
11.4
7.3
10.6
10.6
6.8
3.8
13.9
13.9
12.5
10.6
10.6
13.9
13.2
* 13.2
* Baseline (6.9 million) assumes portable air compressors and medium and heavy
trucks have been regulated.
5-30
-------
Table 5-10. Reduction in ENI (Thousands)*
Regulatory
Schedule
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1978
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1980
0
0
23
0
0
106
0
0
72
0
0
94
0
0
94
67
0
0
0
0
23
0
0
0
1983
610
0
575
597
0
644
50
0
418
50
0
383
50
0
333
250
548
272
424
416
91
424
610
416
• 1985 ,
871
556
798
824
509
848
713
486
661
452
439
449
429
416
446
265
858
689
695
705
476
749
848
820
1987
916
924
894
894
866
848
848
821
778
750
750
487
705
705
470
265
952
924
839
733
720
924
906
906
1990
959
959
906
901
901
848
848
848
786
786
786
500
733
733
470
265
959
959
867
733
733
959
906
906
2000
959
959
906
901
901
848
848
848
786
786
786
500
733
733
470
265
959
959
867
733
733
959
906
906
* Baseline (ENI = 6.9 million) assumes portable air compressors and medium and
heavy trucks have been regulated.
5-31
-------
Table 5-11 shows the estimated percent reduction in the magnitude
of the impact from construction noise achievable to a pre-regulatory
baseline in which portable air compressors and trucks are regulated.
Hence, these benefits are due to regulation of both the portable air
compressor and the new truck as well as wheel and crawler tractors.
Table 5-12 shows the actual reduction in ENI for the corrsponding
years for the preregulatory baseline.
5-32
-------
Table 5-11. Overall Percent Reduction in Impact due
to Regulation of Construction Equipment from
Pre-Regulatory Baselines*
Regulatory
Schedule
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1978
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 '
0
0
0
0
1980
27.4
27.4
27.6
27.4
27.4
28.5
27.4
27.4
28.1
27.4
27.4
28.4
27.4
27.4
28.4
28.1
27.4
27.4
27.4
27.4
27.6
27.4
27.4
27.4
1983
33.8
27.4
33.4
33.7
27.4
34.2
27.9
27.4
31.8
27.9
27.4
31.5
27.9
27.4
30.9
30.0
33.1
30.3
31.8
31.8
28.3
31.8
33.8
31.8
1985
36.5
33.3
35.8
36.1
. 32.8
36.3
34.9
32.5
34.4
32.2
32.0
32.1
31.9
31.8
32.1
30.2
36.5
34.7
34.7
34.8
32.4
35.3
36.3
36.0
1987
37.5
37.1
36.8
36.8
36.5
36.3
36.3
36.0
35.6
35.3
35.3
32.6
34.8
34.8
32.3
30.2
37.4
37.1
36.2
35.1
35.0
37.1
37.0
37.0
1990
37.5
37.5
37.0
36.2
36.2
36.3
36.3
36.3
35.7
35.7
35.7
32.7
31.5
31.5
32.3
30.2
37.5
37.5
36.5
35.1
35.0
37.5
37.0
37.0
2000
37.5
37.5
37.0
36.2
36.2
36.3
36.3
36.3
35.7
35.7
35.7
32.7
31.5
31.5
32.3
30.2
37.5
37.5
36.5
35.1
35.0
37.5
37.0
37.0
* Baseline (ENI = 9.5 million) assumes wheel and crawler tractors, portable air
compressors and medium and heavy trucks have not been regulated.
5-33
-------
Table 5-12. Reduction in ENI (Thousands)*
Regulatory
Schedule
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1978
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1980
2611
2611
2634
2611
2611
2717
2611
2611
2683
2611
2611
2705
2611
2611
2705
2678
2611
2611
2611
2611
2634
2611
2611
2611
1983
3221
2611
3186
3208
2611
3255
2661
2611
3029
2661
2611
2994
2661
2611
2944
2861
3159
2883
3035
3027
2702
3035
3221
3027
1985
3482
3167
3409
3435
3120
3459
3324
3097
3272
3063
3050
3060
3040
3027
3057
2876
3469
3300
3306
3316
3087
3360
3459
3431
1987
3527
3535
3505
3505
3477
3459
3459
3432
3389
3361
3361
3098
3316
3316
3081
2876
3563
3535
3450
3344
3331
3535
3517
3517
1990
3570
3570
3517
3512
3512
3459
3459
3459
3397
3397
3397
3111
3344
3344
3081
2876
3570
3570
3478
3344
3344
3570
3517
3517
2000
3570
3570
3517
3512
3512
3459
3459
3459
3397
3397
3397
3111
3344
3344
3081
2876
3570
3570
3478
3344
3344
3570
3517
3517
* Baseline (9.5 million) assumes wheel and crawler tractors, portable air compressors
and medium and heavy trucks have not been renulated'.
5-34
-------
It should be noted in Table 5-9 that the percent reductions in
impact due to wheel and crawler tractors by the year 2000 range from
3.8 percent for regulatory schedule #16 to 13.9 percent for several
of the regulatory schedules (Schedules 1, 2, 17, 18, and 22). Also,
Table 5-9 shows that several of the regulatory schedules provide near-term
benefits in the years 1980 and 1983 (Schedules 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 16, and
21), while others have their benefits delayed as a result of the long
lead times associated with the effective dates of compliance. It should
also be noted that benefits increase yearly at a constant rate until
maximum benefits are reached. This is attributable to the phasing in
of new regulated equipment, which replaces old unregulated equipment,
until the point in time is reached where no old unregulated equipment
remains in the fleet. Table 5-10 shows that the number of people removed
from impact ( ENI) by the*year 2000 due to regulation of wheel and
crawler tractors ranges from 265 thousand for regulatory schedule #16
to 959,000 for several of the options.
Correspondingly, Table 5-11 shows that by the year 2000 the overall
percent reduction in construction site noise resulting from the regulation
of wheel and crawler tractors, portable air compressors and medium and
heavy duty trucks ranges from 30.1 to 37.5 percent. It may be seen
in Table 5-12 that by the year 2000 the reduction in ENI from the 9.5
million baseline ranges from 2,876,000 for regulatory schedule #16 to
3,570,000 for several of the other schedules.
5-35
-------
As seen in Table 5-13, the most significant reductions in impact
resulting from the alternative regulatory schedules limiting wheel and
crawler tractor noise emissions occurs in residential site types where
the percent reduction in impact is as large as 44.3 percent for certain
schedules. Conversely, the smallest percent reductions occur in industrial/
commercial site types where the maximum percent reduction for any of
the schedules is 3.6 percent. Table 5-14 similarly shows that for each site
type the relative percent reduction in impact is quite different for
each phase of construction. For residentail construction, the greatest
noise relief will occur during the clearing phase where as much as a
96.2 percent reduction in impact will occur for some regulatory schedules.
On the other hand, the finishing phase of construction offers the lowest
potential benefit with a maximum reduction of 62.5 percent. Similarly,
it may be seen that for the non-residential construction, the finishing
phase offers the highest potential percent reduction in impact. For
the remaining two site types, the clearing phase again offers the highest
potential percent reduction in impact.
5-36
-------
Table 5-13. Relative Percent Reduction and Change in ENI (Thousands)
in Year 2000*
Regulatory
Schedule
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Residential
% Reduction AENI
44.3 556
44.3- 556
42.1 528
41.6 523
41.6 523
39.4 495
39.4 495
39.4 495
36.2 455
36.2 455
36.2 455
23.0 289
34.0 426
34.0 426
21.9 275
12.6 161
44.3 556
44.3 556
39.7 501
34.0 426
34.0 426
44.3 556
42.1 528
42.1 528
Non-Residential
% Reduction AENI
8.6 192
8.6 192
8.4 187
7.8 173
7.8 173
7.5 167
7.5 167
7.5 167
6.7 149
6.7 149
6.7 149
4.2 94
6.4 143
6.4 143
4.6 103
2.1 48
8.6 192
8.6 192
7.9 177
6.4 143
6.4 143
8.6 192
8.4 187
8.4 187
Industrial/
Commercial
% Reduction AENI
3.6 93
3.6 93
3.2 82
3.5 89
3.5 89
3.1 79
3.1 79
3.1 79
3.2 82
3.2 82
3.2 82
2.2 56
2.8 71
2.8 71
1.6 42
1.0 27
3.6 93
3.6 93
3.1 79
2.8 71
2.8 71
3.6 93
3.2 82
3.2 82
Public Works
% Reduction AENI
13.7 118
13.7 118
12.7 110
13.4 116
13.4 116
12.5 108
12.5 108
12.5 108
11.6 100
11.6 100
11.6 100
7.1 61
10.7 92
10.7 92
5.8 50
3.3 29
13.7 113
13.7 118
12.6 109
10.7 92
10.7 92
13.7 118
12.7 110
12.7 110
* Baseline (6.9 million) ENI assumes portable air compressors and medium and heavy
trucks have been regulated'.
5-37
-------
Table 5-14. Relative Percent Reduction in Impact in Year 2000 by Phase
of Construction and Site Type*
Regulatory
Schedule
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Residential
CLR EXC FOU ERE FIN
96.2
96.2
93.4
93.0
93.0
89.6
89.6
89.6
85.8
85.8
85.8
60.5
81.3
81.3
57.2
31.0
92.2
96.2
89.7
81.3
81.3
96.2
93.4
93.4
90.9
90.9
88.5
87.7
87.7
85.0
85.0
85.0
79.2
79.2
79.2
53.6
75.9
75.9
52.1
32.6
90.9
90.9
85.3
75.9
75.9
90.9
88.5
88.5
62.5
62.5
60.2
59.5
59.5
57.0
57.0
57.0
52.1
52.1
52.1
33.6
49.6
49.6
32.6
20.2
62.5
62.5
57.4
43.6
49.6
62.5
60.2
60.2
Non-Residential
CLR EXC FOU ERE FIN
46.0
46.0
43.2
43.2
43.2
40.3
40.3
40.3
39.6
39.6
39.5
28.3
36.5
36.5
26.2
15.7
46.0
46.0
41.6
36.5
36.5
46.0
43.2
43.2
46.8
46.8
46.3
41.8
41.8
41.3
41.3
41.3
35.3
35.3
35.3
21.6
34.8
34.8
26.0
10/6
46.8
46.8
42.8
34.8
34.8
46.8
46.3
46.3
61.2
61.2
57.8
57.7
57.7
54.1
54.1
54.1
53.0
53.0
53.0
38.0
49.0
49.0
35.1
20.6
61.2
61.2
55.4
49.0
49.0
61.2
57.8
57.8
Industrial /Commercial
CLR EXC FOU ERE FIN
89.8
89.8
80.0
89.3
89.3
79.2
79.2
79.2
88.2
88.2
88.2
74.5
77.7
77.7
49.8
44.7
89.8
89.8
79.3
77.7
77.7
89.8
80.0
80.0
25.9
25.9
23.8
24.8
24.8
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.2
22.2
22.2
14.8
20.1
20.1
12.3
6.6
25.9
25.9
22.9
20.1
20.1
25.9
23.8
23.8
Public Works "
CLR EXC FOU ERE FIN
65.2
65.2
61.2
64.5
64.5
60.4
60.4
60.4
57.5
57.5
57.5
37.3
53.2
53.2
29.8
'16.6
65.2
65.2
60.7
53.2
53.2
65.2
61.2
61.2
45.7
45.7
43.1
44.9
44.9
42.3
42.3
42.3
39.2
39.2
39.2
24.4
36.5
36.5
20.5
12.3
45.7
45.7
42.7
36.5
36.5
45.7
43.1
43.1
23.9
23.9
22.3
23.6
23.6
21.9
21.9
21.9
20.5
20.5
20.5
12.6
18.8
18.8
10.2
5.9
23.9
23.9
22.2
18.8
18.8
23.9
22.3
22.3
36.6
36.6
34.3
36.1
36.1
33.7
33.7
33.7
31.5
31.5
31.5
19.7
29.1
29.1
16.1
9.4
36.6
36.6
34.0
29.1
29.1
36.6
34.3
34.3
Ul
I
to
00
* Baseline (8.9 million) ENI assumes portable air compressors and medium and heavy trucks have been regulated.
Phases: CLR = Clearing
EXC = Excavation
FOU = Foundation
ERE = Erection
FIN = Finishing
-------
Section 6
NOISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
COMPONENT
Noise levels generated during operation of wheel and crawler
tractors consist of the superposition of levels from a multiplicity
of sources. These sources include those components of the tractor
which make it a self-propelled machine and those sources associated
with tractor attachments. Although noise levels can be generated
by the interaction of the work surface and the tractor attachments
(e.g., rippers, dozers, buckets, log clamps), wheel and crawler
tractor noise perceived over time is dominated by sources associated
with the tractor engine. Table 6-1 lists the major noise producing
components of the tractor.
Table 6-1
Major Noise Producing Components of Wheel and
Crawler Tractors
o Fan
o Engine Casing
o Exhaust
o Air Intake
o Transmission
o Hydraulics
o Track (for crawler tractors)
6-1
-------
While there appears to be considerable disagreement among
manufacturers as to the ranking and level of the individual noise
sources, there is general agreement that the components listed in
Table 6-1 constitute the major noise sources. Accordingly, any
scheme with tractor noise reduction as its objective must necessarily
address a combination of these components.
Fan and Cooling System Noise
The noise generating mechanisms for axial flow fans have been
extensively studied [16, 17, 18, 19]. The fan noise is typically
comprised of both pure tones (acoustic energy occurring at discrete
frequencies) and broad band noise (acoustic energy occurring at
a wide range of frequencies).
The pure tone aspect of fan noise, which is frequently referred
to as rotational noise, results from the periodic pulsation of the
air each time a blade passes a fixed point. For fans with blades
equally spaced around the fan hub, pure tone noise levels commonly
occur at integer orders of fan blade passage frequency.
The broadband component of fan noise is commonly referred to
as vortex noise. Vortex noise is caused by air turbulence created,
in part, by the blade thickness. The turbulence results from vortices
shed at the edge of the blades. Disturbances in the flow pattern
across the blade cause flow separation and add to the turbulence
level. Rivets appearing in proximity to the fan blades or on the
blades themselves, non-uniform blade thickness and poor aerodynamic
blade design can greatly increase the magnitude of vortex noise.
An additional source of vortex noise results from turbulence created
as air passes through the fins of the radiator.
6-2
-------
In practice both rotational and vortex noise are significant.
Equation 6-1 is commonly used to predict the level of fan noise
taking into account rotional and vortex noise [8].
Fan noise (dBA) = 50 log1Q vfc + 10 log1Q (NAfa ) + constant
where
v = fan tip speed
N = number of blades (6-1)
Ab = area of blades
In Equation 6-1 the contribution of rotational noise is primarily
from the 50 log v. term; the vortex noise contribution obeys the 10
log NA^ relationship and the constant is a function of the geometry
of fan placement.
The noise levels generated by a fan are influenced, to a consider-
able degree, by the fan environment. Additional noise may be generated
by the presence of a radiator grill, a fan shroud, radiator hoses,
the engine block and any additional items located in proximity to
the fan which agitate the air flow.
Other cooling system components that may generate noise are
water pumps, belts and pulleys. These, however, contribute relatively
little to the total cooling system noise.
6-3
-------
The cooling fan is designed to move enough air through the radiator to
maintain a required heat transfer from the engine. To the extent that
other design parameters of the cooling system allow the heat transfer to be
maintained at reduced fan speeds, several design parameters can alter the
cooling system noise generation. For example, the axial width (defined in
Figure 6-1) of the fan shroud affects both the fan noise and air flow
through the radiator. Although both air flow and noise increase as fan
coverage increases, the air flow increases much more rapidly than sound
level. Thus, with optimum fan shroud coverage a reduction in fan speed is
possible which maintains the system cooling capacity and produces significant
noise reductions. The cooling fan shroud design can also influence the
cooling system noise generation. The fan shroud increases air flow
through the radiator and reduces turbulence around the fan blades. Thus,
noise is often reduced and cooling capacity is increased, for a given fan
speed, by good fan shroud design practice. Figure 6-2 shows two types of
fan shroud design (1) cylindrical type and (2) venturi or contour types.
Engine Surface (Casing) Noise
The noise radiated from engine surfaces is caused by the periodic
cylinder pressure fluctuations and mechanical impacts generated by the
piston slapping against the cylinder liner walls and by mechanical impacts
occurring within the whole power train system, the timing gear and the
auxiliary drives. The structural vibrations excited by such components
within the engine are transmitted through the inner structure of the engine
to its outer 'surfaces and the attached covers, from which they are radiated
into the environment. The noise power radiated from the surfaces of a
typical engine is 20 to 30 dB lower than the unmuffled exhaust noise.
6-4
-------
SHROUD (CYLINDRICALTYPE)
RADIATOR
\
RADIATOR TO FAN SPACING
SHROUD LENGTH
FAN TO
ENGINE SPACING
ENGINE BLOCK
AXIAL WIDTH OF FAN COVERED
BY SHROUD IN PERCENT = IQOx
y
SHROUD TO FAN BLADE
TIP CLEARANCE
PROJECTED
WIDTH OF FAN
Figure 6-1 COOLING SYSTEM NOMENCLATURE
6-5
-------
FAN
COVERAGE
BLADE TIP
CLEARANCE
CYLINDRICAL TYPE
T=?
VENTURI OR CONTOUR TYPE
Figure 6-2 FAN SHROUDS
6-6
-------
However, with an efficient muffler the exhaust noise can be lowered such
that its level and the noise radiated from engine surfaces are about equal
and similar to the level of the fan noise.
In addition to noise associated with the engine combustion process,
mechanical noise is generated as the pistons contact the sides of the
cylinder walls. The impact of the piston against the cylinder wall is
termed "piston slap." The lateral motion of the piston in the cylinder
results from piston clearance with the cylinder wall. The surface shapes
of both pistons and cylinders change due to temperature and pressure
variation in the running engine. The variations, along with normal wear,
can produce excessive piston-cylinder clearance causing "piston slap."
Normally "piston slap" and other mechanical noise are overridden by combus-
tion noise.
If a naturally aspirated, direct injection diesel combustion system is
adjusted for optimum performance and minimum fuel consumption, it will
produce higher cylinder sound pressure levels than a precombustion chamber
system. However, the differences between those combustion systems disappear
if a direct injection engine is adjusted for low gaseous emissions, by
retarding the injection timing. With all diesel combustion systems the
noise excited by the cylinder pressures can be reduced by turbocharging.
Retarding the injection timing will reduce fuel economy while turbocharging
will normally improve fuel economy [20].
Figure 6-3 [21] shows the contribution of individual outer engine
surface components to the total noise of a 6-cylinder diesel engine. The
most significant individual contribution of 20 percent is from the crank-
case side wall. The intake manifold contributes 18 percent, and the oil
6-7
-------
pan 10 percent. The remaining parts contribute to a lesser extent .
Their total noise is approximately 3 dBA below the total engine noise.
The results of recent investigations [27] show that it is possible
to considerably reduce the noise of individual outer engine components.
However, after reducing the noise emissions of the dominant components,
there still remain a great number of parts which may have only a small
individual noise contribution, but which when aggregated often represent
30 percent or more of the original radiated sound power. As a result total
engine noise cannot, in general, be reduced by more than 5 dBA by reducing
the noise emissions of single engine components.
Exhaust Noise
Exhaust noise includes noise produced by the exhaust gases at the
tail pipe discharge, noise radiated from the muffler shell and flanking
from the sxhaust system components. The exhaust noise intensity is
known to vary with engine speed, is sensitive to engine load, and is
a function of engine design parameters the most significant of which
appears to be the valve opening characteristics [16, 22]. Exhaust noise
is caused by the sudden reease of hot gasses into the exhaust system
by the exhaust valves. The noise generated by the gas flow is proportional
to the rate of change of the flow velocity.
The opening of the exhaust valves generates a series of noise pulses
at the fundemental firing frequency. In addition, a series of noise
peaks may occure at frequencies defined by integer orders of the funda-
mental firing frequency.
6-8
-------
INJECTION PUMP SIDE, Im DISTANCE
BOdWA). 1.8V.
83 dB (A). 3.5V.
80dB(A). 1.8V.
— TOTAL NCHSE 97.5dB(A)-KJOV.
.2 I 5 20 .2 I 5 20
.2 I 5 20 .21
FREQUENCY kHz
5 20 .2 I 5 20
Figure 6-3 WATER-COOLED 6-CYLINDER DIESEL ENGINE,
NOISE RADIATED BY
THE ENGINE SURFACES
6-9
-------
By increasing the amount of air and fuel entering cylinders on
each stroke, an increase in diesel engine power may be obtained. In a
turbocharged engine a compressor is driven directly by a turbine powered by
the exhaust. Since power is extracted from the exhaust flow, there is a
small back pressure penalty which is compensated for by reducing allowable
muffler back pressure. Because of the expansion of gases within the
turbine, unmuffled turbocharged engine exhaust noise is approximately 2 dBA
lower than the noise generated by naturally aspirated engines.
Air-Intake Noise
Air-intake noise is quite similar to exhaust noise in its complexity.
Air intake noise derives from such components as: the air inlet, the air
cleaner shell and ducting in the intake system.
The air intake in the system of a diesel engine is designed to provide
dust free air to the cylinders with as little pressure loss as possible.
The requirements of being dust free and having little pressure loss mean
that a design compromise must be achieved since air filtering tends to
cause a pressure loss. The allowable pressure drop for diesel air intake
is usually 1.0 to 1.5 inches of mercury, though small pressure losses can
have an appreciable effect on the total air intake into the engine.
Intake noise is produced by the opening and closing of the intake
valve. At its opening, the pressure in the cylinder is usually above
atmospheric and sharp positive pressure pulses set the air in the
inlet passage into oscillation at its natural frequency. The oscilla-
tion is rapidly damped by the changing volume produced by the piston
motion and the air viscosity. Closing of the intake valve produces
6-10
-------
similar but relatively undamped oscillations. Diesel engine air
inlet noise is generally predominant below about 1000 Hz while gaso-
line engine inlet noise is also predominant at higher frequencies
[23].
Air intake filter elements tend to act as silencers for air
inlet noise. This leads to the result that inlet noise is not as
major a source as the others cited above.
Transmission Noise
The noise generating mechanisms associated with transmissions have
been identified and characterized [16, 24]. The mechanisms and the noise
characteristics are highly dependent upon such parameters as gear type,
diameters, tooth loading, tooth misalignment, tolerances on pitch and
profile error, tooth contact frequency (gear speed), and casing vibration.
Prediction schemes are available for estimating transmission noise overall
levels and spectra [25]. The peaked spectra associated with the tooth
contact frequencies can excite a resonant vibration of the body surface and
hence reradiate sound.
The noise generated by even simple combinations of gears is quite
complex. The sources which contribute to gear noise have been classified
into two groups [19]: (1) those which are characteristic of the specific
design and manufacturing method, and (2) those which are excited by operation
of the gear. Typical noise generation sources resulting from improper
design and manufacturing imperfections are:
o Shape of gear bodies such that the natural frequencies of
the gear are excited.
6-11
-------
o Accuracy of the teeth and tooth ring tolerances - tooth
spacing and eccentricity causing acceleration and decelera-
tion of' the gear in mesh.
o Axial misalignment due to insufficient stiffness of gear
shafts.
The noise generated by the actual operation of gears results
from the following mechanisms:
o Stress waves caused by the engaging and disengaging of the
individual gear teeth.
o Air pocketing - the expulsion of air between the teeth of
one gear by the meshing of teeth of corresponding gear.
o Oil pocketing - similar to air pocketing.
o Friction excitation - tooth contact frequency and gear-wheel
shaft natural frequencies.
o Impact of gear tooth on gear meshing tooth.
Hydraulic Pump Noise
Pump noise is generated both hydraulically and mechanically. Hydraulic
noise is the result of sharp changes in fluid pressure. The changes in
fluid pressure excite fittings, valve stems, and other pump parts, which
are in the stream of the fluid. The excitation of these parts by the
periodic nature of the discharge flow can result in a nearly steady pure
tone noise [26]. Other noise may be generated mechanically by dynamic
imbalance of rotating parts or by vibrating components caused by direct
contact of internal parts.
6-12
-------
In addition to noise radiated directly from the pump, fluid borne
noise is released from the associated hoses, valves, and reservoir.
Pump noise typically does not contribute significantly to the overall
noise levels produced in the operation of wheel and crawler tractors.
Track Noise
For crawler loaders and dozers, track noise may be a major noise
source for the vehicle while in motion. Measurements taken under J88/ J88A
test conditions and construction site conditions show a high variability of
track noise due to soil conditions (see Section 3). Direct metal-to-metal
contact between track links and between the track, idlers, and drive
sprockets result in sound radiated from the vibrating track assembly
[28,29 and 30] Track measurements [29] taken approximately 1 foot outboard
of drive sprockets and idlers have identified two significant sources
associated with track noise. These are: (1) the impacting of track
segments against drive sprockets, idlers and guide rollers; and (2) the
ringing of drive sprockets and idlers. At low speeds the track noise is
relatively low; however, as the track speed increases, both impact noise
and ringing noise are increased.
METHODS OF NOISE CONTROL FOR WHEEL AND CRAWLER TRACTOR NOISE
General
Machines can be treated so that either the noise emitted by the
machine is reduced (source treatment) or the source remains the same and
a barrier is constructed between the source and receiver (path treatment)
in order to reduce noise exposure of the spectator. In many cases both
methods are engineered simultaneously resulting in efficient noise
reduction
6-13
-------
In general, source treatment requires major design modifications
which may necessitate considerable research and development costs.
Once the designs are in production, however, source treatment provides an
efficient method of noise control. When a large number of units are sold,
the R&D costs can be amortized over a sizable base, so that source noise
control can be relatively inexpensive per unit.
Path treatment, for a limited number of units, usually provides
a simple method of reducing noise exposure. The research, development and
retooling costs (if any) are small compared to source control; however, in
large lots, the material cost can be considerable.
Through proper engineering techniques, the best combination of
the two methods can be reached.
Currently Used Component Noise Reduction Techniques
Work on noise control for wheel and crawler tractors to be sold
in the U.S. has been motivated mostly by the need to reduce operator
noise exposure in response to OSHA noise requirements. Spectator noise
reduction has been motivated largely by local and state ordinances and
also by foreign regulations. Both design improvements and retrofit
noise kits have been developed to reduce spectator noise exposure resulting
from several of the major machine noise sources. The areas of the machine
treated, the technique used, and typical noise reductions resulting from
the production verified methods are shown in Table 6-2.
6-14
-------
Table 6-2
Currently Used Component Noise Reduction Techniques
Component/Machine
Area Treated
Cooling System
Exhaust
Engine Surfaces &
Engine Compartment
Air Intake
Machine
Technique
Cooling system silencer; cooling
fan speed reduction;
use of sucker fans;
fan blade and shroud modification;
louvered radiator grille
Ball joint type connectors
for exhaust pipes; double
wall muffler construction;
optimized exhaust configuration
Side panels;
foam lining for the hood;
shielding covers;
stiffening;
turbocharging;
vibration isolation;
damping
Silencer
Vibration Isolation
Other Machine
Accessor ies, e.g.,
Transmissions, Pumps
Component shielding
Typical Noise
Reduction (dBA)
2-4
3-5
3-5
3-7
2-4
2-4
3-5
1-3
3-6
2-4
3-10
1-3
1-3
3-5
2-3
5-10
1-3
2-10
* Source: Technology Analysis, Doazers and Loaders, Science
Applications, Inc., July 1976.
6-15
-------
The French Regulation has prompted investigation into methods of
noise reduction which do not require major engine redesign. The French
Regulation (Decree of 11 April 1972) imposing a maximum permissible level
of 80 dBA at seven meters for machines under 200 metric hp became effective
21 December 1973. (The effective date initially adopted, 2 May 1973, could
not be met by most manufacturers.) At the time of the decree, the majority
of machines exceeded the 80 dBA limit by 5 to 15 dBA. The severe time
constraint forced manufacturers to consider only approaches which did not
require major modifications associated with design cycle engineering
changes. The most practical solutions were to apply component noise
reduction techniques such as treated hoods, slower fan speeds, suction fan
configuration, radiator redesign, engine/transmission isolation, noise
shields, air intake silencers, and improved mufflers. However, the achieve-
ment of the low noise levels by use of component noise reduction techniques
in the extremely short lead times available to manufacturers before the
French Regulations become effective through basic design has resulted
in several problems related to machine performance. The problem areas
are:
(1) Cooling capacity - Slower fan speeds, fan silencers and shielding
have all tended to restrict air flow and reduce heat exchange
from the engine.
(2) Serviceability - Shields and barriers have tended to reduce
accessibility foe maintenance. Where shields can be removed,
they are sometimes permanently eliminated to facilitate service.
6-16
-------
(3) Safety - The principal safety risk appears to be fire hazard from
inadequate cooling and accumulation of fuel and oil on foams used
for noise treatment.
(4) Reliability - The short lead time has led to designs and material
selection which have not undergone proper testing before being
introduced into production.
Manufacturers who compete in the French market have emphasized
repeatedly that the effective date of the regulation did not allow sufficient
lead time to achieve the significant noise level reductions required
without incurring the associated problems.
Best Available Component Noise Reduction Techniques
The noise abatement technology associated with major component
noise sources has been extensively treated in the literature (with the
exception of track noise). The U.S. Department of Transportation has
sponsored several demonstration programs for quieter highway trucks and
buses, which has resulted in a large body of knowledge concerning the
abatement of noise sources associated with diesel engines and powered
6
equipment. No such program has been undertaken for construction equipment.
Empirical evidence concerning individual noise source reductions can be
extrapolated to support the prescribing of "best available technology"
levels achievable in future production wheel and crawler tractors. In
arriving at projections of machine noise levels associated with the
6 The Bureau of Mines is beginning a demonstration program for
certain minining equipment, some of which is used in construction,
i.e., loaders [32].
6-17
-------
7
application of best available technology, the available diagnostic
evidence concerning component noise sources indicated that noise reductions
would be limited by the three principal noise sources, i.e., fan, engine
casing and exhaust. However, in specific cases, other component noise
sources which are troublesome on individual machine models may have to be
treated.
The following discussion summarizes the noise control technology
and expected noise reduction for the major component noise sources using
best available technology.
Fans and Cooling System. The most promising approaches to reducing
fan noise are:
o Improved fan shrouds and reduced fan tip clearance
o Increased radiator-to-fan-to engine clearance
o Radiator redesign
o Fan redesign
Reported evidence [23,28] of component noise reductions achievable by
redesign of the fan and cooling system range between 7 and 13 dBA.
7 EPA considered that the level "achievable through the application
of the best available technology" is the lower noise level which
can be reliably predicted based on engineering analysis, that products
subject to the standard will be able to meet by the effective date,
through application of currently known noise attenuation techniques
and materials. In order to assess what can be achieved, EPA has
(1) identified the sources of noise and the levels to which each of
these sources can be reduced, using currently known techniques, (2)
determined the level of overall machine noise that would result, (3)
assured that all such techniques may be applied to the general machine
population (4) assured that all such techniques are adaptable to
production-line assembly, (5) assured that sufficient time is allowed
for the design and application of this technology by the effective
dates of the standards.
6-18
-------
Engine Casing Noise Components. If the required noise reduction
of an engine is less than 5 dBA, it may be sufficient to simply treat
those individual engine components which contribute most to the overall
engine noise.
Figure 6-4 indicates the potential magnitude of the achievable
noise reduction of typical noise reducing measures for a water-cooled
inline engine, if applied to the most critical external engine parts.
It can be seen from Figure 6-4 that increasing the damping is
relatively ineffective, especially with load carrying parts, since the
damping factor of typical engine structures is already quite high.
Also, the thickness of the required damping layer relative to the thickness
of the engine walls is not practical, especially with regard to the
crankcase and cylinder block. With covers, manifolds and oil pans,
however, improvements in the range of 2 to 3 dBA can be achieved by
increased damping.
Significant reductions of the noise radiated by components attached
to the engine can be achieved by vibration isolation. The limited sealing
capabilities and the poor durability of the required elastic connections,
however, prohibit this technique in some areas. Vibration isolation
in general gives very good results when applied to valve covers, manifolds,
crankcases, covers and oil pans. However, it is less effective on gear
covers and crankshaft pulley.
The technique of stiffening the engine components can be used mainly
on the cylinder block, the crankcase and the gear housing. The stiffening
of walls by means of ribs makes it possible to raise the lower natural
6-19
-------
VIBRATION ISOLATION 5-10
NOISE REDUCING SHELL 5-15
VIBK. liULMIlUN 1 - J
NOISE REDUCING SHELL 5-15
VIBRATION ISOLATION 3-5
TWO NOISE RED. SHELLS 3-5
SEPERATE BEARINGS
AND ELAST. COUPLING 10-15
NO PULLEY (TRANSM. SHAFT
•OR NO EXT. SHAFT END)
' '"
(
ur
h
1
— c
DAMPING 2-4
VIBRATION ISOLATION 5-10
NOISE REDUCING SHELL 5-15
LOW SPEED
SMALL TIP CLEARANCE
SUFFICIENT DISTANCE
TO ENGINE FRONT PARTS
3-8
DAMPING 2 -3
VIBRATION ISOLATION 5-10
NOISE REDUCING SHELL 3-8
STIFFENING 2-3
NOISE REDUCING SHELL 5-10
STIFFENING 2-3
NOISE REDUCING SHELL 5-15
DAMPING 2- 3
VIBRATION ISOLATION 4-8
NOISE REDUCING SHELL 5-15
NOISE REDUCING SHELL 5-15
STIFFENING:
a) STIFF PLATE ON FLANGE 1-3
b) STIFFENED WALLS 2-3
DAMPING 2-3
VIBRATION ISOLATION 4 - 8
NOISE REDUCING SHELL 5 -15
Figure 6-4
WATER-COOLED DIESEL ENGINE, METHODS OF
IMPROVEMENT AND EMPIRICAL DATA
IN dBA FOR NOISE REDUCTION
OF EXTERNAL ENGINE SURFACES
6-20
-------
bending frequency of the wall above the predominant frequency range
of the total noise. It may be necessary in some cases, however, to
stiffen not only the individual areas of a wall, but the whole housing
as well as by using, for instance, a stiffening plate attached to the oil
pan flange.
Typical noise-level reductions associated with these abatement
measures when applied to pans, covers, casing, and accessories range
from 2-10 dBA for individual components. In addition, as indicated
by Figure 6-4, noise reductions up to 15 dBA can be achieved by thin
and flexible sound reducing shells (covers), vibration isolation mounted
close to the sound radiating surfaces. In principle such shells can
be used on all engine components. Their application, however, is difficult
or impractical with certain engine parts having complex shapes such
as manifolds or gear covers.
In total, an overall noise level reduction of 5-7 dBA is a reasonable
expectation, if various combinations of the above techniques are employed.
Major reductions in engine casing noise must come from the use
of enclosures. With engine redesign, the enclosures can be partially
or totally integrated into the engine structure, thereby reducing the
need for much larger engine components.
Exhaust Noise - The data available [33] indicates that suitable
mufflers are available that will lower exhaust noise for all diesel
engines to noise levels of the engine or fan, without exceeding
manufacturers' limitations for maximum back pressure. Other general
conclusions [23] concerning exhaust noise/muffler design are:
6-21
-------
o Exhaust back pressures (a difficulty cited by sane manufacturers)
of roost mufflers are so low that the effect on net horsepower
is not measurable with ordinary instruments.
o The sound reduction properties of mufflers depend more on their
internal design, materials, etc., than on physical size.
o Exhaust pipe should be of heavy material. Flexible joints and
pipes should be avoided.
Air Intake - Of the remaining component major noise sources, i.e.,
air intake, transmission, hydraulics, and track, only air intake noise
can be considered to have any significance for a stationary noise measurement
procedure. Air intake noise, when it is a problem, can be reduced below
other major noise sources by use of air intake silencers.
APPLICATION OF CURRENTLY USED AND BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY TO
ACHIEVE QUIETER WHEEL AND CRAWLER TRACTORS
Manufacturers' design levels have been developed to provide regulatory
options for which the costs and economic impacts have been analyzed
(section 7). These levels were selected on the basis of both health/
welfare analysis, i.e., noise levels requisite to protect the public
health and welfare (section 5), and the noise reduction technologies
discussed above. Table 6-3 lists the design goal study levels and potential
lead times for their imposition. The previously described "currently
used" and "best available" technologies when applied to wheel and crawler
tractors result in sound levels which are designated Level II and Level
III, respectively, in Table 6-3. The Level I study level of Table 6-3
is based upon small reductions from the average noise levels of wheel
and crawler tractors in existence today sufficient to achieve a significant
health and welfare benefit as described in section 5.
6-22
-------
TABLE 6-3
Wheel and Crawler Tractor Study Levels
Design* Levels (dBA @15 Meters)
Machine
Type Classification Level 1 Level II Level III
Crawler 20-89 77 74 71
Dozer 90-199 78 75 72
200-259 82 80 77
260-450 Limit 84 81 78
Crawler 20-89 77 74 71
Loader 90-275+ 78 75 73
Wheel 20-134 79 76 73
Loader 135-241 80 77 74
242-348 83 81 77
349-500 Limit 84 82 78
Wheel 20-90+ 75 72 68
Tractors
Lead times (years) 236
For all classifications 4
5
6
*Regulatory levels are 2 dBA higher because of manufacturing and testing
variations as discussed in section 6.
6-23
-------
Noise Control Techniques to Achieve Level I
For typical machines, as shown by Table 6-4, noise levels must be
reduced 0 to 2.5 dBA to achieve proposed regulatory noise Level I. For
most machine types this will require only minor machine modifications.
For machines of less than 100 hp, a good quality muffler and shielding
of the engine compartment with side panels will provide the required noise
reduction. Currently, small machines (under 200 hp) with operator kits
are usually realizing more than the necessary noise reduction required
for Level I spectator noise.
Some machines of greater than 100 hp may require modifications of
the fans or cooling system. Machines of 100 to 300 hp can be expected
to have engine casing noise and fan noise as the major contributors to
the overall noise levels. Manufacturers should be able to attain the
required cooling system noise reduction by use of slower but larger fans
or improved fan shrouds. In many cases it is possible to maintain the
required airflow without using a larger fan blade. Tests with a standard
production shroud [5] have shown that by carefully sealing gaps between
the fan shroud and radiator the fan speed can be reduced while maintaining
the same radiator airflow and heat transfer. The reduction in sound level
due to decreased fan speed was approximately 3 dBA.
Machines of over 300 hp will in general require no noise reduction
to achieve Level I from the current average noise levels except for a
nominal 1 dBA reduction for wheel loaders. There may be some machines
which are above average in noise emissions and will require treatment.
However, machines which are far noisier than average are generally found
to have a specific design defect (such as a muffler with insufficient
insertion loss) which can readily be treated.
6-24
-------
Table 6-4
Wheel and Crawler Tractor Sound Level Reduction to Achieve
Level Level I, Level II, and Level III Study Levels*
Machine Type Current Noise Level (dBA) Noise Reduction Required (dBA)
4 side arithmetic average of high idle Level I Level II Level III
Crawler Dozer
20-89 79.5 2.5 5.5 8.5
90-199 80.0 2.0 5.0 8.0
200-259 84.0 2.0 4.0 7.0
260-450 84.0 0.0 3.0 6.0
Crawler Loader
20-89 79.5 2.5 5.5 8.5
90-275 80.0 2.0 5.0 8.0
Wheel Loader
20-134 81.5 2.5 5.5 8.5
135-241 81.5 0.5 4.5 7.5
245-348 84.0 1.0 3.0 7.0
349-500 84.0 0.0 2.0 6.0
Utility Tractor
20-90+ 77.0 2.0 5.0 9.0
*Study Levels are listed in Table 6-3.
6-25
-------
Noise Control Techniques to Achieve Level II
Level II represents noise levels manufacturers are currently
achieving with the application of existing retrofit technology. The
technology required to achieve these levels is being applied in current
production by some manufacturers. Although most machines now being
sold do not incorporate all the necessary noise abatement as standard
equipment, many manufacturers have integrated some of the suggested
noise control features to achieve Level II noise emissions into their
standard production. In addition, some manufacturers now offer noise
abatement kits which do achieve the postulated levels.
At present, wheel and crawler tractor sound levels must be reduced
2 to 5.5 dBA in order to achieve the proposed Level II levels. It can
be seen from Table 6-4 that the larger reductions are required on the
lower horsepower machines. Machines of 100 hp or less require noise
reductions of approximately 5.5 dBA, while machines of greater than
200 hp require noise reductions of 2 to 4 dBA.
For machines of up to 200 hp, engine casing noise can be reduced
by a combination of component treatments and barriers such as engine
side shields [5]. Isolation of radiating surfaces such as valve
covers, oil pans and intake manifolds can be accomplished by using
silicone-impregnated cork gasket 1/8 inch thick. In addition, damping
material (1/4 inch butyl rubber) bonded to valve covers will help eliminate
vibration excitation. To further reduce noise radiation from the engine
compartment, the use of foam lining for the hood and installation of
shielding covers consisting of a high density barrier material and lined
with an absorbant material to eliminate resonant build-up can be installed
6-26
-------
as shown in Figure 6-5 on engine surface components such as valve covers,
oil pans, etc., and also attached parts such as the transmission. Such
treatments should provide a reduction of approximately 6.5 dBA (the
required reduction as shown in Table 6-5) in the engine casing noise.
As indicated in Table 6-5 for machines above 200 hp, it will be
necessary to reduce noise from the engine casing by approximately 2.5
dBA. This will be possible for nearly all manufacturers without major
machine redesign. The measures described for achieving a 6.5 dBA reduction
in engine casing noise for machines under 200 hp can be applied to machines
of greater than 200 hp to achieve a 2 dBA noise reduction. Damping,
however, cannot be expected to be as effective as in the lower horsepower
machines because of the considerable mass of vibrating engine related
components in the larger machines.
For most machines in the 20-200 hp, fan noise will also have to
be reduced by approximately 2 to 5 dBA. Such a reduction in fan noise
is well within the limits of what can be expected on a typical machine
without major redesign of the cooling system. Machines at the lower
end of the 20-200 range which may only require 2 dBA reduction in fan
noise can be treated using a fan shroud or improved fan shroud as
explained under Noise Control techniques to Achieve Level 1.
For machines of greater than 200 hp, fan noise is the major noise
source so that fan or cooling system modification will provide the most
effective means of noise reduction. A reduction of fan, noise to approx-
imately 76 dBA at 50' (an average reduction of 5 dBA) will be possible
for most manufacturers without major redesign of the machine. However,
to achieve a noise reduction of this magnitude may require several
6-27
-------
RUBBER GROMMET
FOIL COVERING
OVER FIBER GLASS
SHEET METAL
SHELL
FIBER GLASS
ENGINE BLOCK
Figure 6-5 ILLUSTRATION OF AN ENGINE COMPONENT
SHIELDING COVER
6-28
-------
Table 6-5
Typical Noise Source Reductions Used to Develop Estimate of
Level II Design Goals (dBA)
Noise Level Reduction Noise Level Reduction
Component Under 200 HP Above 200 HP
Fan 5 5
Engine 6.5 2.5
Exhaust 6 2
Air Intake 6 3
Other 0 0
6-29
-------
modifications in the fan, fan shroud, and possibly radiator. By use
of more fan blades and greater projected blade width, the fan is able
to deliver the same airflow at reduced rpm.
A further reduction by increasing blade pitch from 30 degrees to
50 degrees allows for speed to be reduced approximately 400 rpm without
reducing airflow. This results in an additional noise reduction of
2 to 4 dBA. Thus, a reduction of 6 to 8 dBA in noise may be obtained
by increasing the number of blades and the blade pitch. If insufficient
airflow occurs due to the reduced fan speed, proper airflow can be restored
by improved fan shroud design and reduced fan tip clearance. The extent
of fan coverage by the shroud and the clearance between the fan tip
and shroud affect both airflow and noise. The airflow with the cylindrical
shroud is increased up to 25 percent with shroud coverage optimized
at 50 percent to 60 percent of blade projected width. When small tip
clearance (1/4 to 1/2 inch) can be maintained the venturi fan shroud
(Figure 6-3) has been found to be particularly effective giving both
a reduction in noise and an increase in airflow.
As indicated in Table 6-5, for most machines of under 200 hp, exhaust
noise levels will have to be reduced by approximately 6 dBA. At present
there is a large range of exhaust noise levels among machine models
due to the noise generation differences inherent in the various engine
types and due to insertion loss differences in available mufflers.
A third factor is the configuration and design of the exhaust system
components. One manufacturer recommends for its engines a configuration
with the tailpipe approximately twice the length of the exhaust pipe.
If this is impractical, the next best configuration recommended is the
6-30
-------
tailpipe one-fourth the length of the exhaust pipe. A further decrease
in noise emission due to configuration has been noted by the Department
of Transportation in a study of exhaust and intake noise [33]. It was
found that the best performing exhaust systems were those with a vertical
tailpipe; the least effective configuration was the horizontal tailpipe
and horizontal muffler. The sound level differences due to orientation
appeared significant, indicating up to 5 dBA spectator noise reduction
(at 50') with the vertical tailpipe and vertical muffler orientation.
Direct radiation from the muffler shell can be reduced by double
wall muffler construction. Exhaust and tailpipe should be of heavy
wall construction and should be isolated from structural members which
tend to radiate noise. In an exhaust pipe area where expansion joints
and connection are required, ball joint type connectors should be used.
Flexible pipes tend to have insufficient noise attenuation. For most
machines of greater than 200 hp exhaust noise requires little additional
treatment (approximately a 2 dBA reduction) to achieve the Level II
requirements. An exhaust noise emission of approximately 73 dBA in
combination with the fan and engine casing treatments described above
will achieve the 81 dBA design objective.
The final noise source which for some manufacturers may require
treatment in the machines over 200 hp is the air intake system. The
air intake sound levels vary tremendously with the selection of the
air cleaner used to filter engine air intake. Studies sponsored by
Department of Transportation [33] comparing unmuffled sound levels
with levels achieved when air cleaners were installed indicate that
the insertion loss varied from 9 dBA to 22 dBA on the air cleaners
6-31
-------
tested. An additional variation of 1.5 dBA to 2 dBA was observed for
engine versus remote mount of air cleaner. In every case the sound
level for the engine mount was less than the remote mount. Additional
air intake silencing should not be required with the careful selection
of air cleaner.
Noise Control Techniques to Achieve Level III
Level III is the most severe level studied. To achieve the design
noise levels associated with proposed Level III would require major
machine design changes incorporating noise abatement as a machine design
parameter. Noise reduction required from existing average noise levels
would range from 6 dBA to 9 dBA with the larger reductions required
for lower horsepower machines. As indicated in Table 6-6, to achieve
the total machine design noise level representing the use of best available
technology techniques, noise from the engine casing would be required
to be reduced 6 to 10 dBA.
For machines of less than 200 hp, engine casing noise would be
reduced an average of 10 dBA; for machines of greater than 200 hp, a
6 dBA reduction would be expected. One design feature reducing engine
noise at its source would be improved pistons. Expansion controlled
pistons of Autotheronic, Duothermic and other designs are available
to reduce piston fitting clearances and reduce piston noise by 1 to
3 dBA. However, the major reduction in engine noise would require the
use of a casing enclosure partially or totally integrated into the engine
structure. The casing would be isolated from the engine structure and
would attenuate airborne sound originating from the inner engine structure.
The treatment of the whole engine surface in this way is more effective
6-32
-------
Table 6-6
Typical Noise Source Reductions Used to Develop the Level
III Design Goals (dBA)
Component
Fan
Engine
Exhaust
Air Intake
Other
Noise Level Reduction
Under 200 HP
9
10
8
6
0
Noise Level Reduction
Above 200 HP
6
6
4
6
0
6-33
-------
than treatment of individual components if a noise reduction of greater
than 4 to 6 dBA is desired. The enclosures [21] can be designed for
high volume production using deep drawn sheet metal. The enclosure
typically would consist of a supporting frame elastically connected
to the engine and covers which can be easily removed and replaced for
servicing of the engine. Pipes, hoses and tubing would penetrate the
supporting frame and would not obstruct maintenance covers. The enclosures
would add slightly to the size of the engine compartment and negligibly
to the overall weight of the machine. No acoustical lining or side
panels would be required. Sound attenuating engine mounted enclosures
as described above have been designed with existing engines to yield
noise reduction of 15 to 20 dBA [21].
Fan noise reduction of approximately 6 dBA to 9 dBA would likely
be required for all horsepower classes to achieve the Level III design
objectives and could be accomplished somewhat easier than for Level
II because the additional lead time would permit redesign of the cooling
system. All of the design factors which would be optimized for Level
II would also be optimized in design for Level III, but in addition,
the basic machine design for the cooling system would be modified.
For example, increased radiator to fan and fan to engine spacing
can be employed to give reductions of 2 to 4 dBA over the close spacing
design now utilized. By increasing the radiator frontal area, heat
transfer requirements can be maintained with significant reductions
in rpm and noise. A 10 percent increase in radiator area can give 4.5
dBA reduction in sound levels. Use of increased number of fins, increased
6-34
-------
radiator thickness, and corrugated or louvered fins will increase the
heat transfer for a given airflow and will permit the same overall heat
flow with lower velocities.
Because the current design features have a wide range of parameter
values for a specific machine class, it is likely that different
manufacturers will find that major noise reductions are obtained from
different aspects of the cooling systems. In some machines, radiator
size now limits the operator's view of his work area. Manufacturers
with this problem may vary cooling system parameters which do not require
repositioning of the cab and increase of machine width unless these
features are also needed for other design requirements.
As indicated in Table 6-6 exhaust noise reduction across all machine
types would range from 4 to 8 dBA with the maximum exhaust noise reduction
occurring in machines of less than 100 hp. These machines have especially
good potential for noise reductions because of the low quality mufflers
currently employed on them. Machines of higher horsepower are currently
utilizing more effective exhaust system mufflers. The noise from engine
exhaust is one of the easiest of the major noise sources to control.
The methods previously described in Noise Control Techniques to Achieve Level II
are all applicable. Direct radiation from the muffler shell can be
reduced by double wall muffler construction. Exhaust and tailpipe should
be of heavy wall construction and should be isolated from structural
members which would tend to radiate noise. In an exhaust pipe area where
expansion joints and connection are required, ball joint type connectors
should be used, not flexible pipes which tend to have insufficient noise
attenuation.
6-35
-------
After noise levels from the cooling system, engine casing, and
exhaust systems have been reduced, noise from the air intake will be
the major noise source. As indicated in Tables 6-6, noise from this
source would be reduced by 6 dBA. Air intake noise is easily controlled
and these levels should not be difficult to attain. An air inlet silencer
may be required for some machine models in addition to selection of
a more effective noise attenuating cleaner. As with exhaust piping,
the air intake piping should be heavy-wall construction and should avoid
rubber components to maximize noise attenuation.
SUMMARY
Using the noise control techniques discussed above, it is believed
that typical existing machine configurations can be quieted to the proposed
design levels if sufficient lead time is provided. It is noted that
individual manufacturers would not necessarily choose to use the typical
methods and techniques described above since many alternative methods
and techniques are possible to reach these levels. Most manufacturers
would first assess each of their machine types/classifications to determine
the dominant noise sources associated with each machine configuration.
The necessary noise reductions applied to each component source to reach
the overall design goals would then be determined and manufacturers
would use either the most cost-effective techniques available or else
those which, within the limitations of their technological expertise,
they believe to be most suitable.
6-36
-------
Section 7
COST AND ECONOMIC IMPACT
To address the potential economic impact of noise emission
regulations upon those affected (producers, users, suppliers), EPA
acquired detailed data on pricing and sales of wheel and crawler
tractors. Additional information was developed on the estimated
costs of reducing noise emissions of that equipment, using current
production technology and best available quieting technology.
This section is divided into three major parts. The first
presents an analysis of the data presented in Section 2 with the
specific objective of estimating price elasticities of demand for
segments of the tractor market. The second part presents the cost
and compliance information, followed by the economic impact analyses
performed using these data.
DATA ANALYSIS
Market Trends - Short Run Outlook
The increase in prices in the last two years has been due
largely to the lifting of price controls and the resulting shortage
of materials. The costs of components, specialty steel and energy
are expected to continue to rise. International Harvester, which
manufactures all four types of impacted equipment, expects these
costs to result in a 6 to 7 percent across-the-board increase in
1976 in the wholesale price of its construction tractors and loaders.
Growth in the end-user industries will vary. Table 7-1 shows
the distribution by sector of an estimated overall 10.5 percent
increase in value of new construction between 1975 and 1976. A 34
percent increase in new housing, a 15 percent increase in new systems
7-1
-------
TABLE 7-1
ESTIMATED VALUE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION
PUT IN PLACE 1975-1976
($ billions)
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
SEGMENTS
PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION
Residential Buildings
Nonresidential
Buildings
PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION
Residential Buildings
Nonresidential
Buildings
Highways & Streets
Military Facilities
Conservation and
Development
Water Systems
Sewer Systems
Misc. Public
Construction
TOTAL NEW CONSTRUCTION
Value
1975
90.01
43.6
46.5
40.8
1.0
14.6
11.7
1.3
2.9
1.3
4.8
3.2
130.9
1976
103.9
55.4
48.5
40.8
.8
14.5
11.1
1.2
2.8
1.9
5.5
3.0
144.7
*D t* "D O T AT TO
PERCENT
CHANGE
+ 15.3
+ 27. 1
+ 4.3
___
-20.0
- 0.7
-5.1
- 7.7
- 3.4
+ 46.2
+ 14.6
- 6.3
+ 10.5
Source: Cahner's Economics Research,
7-2
-------
and an 8 percent increase in public utilities construction are leading
elements in the construction industry recovery. Increased mining activity
(up to 20 percent) will also help boost sales of large loaders and tractors.
1976 Demand
The Construction Industry Manufacturing Association (CIMA) expects to
see a 14 percent increase in 1976 real dollar value of total shipments
within the industry (Table 7-2), provided that increased rates do not
skyrocket and dampen capital spending. The crawler tractor market is up
and expected to continue its rise (Table 7-3). The wholesale prices and
inventory level increases in these machines are both considerably below the
industry-wide figures. The tractor shovel loader figures, on the other
hand, more nearly resemble the industry-wide figures except that they are
less than the industry figures for 1975 domestic and overseas shipments
(Table 7-4).
EFFECT OF PRICE ON DEMAND
Noise regulations will impose increased costs on manufacturers
and should result in higher market prices. The basic tool for analyzing
o
this effect is the price elasticity of demand.
price elasticity of demand for a machine's services is
defined as:
* d
Am p
*"P .«
Where p is price and m is the amount demanded at price p. iv
measures the percentage increase in demand associated with a 1 percent
increase in price. As such, it is generally a negative number. If n
is close to zero, demand is not sensitive to price and is said to be
inelastic; if r^ is close to, or greater than unity, in absolute value,
demand is responsive to price and is said to be elastic.
7-3
-------
TABLE 7-2
1975-1976 CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY SALES
(Percent Change)
ESTIMATED
SHIPMENTS 1975 1976 REAL
TO DOLLAR VALUE DOLLAR VALUE
U.S. - 3.2a +14.lb
Canada +11.3 +0.8
Overseas +20.9 - 0.5
aAs a function of 1974 dollar value.
As a function of 1975 dollar value.
BETWEEN JULY 1974 AND JULY 1975
(Percent Change)
Wholesale machinery prices increased 20.3
Inventory levels rose 60.3
Source: Outlook '76
Note: The Outlook '76, a forecast of 1976 sales by the
$8 billion construction equipment manufacturing industry, is
the Association's sixth annual report and forecast and is
based on data obtained in a survey of 39 CIMA member companies
between Septmber 1 and October 15, 1975. The numerical res-
ponses of the contributors were weighted according to the size
of each company's annual sales. Unfortunately, this report
does not contain any dollar or unit figures; it only contains
percentage figures (of change from 1974 to 1975 and from 1975
to 1976) .
7-4
-------
TABLE 7-3
1975-1976 CRAWLER TRACTOR SALES
(Percent Change)
ESTIMATED
SHIPMENTS 1975 1976 REAL
TO DOLLAR VALUE DOLLAR VALUE
U.S. + 5.2 +15.0
Canada +15.8 + 0.1
Overseas +9.0 +6.5
BETWEEN JULY 1974 AND JULY 1975
(Percent Change)
Wholesale machinery prices increased 14.5
Inventory levels rose 38.2
Source: Outlook'7 6
7-5
-------
TABLE 7-4
1975-1976 WHEEL LOADER SALES
(Percentage Change)
ESTIMATED
SHIPMENTS 1975 1976 REAL
TO DOLLAR VALUE DOLLAR VALUE
U.S. - 7.3 +17.4
Canada +15.6 +1.8
Overseas +4.3 - 1.9
BETWEEN JULY 1974 AND JULY 1975
(Percent Change)
Wholesale machinery prices increased 21.3
Inventory levels rose 57.8
Source: Outlook '76 (november 1975) : 10,
7-6
-------
The determination of an elasticity allows an assessment of the
percent change in sales that could be expected if certain hypothesized
changes in prices occur, all other things being equal. EPA estimated
such elasticities using time series data in a regression model. The
absence of previous estimates of this elasticity has prevented comparisons.
Due to the limitation of historical data, only crawler tractors
and wheel loaders were studied for a 15-year period. Both machine classes
were studied as a whole, and, in addition, one size category within each
class was also studied. The analysis was complicated by the fact that
during this 15-year period changes in price were accompanied by changes in
machine size and quality. Under such conditions, all other things are not
equal, which required lengthy development of size and quality variables to
separate these effects from "true" price increase. A price variable was
developed, as well as a stock variable, and these factors were included in
the estimate of elasticity.
The activity levels in at least four industry segments —
construction, mining, forestry, and agriculture — also affect the demand
for wheel and crawler tractors. These effects were accounted for in the
development of a single user activity variable.
7-7
-------
The complete list of variables used in the analysis are:
o Average machine demand
o Average machine size
o Average machine price
o Average machine productivity
o Existing stock of machines
o User industry activity levels
o Substitution price ratio.
It has not been possible to pinpoint demand elasticities with
the information available for this study. The sample size was
small, quality adjustments could not be exact, price variation was
limited, and the prices of substitutable factors of production,
notably labor and other construction machinery, could not be con-
trolled in the desired manner.
The best-guess values and likely bracketing values for the true
elasticities are reported in Table 7-5. The ranges reported are
weak confidence intervals, one standard error in both directions
from the point estimate. They should be interpreted as being more
likely to contain the true elasticity than to exclude it. The range
of uncertainty about the true elasticities remains large.
7-8
-------
TABLE 7-5
Best-Guess Values and Likely Brackets
on the Price Elasticity of Demand for
Construction Machine Services, 1960-1974
PRODUCT
BEST GUESS
PRICE ELASTICITY
RANGE
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
CRAWLER TRACTOR
60 hp to 89 hp
all sizes
WHEEL LOADERS
3
2.50_BA 3.5-yd
all sizes
-1.35
-1.50
•
-1.00
NA
-0.52
-0.95
-0.30
NA
-2.18
-2.05
-1.70
NA
The analysis suggests that the price of the services of crawler tractors
has a moderately strong influence on demand. The absolute value of the
price elasticity of demand appears to have been close to, and perhaps
9
somewhat greater than, unity in the years between 1960 and 1974. The
evidence for wheeled loaders points in the same direction although it is
less definitive. Consequently, a pro rata reduction in the demand for new
machines can be expected to follow any increases in price resulting from
EPA noise emission regulations: e.g., 5 percent (or more) reduction in
demand will result from a 5 percent increase in price , etc.
This refers to the short-run (same year) elasticity; if there are
significant lags in the adjustment of demand to market conditions, the
final long-run elasticity will be correspondingly greater.
The reduction in demand for machine services will translate
directly into an equivalent reduction in new machine demand (in size
units) if the productivity of machines is unchanged at that time, as
appears likely. If competing machines (e.g., scrapers for tractors,
tracked loaders for wheeled loaders) are also regulated, the demand
reductions will be less marked.
7-9
-------
COST OF COMPLIANCE
Introduction
To examine the costs associated with noise control of the identified
machines, two major subdivisions have been adopted. The first covers basic
costs of producing machines which comply with noise standards, excluding
testing costs. The second is devoted entirely to the costs of testing the
ultimately quieted wheel and crawler tractors.
Based upon health and welfare considerations discussed in section 5,
and technology considerations discussed in section 6, the Agency chose
three study levels for detailed cost and economic impact analysis. The
first level (Level I) corresponds, in general, to the average present day
levels and requires only a slight reduction in noise emissions. It has been
included in this study because of the large health and welfare benefits
11
associated with it. As discussed in section 6, the other levels include
one based upon commonly used retrofit technology (Level II), and the other
based on an engineering analysis of what is believed to be the levels
achievable using the Best Available Technology (Level III). The costs
developed for each of the levels were predicated on the application of the
technologies discussed in section 6 to treat typical machines within
the various horsepower categories. As can be seen from Table 7-6, costs
for achieving Level I have been estimated for a 2-year lead time, i.e.,
11
This level is not based on any state-of-the-art technology, and
it only applies to the noisiest machines currently produced. Since it
is the first — and easiest — level to reach, it is called Level I.
7-10
-------
-J
.1
Table 7-6
Estimated R&D, Capital, L&M, O&M Costs to Achieve Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3
Costs
R&D
(For costliest model
in horsepower category,
by machine type)
Capital
(For each model
manufactured )
L&M
(For each unit
manufactured )
O&M
(For each unit
manufactured )
Level 1
2 Yrs.
$=24,900
+ HP1
$=19,900
-19HP2
$ 5,000
$= 296
+1.24HP1
$= 249
+0.7HP2
$= 170
+0.16HP
Level 2
3 Yrs.
$=67,750
-27.5HP
$ 10,000
$= 415
+1.8HP
$= 210
+0.70HP
Level 2
4 Yrs.
$=63,313
-27.3HP
$ 8,333
$= 394
+1.7HP
$= 200
+0.66HP
Level 2
5 Yrs.
$=58,877
-27.1HP
$ 6,667
$= 374
+1.6HP
$= 190
+0.62HP
Level 2
6 Yrs.
$=54,440
-26.9HP
$ 5,000
$= 353
+1.5HP
$= 180
+0.58HP
Level 3
6 Yrs.
$=94,250
-42.5HP
$ 5,000
$= 1,319
+2.26HP
$= 610
+1.15HP
Source: EPA Estimates - See Text.
HP < 350
HP > 350
-------
an effective date two years subsequent to promulgation of a regulation.
Four lead time scenarios were studied for Level II — 3 years through 6
years — in order to show the sensitivity of these costs to variations in
the lead time and to allow for the analysis of regulatory options involving
phased levels of increasing severity. Level III costs have been estimated
with an associated 6-year lead time.
Basic Compliance Costs
Costs of compliance were broken up into the following components:
1. Research and Development (R&D)
2. Capital Cost
3. Labor and Materials (LSM)
4. Operating and Maintenance (O&M)
Manufacturer costs of abatement were estimated as a function of horsepower
using procedures described below. Table 7-6 displays the equations used to
develop estimates of the various costs for each unit, model, and firm as
well as for the industry as a whole.
The total of the various manufacturers' cost components implies
12
an average manufacturer's cost /list price ratio ranging from nearly
1 percent for Level I to over 3 percent for Level III. Level II cost
increases are estimated at from 1 to 1.3 percent, depending upon the lead
time. Worst case estimates of price increases have also been developed
based upon the assumption that full pass through of cost increases would
occur.
Manufacturer's cost refers to amortized capital, direct labor, direct
materials, overhead and G&A. It does not include manufacturer's profit or
dealer's margin.
7-12
-------
General Methodology. Cost estimates (in 1976 dollars) have been
derived for implementing the various technologies discussed in section 6,
given the lead times shown in Table 7-6. These estimates were derived from
several sources, including:
1. The DOT Noise Control Handbook for Diesel Powered Vehicles,
[35] which includes costs of mufflers and air intake filters, together
with performance rating of different materials on various engines.
2. Industry suppliers, for data on increased fan efficiency,
shrouds, and pulley changes for lowering fan speeds.
3. Published industrial sources, for specific dollar figures
for individual quieting materials.
With the assistance of industry experts, estimates were made of the
manpower — in terms of both time and expertise — and materials required
to achieve each of the three study levels within the specified lead times.
Table 7-6 summarizes the basic cost matrix developed for wheel
and crawler tractors for the three noise emission levels and their associated
lead times. Manufacturer costs were developed for the following three
basic cost components:
1. Research and Development (R&D) cost
2. Capital cost
3. Labor and Materials (L&M) cost
R&D costs are incurred in determining the specific means to be used
in quieting a given machine. Since a manufacturer's models within any
machine category are similar, it is assumed that the same techniques
may be used for all of a firm's models within any category. For this
7-13
-------
reason, R&D costs for each firm are calculated once for each category in
which the firm manufactures products.
The cost of quieting any given machine depends upon the machine's
current noise emission level, the decibel reduction planned, and the
time alloted to accomplish this reduction. Present emission levels
vary significantly from machine to machine; thus, the costs of quieting
machines could vary markedly from manufacturer to manufacturer, as well as
among the machine types and sizes produced by an individual firm. The
noise reductions specified here, together with the abatement costs derived,
are based on average machine noise levels and average obtainable reduction
from current levels. The cost matrix used is based on a straight line
interpolation of the costs of quieting a small machine and the costs of
quieting a large machine.
The cost matrix displayed in Table 7-6 has been used to estimate
average manufacturer and industry costs of abatement. The costs have been
calculated independently for each study level. The costs do not assume
that expenditure for Level I is prerequisite to the costs of Level II or
Level III.
Research and Development Costs. The research and development costs
due to noise abatement include the costs of manpower, materials, and
facilities which are used in determining the techniques and approaches best
suited to quieting a given machine to a specific level. Also included in
R&D costs are the costs of component noise testing and the Production
Verification testing required prior to sale for all impacted equipment.
7-14
-------
These costs are incurred by the manufacturer before the quieted machine is
marketed, and accounting practice requires that they be expensed in the
period in which they are incurred. Therefore, R&D costs of abatement would
actually be reflected in the cost of producing existing machines, rather
than in the costs of new quieted machines.
Estimates have been made of the total manufacturers' R&D costs.
Figure 7-1 displays the total manufacturers' R&D costs by horsepower
size for each study level and for the range of lead times studied.
This figure shows that the R&D costs to achieve each study level decrease
with increasing horsepower. This is because larger machines, with their
large engine enclosure volumes and available interior enclosure surface
area, more readily lend themselves to the incorporation of noise control
features. Small machines often have space limitations and, as such, may
require additional engineering time in order to incorporate design features
which may accommodate a noise control device such as a muffler. The one
exception to this pattern of decreasing costs for larger machines is in the
Level I costs for machines under 350 hp. Here the rise in costs is due to
the increasing expenses associated with engine enclosures.
Additionally, for use in the analysis of regulatory alternatives,
Table 7-7 indicates the total R&D costs aggregated for each of the five
machine classifications.
7-15
-------
100-1
90 _
80-
70_
5
8
cn
Q
60-
50-
I 40.
EH
.
LEVEL 1 (2 YEARS)
20-
I
100
200 300
HORSEPOWER
400
I
500
Figure 7-1 Research and Development Costs
by Study Level
-------
I
M
»J
Table 7-7
Manufacturer's Total R&D Costs by Machine Type/Classification Category
(Thousands of Dollars)
Machine Type
Crawler Tractor
Wheel Loader
Utility Tractor
Totals
Classification
Category (HP)
20-199
200-450
20-249
250-500
20-90+
Level 1
2 Yrs.
$594. 5
164.1
717.5
200.8
125.0
$1801. 9
Level 2
3 Yrs.
$1726.4
433.0
2016.4
533.1
332.6
$5041.5
4 Yrs.
$1563.4
401.3
1861.5
493.7
310.4
$4630.3
5 Yrs.
$1400.3
369,5
1707.5
454.3
288.3
$4219.9
6 Yrs.
$1237.3
337.8
1553.0
414.9
266.1
$3809.1
Level 3
6 Yrs.
$1879.3
593.2
2614.0
729.8
461.7
$6278.0
-------
Capital Costs. Capital costs are the costs incurred in applying the
various abatement technologies to each model. These costs are the result
of the required increases in parts inventories, the changes in machine
specifications, and the preparation of new manuals to reflect machine
changes due to noise abatement. They also include estimates of the costs
attributable to the slight modifications which would be made in production
lines. Because these costs are for such standard items as manuals and
specifications, which are needed for any model, they do not vary with
machine size or type. Increases in inventories and changes in specifications
and manuals are more extensive for Levels II and III than they are for
Level I. These costs are completely reflected only in the estimate for
Level II with a 3-year lead time because most capital cost items are a
standard part of the regular redesign costs which manufacturers will incur
normally in their design cycle. Generally competitively inspired redesign
will absorb these costs given lead time sufficiently large to accommodate
this redesign.
Since most firms in the industry use minimal tooling, the estimates of
capital costs given in Table 7-6 assume that there will be either no
tooling costs or only minimal tooling costs due to noise abatement. While
larger firms may find it economical to build dies and jigs for larger scale
production, it is assumed that this expensive process would not be undertaken
unless it resulted in a substantial reduction in L&M costs, thus accounting
for an overall lowering of total unit cost. Table 7-3 indicates the total
capital costs for each machine classification.
7-18
-------
Table 7-8
Total Manufacturer's Capital Costs by Machine Type/Classification Category
(Thousands of Dollars)
Machine Type
Crawler Tractors
Wheel Tractors
Utility Tractors
Totals
Classification
Category (HP)
20-199
200-450
20-249
250-500
20-90+
Level 1
2 Yrs.
$310
40
345
70
120
$885
Level 2 [Level 3
3 Yrs.
$620
80
690
140
240
$1770
4 Yrs.
$516.7
66.7
575.0
116.7
200.0
$1475.0
5 Yrs.
$413.3
53.3
460.0
93.3
160.0
$1180.0
6 Yrs.
$310
40
345
70
.120
$885
6 Yrs.
$310
4Q
345
70
120
$885
I
M
vo
-------
Labor and Material Costs. The L&M cost estimates reflect the additional
funds which would be spent on labor and materials in order to produce
machines which meet the three study levels. Figure 7-2 displays the total
L&M costs to achieve Level I, II, and III. This figure shows that the per
unit costs of abatement increase significantly as more sophisticated
techniques are used to reduce noise emissions. It is estimated that L&M
costs to achieve Level II in 6 years should be 15 percent lower than that
required with a 3-year lead time. It is presumed that the longer lead time
will allow the industry to incorporate basic design changes which will
mitigate the need for some of the L&M intensive retrofit-type techniques
which will be required if only a three-year lead time is provided. Table
7-9 indicates the increase in Labor and Material costs for each classifica-
tion category.
Operating and Maintenance^Cost Increases. The operating and maintenance
cost increases reflect the additional material and labor costs incurred by
users resulting from such activities as the insertion, replacement or
repair of noise suppression devices, the removal of engine enclosure to
access engine components, etc. Additionally, increased operating costs
have been included to reflect the possible 1 to 3 percent reductions in
fuel economy. These reductions are due to the use of noise suppression
devices, e.g., improved mufflers, heavy engine enclosures, changes in
direct injection timing, etc. Figure 7-3 displays the O&M cost increases
Including burden, but excluding profit and dealer margin.
7-20
-------
2,500
2,400
2,300-
2,200"]
2,100-
2,000-
1,900-
1,800-
1,700-
1,600^
1,500-
•a
^ 1,400-
^ 1,300H
yz
H
E^ 1,200-1
H \
S. 1,100-
E^
w
8 1,000-1
900 -
800 ~
700 -|
600 -
500
400 -
300 -
200-i
100-
100
200 300
HORSEPOWER
400
500
Figure 7-2 Labor and Material Costs by Study
Level
7-21
-------
to
to
Table 7-9
Manufacturer's Average Increase in Labor and Material Costs
by Machine Type/Classification Category
Machine Type
Crawler Tractor
Wheel Loader
Utility Tractor
Classification
Category
(hp)
20-199
200-450
20-249
250-500
20-90 +
Level 1
2 Years
410
490
445
615
370
Level 2
3 Years
585
950
625
974
520
4 Years
552
900
590
570
490
5 Years
525
852
555
870
465
6 Years
445
803
525
845
440
Level 3
6 Years
1529
1980
1534
2010
1450
-------
1000 .
800 .
-£
•2
z
H
£*
H
Z
600
400 •
200 •
—I—
100
200
360
4bO
"scfb
Horsepower
Figure 7-3 Operating and i-iaintenance
Costs by Study Level
-------
Table 7-10
Average Annual Increase in Operating and
Maintenance Cost Per Machine
(in Dollars)
Machine Type
Crawler Tractor
Wheel Loader
Utility Tractor
Classifi-
cation
Category
(hp)
20-199
200-450
20-249
250-500
20-90 +
Level 1
2 Years
$ %
180 1.342
238 1.115
208 0.5736
284 1.270
160 1.451
Level 2
3 Years
$ %
284 2.177
462 2.165
294 0.8107
450 2.012
224 2.031
4 Years
$ %
270 2.013
439 2.057
278 0.7666
427 1.909
213 1.932
5 Years
$ %
256 1.908
416 1.949
262 0.7225
404 1.807
202 1.832
6 Years
$ %
241 1.796
393 1.842
246 0.6784
382 1.708
190 1.723
Level 3
6 Years
$ %
742 5.531
964 4.517
720 1.985
930 4.159
624 5.659
-------
Table 7-11
.Baseline Data (Prior to Effective Date of Regulation)
to
Ul
Machine
Type
Crawler
Tractor
Wheel
Loader
Utility
Tractor
TOTAL
Classifi-
cation
Category
(hp)
20-199
200-450
20-249
250-500
20-90+
No. of
Machines
in
Existence
111', 595
20,588
65,935
14,652
195,000
407,770
Average
No. Sold
Per Year
23,321
3,432
13,355
2,704
27,516
76,899
Average
List/Purchase
Price Per
Machine
($)
42,783
141,091
45,436
124,974
12,672
Total
List/Purchase
Price — All
Machines
Sold Annually
($ Million)
997.756
484.224
606.800
337.931
348.675
2,775.385
Average
O&M Cost
Per
Machine
($)
13,415
21,341
14,923
22,362
11,027
Total
OSM Cost-
Entire
Fleet
($ Million)
1,497.047
439.369
983.948
327.684
2,150.265
5,398.303
-------
to achieve Levels I, II, and III. Table 7-10 indicates the increased
Operating and Maintenance costs for each classification category. The
percentage increases are also indicated relative to baseline data which is
shown in Table 7-11.
Variation in Lead Time. The costs presented in Table 7-6 are
applicable to the three study levels only for the lead times indicated.
Altering the lead time, particularly shortening it, can dramatically
change the associated costs. Industry sources have noted that overall
costs for Level I and Level II could double if the lead times are reduced
significantly. The allocation of these increased costs among the components
of R&D, capital, and L&M are not clear, but it is anticipated that the
shortened time allowed to quiet machines would force most of the costs to
accrue to L&M. With short lead times, suppliers may perform much of the
R&D and charge higher unit costs for their components. Also, manufacturers
may purchase inefficient quieting components and install poorly matched
parts; this misuse of equipment may result in increased L&M costs.
In the case of Level III, a reduction in lead time would diminish
the likelihood that its implementation would coincide with a regular
design cycle. In this event, an estimated $350,000 to $500,000 per model
design cost would have to be included in the estimated costs of achieving
the third study level.
Noise Emission Testing Costs
The following discussion pertains to the costs associated with
the measurement of the noise emission levels of newly quieted
products. The costs associated with this activity will include test
site construction as well as operating costs.
7-26
-------
The manufacturers will also test noise levels of existing machines,
and also conduct additional testing in connection with R&D programs.
These costs have already been considered in the preceding discussion
of R&D costs of compliance.
Test Requirements. Tests will be performed to fulfill two
requirements: (1) Production Verification and (2) Selective Enforcement
Auditing. Production Verification (PV) is the testing of early
production models to verify that a manufacturer has the requisite
noise control technology in hand and has successfully applied the
technology in the manufacturing process. Selective Enforcement
Auditing (SEA) is the testing, pursuant to an administrative request,
of a statistical sample of wheel and crawler tractors of a particular
category selected from a particular assembly plant in order to determine
whether the equipment produced conforms to the established standards
and to provide a basis for further action in the case of nonconformity.
Only PV costs have been included in the R&D cost estimates.
Proposed Test Procedure. The proposed test procedure described
in section 6 is based upon current industry practices for measuring
exterior sound levels at spectator locations. Machines are to be
tested in the stationary mode only, at high idle, with no load.
All sound levels are to be reported as A-weighted sound levels. The
noise emission level of a machine is the arithmetic average of four
sound level readings taken at 15 meters from the front, rear, and
both sides of the machine.
7-27
-------
Test Costs - General. The costs associated with the proposed
test procedure involve the capital costs for constructing the test
site and purchasing the measurement equipment, and the costs for
labor and materials used in conducting tests and maintaining equip-
ment. (Additional transport charges will be incurred in delivering
machines to the test site and returning them to the storage yard.
These will vary with the size of the machine and the distance to the
test site and are not included in testing cost estimates.)
Test Costs - Capital. The cost of constructing a hard re-
2
fleeting plane of smooth and sealed concrete large enough (557m )
to accommodate the largest machine in the scope of this study has
been estimated. The costs given in Table 7-12 are for a 6-inch slab
of concrete with reinforcing steel. The total cost of site construc-
tion is estimated at about fifteen thousand dollars.
The second component of capital costs associated with the
proposed test procedure is for measurement equipment. Table 7-13
describes the equipment required. The sound level meter and cali-
bration equipment are the most expensive items required'.
The total capital costs associated with the proposed test
procedure are estimated at $20,000. These costs include approxi-
mately $15,000 for site construction and $5,000 for instrumentation.
The latter figure is used to cover the cost of measurement kits.
7-28
-------
Table 7-12
Cost Estimate for Construction of
Test Site Measurement Area
CONCRETE
2 3
557 m2 x 10.764 ££- x 0.5 ft x ^\ x yd ,. = $3,330
m yd 27 ft
STEEL REBAR (3/4-inch diameter rods laid on 6-inch centers in both directions)
65.6 ft x 197 bars = 12,923 ft
98.4 ft x 131 bars = 12,890 ft
-4 25,813 ft
*° 25,813 ft x 1.502 Ib/ft x $15/100 Ib = $5,815
LABOR (Aggregate Trades)
40 hr/wk x 6 men x $11.00 hr/man x 1 wk = $ 2,640
SUBTOTAL 11,785
CONTRACTOR (G&A & Profit) xl.3
TOTAL $15,320
-------
TABLE 7-13
MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT REQUIRED FOR
THE PROPOSED TEST PROCEDURE
SOUND LEVEL METER
For all sound level measurements, a sound level meter and microphone
system that conforms to the Type 1 requirements of the American
National Standard Institute (ANSI) Specification SI.4-1971, "American
National Standard Specification for Sound Level Meters," and to the
requirements of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)
Publication 179, "Precision Sound Level Meters," shall be used.
MICROPHONE WINDSCREEN
For all sound level measurements, a microphone windscreen shall be
used that shall not change measured sound levels in excess of i 0.5 dB
to 5 kHz and ± 2.0 dB to 12 kHz.
CALIBRATION
The entire acoustical instrumentation system shall be calibrated
before and after each test series on a given machine. A sound
level calibrator accurate within ± 0.5 dB shall be used. A complete
frequency response calibration of the instrumentation over the
entire range of 25 Hz to 12.5 kHz, shall be performed at least
annually using a technique of sufficient precision and accuracy
to determine compliance with ANSI SI.4-1971 and IEC 179 Standards.
This calibration shall consist, at a minimum of an overall frequency
response calibration and an attenuator (gain control) calibration
plus a measure of dynamic range and instrument noise floor.
ANEMOMETER
An anemometer or other device, accurate to within ± 10 percent, shall
be used to measure ambient wind velocity.
POWER SOURCE SPEED INDICATOR
An indicator, (e.g. a stroboscope) accurate to within ± 2 percent
shall be used to measure power source speed (rpm).
BAROMETER
A barometer accurate to within i 1 percent shall be used to measure
atmospheric pressure.
THERMOMETER
A Thermometer accurate to within ± 1 percent shall be used to measure
ambient temperature.
7-30
-------
Some firms may not incur these costs because they-may already
have adequate test sites. It is possible that a firm may have a
14
parking lot or other area which may require little or no modifica-
tion to satisfy the requirements of the test procedure.
Test Cost - L&M. The costs involved in testing machines have
been estimated by an independent testing firm. Their estimate of
the labor cost for test setup and performance, and reporting is:
Technician — 1 hr per test $15.00
Administrative & Reporting — per test 15.00
$30.00
The test requires a minimum of two technicians, one operating the
machine and the other reading the sound level meter, and the entire
procedure can be completed in 20 minutes if there are no delays.
This estimate does not include the cost of transportation associated
with moving machines to and from test sites. It is expected that in
14
One firm uses the turnaround area at the end of its private
airstrip as a test site.
It is also possible for firms to use the EPA Enforcement Test
Facility at Sandusky, Ohio, but the industry's concern with the
privacy of information makes it unlikely that this government-owned
site will be used by manufacturers.
The Transportation Research Center of Ohio (TRC), East Liberty,
Ohio.
7-31
-------
most cases the test site — whether it is a parking lot or a site speci-
fically constructed for testing — will be at the assembly plant. If
this is not the case, the cost of transportation should be included.
Industry estimates are somewhat higher than the independent firm's
estimate of $30.00 for technician and reporting services, but this
is because the industry includes the cost of transporting the
machine from the assembly line to the test site. With these con-
siderations, a best-guess estimate of the L&M costs per test is $59,
with $44 for technician and operator labor and $15 to cover the
costs of record keeping and reporting.
Maintenance costs per test are negligible. The upkeep of
meters and transducers requires occasional replacement of batteries
and periodic maintenance and cleaning of the equipment. These costs
are estimated at $10.00 per month, $120 per year, which would add
only a small amount to the cost of any given test. The optional use
of high quality tape recorders could increase the cost of a test by
approximately $8.00.
If the test site is not at the plant, then transportation costs
could be included in the cost per test. However, even these costs
need not be attributed solely to testing costs. If, as expected, the
machines are shipped to dealers in the vicinity of the test site,
the transport could be partly accommodated in shipping costs to the
dealer.
7-32
-------
Costs Applicable to Existing Machines
Some of the costs of producing quieter machines will be incurred
by firms prior to their marketing of those new machines. The costs
involved include manufacturer's R&D capital and test site costs
incurred during the research and development phase. Since these
costs are expensed in the period in which they occur, they must be
paid for by the sales of existing machines. Estimates of these
costs have been calculated separately for each firm and for the
industry as a whole for each of the study level and lead time combinations
discussed in section 6. For the purpose of the analysis, it has been
assumed that each firm's existing machines, when averaged across all
models, represent typical machines for which the available noise
abatement technologies requisite to achieve the study levels, as
discussed in section 6, are applicable. It is noted, however, that
individual firms and/or machine models may incur higher or lower costs
than the average costs considered in this analysis. Table 7-14
summarizes these costs for each machine classification category.
Costs Applicable to Quieted Machines
Costs applicable to new machines are the costs which are incurred
after the completion of the research and development phase. These
include manufacturer's capital costs, test site costs, and L&M
costs. These costs have been fully burdened to produce average
increases in list prices for machines in each classification category
as indicated in Table 7-15. The percentage increases indicated are
relative to baseline prices listed in Table 7-11.
7-33
-------
n
Table 7-J4
Total Increase in Manufacturer's Initial Investment Cost Prior to Regulation
by Machine Type/Classification Category (Dollars)
MACHINE
TYPE CLASSIFICATION
CRAWLER TRACTOR 20-199
200-450
WHEEL LOADER 20-249
250-500
UTILITY TRACTOR 20-90+
LEVEL 1
2 YRS.
1,004,600
22,900
1,339,100
301,800
290,600
3 YRS.
2,446,500
529,800
2,963,000
704,100
618,200
LEVI
4 YRS.
2,180,134
484,733
2,700,200
641,367
-56,033
:L 2
5 YRS.
1,913,768
439,666
2,437,400
578,634
493,866
6 YRS.
1,647,400
394,600
2,174,600
515,900
431,700
LEVEL 3
6 YRS.
2,289,400
650,000
3,235,600
830,800
627,300
-J
I
-------
Table 7-15
Average Annual Increase in List Price Per Machine
(Dollars)
Machine
Type
Crawler
Tractor
Wheel
Loader
Utility
Tractor
Classifi-
cation
Category
(hp)
20-199
200-450
20-249
250-500
20+
Level 1
2 Years
$
538.1
639.6
581.1
804.7
483.6
%
1.258
.4533
1.279
.6439
3.816
Level 2
3 Years
$
767.0
1238.9
817.7
1270.1
679.9
%
1.7930
.8781
1.7990
1.0170
5.3650
4 Years
$
727.4
1176.5
772.9
1203.8
645.50
%
1.7000
.8339
1.7010
.5992
5.0930
5 Years 6 Years
$
687.7
1114.1
728.0
1137.5
611.0
%
1.6070
.7897
1.6020
.9100
4.8210
$
647.4
1051.7
683.3
974.2
576.6
%
1.5130
.7456
1.5030
.8827
4.5500
Level 3
6 Years
$
1994.2
2590.9
3006.0
2618.0
1890.2
%
4.661
1.836
4.401
2.095
14.920
-------
ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
In analysis of the potential economic effects associated with
environmental noise regulations the major focus is on the 19 firms
which produce impacted equipment. Additionally, the anticipated
effects on the regional and national economies are considered. The
same basic scenarios discussed earlier are analyzed: (1) Level I — 2
years, (2) Level II — 3 through 6 years, and (3) Level III — 6 years.
As described below, the economic impacts of the various basic noise
regulation scenarios may vary significantly with regard to both
overall magnitude and the distribution of impacts across the firms.
However, regional and national effects appear to be negligible. The
analysis of the basic regulatory scenarios discussed in this section
have been used as the basis for constructing more complete options
consisting of staged levels and lead times.
The average annual manufacturer's cost increase as a percentage
of sales at list price are displayed in Table 7-16. The table shows
that these ratios range from 0.9 percent to 3.3 percent of annual
18
dollar sales at list prices of impacted equipment.
TABLE 7-16
Average Annual Manufacturer's Cost Increase for Noise Abatement
Manufacturer ' s
Added Cost as a
Percent of
Annual Sales
at List Price
LEVEL I
1-2 YRS
0.9%
LEVEL II
3YRS 4YRS 5YRS6YRS
1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1%
LEVEL III
6 YRS
3.3%
18
Does not include manufacturer's profit or dealer margin.
7-36
-------
Thus, a typical firm doing an annual business if $1 million in
retail loader sales would expect to incur an additional yearly cost
of $13,000 to comply with Level II imposed with a 3-year lead time.
The use of list price in this ratio understates the percentage cost
increase. List price includes manufacturer's profits and dealer
margins which need to be excluded to get a true estimate of the
resulting cost increase. It is estimated that a true cost estimate
will, on the average, increase the percentages indicated in Table
7-16 by 30 percent. The various postures that a firm may adopt with
regard to passing on the cost increases via price increases are
discussed later.
Table 7-17 shows the impacts on the wheel and crawler tractor
firms with regard to capital costs. The table is organized according
to the following breakdown. When manufacturer's capital costs are
less that 1 percent of sales at list price, a firm can easily raise
the required amounts. Between 1 percent and 5 percent, some fund
raising difficulty may be experienced. Over 5 percent will present a
serious financial burden.
TABLE 7-17
Capital Cost Impacts
1
1
1
Number of firms
Raising Capital
with
No Difficulty
Some Difficulty
Serious Difficulty
LEVEL I
1-2 YRS
13
6
0
1
1
I 3 YRS
1
1
1
1 12
1 3
1 4
LEVEL II |
1
4 YRS
12
3
4
5 YRS
12
4
3
6 YRS |
1
1
1
12 |
5 1
2 1
LEVEL III
6 YRS
11
4
4
7-37
-------
With respect to total manufacturer's costs, no firm will experience
an increase greater than 5 percent of sales (at list price) in complying
with Level I and II. For Level III, 10 firms will experience cost
increases of 5% or more of sales. The competitive significance of
this increase is not clear due to the higher degree of product differenti-
ation with a concomitant lack of product substitutablity.
At the regional and national level, findings show negligible
economic impacts.
Sales will fall roughly in proportion to price increases, which
follow from elasticity estimates approximating - 1.0. Employment
and income impacts will therefore be minimal, if noticeable at all,
on a regional or national level since price increases, even if full
pass through of costs is assumed, are expected to be under 5 percent
for most models. The added burden to the costs of construction may
contribute to a small decrease in the outputs of this sector. EPA
calculations based on data collected for this study suggest an
average increase in costs of 0.4 percent for construction projects
which use impacted tractors and loaders as a major factor of produc-
tion.
Cost Increases
Manufacturers of impacted equipment will be faced with cost
increases both to existing equipment (due-to R&D expenses) as well
as to the new quieted models (due to increased production expenses).
Figures 7-4 through 7-7 display the expected percentage increase in
manufacturer's cost to sales at list price ratios to produce existing
models for each of the nineteen impacted firms. These cost increases
7-38
-------
FIGURE 7-;4
R&D Expenses as a Percent of Wheel and Crawler Tractor
Sales at List Price for Level I
^ . u
1.8-
1.6-
1.4-
1.2-
•^j
£ i.o-
.8-
.6-
.4-
.2
n
. 1 .1 1 1 1 I 1 1
_1_
ABCDEFGHIJK^LMNOPQRS
-------
FIGURE 7--5
R&D Expenses as a Percent of Wheel and Crawler Tractor
Sales at List Price for Level II in 3 Years
£. . U
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
n
-
-
-
-
-
. 1 . i 1 1 1 1 i 1 •
1 i
1 1 1
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRS
-------
-J
I
2.0
1.8 -
1.6 -
1.4 -
1.2 -
1.0
.8
FIGURE 7-6
R&D Expenses as a Percent of Wheel and Crawler Tractor
Sales at List Price for Level II in 6 Years
* •
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRS
-------
FIGURE 7-7
R&D Expenses as a Percent of Wheel and Crawler Tractor
Sales at List Price for Level III in 6 Years
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
. 1 . i 1 1 1 i i i
|
a
I
B
D
H
K
MN
-------
are due to R&D expenses incurred prior to starting production of the
quieted models. As before, the calculation method is additional costs
divided by sales at list price, expressed in percent.
The figures show that R&D cost increases for existing models
produced by large firms would generally be less than one-tenth of a
percent of impacted equipment sales. All small and medium firms face
cost increases greater than those faced by large firms.
Table 7-18 displays percentage manufacturer's cost increases to
list price ranges by firm size for wheel loaders. Due to the wide
variety of loader models, the range for small firms is not drama-
tically higher than for large firms. Only medium firms stand out
with an upper bound value nearly half of both the small and large
firm maximums. These percentage cost increases actually vary more
as a function of machine price than of firm size or market share.
Manufacturer's cost increase ranges, as a percent of sales at
list price for crawler tractors, crawler loaders, and utility tractors
are displayed in Table 7-19, 7-20, and 7-21 for all firms. (Only
large firms produce these items.) Here again, the figures are
particularly sensitive to the large numbers of wheel tractors which
are generally the lowest priced of all impacted equipment.
Paying for the Cost Increases
The cost increases discussed above can be dealt with by manufac-
turers in a variety of ways. Two extremes are:
1. Retain the present prices to maintain volume, thereby
reducing profit margins.
7-43
-------
Table 7-18 ,
Manufacturer's Abatement Cost/Machine List Price Percentage
by Firm Size for Wheel Loaders
Size
of
Firm
Small
Medium
Large
All
Firms
Level/Lead Time
HP
Class
20-134
135-249
250-348
349-500
20-134
135-249
250-348
349-500
20-134
135-249
250-348
349-500
20-134
135-249
250-348
349-500
Level 1
2 Years
1.9-4.5
_*
1.2-2.4
0.9
0.7-4.0
0.6-1.1
0.3-0.7
0.2
0.7-4.5
0.6-1.1
0.3-0.7
0.2
Level II
3 Years
2.7-6.7
1.7-3.3
1.3
1.0-5.7
0.9-1.6
0.7-1.0
0.5-0.7
1.0-6.7
0.9-1.6
0.7-0.9
0.5-0.7
Level II
6 Years
2.6-6.2
1.7-3.3
1.2
1.0-5.6
0.9-1.6
0.7-1.0
0.6-0.7
1.0-6.2
0.9-1.6
0.7-1.0
0.6-0.7
Level III
6 Years
7.2-17.5
4.1-J8.7
2.8
2.5-16.4
1.5- 3.4
1.4- 2.1
1.1- 1.3
2.5-17.5
1.5- 3.4
1.4- 2.1
1.1- 1.3
- Indicates that small firms do not manufacture
high hp wheel loaders
-------
Table 7-19
Manufacturer's Abatement Cost/Machine List Price Percentages for Firms
Manufacturing Crawler Tractors
i
•&.
cn
HP
CLASS
LEVEL
LEAD TIME
LEVEL I
2 YEARS
20-89 1.0-2.0
90-199 0.5-1.3
200-259 0.5-0.6
260+ 0.2-0.5
LEVEL II
3 YEARS
1.4-2.9
0.7-1.8
0.8
0.6-0.8
LEVEL , II
6 YEARS
1.4-2.9
0.6-1.7
0.8-0.9
0.6-0.8
LEVEL III
6 YEARS
3.7-8.2
1.4-5.8
1.7-1.9
1.1-1.6
-------
Table 7 -20
Manufacturer's Abatement Cost/Machine List Price Percentages for Firms
Manufacturing Utility Tractors
HP
CLASS
LEVEL
LEAD TIME
LEVEL I
LEVEL II
LEVEL II
LEVEL III
2 YEARS
3 YEARS
6 YEARS
6 YEARS
ALL
1.7-5.1
2.4-7.1
2.4-7.1
6.1-19.9
-------
2. Raise the prices to maintain profit margins, thereby reducing
volume.
Calculations based on the price elasticity of demand show that
total profits will be reduced under either situation, although the decline
in profit for each extreme will be different for each firm. Assuming full
pass-through of burdened costs and a price elasticity of demand equal to -1,
«
decreases in total profit will occur due to the decrease in volume.
Table 7-21 shows the decrease in wheel and crawler tractor profits for each
firm as a percent of its present profit for 3 percent, 7 percent, and 10
percent gross margins (taxes ignored).
Absorbing some of the cost may be necessary, particularly on an
individual model basis. Several firms may find that their cost increases
are significantly higher than those of their competitors for certain
models, possibly as a result of differences in existing noise emission
levels. In order to maintain their competitive positions, some part of the
difference may be absorbed. The problem may be more marked for small firms
who face higher relative cost increases as a percent of their total sales.
Additionally, in cases where a particular model's current noise level is
significantly greater than the average for its class, the costs of abatement
may be much larger than the average costs considered in this analysis.
If the increases are.so great that passing them on may erode a firm's
competitive position, absorption is likely to occur. In such situations,
firms facing strong competitive pressure on the one hand and profit pressure
n the other may opt to shut down production on certain models.
7-47
-------
Estimated Decrease in Profit
I
-p-
oo
Table 7-21
by Firm Under Pull Pass-Through of Costs
($ Thousands)
Firm
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
All
Firms
Assumed Current Profit Margin Scenario
3 Percent
Level I
2 Years
258.8
93.9
332.3
104.0
142.9
21.2
121.8
102.1
43.4
23.9
2.6
3.8
7.5
7.0
2.7
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
1,273.2
Level II
3 Years
388.2
138.3
531.6
156.1
202.4
33.9
173.2
143.8
62.0
32.9
3.5
5.5
10.8
10.0
3.6
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.9
1,903.2
Level II
6 Years
388.2
138.3
531.6
156.1
202.4
33.9
173.2
143.8
62.0
32.9
3.5
5.2
10.3
10.0
3.6
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.8
1,902.1
Level III
6 Years
992.7
405.1
1,196.0
377.1
559.6
76.3
480.9
394.2
148.7
77.9
8.3
14.0
27.7
27.7
9.4
4.7
4.8
4.7
4.8
4,814.6
7 Percent
Level I
2 Years
604.0
219.0
776.0
242.8
333.4
49.5
284.3
238.2
101.3
55.9
6.0
8.7
17.7
16.4
6.2
3.0
3.2
3.0
3.1
2,971.7
Level II
3 Years
904.8
322.8
1,240.3
364.1
472.4
79.2
403.9
335.5
144.7
76.8
8.3
12.6
25.3
23.3
8.3
4.3
4.5
4.2
4.4
4,439.7
Level II
6 Years
904.8
322.8
1,240.3
364.1
472.4
79.2
403.9
335.5
144.7
76.8
8.3
12.1
24.0
23.3
8.3
4.0
4.3
4.2
4.3
4,437.3
Level III
6 Years
2,315.0
945.2
2,790.8
880.1
1,306.0
178.2
1,122.2
920.0
347.1
181.5
19.5
32.6
64.6
64.2
22.0
11.0
11.2
10.9
11.2
11,233.3
10 Percent
Level I
2 Years
862.7
312.9
1,107.5
346.8
476.3
70.7
406.1
340.2
144.7
79.8
8.4
12.5
25.3
23.4
9.0
4.3
4.7
4.3
4.4
4,244.0
Level II
3 Years
1,294.1
461.1
1,771.9
520.3
674.8
113.1
577.1
479.3
206.7
109.7
11.8
18.1
36.1
33.1
12.0
6.2
6.5
6.0
6.4
6,344.3
Level II
6 Years
1,294.1
461.1
1,771.9
520.3
674.8
113.1
577.1
479.3
206.7
109.7
11.8
17.3
34.3
33.1
12.0
5.8
6.2
6.0
6.1
6,340.7
Level III
6 Years
3,307.2
1,350.3
3,986.9
1,257.2
1,865.6
254.5
1,603.0
1,314.3
495.5
259.3
27.9
46.7
92.3
91.8
31.3
15.9
16.0
15.6
16.0
16,047.3
-------
Capital Availability
Even if full cost increases can be passed through as price increases,
firms may still be prevented from adjusting to regulations by an inability
to obtain sufficient capital to finance the abatement investment. The
capital required by each firm is displayed in Table 7-22 for the various
scenarios.
Table 7-23 displays the expected capital required for abatement
as a percent of impacted equipment sales at list price for six study
scenarios. These ratios reflect the expected degree of difficulty in
raising the necessary capital. While the actual dollar amounts of Table
7-22 would not represent a burden for the larger firms, the investment
still must be considered on its own merits, particularly with respect to
investment alternatives within the firm. To adjust for firm sizes the
ratio of required investment to total wheel and crawler tractor sales is
seen as the best indicator for evaluating capital availability.
The relative impact of financing the costs of abatement for each level
can be seen in Figure 7-8 which displays the frequency with which the
capital required for abatement/sales ratios falls into various ranges.
It is assumed that firms with ratios less than or equal to 1 percent will
undergo only small financing impact, while firms with ratios between 1 and
7-49
-------
7-22
Table 7-22
Total Capital Cost of Abatement for Wheej. and Crawler
Tractors
•^1
I
O-.'
Firm
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
All
Firms
Total Capital Cost of Abatement
($ Thousands)
Level I
2 Years
438
400
385
351
290
220
205
145
135
130
80
60
60
55
53
50
50
50
50
3,207
Level II
3 Years
1,007
871
870
770
670
545
468
316
291
280
168
117
116
107
106
96
96
96
86
7,076
4 Years
913
793
793
698
607
498
426
286
271
255
156
108
107
99
98
90
90
90
83
6,461
5 Years
820
715
715
626
545
450
384
256
242
231
144
98
97
91
91
84
84
84
80
5,837
6 Years
726
637
638
554
482
403
342
226
212
206
132
89
88
83
83
78
78
78
78
5,213
Level III
6 Years
1,136
979
1,009
855
662
654
535
341
324
318
207
128
127
123
122
117
116
117
116
7,986
-------
7-23
Table -23
Total Capital Cost of Abatement as Percent oj. Wheel and Crawler Tractor Sales
Firm
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
All
Firms
Lead Time
Level I
2 Years
.08
.32
.02
.11
.10
.20
.12
.12
.09
.17
1.2
2.1
.43
.73
.48
4.1
2.9
3.6
3.1
.09
3 Years
.18
.69
.05
.23
.22
.50
.28
.27
.18
.36
2.6
4.1
.84
1.4
.93
7.9
5.6
7.0
5.3
.19
Level II
4 Years
.16
.63
.046
.21
.20
.45
.26
.24
.16
.33
2.4
3.8
.77
1.3
.85
7.4
5.2
6.6
5.1
.17
5 Years
.15
.56
.043
.19
.18
.41
.23
.22
.15
.30
2.2
3.4
.70
1.2
.78
6.9
4.9
6.1
5.0
.16
6 Years
.13
.50
.04
.17
.16
.37
.21
.19
.13
.27
2.0
3.1
.63
1.1
.70
6.4
4.5
5.7
4.8
.14
Level III
6 Years
.21
.77
.06
.26
.22
.60
.33
.29
.20
.41
3.2
4.5
.91
1.6
1.1
9.6
6.8
8.5
7.2
.22
-------
w g
a H
6 -i
4 '
V77\
<.05 <.l <.25 <.5 <1 <5 >5
CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS AS A PERCENT OF L-T SALES
"1
a 2
ffl H
§ fa
afe
w
ffl
si
D
to
i
LEVEL H
3 YEARS
ESI
<.05 5
CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS AS A PERCENT OF L-T SALES
6
4 -
2 -
LEVEL IE
i 6 YEARS
<.05 <.l <.25 <.5 <1 <5 >5
CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS AS A PERCENT OF L-T SALES
Large
Firms
Medium
Firms
Small
Firms
w
<.05
CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS AS A PERCENT OF L-T SALES
Figure 7-8 Capital .Availability Impact
of Abatement.
7- 52
-------
5 percent will have moderate difficulty in obtaining the necessary
financing. Small and medium firms in this category may be obliged to pay a
higher cost for capital. Firms with ratios greater than 5 percent are
considered to be heavily impacted. Their cost of capital will certainly
rise/ if they can obtain the necessary financing.
Investment requirements could be reduced by purchasing the necessary
components from other firms, thus raising LSM expenses. Additionally,
impacted firms may obtain R&D assistance from component suppliers for
developing and fitting abatement components to their own equipment.
Allowing the supplier to undertake this R&D burden will undoubtedly result
in higher unit prices for the quieted components (engine, exhaust, fan,
etc.). The supply industry appears to already have the facilities for this
R&D effort without large additional investments and has developed much of
the general technology for abatement. Thus, the problem of raising capital
can be sidestepped, but again at a penalty to the small manufacturer.
COMPETITION
There may be two major impacts of noise emission regulations on
competition in the construction wheel and crawler tractor industry — brand
switching and production line closures. The latter is often a result of
the former. Both impacts will be felt more strongly by smaller firms.
However, it cannot be asserted summarily that industry concentration will
be significantly altered.
7-53
-------
Brand Switching. Determination of the impact on competition of compliance
with the various study scenarios is obscured by the significant levels
of product differentiation found in the industry. Differential cost
increases will occur, due to the variation in present noise levels of
machines.
Some loss of sales may occur for both small wheel loaders and for
wheel tractors.
Small Wheel Loaders. As noted earlier, all the small and medium firms
produce wheel loaders under 134 hp. These machines tend to comprise a
unique market, particularly those below 50 hp which do not compete with the
loaders of the major manufacturers. Rather, most compete with the less
efficient skid steer loader. Skid steer loaders, however, are not intended
to be regulated at this time, with the result that the cost of noise
abatement for individual models of small wheel loaders could place them at
a competitive disadvantage if their existing noise levels are substantially
higher than the average for their classification category. The estimated
average cost increases for the various study scenarios, which range from
$350 to $1500 for machines in the 20-134 hp range, represent a significant
percent of the list prices which are as low as $1800 and have a median
around $15,000.
The prices of skid steer loaders are generaly below $10,000, but in
terms of horespower they are comparable with small wheel loaders.
Wheel Tractors. At present, wheel tractors with integral backhoes are
not covered under the proposd regulation. (These items may well be regulated
later under a possible backhoe regulation.) Accordingly, they will not be
subject to the upward cost pressure of abatement. While intergal backhoe
7-54
-------
units are all larger and more costly than the utility tractors alone,
marginal contractors who desire large utility tractors with backhoe
attachments may prefer to spend the extra money to purchase one with an
integral backhoe, rather than purchasing the top of the line utility
tractor and paying a cost penalty for its noise abatement features.
Production Line Closures
Two factors will dominate pressure to shut down plant operations:
(1) difficulty in obtaining necessary capital, and (2) difficulty in
passing costs through to customers. This latter factor is dependent
on the magnitude of the cost increase imposed on the affected firm relative
to the magnitude imposed on the price leader. This, in turn, will depend
on present noise levels, which are not fully known for all machines at this
time. In general, however, both difficulties place the strongest pressure
on the small producers.
Figures 7-9 through 7-12 display the relationship between cost
pressure and financing difficulty anticipated for each firm for several
study scenarios, using the model costs discussed earlier. In these
figures, highly impacted firms will plot towards the upper right while
negligibly impacted firms will fall to the lower left. The figures show
that, indeed, the smaller producers are subject to the highest impacts. In
particular, five producers, four small firms and one medium firm, appear to
be well above the main cluster of firms in each of the four figures. Under
the requirements of Level III, all but one of these firms falls into the
"heavy impact" category for financing difficulties and the remaining firm
faces the highest average rise in cost.
7-55
-------
w
0
w
0.
u
H
A
CO
M
*1
<
in
w
§
EH
PQ
EH
W
O
U
6-
4-
3-
2-
• AA
DBB
•cc
• DD
EE
D
C4 1-
U
^
s
.£-•
o -
•
xC^
xx x XX
X LARGE FIRMS
Q MIDDLE FIRMS
• SMALL FIRMS
1 i I I ] 1
01 23456
ANNUAL MANUFACTURER'S COST OF ABATEMENT/SALES AT LIST PRICE PERCENTAGE
Figure 7-9 Relative impact to firms of achieving
Level I in 2 years.
7-56
-------
AA
W
w
a,
w
u
en
H
1-1
7 -
6 -
5 -
w 4 -
3 -
o
u
1-1
<
EH
1
2 -
1 _
D
D
BB
• CC
• DD
EE
v^ ^\
1
x
D *
x *
I
X
X LARGE FIRMS
D MIDDLE FIRMS
• SMALL FIRMS
1 1 1 1
01 23456
ANNUAL MANUFACTURER'S COST OF ABATEMENT/SALES AT LIST PRICE PERCENTAGE
Figure 7-10 Relative impact to firms of achieving
Level II in 3 years.
7-57
-------
W
U
£
W
EL)
CJ
S
ft
CO
H
in
en
&
en
O
o
81
u
5-
4-
3-
2.
1-
D
xx
D
• AA
BB
• CC
• DD
•EE
X LARGE FIRMS
DMIDDLE FIRMS
• SMALL FIRMS
I I I I | I
01 2345 6
ANNUAL MANUFACTURER'S COST OF ABATEMENT/SALES AT LIST PRICE PERCENTAGE
Figure 7-11 Relative impact to firms achieving
Level II in 6 years.
r- 58
-------
0 10-
H
X
• AA
W
H
W
8-
D
BB
• cc
DD
E-J
s "
6u
D .
4-
EH
CO
O
U
H
ft 2 •
u
1 •
£-•
D
•
x D x
v ^x xx xx
r n i i i • i ' ' • •
• EE
X LARGE FIRMS
D MIDDLE FIRMS
» SMALL FIRMS
I I
02 46 8 10 12
ANNUAL MANUFACTURER'S COST OF ABATEMENT/SALES AT LIST PRICE PERCENTAGE
Figure 7-12 Relative impact to firms of achieving
Level III in 6 years.
7- 59
-------
Of these five firms, only Finn EE disclosed noise level data. These
data indicate that its machines are already in compliance with Level I
and the firm has an optional muffler that will bring the machines beneath
Level II. This muffler has been sold on several models already and the
firm believes that after a regulation is promulgated, the additional costs
of the muffler will be borne by its customers without dramatically altering
demand. Beginning at a below average noise level, Level III costs are
expected to be considerably lower than the cost model estimates, minimizing,
therefore, the financing burden as well as the cost input.
Firm BB does not believe additional cost impacts will be a serious
problem, but the remaining three firms are already suffering from a shortage
of capital. These firms do not anticipate that they will be able to
finance the investment necessary for compliance.
INFLATIONARY IMPACTS
Because no increases in machine productivity will accompany the
increased costs of abatement, regulations at all levels will be inflationary.
The inflationary effects will be most widespread in construction but will
also be significant in forestry and mining.
The estimated average manufacturer's cost increase list price ratios
for each machine type are shown in Table 7-24 for several scenarios.
TABLE 7-24
Annual Manufacturer's Abatement Costs as a Percent of Estimated
Wheel and Crawler Tractor Sales at List Price, by Machine Type for
Each Study Scenario
LEVEL
MACHINE CLASS LEAD TIME
Wheel Loaders
Crawler Tractor
Crawler Loaders
Wheel Tractors
LEVEL I
2 YRS
0.8
0.6
1.0
2.9
3 YRS
1.2
1.0
1.4
4.1
LEVEL
4 YRS
1.2
1.0
1.4
3.9
II
5 YRS
1.1
0.9
1.3
3.7
6 YRS
1.0
0.9
1.2
3.5
LEVEL III
6 YRS
2.8
2.1
3.5
11.5
7-60
-------
The table shows wheel tractor prices will increase much more than
other equipment prices. Crawler tractor prices increase the least. This,
again, is because percentage increases are primarily a function of price,
and the average crawler tractor price is the highest. These increases
could contribute to the overall increases in the Wholesale Price Index as
displayed in Table 7-25.
TABLE 7-25
Percent Contributions of Noise Abatement Costs
to the Wholesale Price Index (All Comodities)
WEIGHT IN LEVEL LEVEL I
WHOLESALE LEAD 2 YRS
MACHINE CLASS PRICE INDEX TIME
All Loaders .079
Crawler Tractor .142
Utility Tractors .080
.012
.018
.0046
LEVEL
3 YRS 4 YRS
.018 .011
.0016 .0016
.0043 .0041
II
5 YRS
.0010
.0021
.0038
1 LEVEL III
6 YRS |
1
1
.00981
1
.00141
1
.00341
1
6 YRS
.0048
.0060
.0184
Impacts on Suppliers
Two quite distinct impacts will affect the suppliers of the wheel and
crawler tractor industry. Certain present component suppliers may increase or
decrease their sales depending on their ability to reduce the noise emission
of their own product and thereby contribute to the reduction in overall
machine noise. Other suppliers, those specializing in the manufacture of
sound damping and sound absorbant materials and other products required for
abatement, will experience an increase in sales.
Impact on Present Component Suppliers. The impacts on the sales of
present component suppliers will be most significant in two supplier
areas — engines and mufflers.
7-61
-------
Engine Suppliers. Engines have characteristic noise levels just as do
the machines they are placed in. There exists a significant variation in
noise levels of different types of engines as well as of the same type
engine from different suppliers. Consequently, engine manufacturers can be
expected to be at a competitive disadvantage, if they produce diesel engines
which are characterized, in general, as being noisier than their competition.
Conversely, some manufacturers appear to be in the forefront
of quiet engine development. They have already developed add-on kits
for their engines that can reduce noise by 3 dB(A). These kits
may not be applicable to wheel and crawler tractors due to space
constraints; however loader and tractor manufacturers may be able to
circumvent costly R&D costs with the purchase of already quieted engines.
Muffler Suppliers. While most muffler suppliers are likely to
begin development of more efficient mufflers, four present manufacturers
have developed a favorable reputation for their muffler research programs.
These manufacturers may reap a double gain, by selling more efficient
mufflers to wheel and crawler tractor manufacturers to reduce exhaust
noise, and conducting exhaust noise reduction progams for capital-short
manufacturers who sub-contract this portion of their R&D effort.
Other Noise Abatement Suppliers. An across-the-board increase
in the sales of suppliers of materials and equipment necessary for abatement
can be expected, although its magnitude will not be of major consequence.
Increases in sales by producers of the following items are anticipated;
7-62
-------
1. quiet fan and cooling system components
2. sound damping component
3. sound absorbant material
4. protective film for foams
5. noise measurement equipment
6. fine suspension equipment
Here again, suppliers may also be given the opportunity to perform
portions of the R&D effort required for abatement, including noise testing
for smaller firms. These R&D efforts will further boost the sales of firms
with relevant experience.
Impact on Foreign Trade
Regulatory Levels I and II will not greatly affect foreign trade.
There is likely to be a small decrease in exports along with an offsetting
decrease in imports.
Because the noise abatement technology studied here is essentially
retrofit, machines for export can be produced without noise abatement
add-ons, resulting, therefore, in minimal price increases in foreign
markets. However, Level III noise regulations might prompt a major design
change in advance of customarily scheduled changes, and the R&D expenses
will be noticeable even in export versions which contain only add-ons,
thereby putting upward pressure on export prices. The foreign trade
implications would then be more adverse from the domestic manufacturers'
viewpoint.
Noise regulations are more likely to affect imports. The majority of
importers have weak market positions in the United States and may not be
able to justify a noise abatement program for their products. Accordingly,
7-63
-------
they may cease to compete in the United States. But major importers with
strong market potential are not likely to be swayed by regulations and may
fill in most of the market gap left by their weaker competitors. It is
concluded, therefore, that the aggregate total of imports should decline
only slightly.
Employment and Regional Impacts
Regulating the noise emissions of wheel and crawler tractors will
likely have negligible overall effect on employment. The existing R&D
personnel in the major firms or in the suppliers of research to the smaller
firms can readily handle the R&D requirement for abatement. There will be
a modest increase in manufacturing labor to install the abatement equipment.
However, this increase may be offset by a decline in regular production
personnel due to the decrease in demand for regulated equipment. Geographical
impacts will be outside the Midwest. Although the large construction
loader and tractor manufacturers are located in the Midwest, they are not
likely to be seriously affected. The important effects are more likely to
be found in the cities where the small firms are located. The possible
layoffs or shutdowns of these smaller firms will not play a major role in
their region's economy. The increases in employment and income where
suppliers of abatement equipment are located is also of limited magnitude
with respect to any region.
Effect on Gross National Product (GNP)
Noise abatement regulations are not likely to directly affect the
current dollar GNP. The estimate of the price elasticity of demand for
impacted equipment is -1 as discussed previously. Therefore, marginal
price increases may be offset by equal percentage decreases in demand.
7-64
-------
The net result would show GNP unchanged as expressed in current dollars.
If the machines sold are valued at 1972 price levels, and if the add-on
19
abatement equipment is valued at its cost deflated to 1972 level, a drop
in real GNP due to fewer units being sold is expected. However, an increase
in real GNP due to the production and sales of the new equipment and
equipment modification is also expected. These effects are sufficiently
offsetting so that the net change in real GNP will be negligible with
regard to the equipment manufacturing sector.
SUMMARY OF COST AND ECONOMIC DATA FOR REGULATORY SCHEDULES
A computer model was used to evaluate alternate regulatory schedules
both for health and welfare benefits and for costs and economic impacts.
As a result of this analysis, twenty four schedules were finally selected
for detailed analysis. Table 7-27 summarizes the pertinent cost and economic
data associated with each of these options.
19
1972 is the base year now used by most government agencies for
expressing constant dollar levels.
7-65
-------
Table 7_26
Summary of Costs for Regulatory Schedule
Regulatory Machine
Schedule Types
1 CTg
CTL
WLS
WLL
WT
2 CTS
CTL
WLs
WIrL
WT
3 CTS
CTL
WLg
WLj-^
WT
4 CTg
CTL
WLg
WLL
WT
Level/Effective Date
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
77
83
79
84
74-
77
83
79
84
77 77
77
79
74
77
83
79
84
.74,
Combined
Combined
77
83
79
84
77
Combined
77
83
79
84
74
Combined
77
83
79
84
_74_
77
83
79
84
77
77
83
79
84
74
""*
74
80
76
80
_JML
74
80
76
80
70
74
80
76
80
74
74
83
76
84
70
Average
Price
Increase
5.68
2.28
5.41
2.64
=18.06-
672T
5.31
2.09
5.03
2.39
16.97
5.80
5.68
2.28
5.41
; 2.61
6.20
4.72
5.68
1.06
5.41
2.61
18.06
5.95
Average
O&M Change
Increase In Sales
4.06
3.13
3.45
3.19
4.05
3781
3.77
2.85
3.19
2.90
3.75
3.53
4.06
-3.13
3.45
3.19
1.43
2.77
4.06
1.48
3.45
1.52
4.05
3.58
- 1.
- 2.
- 6.
-. 3.
:--25.
-13.
- 7.
- 2.
- 6.
- 3.
-23.
-13.
- 7.
- 2.
- 6.
- 3.
- 7.
- 6.
- 7.
- 1.
- 6.
- 1.
-23.
-13,
26
80
77
25
89_
30
26
80
77
25
89
30
26
80
77
25
29
80
26
28
77
48
89
16
Change
In Profits
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- -v.4
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 4
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 4
- 0
.44
.03
.30
.08
,87-
.8b
.44
.03
.31
.09
.74
.84
.44
.03
.30
.08
.68
.38
.44
.01
.30
.01
.87
.84
Potential
No. of
Plant
Closings
0
0
3.5
0
-0
3.5
0
0
3.0
0
0
3.0
0
0
3.5
,0
0
3.5
0
0
3.5
0
0
3.5
* CT - Crawler Tractor 20 - 199 hp
S
CTT -
200 - 450 hp
WT - Wheel Tractors
Wheel Loader 20-249 hp
" 250 - 500 hp
-------
Table
( Continued) -
Regulatory Machine
Schedule Types
5 CTg
CTL
WLS
WLL
WT
Level/Effective Dates
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
74
83
76
84
70
Combined
6 CTS
CTL
WLS
WLL
WT
77 77
83
79 79
84
77 77 77
77
83
79
84
77
74
83
76
84
74
Combined
1. CTS
CTL
WLS
WLL
WT
83
84
83
84
74
83
76
84
74
Combined
8 CTS
CTL
WLg
WLL
WT
74
83
76
84
74
Combined
Average
Price
Increase
5.31
0.85
5.03
0.98
16.97
5.41
5.68
7.06
5.41
1.23
6.20
3.54
5.31
1.06
5.03
1.23
5.18
4.00
5.31
0.85
5.03
0.98
5.18
3.93
Average
O&M
Increase
3.77
1.16
3.19
1.19
3.75
3.29
4.06
1.48
3.45
1.52
1.43
2.53
3.77
1.48
3.19
1.52
1.14
2.29
3.77
1.16
3.19
1.19
1.14
2.25
Change
In Sales
- 7.26
- 1.14
- 6.77
- 1.33
-23.87
-13.15
- 7.26
- 1.28
- 6.77
- 1.48
- 7.29
- 6. .66
- 7.26
- 1.28
- 6.77
- 1.48
- 7.29
- 6.66
- 7.26
- 1.14
- 6.77
- 1.33
- 7.29
- 6.65
Change
In Profits
-0.44
0.00
-0.31
-0.02
-4.74
-0.82
-0.44
-0.01
-0.30
-0.01
-0.68
-0.31
-0.44
-0.01
-0.31
-0.02
-0.58
-0.50
-0.44
0.00
-0.31
-0.02
-0.58
-0.30
Potential
No. of
Plant
Closings
0
0
3.0
0
0
3.0
0
0
3.5
0
0
3.5
0
0
3.0
0
0
3.0
0
0
3.0
0
0
3.0
-------
Table 7-26
(Continued)
Regulatory Machine
Schedule Types
9 CTS
CTL
WLS
WLL
WT
10 CTS
CTL
WLg
WLL
WT
11 CTS
CTL
WLS
WLL
WT
12 CTS
CTL
WLS
WLL
WT
Level/Effective Dates
1980 1981 1982 1983
80 80 80 80
83 83
82 82 82 82
84 84
74 74 74
Combined
83 83
84 84
Combined
Combined
80 80 80 80
83 83
82 82 82 82
84 84
77 77 77 77
Combined
1984
77
83
79
84
70
77
83
79
84
70
77
83
79
84
70
77
83
79
84
74
Average
Price
Increase
(%)
8.01
1.06'
2.08
1.23
18.06
3.80
1.73
1.06
1.73
1.23
16.97
3.47
1.73
0.85
1.73
0.98
16.97
3.40
2.07
1.06
2.08
1.23
6.20
2.31
Average
O&M
Increase
(S)
1.47
1.48
1.33
1.52
4.05
2.48
1.22
1.45
1.09
1.52
3.75
2.24
1.22
1.16
1.09
1.19
3.75
2.20
1.47
1.48
1.33
1.52
1.43
• 1.43
Change
In Sales
(%)
- 2.35
- 1.28
- 2.31
- 1.48
-23.89
-10.69
- 2.35
- 1.28
- 2.31
- 1.48
-23.89
-10.69
- 2.35
- 1.14
- 2.31
- 1.33
-23.89
-10.67
- 2.35
- 1.28
- 2.31
- 1.48
- 7.29
- 4.19
Change
In Profits
(%)
- 0.23
- 0.01
- 0.19
- 0.01
4.87
- 0.74
- 0.05
- 0.01
- 0.02
- 0.01
- 4.74
- 0.62
- 0.05
0.00
- 0.02
- 0.02
- 4.74
- 0.62
- 0.23
- 0.01
- 0.19
- 0.01
- 0.68
- 0.21
Potential
No. of
Plant
Closings
0
0
1.5
0
0
1.5
0
0
1.5
0
0
1.5
0
0
1.5
0
0
1.5
0
0
1.5
0
0
1.5
00
-------
Table 7-26
(Continued)
Regulatory Machine
Schedule Types
13 CTS
CTL
WLS
WLL
WT
14 CTg
CTL
WLg
WLL
WT
15 CTg
CTL
WLg
WLL
WT
16 CTg
CTL
WLg
WT
»» J_IT
WT
Level/Effective Date
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
80 80
82 82
77 77
80 80
86 86
82 82
86 86
77 77
83
84
Combined
Combined
80
82
77
Combined
80
86
82
86
77
Combined
83
84
80
82
77
80
86
82
86
77
77
83
79
84
74
77
83
79
84
74
80
80
82
80
77
80
86
82
86
77
Average
Price
Increase
1.73
1.06
1.73
1.23
5.18
1.98
1.73
0.85
1.73
0.98
5.18
1.92
1.77
2.09
1.81
2.39
5.37
2.18
1.77
0.64
1.81
0.91
5.37
1.93
Average
O&M
Increase
1.22
1.18
1.09
1.52
1.14
1.20
1.22
1.16
1.09
1.19
1.14
1.16
1.16
2.85
1.17
2.90
1.25
1.44
1.16
0.90
1.17
1.13
1.25
1.17
Change
In Sales
-2.35
-1.28
-2.31
-1.48
-7.29
-4.19
-2.35
-1.14
-2.31
-1.33
-7.29
-4.18
-2.93
-2.80
-2.94
-3.25
-6.11
-4.18
-2.93
-0.70
-2.94
-0.96
-6.11
-3.99
Change
In Profits
-0.05
-0.01
-0.02
-0.01
-0.58
-0,10
-0,05
0.00
-0.02
-0.02
-0.58
-0.10
-0.96
-0.03
-0.93
-0.09
-0.43
-0.62
-0.96
0.00
-0.93
0.02
-0.43
-0.60
Potential
No. of
Plant
Closings
0
0
1.5
0
0
1.5
0
0
1.5
0
0
1.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 7-
(Continued)
Regulatory Machine
Schedule Types
17 CTg
CTL
WLS
WLj,
WT
Level/Effective Date
1980 1981 1982 1983
77 77
79 79
74 74
77
79
74
1984
74
80
76
80
70
Combined
18 CTs
CTL
WLS
WL
WT
77 77
83 83
77
83
74
80
76
80
70
Combined
19 CTS
CTL
WLS
WLL
WT
77 77
86 86 86
79 79^
86 86 86
77
86
79
86
74
83
76
84
74
Combined
20 CTS
CTL
WLS
WLL
WT
77
83
79
84
74
77
83
79
84
74
77
83
79
84
74
Combined
Average
Price
Increase
5.68
2.09
5.41
2.39
18.06
6.15
5.68
2.28
5.03
2.39
16.97
5.96
5.68
0.98
5.41
1.16
5.18
4.19
2.17
1.06
2.18
1.23
6.48
2.41
Average
O&M
Increase
4.06
2.85
3.45
2.90
4.05
3.77
4.06
3.13
3.19
2.90
3.75
3.63
4.06
1.36
3.45
1.44
1.14
2.41
1.55
1.48
1.39
1.52
1.47
1.48
Change
In Sales
- 7.26
- 2.80
- 6.77
- 3.25
-23.89
-13.30
- 7.26
- 2.80
- 6.77
- 3.25
-23.89
-13.30
-7.26
-1.14
-6.77
-1.33
-7.29
-6.65
-2.64
-1.28
-2.62
-1.48
-8.16
-4.68
Change
In Profits
-0.44
-0.03
-0.30
-0.09
-4.87
-0.85
-0.44
-0.03
-0.31
-0.09
-4.74
-0.84
-0.44
0.00
-0.31
-0.01
-0.58
-0.30
-0.07
-0.01
-0.04
-0.01
-0.78
-0.13
Potential
No. of
Plant
Closings
0
0
3.5
0
0
3.5
0
0
3.0
0
0
3.0
0
0
3.5
0
0
3.5
0
0
2.5
0
0
2.5
-------
Table 7-26
(Continued)
Regulatory Machine
Schedule Types
21 CTS
CTL
WLS
WLr
WT
Level/Effective Date
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
77 77 77
77
77
83
79
84
74
Combined
22 CTS
CTL
WLe
WLL
WT
77 77
79 79
77
79
74
80
76
80
70
Combined
23 CTS
CTL
WLg
WLL
WT
77 77
83 83
79 79
84 84
74 74
77
83
79
84
74
74
80
76
80
74
Combined
24 CTg
CTL
WLg
WLL
WT
77
83
79
84
74
77
83
79
84
74
74
80
76
80
74
Combined
Average
Price
Increase
1.73
0.85
1.73
0.98
6.20
2.05
5.68
2.09
5.41
2.39
16.97
6.01
5.68
2.28
5.41
2.61
7.19
4.84
5.55
2.21
5.28
2.53
6.48
4.66
Average
O&M ;
Increase
1.22
1.16
1.09
1.19
1,43
1,29
4.06
2.85
3,45
2.90
3.75
3,66
4.06
3.13
3.45
3.19
1.65
2.86
3.95
3.03
3.35
3.09
1.47
2.73
Change
In Sales
- 2.35
- 1.14
- 2.31
- 1.33
- 7.29
- 4.18
- 7.26
- 2.80
- 6.77
- 3.25
-25.89
-15.30
- 7.26
- 2.80
- 6.77
- 3.25
- 8.59
- 7.31
- 7.2f
- 2.81
- 6.77
- 3.25
- 8.16
- 7.14
Change
In Profits
-0.05
0.00
-0.02
-0.02
-0.68
-0.11
-0.44
-0.03
-0.30
-0.09
-4.74
-0.84.
-0.44
-0.03
-0.30
-0.08
-0.70
-0.35
-0.43
-0.03
-0.30
-0.08
-0.78
-0.34
Potential
No. of
Plant
Closings
0
0
l.i
0
0
l.F
0
0
3.5
0
0
3.5
0
0
3.5
0
0
3.5
0
0
3.2
0
0
3.2
-------
Section 8
ENFORCEMENT
GENERAL
The EPA enforcement strategy will place a major share of
the responsibility on the manufacturers who will be required
to conduct pre-sale testing to determine the compliance of wheel
and crawler tractors with the regulation and emission standards
Besides relieving EPA of an administrative burden, this approach
benefits the manufacturers by leaving their personnel in control
of many aspects of the compliance program and imposing only a
minimum burden on their business. Therefore, monitoring by
EPA personnel of the tests and manufacturers' actions taken
in compliance with this regulation is advisable to ensure that
the Administrator is provided with the accurate test data nec-
essary to determine whether the machines distributed in commerce
by manufacturers are in compliance with this regulations.
Accordingly, the regulation provides that EPA Enforcement Officers
may be present to observe any testing required by this regulations
In addition, Enforcement Officers under previously promulgated
regulations [40 CFR Part 204 Subpart A] are empowered to inspect
records and facilities in order to assure that manufacturers are
carrying out their responsibilities properly.
The enforcement strategy proposed in this regulation con-
sists of three parts: (1) Production Verification, (2) Selec-
tive Enforcement Auditing, and (3) In-Use Compliance Provisions.
8-1
-------
PRODUCTION VERIFICATION
Production verification is testing by a manufacturer of
selected early production models of a configuration intended for
sale. The objective is to verify that a manufacturer has the
requisite noise control technology in hand to comply with the
standard at the time of sale and during the Acoustical Assurance
Period (AAP) and is capable of applying the technology to the
manufacturing process. The first production models of a config-
guration tested must not exceed the level of the standard minus
that configuration's expected sound level degradation factor (SLDF)
before any models in that configuration may be distributed in commerce.
Any testing shall be done in accordance with the proposed test
procedure.
Production verification does not involve any formal EPA approval
or issuance of certificates subsequent to manufacturer testing, nor
is any extensive testing required of EPA. All testing is performed
by the manufacturer. However, the Administrator reserves the right
to be present to monitor any test (including simultaneous testing
with his equipment) or to require that a manufacutrer supply him with
products for testing at EPA's Noise Enforcement Facility in Sandusky,
Ohio, or at any other site the Administrator may find appropriate.
When the Administrator tests a product, that test becomes the official
test for that model. The manufacturer is afforded an opportunity to
invalidate any test that the Administrator conducts.
8-2
-------
The production unit selected for testing is a product configuration.
A product configuration is defined on the basis of the parameters deline-
ated in section 204.105-3 of the regulation and any additional parameters
tha a manufacturer or the Administrator may select. The basic parameters
for configuration identification include the exhaust system, air induction
system, cooling system, engine displacement, machine attachments, special
application enclosures and power to ground transfer method (wheel or track
type.)
A manufacturer shall verify production products prior to sale
by one of two methods: The first method will involve testing any early
production product (intended for sale) of each configuration. Production
verification testing of all configurations produced by a manufacturer may
\
not be required where a manfacturer can establish that the sound levels of
some configurations at the end of their defined AAP (based on tests or on
engineering judgement) are consistentlyhigher than that of other config-
urations. In such a case, that product which emits the highest noise
level at the end of the defined AAP would be the only configuration
requiring verification testing.
The second method allows a manufacturer, in lieu of testing
products of every configuration, to group configurations into cate-
gories. A category will be defined by basic parameters of engine and
fuel type, engige manufacturer, engine horsepower, and engine
configuration. Again, the manufacturer may designate additional
categories based on additional parametesr of his choice.
8-3
-------
Within a category, the configuration estimated by the man-
ufacturer to be emitting the greatest A-^weighted sound pressure
level at the end of the AAP is determined either by testing or
good engineering judgment. The manufacturer can then satisfy the
production verification requirements for all configurations within
that category by demonstrating that the loudest configuration at the
end of the AAP complies with the applicable standard. This can eliminate
the need for a substantial amount of testing. However, it must be
emphasized that the loudest configuration at the end of the
AAP must be clearly identified.
This proposed regulation also provides that the Administrator
may test products at a manufacturer's facility using either his
own equipment or the manufacturer's equipment. Tnis will
provide the Administrator with an opportunity to determine
that the manufacturer's test facility and equipment are technic-
ally qualified as specified in section 204.104 and discussed in
Chapter 3, pages 26-28 of this document for conducting the tests
required by this subpart. Procedures that are available to the
manufacturer subsequent to disqualification are delineated in this
regulation.
A production verification report must be filed by the
manufacturer before any products of the configuration represented
are distributed in commerce. A product configuration is considered
to be production verified when the manufacturer has shown, based on
8-4
-------
the application of the noise measurement test, that a configuration
conforms to the standard minus the SLDF and when a timely report has
been mailed to EPA indicating that it complies with the standard.
If a manufacturer is unable to test due to weather conditions,
the production verification of a configuration is automatically
waived by the Administrator for a period of up to 45 consecutive days
without the manufacturer's request provided that he tests on the first
day that he is able. This procedure will minimize disruptions to manu-
facturing facilities. The manufacturer may request an additional ex-
tension of up to 45 days if it is demonstrated that weather or other
uncontrollable conditions prohibited testing during the first 45 days.
However, to avoid any penalties under these proposed regulations,
the manufacturer must test for purposes of production verification
on the first day that he is able.
If a manufacturer proposes to add a new configuration to his
product line or change or deviate from an existing configuration with
respect to any of the parameters which define a configuration, the
manufacturer must verify the new configuration either by testing a
product and submitting data or by filing a report which demonstrates
verification on the basis of previously submitted data.
Production verification is an annual requirement. However, the
Administrator, upon request by a manufacturer may permit the use of
data from previous production verification reports for specific product
configurations and/or categories. The considerations that are cited
8-5
-------
in the regulation as being relevant to the Administrator's decision
are illustrative and not exclusive. The manufacturer can submit all
data and information that he believes will enable the Administrator
to make a reasoned decision. It must be again emphasized that the
manufacturer must request the use of previous data. If he fails to
do so, then he must production verify all categories and configur-
ations for each subsequent year.
The manufacturer need not verify configurations at any particu-
lar point in a year. The only requirement is that he verify a con-
figuration prior to distribution in cotmerce. The inherent flexibility
in the scheme of categorization will in many instances allow a
manufacturer to either verify a configuration that he may not produce
until late in a year based on representation or else wait until actual
production of that configuration to verify it.
If a manufacturer fails to properly verify a configuration and
that configuration is found not to conform with the regulations, the
Administrator may issue an order requiring the manufacturer to cease the
distribution in commerce of products of that configuration. The Adminis-
trator will provide the manufacturer with the opportunity for a hearing prior
to the issuance of such an order.
Production verification performed on the early production models
provides EPA with confidence that production models will conform to the
standards and limits the possibility that nonconforming products will be
distributed in commerce. Because the possibility still exists that subsequent
8-6
-------
models may not conform, selective enforcement audit testing of assembly
line products is made a part of this enforcement strategy in order
to determine whether production products continue to comply with
the standard.
SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT AUDITING
Selective enforcement auditing (SEA) is the term used in this
regulation to describe the testing of a statistical sample of produc-
tion products from a specified product category or configuration
selected from a particular assembly plant in order to determine
whether production products comply with the noise emission standard
including the AAP standard and to provide the basis for further action
in the case of noncompliance. The selective enforcement audit plan is
designed to determine the acceptability of a batch of items for which one
or more inspection criteria have been established. As applied to product
noise emissions, the items being inspected are wheel and crawler tractors
and the inspection criteria are the noise emission standards.
Testing is initiated by a test request which will be issued to
the manufacturer by the Assistant Asministrator for Enforcement or his
authorized representative. A test request will address itself to
either a category or a configuration. The test request will require the
manufacturer to test a sample of products of the specified category or
configuration produced at a specified plant. An alternative category
or configuration may be designated in the test request in the event that
products of the first category or configuration are not available.
8-7
-------
Upon receipt of the test request, the manufacturer will randomly
select the sample from the first batch of products of the specified
category or configuration that is scheduled for production. (The
purpose of the random selection is to ensure that a representative
sample is drawn.) The Administrator also reserves the right to designate
specific products for testing. Generally, a batch will be defined as
the number of products produced during a time period specified
in the test request. A batch defined in this manner will allow the
Administrator to select batch sizes small enough to keep the number
of products to be tested to a minimum and will still enable EPA to
eventually draw statistically valid conclusions about the noise emission
performance of all products of the category or configuration which is
the subject of the test request.
One important factor that will influence the decision of the Admin-
istrator not to issue a test request to a manufacturer is the evidence
that a manufacturer offers to demonstrate that his products comply with
the applicable standards. If a manufacturer can provide evidence that his
products are meeting the noise emission standards based on testing results,
the issuance of a test request may not be necessary.
The particular type of inspection plan which has been adopted for
SEA of wheel and crawler tractors is known as sequential batch sampling.
Sequential batch sampling differs from single sampling in that small
test samples are drawn from sequential batches rather than one large
sample being drawn from a batch. This sampling plan offers the ad-
vantage of keeping the number of products tested to a minimum when
a majority of products are meeting the standard.
8-8
-------
Once the test sample of a batch has been selected from the batch
sample, each item is tested to determine whether it meets the prescribed
criterion; this is generally referred to as inspection by attributes.
The basic criteria for acceptance or rejection of a batch is the number of
sample products whose parameters meet specification rather than the average
value of some parameter.
The sampling plans (A, B, C, and D) are arranged according to the size
of the batch from which a sample is to be drawn. Each plan specifies the
sample size and acceptance and rejection number for acceptance quality level
(AQL). As applied to wheel and crawler tractor noise emissions, this AQL
is the maximum percentage of failing products that for purposes of sampling
inspection can be considered satisfactory.
A product is considered a failure if it exceeds the noise emission standard
minus the SLDF- An AQL of 10 percent was chosen to take into account some
test variability. The number of failing products in a sample is compared
to the acceptance and rejection numbers for the appropriate sampling plan.
If the number of failures is less than or equal to the acceptance number,
then there is a high probability that the percentage of noncomplying
products in the batch is less than the AQL and the batch is accepted.
On the other hand, if the number of failing products in the sample is
equal to or greater than the rejection number, then there is a high proba-
8-9
-------
bility that the percentage of noncomplying products in the batch is greater
than the AQL and the batch fails. Since the sampling strategy involves a
sequential batch sampling plan, in some instances the number of failures
in a test sample may not allow acceptance or rejection of a batch so that
continued testing may be required until a decision can be made to either
accept or reject a batch.
Regardless of whether a batch is accepted or rejected,
failed products would have to be repaired and/or adjusted and pass
a retest before they can be distributed in commerce.
The proposed regulations establish two types of inspection cri-
teria. These are normal inspection and 100 percent testing.
Normal inspection is used until a decision can be made as to whether
a batch sequence is accepted or rejected. When a batch sequence is
is tested and rejected, then the Administrator may
require 100 percent testing of the wheel and crawler tractors of
that category or configuration produced at that plant. The Ad-
ministrator will notify the manufacturer of the intent to require
100 percent testing. The manufacturer can request a hearing on the
issue of noncompliance of the rejected category or configuration.
Subparagraph (1) of section 204.107-1(d) pertains to batches
which consist of three or less machines. The subsection requires
that each machine in that batch be tested and comply with the noise
emission standard minus the SLDF. This subparagraph will allow
testing to take place within a more reasonable period of time when
8-10
-------
a test request is issued for particular categories or configurations
which are not produced in a sufficiently high volume for the normal
SEA scheme to be applicable.
Since the number of machines tested in response to a test order
may vary considerably, a fixed time limit cannot be placed on completing
all testing. The proposed approach is to establish the time limit on
a test-time-per-product basis, taking transportation requirements, if
any, into consideration. The manufacturer would be allowed a reasonable
amount of time for transport of products to a test facility if one were
not available at the assembly plant.
The Administrator estimates that the manufacturers can test a
minimum of two (2) products per day. However, manufacturers are re-
quested to present any data or information that may effect a revision
of this estimate.
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
Section ll(d)(l) of the Act provides that: "Whenever any
person is in violation of section 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 issue administrative
orders to supplement the criminal penalties of section 11(a).
8-11
-------
If wheel and crawler tractors which were not designed, built, and
equipped so as to comply with the noise emission standard at the
time of sale and during the AAP were distributed in commerce, such
act would be a violation of section 10(a) and remedy of such non-
compliance would be appropriate. Remedy of the affected products
shall be carried out pursuant to an administrative order.
The proposed regulation provides for the issuance of such orders
in the following circumstances: (1) recall for the failure of a product
or group of products to comply with the applicable noise emission
standard, (2) cease to distribute products not properly production
verified, and (3) cease to distribute products for failure to test.
In addition, 40 CFR Section 204.4(f) provides for cease to distribute
orders for substantial infractions of regulations requiring entry to
manufacturers' facilities and reasonable assistance. These provisions
do not limit the Administrator's authority to issue orders, but give
notice of cases where such orders would in his judgment be appropriate.
In all such cases, notice and opportunity for a hearing will be given.
COMPLIANCE LABELING
This regulation requires that wheel and crawler tractors subject
to it shall be labeled to provide notice that the product complies to
the noise emission standards. The label shall contain a notice of
8-12
-------
tampering prohibitions. The effective date of the applicable noise
emission standard is also required on the label. A coded rather than
an actual date of manufacture has been used so as to avoid disruption
of marketing and distribution patterns.
APPLICABILITY OF PREVIOUSLY PROMULGATED REGULATIONS
Manufacturers who will be subject to this regulation must also
comply with the general provisions of 40 CFR Part 204 Subpart A.
These include the provisions for inspection and monitoring by EPA
Enforcement Officers of manufacturer's actions taken in compliance
with this proposed regulation and for granting exemptions from this
proposed regulation for testing, pre-verification products, national
security reasons, and export products.
ACOUSTICAL ASSURANCE PERIOD COMPLIANCE
The manufacturer is required to design, build, and equip wheel
and crawler tractors subject to these regulations so that the products
comply with the standard during the AAP provided that they are properly
maintained, used, and repaired.
EPA does not specify what testing or analysis a manufacturer must
conduct to determine that his product will meet the Acoustial Assurance
Period of these regulations. However, this regulation requires the
manufacturer to make such a determination and maintain records of the test
data and other information upon which the determination was based.
This determination may be based on information such as testing of critical
noise producing or abatement components, rates of noise control deterioration,
engineering judgements based on previous experience, and physical durability
characteristics of the product.
8-13
-------
An SLDF is the degradation (sound level increase in A-weighted
decibels) which the manufacturer expects will occur on a configuration
during the AAP. The manufacturer must determine an SLDF for each of his
product configurations.
To ensure that the products will meet the noise standards through-
out the AAP, they must emit a time of sale sound level less than or
equal to the noise standard minus the SLDF. A product is in compliance
only if its measured dBA level, added to the SLDF, is less than or equal
to the applicable standard. Production verification and selective
enforcement audit testing both embody this principle.
All wheel and crawler tractors must emit a sound level that is less
than or equal to the standard at the time of sale, so a negative SLDF
cannot be used. A product that becomes quieter during the AAP must
still meet the standard on the day of sale; so an SLDF of 0 must be
used for than configuratrion.
As stated above, the Agency is not requiring durability testing
as a matter of course, however, should it be necessary, section 13(a)
of the Noise Control Act authorizes EPA to require the manufacturer to
run such tests on selected wheel and crawler tractors.
IN-USE COMPLIANCE
These provisions include a requirement that the manufacturer provide
a warranty to purchasers [required by section 6(d)], assist the Admin-
istrator in fully defining those acts which constitute tampering
[under section 10 (a)(2)(A)], and provide retail purchasers with
a log book to record maintenance and repairs performed.
8-14
-------
Section 9
EXISTING LOCAL, STATE, AND FOREIGN REGULATIONS
According to Section 6 of the Noise Control Act of 1972, the
proposed Federal regulation for wheel and crawler tractors will
preempt new product standards for tractors at the local and state
level unless those standards are indentical to the Federal standard.
Local and state governments are not prohibited from "establishing
or enforcing controls on environmental noise through licensing,
regulations or restrictions of the use, operation or movement of
any products" or from establishing or enforcing new product noise
standards for types of construction equipment not regulated by the
Federal Government.
EPA reviewed available literature and conducted a survey to
determine the numer of existing regulations that are applicable
to construction equipment in general and wheel and crawler tractors
in particular and that may be affected by federally imposed regulations.
Very few laws, regulations or ordinances were found that mention
wheel and crawler tractors specifically [38]. Most of the legislation
regulating this noise source does so by limiting emission levels allowed
from "xonstruction equipment" or construction sites", rather than
from each of the specific types of such equipment. Some of the
legislation setting limits on "xonstuction equipment" includes
wheel and crawler tractors as an example of such equipment, but
most regulation of wheel and crawler tractor noise is presently
accomplished indirectly by limiting construction site noise or
construction equi@pment noise.
9-1
-------
LOCAL ORDINANCES REGULATING WHEEL AND CRAWLER TRACTOR
NOISE LEVELS
Most of the regulatory activity governing construction equipment
or site noise is occurring on the local level. This is true in
foreign countries as well as in the United States.
Local governments controlled loader and dozer or construction
noise in many different ways. Table 9-1 indicates the different
types of standards used.
The most predominant method of construction noise control was
through use of a "zone-type standard." This method generally involved
allowing different maximum noise levels for different areas of the
local community. Thirty-eight of the 50 ordinances studied had
some type of zone standard that applied to construction noise.
Many different areas or land uses were mentioned in the ordin-
ances, but the three most common were residential areas, commercial
areas, and industrial areas. A wide variety of dBA allowable levels
was also encountered, but the most common levels were 51-55 dBA
in residential areas, 61-65 dBA for commercial areas, and 71-75
dBA for industrial areas. Measurement was typically to be at or
on the land use receiving the sound; some ordinances required
measurement at the site property boundary or a certain distance
therefrom.
9-2
-------
Table 9-1
Types of Performance Standards Found in Local Ordinances that
Applied to Construction Noise or Construction Equipment
I
U)
Ordinance Contains :
Zone Type Standards
Only
Zone & Use Standards
Zone & Sale Standards
Zone & Ambient
Standards
Zone, Use & Ambient
Standards
Sale Standard Only
Sale &. Use Standard
Use Standard Only
Use & Ambient Standard
Ambiont Standard Only
Population Groups
>500K
4
1
1
1
3
Counties &
200K-500K
4
1
2
1
100K-200K
5
1
2
1
1
2
50K-100K
2
1
25K-50K
1
1
2
2
2
1
To
25K
3
3
1
1
Total
19
4
1
7
4
4
1
7
^
1
-------
Six ordinances were studied which made it unlawful to sell,
or Offer for sale in the city, equipment which exceeded specified
dBA levels. Table 9-2 shows the cities with sale - type standards
and specified levels. All of these ordinances require construction
equipment to meet a level of 80 dBA as measured a 50' from the
equipment by 1980 (one of these would require 80 dBA by 1976)-
Fifteen ordinances had some type of "use" standard in that use of
construction equipment was prohibited where the equipment exceeded a
specified level at a specified distance, or use was prohibited where
total construction site noise exceeded a specified level. Nine of these
fifteen ordinances set levels which applied to individual pieces of
equipment. The levels allows ranged from a high of 91 dBA neasured
at 50' to 75 dBA measured at 50'. Table 9-3 presents the nine
ordinances and the levels specified.
Six ordinances set levels that applied to total constuction
site noise. The levels allowed ranged between 90 dBA at 50' from
the site boundary to 75 dBA at the same distance. Table 9-4
presents the levels specified in each of these six ordinances.
Fifteen ordinances used an ambient-type standard, in that no
construction noise was allowed that exceeded ambient levels by
a specified amount. This type of ordinance generally specified
that no more than 5 dBA over the ambient was permissible. Many
of the ambient-type standards applied only to night construction
work with a different level or no level applicable to day work.
Fourteen ordinances allowed duration adjustments to the speci-
fied sound levels which in effect increased allowable levels. The
9-4
-------
vo
Wl
Table 9-2
Table of Sale Standards Showing Maximum dBA
Levels for New Construction Equipment*
Manufactured
After
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
"1978
1970
1980
Chicago
Illinois
04
88
86
80
Kansas
City
Missouri
94
88
86
Grand
Rapids
Michigan
88
86
80
Salt Lake
City
Utah
94
88
86
80
Prairie
Village
Kansas
86
80
i
Urbana
Illinois
86
80
*Measured at 50 feet
-------
Table 9-3
Table of Use Levels Per Piece of Equipment
Lev
-------
Table 9-4
Table of Use Standard Limiting Total Construction Site Noise
City
Level
Measurement
Toledo ,
Ohio
90 dBA
At site boundary
or 50' therefrom
if operating at
boundary
Anaheim,
California
60 dBA
(Night level
only)
At any point
on site
property
line
Anchorage ,
Alaska*
80 dBA
(Not
specified)
Park Ridge,
Illinois
87 dBA
"C" Scale
at 75' from
source
W. Palm Beach,
Florida
75 dBA
at 75' from
site
Lake Park,
Florida
75 dBA
at 75' from
site
*Proposed
-------
duration adjustments generally allowed an increase for noises occurring
less, than a certain portion of an hour or day. The amount of dBA
increase allowed and the time durations specified varied widely.
Eight ordinances contained a minimum duration for measurement
of the sound levels coming from a suspected source. The duration
of measurement ranged from 12 hours to 5 minutes.
Ten ordinances provided for a -5 dBA adjustment to allowable
levels for impulsive noises.
Thirty-five ordinances allowed an exemption from the performance
standards for "emergency work." Emergency work was usually defined
as work necessary after a public calamity or work necessary to protect
against an imminent calamity. Thirty-one of the ordinances contained
an emergency definition similar to the above. Fifteen of these
31 also exempted work necessary to restore utility service, and
three also gave an exemption for roadway repair.
\
Thirty ordinances had specific provisions allowing variances
from the performance standards. Very few of these gave specific
information on what showing or procedure was required for a variance,
but eight ordinances required a showing of "undue hardship", and
four would allow a variance on a showing that it was "impracticable"
to comply.
Twelve ordinances used octave band measurements, either in
addition to or in lieu of "A" scale measurement. Thirty-eight relied
exclusively on "A" weighted measurements.
9-8
-------
Forty ordinances contained specific time limits on construction
work. Generally, these ordinances prohibited use of construction
equipment or construction work between a specified hour in the night
and a specified hour the following morning. The times used varied
a great deal, but the most often mentioned times were between 10:00
p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Of the 40 ordinances containing time limits, 11 had more restrictive
time limits for weekends, Sundays, or holidays, in that work during
those days was prohibited or allowed for less hours. Three ordinances
disallowed any use of "heavy equipment" (including pavement breakers)
at any time without a permit.
Sixteen ordinances had a provision which allowed night work,
regardless of time restriction, where the noise created did not
cause a noise disturbance across residential boundaries. Thirty-
seven ordinances specifically exempt emergency work from their time
restrictions, and 25 specifically provide for variances to the time
limits.
Most of the local ordinances did not provide specific authorities
and duties for the agency enforcing or administering the ordinance.
Information gathered from local ordinances was analyzed by population
groups to determine if any significant differences could be detected
that related to the size of the city. The only notable difference
in the ordinances that appeared to be a function of size was that
the larger cities (500,000 or over) gave more specific authorities
and duties in their ordinances than did smaller cities.
Q-9
-------
Twenty-five ordinances studied include local government construc-
tion activity in construction noise subject to the ordinance. Five
ordinances also require that any city contract contain a provision
requiring contractor compliance with the ordinance.
Thirty-five ordinances contained some type of nuisance provision
in addition to performance standards, which made it unlawful to
create "unreasonable" noise levels.
Eight ordinances contained provisions that made it unlawful
to use construction equipment that was not adequately muffled or
without other noise reduction equipment or to tamper with equipment
in a manner that caused increased noise levels.
Eleven ordinances contained definitions of construction equip-
ment or work.
STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING WHEEL AND CRAWLER TRACTOR
NOISE LEVELS
Five states were found to have laws and regulations that set
limits on construction noise.
Colorado sets the following levels for all construction activity:
80 dBA measured at 25' from the site 7 am- 7 pm
75 dBA measured at 25' from the site 7 pm - 7 am
Maryland sets the following levels for construction sites:
90 dBA measured at any receiving property 7 am - 10 pm
50 dBA measured at residential receiving property 10 pm - 7 am
62 dBA measured at commercial receiving property 10 pm - 7 am
75 dBA measured at industrial receiving property 10 pm - 7 am
9-10
-------
New Jersey sets the following levels for commercial operations.
65 dBA measured at receiving residential property 7 am - 10 pm
50 dBA measured at receiving residential property 10 pm - 7 am
65 dBA measured at receiving commercial/industrial
property anytime
New York sets levels for construction site noise measured at
400'. These levels are shown in Table 9-5.
Table 9-5. New York State Construction Site Noise Emission Levels
dBA
For Construction dBA (approx. levels
Activity Occurring In (present levels after 1978)
Residential Districts
day: 7am-7pm
night: 7pm-7am
Commercial Districts
during normal business
hours
during non-business
hours
Industrial Districts
any time
70
55
75
80
80
64
49
69
74
74
Washington sets the following levels for construction noise:
45 dBA for receiving residential property if the site is
located in a residential district 10pm - 7am
47 dBA for receiving residential property if the site is
located in a commercial district 10pm - 7am
50 dBA for receiving residential property if the site is
located in an industrial district 10pm - 7am.
9-11
-------
All states except New Jersey allow duration adjustment to the
above levels that increase the allowable level for short durations.
Coloraddo and Maryland reduce allowable levels by 5 dBA for
implusive noises. Nedw Jersey states that any impulsive noise is
excessive if it exceeds 80 dBA (presumably at receiving land). New
York allows no impulsive noise over 120 dBA (presumably measured
at 400').
Washington is the only state that preempts local control
of construction noise levels. Wasington mandates local ordinances
that are consistent with state regulations, unless the local govern-
ment can show special circumstances requiring different levels.
Maryland, New Jersey and Washington give a specific exemption
for emergency work. Only Washington and Maryland specifically
provide for variances to the standards. Washington, New Jersey and
Maryland subject state construction activities to the state law.
FOREIGHN REGULATIONS
France, West Germany and Japan are the only foreign
nations which have noise emission standards currently in force
that affect new wheel and crawler tractors. France and Japan
require only a stationary rated speed or high-idle test, while
Germany requires stationary, drive-by and work cycle tests. France
has a single regulation which covers all construction equipment
powered by internal conbustion engines. It applies to all machines
manufactured after May 1, 1973. The noise levels required by the French
regulation are shown in Table 9-6,
9-12
-------
Table 9-6
FRENCH CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE
REGULATION
Sound Level @ 7 meters Net Flywheel Horsepower Range Effective Date
80 dBA less than 200 January 1, 1977
83 200 - 300 January 1, 1977
87 300 - 500 January 1, 1977
90 greater than 500 January 1, 1977
In addition, to the standards listed in Table 5-1 for new machines,
the use of older machines in France is restricted if their sound
levels are greater than 83 dBA at 7 meters.
The German law requires 2 or 3 tests for each machine, depending
\
on the machine type. Sound levels prescribed by the German law
are shown in Table 9-7. In addition, total construction site noise
is limited according to the type of surrounding property.
Japan has set a single standard of 75 dBA at 30 meters (approxi-
mately 81 dBA at 15 meters) for all construction equipment. However
the various regions within Japan can implement use restrictions
or other means to reduce construction noise.
Vienna, Austria has set a construction noise standard of 100
dBA at 1 meter (approximately 78 dBA at 14 meters) and Canton and
Bern, Switzerland have set a standard of 85 dBA at 7 meters (approxi-
mately 78 dBA at 15 meters).
9-13
-------
Other approaches to construction noise control used in foreign
countries include (1) voluntary standards of recommended practice,
(2) requirements set in construction contracts, (3) general nuisance
laws and (4) zone type standards. The general nuisance and zone
type standards are the most widely used methods for regulating
construction site noise.
Table 9-7
GERMAN LOADER AND DOZER NOISE REGULATIONS
GERMANY: TRACKED LOADERS
Up to 110 KW 111 KW up
Test Mode (Up to 148 hp SAE) (149 hp SAE up)
Sound levels effective
June 1, 1973
Machine stationary
@ 7 meters 86 89
Work cycle 87 90
Sound levels effective
January 1, 1977
Machine stationary 81 84
Work cycle 83 86
GERMANY; TRACKED DOZERS
Sound levels effective
June 1, 1973
Machine stationary
@ 7 meters 87 90
Machine drive-by
@ 10 meters from center 90 92
Work cycle @ 10 meters
from center 87 90
9-14
-------
Table 9-7
GERMAN LOADER AND DOZER NOISE REGULATIONS
GERMANY: TRACKED LOADERS
Up to 110 KW 111 KW up
Test Mode (Up to 148 hp SAE) (149 hp SAE up)
Sound levels effective
January 1, 1977
Machine stationary 82 85
Machine drive-by 87 89
Work cycle 82 85
GERMANY; WHEELED LOADERS
Sound levels effective
September 1, 1972
Machine stationary
@ 7 meters 87 90
Machine drive-by @ 10
meters from center 90 93
Work cycle § 10 meters
from center 86 90
(Up to 150 hp SAE) (151 hp SAE up)
Sound levels effective
January 1, 1976
Machine stationary 82 85
Machine drive-by 85 88
Work cycle 81 85
Germany - for construction noise
60 dBA measured at receiving (primarily) residential
property 6am-10pm
70 dBA measured at receiving commercial property 6am-10pm
9-15
-------
MODEL ORDINANCE
The model ordinance presented herein incorporates alternative
provisions and wording selections to facilitate choice among the
aspects of any actual ordinance which will reflect the needs and
desires of State and local governments. The model should also be
considered as part of a total community noise control ordinance
rather than as a separate and distinct piece of legislation.
Therefore, the provisions given herein are only those most relevant
to construction noise control.
The model is directed at either wheel and crawler tractors
specifically, or wheel and crawler tractors as one type of construc-
tion equipment, or one source of construction noise.
A. Definitions
(1) Ambient sound level is defined as:
The sound pressure level of the all encompassing noise asso-
ciated with a given environment, being usually a composite of
sounds from many sources. For the purposes of this ordinance,
ambient sound level is the level (obtained or obtained 90 percent
of time) when the noise level is averaged over a (10-minute)
(15-minute) (1-hour) period (without inclusion of isolated
identifiable sources). Measurements of ambient levels shall be
taken at the approximate time and place at which a comparison
is to be made.
9-16
-------
(2) Construction work is defined as:
The on site erection; fabrication; installation; alteration;
demolition or removal of any structure, facility, highway, sewer,
public utility; or all related activities including, but not
restricted to clearing of land, earthmoving, blasting, land-
scaping and tree trimming.
(3) Construction equipment is defined as:
Any device designed and intended for use in construction
work including, but not limited to, any air compressor, pile
driver, manual tool, bulldozer, loader, pavement breaker, steam
shovel, derrick, crane, steam or electric hoist.
(4) Emergency work is defined as:
Work made necessary to restore public property to a safe
condition following a public calamity or work required to pro-
tect persons or property from imminent danger.
Work required by public or private utilities when restoring
utility service.
Work required to restore safe conditions in public streets.
(5), Person is defined as:
Any individual, association, partnership or corporation and
includes any officer, employee, department, agency, or instru-
mentally of the United States, a state or political subdivision
of that state.
9-17
-------
B. Authorities (and Duties) of Administrative Agency
For the purpose of enforcing this ordinance and to promote
noise abatement from (construction equipment and construction work)
wheel and crawler tractors, the Agency shall have the following
authorities (and duties):
(1) The authority to coordinate the efforts of other local
agencies including, but not limited to, (building permit
department, planning department, zoning department, health
department, purchasing department, utilities department)
and combine functions where appropriate for the better
enforcement of and to promote the policy of this ordinance.
(2) The authority to review all projects (subject to review by
other local agencies) which may result in construction noise
of any type prior to approval of such projects and to require
from applicants noise impact statements including all data
required by the administrative agency.
(3) The authority to deny approval of such projects reviewed in
(2) where such projects present an imminent threat to health
and welfare which cannot be reasonably abated, otherwise to
condition approval of the projects on specified sound abate-
ment measures to be taken by the applicant.
(4) The authority to make regulations dealing with the
a. Measurement of (construction equipment), (wheel and
crawler tractors) noise levels or other noise level
measurements.
9-18
-------
b. Noise impact statement requirements.
(5) The authority to, upon presentation of proper credentials,
enter and inspect any private property or place, and inspect
any report or records at any reasonable time when granted per-
mission by the owner. When permission is refused or cannot be
obtained, a search warrant may be obtained from a court of
competent jurisdiction upon showing of probable cause to
believe that a violation of this ordinance may exist. Such
inspection may include administration of any necessary tests.
(6) The authority to:
(a) If the administrative agency has reasonable cause to believe
that any device is in violation of this code, the administrative
agency may order the owner of the device to conduct such tests as
are necessary, in the opinion of the administrative agency or,
to determine whether the device or its operation is in violation
of this code and to submit the test results to the administrative
agency within ten (10) days after the tests are completed.
(b) Such tests shall be conducted in a manner approved by the
administrative agency. If any part of the test is conducted at
a place other than the site where the device is located, that
part of the test shall be certified by a laboratory acceptable
to the administrator agency. The administrative agency may
require that the entire test results shall be reviewed and certi-
fied by a professional engineer.
9-19
-------
(c) The owner shall notify the administrative agency of
the time and place of a test at least seven (7) days before
the commencement of such test. Reasonable facilities shall
be made available for the administrative agency to witness
the test.
(d) If in the opinion of the administrator, tests by the
administration are necessary, the administrative agency may
order the owner to provide such access to the device as the
administrative agency may reasonably request, to provide a
power source suitable to the points of testing, and to provide
allied facilities, exclusive of sound level meter. These
provisions shall be made at the expense of the owner of the
device. The owner shall be furnished with copies of the
analytical results of the data collected.
(7) The authority to:
(a) Require the written registration of (construction
equipment) (wheel and crawler tractors). A period of 60
days shall be allowed for the filing of such registration.
However, in cases of emergency, the administrative agency may
designate a shorter period of time.
(b) Registration shall be made on forms furnished by the
administrative agency. The forms may require information con-
cerning the device covered by the registration, the sound
level caused by the device or any additional information
required by the administrative agency for the purpose of
enforcing this code. The registrant shall maintain
9-20
-------
the registration in current status by notifying the
administration of any change in any item of information
furnished in compliance with this subsection within a
reasonable time, not exceeding thirty days after the change
is made.
(c) Registration shall be made by the owner of the device.
If a registrant is a partnership or group other than a
corporation, the registration shall be made by one individual
who is a member of the group. If the registrant is a cor-
poration, the registration shall be made by an officer of
the corporation.
(8) The authority to:
(a) Develop and recommend for promulgation (to the appro-
priate authority) provisions regulating the use and opera-
tion *of any product, including the specification of maximum
allowable sound emission levels of such product.
(b) Develop and recommend for promulgation (to the appro-
priate authority) provisions prohibiting the sale of pro-
ducts which do not meet specified sound emisson levels,
where the sound level of the product is not regulated by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency under
section 6 of the Noise Control Act of 1972.
(9) The authority to investigate complaints of violations of
this chapter and to make inspections and observations of
environmental conditions and to institute necessary pro-
9-21
-------
ceedings to prosecute violations of this ordinance.
(10) The authority to delegate authorities and duties under
this ordinance.
C. Local Contracts and Purchases
As used in this section, the term "contract" shall mean any
written agreement or legal instrument whereby the local govern-
ment is committed to expend, or does expend, public funds in
consideration for work, labor, services, equipment or any com-
bination of the foregoing, except that the term "contract" shall
not include:
Contracts for financial or other assistance entered into by
the local government with any Federal, State or other local
governmental entity or agency.
Contracts, resolutions, indentures, declarations of trust,
or other legal instruments for life authorizing or relating to
(a) the purchase of insurance, (b) the authorization, issuance,
award and sale of bonds, (c) certificates of indebtedness, notes
or other fiscal obligations of the local government, or documents
consisting thereof.
(1) No contract shall be awarded or entered into by the local
government unless such contract contains provisions re-
quiring that:
Devices and activities which will be operated, conducted,
purchased or constructed pursuant to the contract and which
9-22
-------
are subject to the provisions of this Code will be operated,
conducted, or constructed without causing a violation of
this Article, and that should such a violation occur it shall
constitute a breach of contract.
A further provision shall provide for liquidated damages for
such breach with the amount of damages to be decided by the
local contract officer and the other party to the contract.
The administrative agency of this act, may, pursuant to local
contracts, recommend to (require of) the local purchasing
agent or other local departments, specifications to be
followed in the operation of devices or in construction
activities that will reduce noise levels produced by such
devices or activities.
(2) The administrative agency [(may) (shall)] [(require) (recommend)]
to local departments purchasing equipment for use by the
local government, that any product which has been certified
by the administrative agency of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency pursuant to section 15 of the Noise Control
Act as a low noise emission product, and which he determines
is suitable for use as a substitute, shall be procured by
the city/county and used in preference to any other product,
provided that such certified product is reasonably available
and has a procurement cost which is not more than (125) per-
centum of the least expensive type of product for which it is
certified as a substitute.
9-23
-------
D. Prohibited Acts
It is a violation of this ordinance for any person:
(1) To operate or allow operation of (construction equipment)
(wheel and crawler tractors) without the exhaust muffling
equipment or other sound attenuation devices, such as in-
sulation or shrouds, which are part of the above equipment
when sold as new equipment;
(2) To operate or allow operation of (construction equipment)
(wheel and crawler tractors) without permits as required
by this ordinance;
(3) To operate or allow operation of (construction equipment)
(wheel and crawler tractors) without sound attenuation devices
required by the (administrative agency) (enforcement officer)
or to operate or allow operation in a manner not consistent
with instructions given by the (administrative agency) (enforce-
ment officer) after such devices or methods of operation have
been required in lieu of a citation or as a condition of project
approval;
(4) To tamper with or modify any (construction equipment) (wheel
and crawler tractors) in a manner which causes increased sound
levels from the above equipment.
E. Time Limitations on (Construction Work) (Operation of Wheel and
Crawler Tractors)
It is a violation of this ordinance for any person:
(1) To operate or allow the operation of any (construction
equipment) (wheel and crawler tractors) between the hours
of xEM and xM on weekdays (including Saturday and Sunday).
9-24
-------
NOTE: The night hours specified by local ordinances are 14
as a maximum number of hours and 7 as a minimum. The times
ranged from 6EM to 8AM with the times of 10IM to 7AM most often
mentioned.
(2) To operate or allow the operation of any (construction
equipment) (wheel and crawler tractors) at (any time)
(between the hours of xEM and xAM) (on Federal holidays).
(3) The time restrictions in (1) and (2) above apply only where
the noise levels created by such equipment will cause a noise
disturbance as measured at or across the property line of
(any) (residential) (residential or commercial) property.
For the purposes of this subsection a noise disturbance shall
mean any noise which causes an increase of "N" dBA over
ambient levels.
NOTE: This is typically stated in local ordinances as 5 dBA
over ambient.
(4) Emergency work shall be exempt from the time limitations
stated in (1) and (2) above (for a period of "N" hours and
after "N" hours, emergency work may only be continued with
the (written) authorization of the (administrative agency)
(enforcement officer).
(5) Variances (permits) allowing operation during the times specified
in (1) and (2) above may be obtained upon a proper showing, as
specified in section G of this ordinance.
9-25
-------
F. Performance Standards
Discussion
Zone-type standards regulating noise from construction equipment
as found in the ordinances are often too prohibitive. Zone standards
reflect desires for the most quiet where people live, less quiet where
they shop and the least amount of quiet in industrial areas. Con-
struction equipment is a movable noise source and will locate temporarily
in any zone of a local area. It is not the typical stationary indus-
trial plant (or other stationary source) which zone standards are pri-
marily designed to control. It is unrealistic to expect a contractor
to have the equipment for the silent operations that are often required
for residential areas. In short, because of the mobility of construction
equipment and the fact that it cannot generally meet many of the levels
specified for many zones, it should be exempted from zone-type standards,
and this is what many local ordinances have done.
One standard should be applied to construction equipment use. This
standard should be allowed to vary or be flexible where a situation
might indicate allowance of more or less noise, but one standard should
be basic to local ordinances no matter what zone the equipment use is
in.
The same arguments preclude ambient-based standards in that ambient
levels also vary according to location.
A more realistic standard for construction equipment could either
be one that prohibits sale of equipment not meeting specified levels,
one that prohibits use of a particular type of equipment that does not
9-26
-------
meet specified standards or one that prohibits use of equipment in-
directly, through prohibition of total construction-site levels in
excess of an acoustical standard.
Sale standards do not by themselves prevent excess noise; they
do not control noise caused by degradation of equipment, and they
are subject to preemption by federal laws. For these reasons they
should not be the sole basis of a performance standard.
The remaining two types of standards are presented as (1) and (2)
below, as alternate provisions with arguments for each stated below
the sections. Another alternate provision (3) combines elements of
(1) and (2).
(1) It is a violation of this ordinance for any persons to
use, operate, or allow use or operation of any (construc-
tion equipment) (wheel and crawler tractors) that exceeds
(x dBA) when measured at 7 meters from such equipment.
Measurement procedures shall (be in accordance with) (take
into consideration) relevant SAE measurement procedures.
NOTE: Construction industry representatives have spoken
against this standard because it often does not reflect
the primary health and welfare considerations in that 7
meters (approximately 25'), or any such standard dis-
tance from the equipment, may be far removed from persons
not engaged in the construction work.
On the other hand, this does promote lower levels where
equipment is used in public places, such as downtown areas
or roadways.
9-27
-------
(2) It is a violation of this ordinance for any person to use
or operate or allow the use or operation of construction
equipment so that the noise level (at the construction site
boundary) (at 7 meters from the consruction site boundary)
exceeds (x dBA) (x Leq).
NOTE: This type of standard considers the impacted area,
but leaves ambiguity where the equipment is not in use at
a defined site with known boundaries (such as a public
roadway).
(a) Leq (Equivalent A-Weighted Sound Level) is defined to
to mean the constant sound level that in a given situation
and time period, conveys the same sound energy as the actual
time varying A-weighted sound. For the purpose of the above
provision, a time period (equivalent to the allowed period
for daily operation) (of 1 hour) (etc.) shall be used.
(3) Combines (1) and (2) above.
It is a violation of this ordinance for any person to use or
operate, or allow the use or operation of any (construction
equipment) (wheel and crawler tractors) that does not meet
at least one of the following standards.
(a) No (construction equipment) (wheel and crawler tractors)
shall exceed (N dBA) when measured at 7 meters from such
equipment, or
(b) No (construction equipment) (wheel and crawler tractors)
shall exceed (x dBA) when measured at the construction
site boundary.
9-28
-------
Paragraphs (4), (5) and (6) would be included as paragraphs
(2), (3) and (4) with either (1), (2), or (3) above.
(4) On (weekends (Sundays) (and Federal holidays) the above
allowed levels shall be reduced by x dBA.
(5) Emergency work or equipment used in emergency work is exempt
from compliance with the levels stated above, for a period
of x hours, after which time (written) approval of continued
work must be obtained from the administrator.
(6) Permits (variances) from the above sound levels shall be allowed
in accordance with section G of this ordinance.
*
G. Variances (Permits)
(1) Any person may apply for a permit for relief from any noise
restrictions designated in this ordinance. Applications for a per-
mit for relief from the noise restrictions designated in this ordi-
nance on the basis of undue hardship may be made to the administrative
agency or his authorized representative. Any permit granted by the
administrative agency or his authorized representative shall contain
all conditions upon which said permit has been granted and shall
specify a reasonable time for which the permit shall be effective.
The relief requested may be granted upon good and sufficient showing:
(a) That additional time is necessary for the applicant to
alter or modify his activity or operation to comply with
this ordinance, or
(b) The activity, operation or noise source will be of
temporary duration, and cannot be done in a manner that
would comply with sections of this chapter, or
9-29
-------
(c) That no other reasonable alternative is available to
the applicant, and
(d) Reasonable conditions or requirements may be prescribed
when deemed necessary to minimize adverse effects upon the
community, the surrounding neighborhood, or the public.
(Alternate Variance Provision 1)
(1) Any person may apply for a permit for relief from any noise re-
striction in this ordinance. If the applicant can show to the
administrative agency or his designee that a diligent investigation
of available noise abatement techniques indicates that immediate com-
pliance with the requirements of this chapter would be impractical
or unreasonable, a permit to allow exception from the provisions con-
tained in all or a portion of this chapter may be issued, with appropriate
conditions to minimize the public detriment caused by such exceptions.
Any such permit shall be of as short duration as possible, up to six
months, but renewable upon a showing of good cause, and shall be condi-
tioned by a schedule for compliance and details of methods therefor,
in appropriate cases. Any persons aggrieved with the decision of
the administrative agency or his designee may appeal to the city
council.
(Alternate Variance Provision 2)
(1) Any person may apply for a permit for relief from any noise restri-
tion in this ordinance. The administrative agency is authorized to grant
permits for relief from any provision of this Ordinance, upon a showing
of good cause, subject to such limitations as to area, noise levels,
time limits, and other terms and conditions as it determines are appro-
priate to protect the public health, safety and welfare from the noise
9-30
-------
emanating therefrom.
(2) A permit may be issued authorizing noises prohibited by this
ordinance as follows:
(a) Application for permit. Applications for permits shall
be in writing and shall contain the following information:
1. The name, address and telephone number of the
applicant.
2. A general description of the equipment, apparatus, or
other sound source to be utilized, and the area in which
it will be utilized.
3. An estimate of the maximum sound level which will be
generated by the equipment, apparatus, or sound source to
be utilized and the basis for such estimate.
4. The inclusive dates between which the sound will be
generated.
5. Facts showing that the public interest will be served
by the issuance of such permit or that extreme hardship
will accrue to the applicant if such permit does not issue.
(b) Criteria. Applications shall be filed with the administrative
agency who shall approve or disapprove same within five working
days. The criteria which shall be considered by the administrative
agency in determining whether the requested permit shall issue
will include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. The level of the noise for which a permit is sought.
2. The ambient noise level in the vicinity where the
sound source will be utilized.
9-31
-------
3. The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping
facilities.
4. The nature and zoning of the area within which the
noise will emanate.
5. The density of the inhabitation of the area within
which the noise will emanate.
6. The time of the day or night the noise will occur.
7. The duration of the noise.
8. Whether the noise will be recurrent, intermittent or
constant.
(c) Issuance of Permit. The Administrative Officer shall issue
the requested permit unless he finds, considering the aforemen-
tioned criteria, that the public interest will suffer thereby
and that such public detriment exceeds the hardship to be
suffered by the applicant if the permit is not issued. In the
event the Administrative Officer disapproves the application,
he shall return same to the applicant with a statement of the
reasons for such action. In approving a permit hereunder, the
Administrative Officer may impose such conditions as he deems
necessary to protect the public interest.
(d) Revocation or Suspension. Any permit issued hereunder shall
be revocable and may be revoked by the Administrative Officer
when a fact is found to exist which would have been a ground for
refusal to approve same or when there has been a violation of
any of the terms or conditions thereof.
9-32
-------
(e) Appeal. Any person aggrieved by any action of the
Administrative Officer denying, revoking, or imposing any con-
dition on a permit may appeal such decision to the commission
by filing a written appeal within ten days of such action with
the secretary thereof. When a proper appeal has been filed, the
decision of the Administrative Officer shall be set aside and a
hearing shall be set before the commission, noticed and held, all
in accordance with the rules of said commission. The commission
may continue the hearing from time to time and shall render its
decision within three days after the close thereof. The commission
may:
1. Direct the issuance of the permit;
2. Delete, alter, or impose any term or condition on
the permit reasonably calculated to alleviate any dere-
liction or protect the public interest; or
3. Uphond the denial of the permit.
(f) Appeal to Council. Any person aggrieved by any action of
the commission upholding the denial, revocation, or imposition
of conditions on a permit may appeal such decision to the Council
by filing a written appeal within ten days of such action with
the Clerk. When a proper appeal has been filed, the decision
of the commission shall be set aside and a public hearing shall
be set before the Council. The hearing shall be formal, except
that the formal rules of evidence shall not apply. The Council
may continue the hearing from time to time and shall render its
decision within three days after the close thereof.
9-33
-------
H. Enforcement Provisions
(1) Any person who violates any provision of this ordinance shall
be subject to a civil penalty of not less than (x$) nor more
than (y$) for each offense, or injunctive relief to restrain
from continuing the violation or threat of violation, or both
injunctive relief and civil penalty. Upon application for
injunctive relief and a finding that a person is violating
or threatening to violate any provision of this ordinance,
the appropriate court shall grant injunctive relief to re-
strain the violation.
(2) Any person who willfully or knowingly violates any provision
of this ordinance shall be fined for each offense a sum of not
less than (x$) nor more than (y$), imprisoned for a period
not to exceed 'N1 days, or both.
(3) Each day of violation of any provision of this ordinance shall
constitute a separate offense.
(4) In lieu of issuing a notice of violation, the administrative
agency may issue an order requiring abatement of a sound source
alleged to be in violation, within a reasonable time period,
and according to guidelines the administrative agency may prescribe.
(5) An abatement order shall not be issued for any violation, when
the administrative agency has reason to believe that it will not
be feasible to comply with an abatement order.
(6) The administrative agency may order an immediate halt to any
sound that exposes any person to continuous sound or to impulsive
sound levels in excess of those levels recognized as hazardous
to health or welfare.
9-34
-------
Within three days following issuance of such an order, the
administrative agency shall apply to the local court for an
injunction to replace the order.
(7) No order pursuant to subsection (6) shall be issued if the
only persons exposed to sound levels in excess of those
listed in the ordinance are exposed as a result of tres-
pass, invitation upon private property by the person causing
or permitting the sound, or employment by a contractor of
the person causing or permitting the sound.
(8) Any person subject to an order issued pursuant to subsection
(6) shall comply with such order until the sound is brought
into compliance with the order as determined by the administra-
tive agency or a judicial order has superceded the administra-
tive agency's order.
(9) Any person other than persons responsible for enforcement
of this ordinance may commence a civil action on his own
behalf (a) against any person who is alleged to be in viola-
tion of any provision of this ordinance, or (b) against the
administrative agency where there is alleged a failure of the
administrative agency to perform any act under this ordinance
that is not discretionary. The local court shall have jurisdic-
tion without regard to the amount in controversy to grant such
relief as it deems necessary.
(10) No action may be commenced:
(a) under subsection (9)(a)
9-35
-------
(i) prior to thirty days after the plaintiff has given
notice of the alleged violation to the department
of such violation, or
(ii) if the administrative agency has commenced and is
diligently prosecuting an action against the alleged
violator with respect to such violation, but in
such action any affected person may intervene as
a matter of right, or
(b) under subsection (9)(b), prior to thirty days after the
plaintiff has given notice to the administrative agency
that he will commence such action. Notice under this
subsection shall be given in a manner prescribed by the
administrative agency.
(11) In any action under this section the administrative agency,
if not a party, may intervene as a matter of right.
(12) The court in issuing any final order in any action brought
pursuant to subsection (9) may at its discretion award cost
of litigation to any party.
(13) No provision of this ordinance shall be construed to impair
any common law or statutory cause of action or legal remedy
therefrom of any person for injury or damage rising from any
violation of this ordinance or from other law.
(14) Severability. If any provision of this ordinance is held to
be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of
competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of the
ordinance shall not be invalidated.
(15) Effective Date. This law shall take effect immediately.
9-36
-------
Appendix A
DOCKET ANALYSIS
(Reserved)
-------
Appendix B
DEVELOEMENT OF REGULATORY STUDY LEVELS
-------
Appendix B
DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATORY STUDY LEVELS
As discussed in Section 6 - Noise Control Technology, two candidate
study levels for each machine type/classification were considered. Level
II corresponds to commonly used (retrofit) technology levels achievable
without major redesign of the machines and consistent with lower levels
currently in production, as determined in Section 3 - Baseline Noise
Emission Levels. Level II should be feasible for manufacturers of wheel
and crawler tractors to implement within a 3 to 6 year time frame across
an assemblage of models. Level III corresponds to levels believed to
be readily achievable in production in 6 to 8 years based upon the use
of existing techniques for quieting individual noise sources and the
synthesis of engineering and empirical evidence. Achievement of these
levels in a cost-efficient manner without degrading performance and
maintenance factors requires redesign of the machine. These two boundary
levels (Level II and Level III), as shown in Table B-l, have been plotted
on each of the parametric curves illustrated in Figures B-l through B-4.
In addition, depending upon the shape of the respective curve, another
point (Level I) was selected typically corresponding to a noise emission
level midway between current average levels and the Level II. These
three levels generally bound the range of potential benefits achievable
from imposition of a noise emission standard and therefore have been
assessed for cost and economic impacts. In developing "not to exceed"
B-l
-------
TABLE B-l
DESIGN LEVELS FOR HEALTH/WELFARE, COST AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
(LEVELS II AND III)
LEVEL II
LEVEL III
MACHINE TYPE/
HORSEPOWER
Crawler Dozer
20-89
90-199
200-259
260-450
Crawler Loader
20-89
w 90-275+
10
Wheel Loader
20-134
135-241
242-348
349-500
CURRENT REDUCTION FROM
LEVEL CURRENT LEVEL LEVEL II
79.5
80.0
84.0
84.0
79.5
80.0
81.5
81.5
84.0
84.0
5.5
5.0
4.0
3.0
5.5
5.0
5.5
4.5
3.0
2.0
74
75
80
81
74
75
76
77
81
82
REDUCTION FROM
CURRENT LEVEL
8.5
8.0
7.0
6.0
8.5
8.0
8.5
7.5
7.0
6.0
LEVEL III
71
72
77
78
71
72
73
74
77
78
Utility Tractor
20-90+
77.0
5.0
72
9.0
68
-------
to
l
to
90
85
80
I
h
s
s 75
70
65
60
I
I
I i
0-5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4-0
(17.9) (35.8) (53.7) (71.6) (89.5) (107.4) (125.3) (143.2)
PERCENT ENI REDUCTION (ENI REDUCTION IN THOUSANDS)
TOTAL BASELINE ENI
3.184 MILLION
TOTAL POPULATION =
87.36 MILLION
EXPOSED
20-134 HP
135-251 HP
242-348 HP
• 349-500 HP
* I-evel III
Level II
STUDV
LEVELS
Figure B-l Population Impact Reduction vs. Noise Emission Level
for Wheeled Loaders by Horsepower Class (with Ambient)
-------
CD
90
85
80
I
t.
o
in
s 7S
70
65
60
J_
I i
I
TOTAL BASELINE ENI
3.194 MILLION
TOTAL POPULATION -
87.36 MILLION
EXPOSED
20-89 HP
90-295 HP
Level III
* Level II
STUDY
LEVELS
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
(17.9) (35.8) (53.7) (71.6) (89.5) (107.4) (125.3)
PERCENT ENI REDUCTION (ENI REDUCTION IN THOUSANDS)
Figure B—2 Population Impact Reduction vs. Noise Emission Level
for Crawler Loaders by Horsepower Class (With Ambient)
4.0
(143.2)
-------
tx>
01
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
I
I
TOTAL BASELINE ENI
3.194 MILLION
TOTAL POPULATION =
87.36 MILLION
EXPOSED
Level III
Level II
STUDY
LEVELS
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
(35.8) (71.6) (107.4) (143.2) (179.0) (214.8) (250.6)
PERCENT ENI REDUCTION (ENI REDUCTION IN THOUSANDS)
Figure B~3 Population Impact Reduction vs. Noise Emission Level
for Crawler Dozers by Horsepower Class (With Ambient)
8.0
(286.4).
-------
w
65
80
75
I I I | I I I I | I I I I | III I | I I I I | I
I ' I I I | I
b.
O
O
70
65
60
55
I
I
• •II
lilt
1.0
(35.8)
Figure g—4
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
(71.6) (107.4) (143.2) (179.0) (214.8) (250.6) (286.4)
PERCENT ENI REDUCTION (ENI REDUCTION IN THOUSANDS)
Population Impact Reduction vs. Noise Emission Level
for Utility tractors and Skid Steer Loaders (With Ambient)
TOTAL BASELINE ENI
3.194 MILLION
TOTAL POPULATION -
87.36 MILLION
EXPOSED
UTILITY TRACTORS
SKIP STEER LOADERS
Level III
Level II
STUDY
LEVELS
-------
regulatory study levels, these design levels were adjusted upward by
2 dBA to account for production and test variability. The 2 dBA was
selected based upon an analysis of the variability of machine noise emission
data. A summary of "not to exceed" regulatory study levels for each
machine type and initial classification category is provided in Table
B-2.
B-7
-------
TABLE B-2
STUDY LEVELS (dBA) AND LEAD TIMES FOR EACH
MACHINE TYPE AND INITIAL CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY
Machine
Type
Crawler
Dozer
Crawler
Loader
Wheel
Loader
Utility
Tractor
Classification
(HP)
20- 89
90-199
200-259
260-450 Limit
20- 89
90-2', J+
20-134
135-241
242-348
349-500 Limit
20- 90+
Study Level*
Level I
79
80
84
86
79
80
81
82
85
86
77
Level II
76
77
82
83
76
77
78
79
83
84
74
Level III
73
74
79
80
73
74
75
76
79
80
70
*"Not to exceed" levels determined by a High-Idle Stationary test at
15 meters utilizing a four-side arithmetic average of measurements.
B-8
-------
Appendic C
Individual Options
-------
Appendix C
INDIVIDUAL OPTIONS
Before arriving at a regulatory schedule, 18 possible
regulatory options were first developed for each machine
type and horsepower classification (Table C-l). These 18
individual dptions could be combined to create nearly two
million (18 ) combined options. Of these combined options,
24 were studied in detail before selecting the final regula-
tory schedule.
C-l
-------
Table C-l
Regulatory Options for Each Equipment Classification
Options for Crawler Tractors < 200 HP
.980 1981 1982 1983
1984
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
77
77
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
77
77
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
77
77
77
77
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
77
77
77
77
80
80
80
80
80
77
77
77
77
77
77
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
77
77
77
77
77
77
80
80
80
77
74
77
74
77
74
77
74
No Reg
77
74
77
74
77
74
77
74
80
Options for Crawler Tractors
1980 1981 1982
200 HP - 450 HP
1983 1984
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
83
83
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
83
83
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
83
83
83
83
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
83
83
83
83
86
86
86
86
86
83
83
83
83
83
83
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
83
83
83
83
83
83
86
86
86
83
80
83
80
83
80
83
80
No Reg
83
80
83
80
83
80
83
80
86
C- 2
-------
Table 01
Continued
Options for Wheel Loaders < 250 HP
1980 1981 1982 1983
Options for Wheel Loaders 250 HP - 500 HP
1980 1981 1982 1983
1984
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
Nd Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
79
79
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
79
79
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
79
79
79
79
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
79
79
79
79
82
82
82
82
82
79
79
79
79
79
79
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
79
79
79
79
79
79
82
82
82
79
76
79
76
79
76
79
76
No Reg
79
76
79
76
79
76
79
76
82
1984
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
84
84
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
84
84
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
84
84
84
84
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
84
84
84
84
86
86
86
86
86
84
84
84
84
84
84
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
84
84
84
84
84
84
86
86
86
84
80
84
80
84
80
84
80
No Reg
84
80
84
80
84
80
84
80
86
C-3
-------
Table C-l
Continued
Options for Wheel Tractors
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
74
74
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
74
74
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
74
74
74
74
NO Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
74
74
74
74
77
77
77
77
77
74
74
74
74
74
74
No Reg
No Reg
No Reg
74
74
74
74
74
74
77
77
77
74
70
74
70
74
70
74
70
No Reg
74
70
74
70
74
70
74
70
77
C-4
-------
Appendix D
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
-------
Appendix D
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
In order to obtain the most accurate data available for use in
the development of the proposed regulation, EPA's Office of Noise Abatement
and Control has gathered information from many sources. EPA has contracted
with three consulting firms to provide support in developing the necessary
data for setting the proposed noise emission levels for wheel and crawler
tractors. Science Applications Inc., noise control consultants, provided
support for the technology analysis and development of a test methodology.
Support for the economic analysis was provided by Energy Resources
Company, Inc., of, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Dames and Moore, consultants
in the environment and applied earth sciences, provided support for
the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement. EPA also utilized
the information gathering services of Informatics, Inc. Additionally,
in conjunction with EPA, the Army Mobility Equipment Research and Development
Command (MERDCOM) has conducted an independent field test program to measure
the sound levels of wheel and crawler tractors.
EPA personnel and contractor personnel have contacted manufacturers,
distributors and users of impacted equipment in an effort to construct
a complete picture of the industry. In addition to correspondence and
telephone contact, many visits were made to manufacturers to collect,
discuss, and exchange information. Information was also sought from
trade associations, industry, and state and local officials concerned
with noise control. A list of contacts is presented in Tables D-l
through D-7.
D-l
-------
Table D-l
Manufacturers of Construction Wheel and
Crawler Tractors and Contacts
Allis - Chalmers, P.O.Box 521, Topeka, KS 66601
Alvin Acker
John Logan
Gene Nicely
Gerald Nixon
ATP
Loyd Molby
J.I. Case, 700 State Street, Racine, WI 53404
Carl Batton
John Crowley
Caterpillar Tractor Co., Peoria, IL 61629
Lester Bergsten
Lester Byrd
John McNally
G.H. Ritterbusch
Clark Equipment Co., 324 E. Dewey Street,
Buchanan, MI 49107
Edward Donahue
Robert Hand
Daniel Kello
Deere & Co., John Deere Rd., Moline, IL 61265
Jamed F. Arndt
Digmor Equipment & Engineering Co., Inc.
1435 West Park Avenue, Redlands, CA 92373
Lawrence Miller
Dynamic Industries Inc.
Oliver Gordy
D-2
-------
Table D-l (cont'd)
Eaton Coporation, 1 Trojan Circle, Batavia, NY 14020
J. C. Sprague
George Corby
Michael J. McCormick
Fiat-Allis, 300 S. 6th Street, Springfield, IL 62705
J.B. Codlin
Ford Motor Co., The Amerir .n Road, Dearborn, MI 48121
John U. Damian
George Randall
General Motors Corp., Terex Division, Hudson, Ohio 44236
Keith Cherne
E. Ratering
International - Harvester, 10400 W. North Avenue
Melrose Park, IL 60160
J. R. Prosek
J. C. Laegeler
J. W. Zurek
Hy-Matic Corp., 1635 Pittman Ave., Sparks, Nevada 89431
John Stone
Edward Wakeman
Massey Ferguson Limited, 12601 Southfield Rd., P. 0. Box 322,
Detroit, MI 48232
Robert Bushong
Owatonna Mfg. Co., Inc. P.O. Box 547, Owatonna, MN 55060
David Blinne
D-3
-------
Table D-l (cont'd)
Taylor Machine Works Inc., P.O.Box 150, Louisville, MS 39339
J.I. Monk
TCI Power Products Inc., Benson, MN 56215
William Lugum
Calvin Schwalbe
Waldon Inc.
Willard Bartell
Melvin Carnelson
Vernon Schmidt
CH4
-------
Table D-2
Other Equipment Manufacturers and Contacts
Athey Products Corp., P.O. Box 669, Raleigh, N.C. 37602
Larry Lloyd
AVCO Corp., 1275 King Street, Greenwich, Conn. 06831
William D. Sheeley
Beacon Machinery, Inc.
Marrietta Griskell
Bucyrus-Erie Co., 1100 Milwaukee Ave., Milwaukee, WI 531172
Burrows Equipment Co.
James Tratta
Charles Machine Works, Inc., 1959 W. pitch Witch Rd.
Perry, OK 73077
G. Stangl
Gene Goley
J.D. Grim
Dart Truck Company, Box 321, Kansas City, MO 64141
Larry James
EIMCO Mining Machinery, P.O.BOX 1211, Salt Lake City, Utah
Rolf Knopp
Erickson Corp., Clear Run Rd., P. 0. Box 527, Dubois, Pa. 1580]
Mr. Spickett
Gehle Co., 143 Water Street, West Bend, WI 53095
John Leverenz
Gladden- Hass
Mr. Gladden
Hydra Mac, Inc., Box N, Thief River Falls, MN 56701
Bruce W. Steiger
Hyster Co., Lloyd Bldg., Portland, OR 97232
J.C.B. Excavators, Inc., P.O. Box 207, White March, MD. 21162
Jeffery Boswell
D. McKeever
D-5
-------
Table D-2 (cont'd)
Koehring Co., Lorain Division, P.O. Box 4294, 409 Signal Mountain Rd.,
Chattanooga, TN 37405
William Heysen
Koehring Co., Parsons Division, 200 N. 8th Ave, E. Newton, Iowa 50208
Florence Rorbaugh
Komatsu American Corp., 555 California St., San Francisco, CA 94104
Y. Miyajiri
Koyker Mfg. Co., Hull, Iowa 51239
Cliff Gort
Lodal Inc., East Blvd, Kingford, MI 49801
Loed Corp., 738 S. 10th Ave, Warsaw, WI 54401
Gerry Peterson
Long Mfg. N.C. Inc., 1907 N. Main St., Tarboro, NC 27886
Max Saunders
Lull Engineering Co., 3045 Hwy 13, St. Paul, MN 55111
Marathon Le Torneau Mfg., 600 Jefferson, Longview, TX 75657
Bart McCoy
Marion Power Shovel Co., Inc., 7336 Airfrieght Lane, Dallas TX 75235
B. Trenary
Midmart
Richard Kayler
MRS Mfg. Co., P.O. Box 199, Flora, MS 39071
W.O. Ray
Oaks Mfg. Co., Oaks, ND 58474
John Tuoma
Pettibone Corp., 4710 W. Division St., Chicago, IL 60651
Robert Blomquist
D-6
-------
Table D-2 (cont'd)
Raygo-Wagner Inc., 9401 85th N., Minneapolis, MN 55440
William Bushlem
Rexnord, Inc., 777 E. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53202
Glen Johnson
Sanford Day Co., Inc.
Jean Hancock
Sian Equipment Co.
John Swart
Sperry-New Holland, Franklin & Robers St., New Holland, PA 17557
R.E.Wallin
Steigler Tractor Inc., 3101 First Ave., North, P.O.Box 6006,
Fargo,ND 58102
John Walko
Thomas Equipment Ltd.
Brian Crandlemire
Track Machinery Corp.
James Adamczak
Utah International, 550 California St., San Francisco, CA 94104
Ilmar Lusis
Vermeer Mfg. Co., Box 200, Pella, Iowa 50217
John VanderWert
Versatile Mfg., 1260 Clarence Ave., Winnipeg, Man., Canada
Mr. Blamer
Wabco Construction Corporation & Mining Equipment, 2300 N.E. Adams St.,
Peoria, IL 61639
J.A. McCann
White Motor Corporation., 100 Erieview Plaza, Cleveland, OH 44144
Construction Equipment niv.,
Gene Lockie
Harold Maclure
Farm Equipment Co.
Keath Lange
D-7
-------
Table D-3
Trade Associations
American Road Builders Association
Associated Equipment Distributors
615 w. 22nd street
Oak Brooke, IL 60521
Associated General Contractors
1957 E Street, SW
Washington,D.C. 20036
Construction Specification Inst.
Ste 300, 1150 17th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Construction Industry Manufacturers
Association
Marine Plaza, 1700 E. Wisconsin Ave.
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Engine Manufacturers Association
111 E. Washer Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Farm and Industrial Equipment Inst.
410 N. Michigan Ave
Chicago, IL 60611
Society of Automotive Engineers
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096
Don Hanson
P. Herman
Art Schmul
John Sirocca
J.A. Gascoigne
H.T. Larmore
William Miller
J.J. Benson
T. Young
James Ebbinghaus
Robert Hasegawa
Gary Morgan
Harvey Morgan, Jr,
L.W. Randt
William Toth
Tom Northrop
D-8
-------
Table D-4
PUBLISHERS & EDITORS CONTACTED
Construction Publishing Co.
New England Construction
Dunn and Donnelly
Highway and Heavy Construction
Magazine
McGraw-Hill
Engineering News Record
Economics Research
Mary Pfeil
Elwood Maschter
Dee Piotrowski
John Seton
Bill Reinhardt
D-9
-------
Table D-5
State and Local Officials
California
Jack Swing, Noise Specialist
Office of Noise Control
State Department of Health
Albert Optigan, Noise Pollution Specialist
Acoustics Division
Los Angeles Department of Environmental Quality
James Dukes, Noise Abatement and Control Administrator
Department of Public Works
San Diego Environmental Quality Department
Jack Ross, Assistant Mechanical Engineer
Department of Public Works
City and County of San Francisco
Colorado
Thomas Martin, Noise Abatement Officer
Colorado Springs Safety Department
Flor ida
Jessee Borthwick, Noise Control Program Manager
Florida Department of Environmental Regulations
Robert Jones, Director of Noise Programs
Hillsborough County, Environmental Protection Commission
Hawaii
Mr. Thema Anamidu, Environmental Health Specialist
Noise and Radiation Branch
State Department of Health
Illinois
John Moore, Manager
John Paulaskie, Noise Supervisor
Division of Noise Pollution Control
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
D-10
-------
Table D-5 (cont'd)
Maryland
Thomas Tower, Director, Noise Section
Bureau of Air Quality and Noise Control
Maryland Environmental Health Administration
Massachusetts
Donald Squires, Senior Engineer - Noise Control
Boston Air Pollution Control Commission
New Jersey
Edward DiPolvere, Supervisor of Noise Control
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
New York
Dr. Fred G. Hagg, Director, Noise Bureau
New York State Environmental Conservation Department
Henry Watkins, Assistant Director
New York City Bureau of Noise Abatement and Control
Mike Manleos, Chief, Noise Branch - Air Pollution Unit
Nassau County Department of Health
North Carolina
Johnnie Smith, Director, Division of Noise Control
N.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control
Oregon
John Hector, Chief, Noise Pollution Section
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Dr. Paul Herman, Acoustical Project Manager
Portland Bureau of Neighborhood Environment
Pennsylvania
Don Kerstetter
Bureau of Air Quality and Noise Control
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
D-ll
-------
Appendix E
INPUTS TO THE CONSTRUCTION SITE MODEL
-------
Appendix E
INPUTS TO THE CONSTRUCTION SITE MODEL
Revised usage factors and other data have been developed for wheel
and crawler tractors as input to the construction site model described
in section 5. These new data have been used in Table 5-3 through 5-6
to update the data previously published [13]. A principal revision
has been made to the usage factors which are based upon the hours
of use at each construction site type for each machine type/classifi-
cation category. The revised hours were developed from: (1) Census
data relating to the estimated number of machines in existence and
(2) manufacturers' information concerning the usage of the various
equipment type/classification categories in the various construction
site types; and (3) construction associations' estimates of annual
hours of operation for various equipment types. Summaries of the
estimates of the number of machines currently used in construction
at each site type are shown in Table E-l. Additional estimates for
annual hours of use for each machine type are shown in Table E-2.
E-l
-------
TABLE E-l
Estimated Number of Machines in Construction By Site Type
to
Machine Type and Residential Non-Residential Industry Public Total In Total In
Horsepower Class Coranercial Works Construction Existence
Crawler Tractors
(20-199)
(200-450)
Wheel Loaders
(20-249)
(250-500)
39,019
1,590
15,266
3,688
32,409
5,726
11,596
2,370
4,602
517
6,446
751
7,347
536
8,101
126
83,380
8,369
41,410
6,935
111,595
20,588 -
65,934
14,652
Wheel Tractors 46,330
21,880
41,180
19,310 128,700
195,000
-------
Table E-2
Estimated Average Annual Hours of Use of Each Machine in Construction Activity
(Average Yearly Use During Economic Life)
7 Machine Type/Classification Annual Hours of Use
oo
Crawler Tractor (20-199) 1300
Crawler Tractor (200-450) 1400
Wheel Loaders (20-249) 1300
Wheel Loaders (250-500) 1400
Wheel Tractors 1200
-------
Additionally, Table E-3 provides a revised estimate
of the annual number of construction sites of each type
throughout the United States, obtained from Construction
Review, Domestic and International Business Administration
(DIBA), Department of Commerce, August/September, 1976 of
the annual number of construction sites of each type
throughout the United States. Based upon the Data provided
in Table E-l through E-3, an estimate of the annual hours
of operation for each site type has been obtained as
shown in Table E-4. Lastly, the data shown in Table
E-4 has been used to compute the revised usage factors
shown in Table 5-3 through 5-6 by first dividing the
values shown in Table E-4 by the total hours each site
exists, as indicated in Tables 5-3 through 5-6, and
then by prorating this usage to each respective phase
of construction such that the previously published [13]
relative usage ratios are preserved.
E-4
-------
TABLE E-3
Estimated Annual Number Of Construction Site Types
Construction Site Type
Resident and Domestic Housing
Non-Res idential
Industrial/Commercial
Public Works
Annual Number Throughout United Stat
728,000
87,100
235,500
485,224
E-5
-------
TABLE E-4
Estimated Annual Hours of Operation Per Site
Machine Type and Residential Non-Residential
Classification
Crawler Tractor
(20-199) 68.9 488.0
w (20-450) 323 91.7
en
Wheel Loaders
(20-249) 26.7 174.0
(250-500) 7.02 38.7
Industrial/ Public Works
Commercial
27.8 20.2
2.99 1.45
36.7 22.3
4.51 .02
Wheel Tractors
76.4
301.0
210.0
47.7
-------
REFERENCES
-------
REFERENCES
1. EPA, "Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations,
Building Equipment and Home Appliances," Environmental
Protection Agency NTID 300.1, December 1971.
2. Energy Resources Co., Inc. Economics Impact Analysis of
Noise Abatement Regulation for Construction Tractors and
Loaders, July 1976.
3. Society of Automotive Engineers, "Exterior Sound Level
Measurement Procedure for Powered Mobile Construction
Equipment", SAE J88a, June 1975, Society of Automotive
Engineers, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA.
15096
4. Society of Automotive Engineers, "Operator Sound Level
Measurement Procedure for Powered Mobile Construction
Machinery - Work Cycle Test", SAE Construction Noise
Subcommittee, Draft No. 2, July 1, 1975.
5. Science Applications Inc., Technology Analysis,
Loaders and Dozers, July 1976.
6. EPA, "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requi-
site to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Ade-
quate Margin of Safety", U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460. Report 550 + 9-74-004,
March, 1974.
R-l
-------
7. French Decree No. 69-380, Limitation of the Sound Level
of Airborne Noise Emitted by Internal Combustion
Engines in Certain Construction Equipment, Recueil des
Textes Relatifs aux Bruits - No. 1383, Edition mise a
jour au 15 Aout 1972, Journal Officiel de la Republique
Francaise, 26 rue Desaix, 75732 Paris, CEDEX 15, France.
8. Quindry, T., "An Evaluation and Assessment of Existing Data
and Preocedures for the Measurement of Noise from Loaders and
Dozers," Applied Acoustics Section, Institute for Basic Standards,
National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.,October 1975.
9. Society of Automotive Engineers, "Exterior Sound Level
Measurement Procedure for Powered Mobile Construction
Equipment", SAE J88, April 1973, Society of Automotive
Engineers, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA.
15096.
10. "Sound Level Measurements at the Operator Station
for Agricultural and Construction Equipment" SAE
J919a, May 1966, Society of Automotive Engineers, 400
Common wealth Drive, Warifendale, PA. 15096.
11. EPA, "Portable Air Compressor Noise Emission Noise
Standards", Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., December 31, 1975.
12. EPA, "Medium and Heavy Truck Noise Emission Standards",
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
April 13, 1976.
R-2
-------
13. "Background Document for Portable Air Compressors,"
Environmental Protection Agency Report 550/9/76-004,
December 1975.
14. EPA, "Population Distribution of the United States as a
Function of Outdoor Noise Level," Environmental Protec-
tion Agency Report 550/9-74-009, June 1974.
15. EPA, "Public Health and Welfare Criteria for Noise,"
Environmental Protection Agency Report 550/9-73-002,
July 1973.
16. Waters, P.E., "Commercial Road Vehicle Noise", Journal
of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 35, No. 2, 1974; pp 155-222.
17. Bates, K.C., and Yoerger, R.R., "Shaping Sound Frequency
Spectra of Axial Flow Fans", Society of Automotive Engi-
neers, Paper 750775; September 1975.
18. Shrader, J.T. and Page, W.H., "Truck Noise IV-C, The
Reduction of Cooling System Noise on Heavy Duty Diesel
Trucks," Department of Transportation, Report No. DOT-
75T-74-22, May 1974.
19. Harris, C.M., Handbook of Noise Control, McGraw-Hill
Book Company Inc., New York, 1957.
20. Challen, B.J., "The Effects of Combustion System on
Engine Noise", Society of Automotive Engineers SP-397,
Paper 750798, August 1975.
R-3
-------
21. Thein, G.E. and Fachback, H.A., "Design Concepts of
Diesel Engines with Low Noise Emission" S.A.E. Paper
750838, August 1975.
22. Priede, T., "The Problems of Noise of Engines in Differ-
ent Vehicle Groups", Society of Automotive Engineers
SP-397, Paper 750795, August 1975.
23. Damkevala, R.J., et al., "Noise Control Handbook for
Diesel Powered Vehicles", Department of Transportation,
Report No. DOT-TSC-OST-74-5, April 1975.
24. Grover, E.G. and Anderton, D., "Noise and Vibrations in
Transmissions", Paper No. 7, Second International Power
Transmission Conference, 1969.
25. Grande, E., Brown, D., Sutherland, L. and Tedrick, R.,
"Small Turbine Engine Noise Reduction," Vol. II, Techni-
cal Report AFAPL-TR-73-79, December 1973.
26. Hopler, R.D. and Wehr, S.E. "Noise Reduction Program for
U.S. Army Construction Equipment" S.A.E. Paper 740714,
September 1974.
27. Kaye, M C., "Truck Noise III-A - Preliminary Noise
Diagnosis of Freightliners Datum Truck-Tractor," Report
No. DOT-TST-73-6, May 1973.
R-4
-------
28. Patterson, W.H. , and Freeze, T. , "Traction Vehicles:
Noise and Cost of Abatement; Bolt, Beranek and Newman,
Inc. Report 25666; Submitted to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. , January 1974.
29. Damotte, E.E. , "Final Report, Noise Level Study on
Caterpillar D7F" Caterpillar File #E70-270, September
1972.
30. Kamperman, G.W. , and Nicholson, M.A. , "Noise Control
Methodology for Army Construction and Materials Handling
Equipment", Kamperman Associates Report, March 1975.
31. Hunt, R.E. , Kirkland, K.C. , and Reyle, S.P., "Truck
Noise IVA Diesel Exhaust and Air Intake Noise," Dept.
of Transportation, DOT Report DOT-TSC-S7-73-12, March
1974.
32. House Noise - Reduction Measurements for Use in Studies
of Aircraft Flyover Noise," Society of Automotive Engineers,
Inc., AIR 1081, October 1971.
33. Science Applications, Inc., "Summary of State, Local,
Foreign and Federal Laws Dealing with Tracked and
Wheeled Loaders and Tracked and Wheeled Bull Dozers",
March 1976.
34. S.C. Wehr and R.J.Peppen, "Acoustical Testing
Program for Loaders and Dozers", U.S. Army MERADCOM,
Fort Belvoir, Virginia, 30 June 1976.
35. Contractors Equipment Manual, Associated General Contractors of
America, 7th Ed., 1974.
» us. arnjami lunau owct ism— 720-335/6134
R-5
------- |