Please read carefully to avoid any mistakes GUIDE TO THE USE OF MATERIALS IN THE CNRP GENERAL DATA DISTRIBUTION REGIONAL OFFICES * Briefing package * Posters * Pamphlets BMCS * Briefing package * Posters * Pamphlets NATIONAL TRUCK STOP OWNERS ASSOCIATION * Posters * Pamphlets INDEPENDENT TRUCK OWNERS ASSOCIATION * Posters * Pamphlets GENERAL MAILING * Pamphlets STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS {HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT) * Briefing package * Posters * Pamphlets *Plans call for.EPA/DOT-BMCS regional noise representatives to establish contact with State/local agencies and brief them on the CNRP objectives. ------- II POSTERS The posters announce the standards that have been promulgated and their effective date is October 15, 1975. The posters contain information which will direct the truckers to more substantial information that will help them bring their vehicles into compliance. A. Instructions Distributed to: EPA Regional offices BMCS offices National Truck Stop Owners Assoc. Independent Truck Owners Assoc. 1. Regional offices (EPA-DOT) have been provided with: a. 400 copies b. 500 EPA and DOT stickers to place in spaces in lower part of posters. c. Offices should check to see if addresses are correct. 2. Preparation of posters for distribution: a. Place one EPA sticker and one DOT sticker in the blank spaces in the lower part of the posters. Be sure there is one EPA sticker and one DOT sticker per poster. b. Leave State/local agencies space blank. This will be taken care of by the corresponding State or locality they are distributed to. 3. Distribution: Each EPA-DOT regional office and truck associations will distribute posters to State and local governments having noise ordinances in the area encompassed by the region and who are willing to cooperate in the program and distribute the posters for proper display. A letter should serve as introduction. A model of this letter follows: (State/local Agency address) Dear It is with pleasure that I announce the inception of EPA-DOT's Cooperative Noise Reduction Program (CNRP). EPA promulgated on October 29, 1974, its first noise regulation, pursuant to Section 18 of the Noise Control Act of 1972, known as the "Interstate Motor Carrier Regu- lation." This rule established noise emission standards ------- for vehicles weighing in excess of 10,000 Ibs. and engaged in interstate commerce. The purpose of the CNRP is to stimulate and encourage affected carriers to make early and volun- tary noise abatement actions prior to formal enforcement commencing October 15, 1975, by Department of Transpor- tation's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (DOT/BMCS). Anticipating DOT/BMCS enforcement activities the EPA and BMCS agree that it is desirable to disseminate to the affected public medium, information concerning specific requirements and means of compliance with their exterior noise standards. The success of this program will depend to a large extent upon the cooperation and assistance provided by State and local agencies. We request your cooperation in the dissemination of posters, information pamphlets and other materials. I trust this request for assistance will meet with your favorable response. Sincerely yours, Director Air and Hazardous Materials Division 0£ Noise Representative (Note: This letter covers the distribution of the posters and pamphlets). 4. Placement of Posters: Truck stops Gas stations Fleet terminals Public buildings Repair shops Dealerships Weight stations State vehicle registration Toll booths Part stores Highway rest areas "Piggyback" yards Inspection stations Police offices 5. Contacts: BMCS, Private Truck Council, Regular Common Carrier Conference. ------- Ill Pamphlets The pamphlets contain detailed information, in the form of questions and answers, illustrating the substance of the standards. Sections include the regulation, noise measurement, voluntary com- pliance and contacts for further information. A. Instructions 1. Pamphlets have been distributed from EPA/ONAC to: 10,000 each to EPA Region 10,000 each to BMCS Region 15,000 each to ONAC 5,000 each to BMCSHQ 40,000 each to ONAC for distribution to trade associations and magazines. 2. Distribution to: State and local agencies, trade associ- ations, magazines, who will in turn distribute in toll booths, dealerships, repair shops, truck stops, rest areas, inspection stations, fleet owners/operators,and public buildings. *Direct mail 3. Direct Mail Pamphlets can be mailed; postage and fees paid by EPA. 4. Contacts EPA region should get listing of motor vehicles over 10,000 Ibs. from State license registry. Coordinate with Bureau Motor Carrier Safety. IV Sound and Slide Presentations* Sound and slide presentations are suitable for public as well as local and State government consumption. Each topic area is written to permit presentation either singularly or in combination with one or more other topic areas. Program duration is approximately 3-5 minutes. Presentations are being prepared in the following topics: A. The Law (regulation) - Its Purpose and Impact Presents the motor carrier regulation in layman terms. Stresses benefits to the public health and welfare and to the trucking community. Contains numerical data concerning anticipated impact on the trucking industry. B. Health Effects of Noise Briefly describes the physiological and psychological effects of noise on humans. ------- C. Physics of Sound Specifically addresses sound and its difference to noise, its measurement, and noise levels. D. Motor Vehicle Noise Sources and Reudction Identifies and addresses principal noise sources. Suggests methods of noise reduction for trucks. (Note: *Sound and slide shows are not yet available for distribu- tion. They will be mailed from EPA/ONAC as supplements.) E. Voluntary Compliance Stresses the advantages of early compliance. F. Need for State and local noise ordinances Describes the role of State and local governments must play for effective enforcement of Federal regulations. G. Enforcement This program addresses the following subtopcis: 1. The enforcer(s) - who, how, where 2. Measurement techniques for these standards, i.e., stationery, under 35 mph, and over 35 mph. 3. Vilations and connections - the legal process. These sound and slide shows may be presented at: schools, PTA meetings, Council meetings, community workshops, etc. They are to be used in a sound/slide projector available from 3M company, 5570 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Va. 22151. Journal Notices Notice of the regulations will appear in the July, 1975 issue of "Overdrive"Magazine and the July/August issue of "Owner/Operator." These periodicals constitute the only two which concentrate on the independent trucker. The two live radio scripts, included in this section, are primarily for distribution to radio stations catering to truckers. A list of such radio stations is provided. Prompt distribution to stations in your area would be a major asset for this program. ------- INDEX Section 1 Introduction Section 2 Motor Carrier Noise Regulations and Standards Section 3 Questions and Answers Section 4 Effects of Noise on Health and Welfare Section 5 Principles of Sound Section 6 Major Vehicle Noise Sources and Noise Control Measures Section 7 Enforcement Section 8 State and Local Needs Section 9 Vehicle Noise Test Centers Section 10 Low-noise Equipment Manufacturers Section 11 lechm'cal Data Section 12 References to Technical Literature Section 13 Federal, State and Local Agencies Section 14 Trade Associations, Publications, and Radio Stations bection 15 Guidelines for Media Releases Section 16 EPA/DOT News Releases Section 17 Miscellaneous ------- 1. INTRODUCTION ------- SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION COOPERATIVE NOISE REDUCTION PROGRAM Purpose The purpose of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Cooperative Noise Reduction Program (CNRP) is twofold EPA would like to stimulate voluntary noise abatement actions by owners and operators of motor vehicles engaged in interstate commerce prior to the October 15, 1975 effective date of the Federal interstate motor carrier noise emission stan- dards CNRP would also simultaneously educate state and local governments about the forthcoming noise standards and assist these governments in preparation of appropriate related noise legislation. Therefore, neither interstate carriers nor state and local governments will be caught unaware of the noise standards; und both will understand their roles in noise reduc- tion. At the same time, reduced environmental noise will result prior to the effective date Principal Audience The CNRP must therefore address a wide audience - those who will comply with the standards, those who will enforce the standards, and those who will benefit from the stan- dards. The motor carrier population itself ranges from major fleet companies to the one vehicle owner/operator, all must comply equally, and, they should be informed how to do so. The CNRP must, therefore, reach individual owner/operators, small fleet (two to five vehicles) carriers, and seasonal farm truckers. On the other hand, effective implementation and enforcement of the Federal standard will be successful to the extent that state and local governments adopt noise ordinances compatible with, and adequate for, cooperation in enforcement of the Federal standard. CNRP must create an awareness in the general public as to the way in which effective enforcement will benefit them, thereby making noise reduc- tion an issue which will serve as an incentive for state and local governments to participate Program Plan EPA's Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC), Technical Assistance and Opera- tions Division has principal responsibility for CNRP. Such activity includes development of the program and related materials, task assignments and overall coordinating ONAC, in cooperation with the Department of Transportation's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) and the EPA and BMCS regional offices and detachments (BMCS) will disseminate information necessary to alert the motor carrier industry, State and local governments and other interested parties regarding the specifics of the new noise regulation. These materials will identify principal vehicle noise sources, corrective measuics, enforcement responsibilities and points of contact for assistance. ------- EPA regional offices have primary responsibility for briefing state and local governments and for assisting these governments in the development of appropriate noise regulations. The regional offices will also respond to information requests from motor carriers and the general public However, BMCS regional offices, 74 detachments, and 123 inspectors have primary responsibility for direct contact with the motor carrier community. Once CNRP gathers momentum, EPA and BMCS staffs will collectively give public presentations on CNRP goals. It is anticipated that state and local governmental agencies will provide day to day informa- tion and assistance after briefing by EPA and/or BMCS. Manufacturers of motor vehicle components, i e. mufflers, fans, etc., will also play key roles in the CNRP; several have already established motor vehicle noise measurement centers across the nation (over 100 m-operation at present). Other Federal, state and local agencies, i.e., Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, State Farm Bureaus, etc., will also be used to distribute information. Information dissemination to the public will begin with the following 1 Posting of "ALERT" placards which state maximum permissable noise levels and list local information centers; they will be posted at truck stops, terminals, weight stations, and other locations frequented by motor carriers 2 Distribution, by direct mail and hand-out, of pamphlets containing answers to some twenty anticipated questions. 3 Utilization of the news media, including newspapers, spot radio announcement (emphasis on approximately fifteen "trucker" oriented radio stations) and television. 4 Use of trade journals and associations. 5. Direct contact by Regional EPA and BMCS field personnel. DOT/MBCS headquarters will handle the bulk of direct mailing to known motor carriers. BMCS regional officer and 123 field inspectors will take the lead in the distribution of the "ALERT" porters and pamphlets Several trade associations will also distribute material as well as EPA regional offices Implementation Schedule Completed Items 1. "ALERT" posters (10,000) mailed to regions (EPA and BMCS). 2. "Some Questions and Answers" information brochures a. Mailed to regions (10,000 each region) b. Mailed to DOT/BMCS (15,000) c Retained for distribution by EPA (55,000) June 15, 1975 I Regions (EPA and BMCS) to put up "ALERT" posters. 2. "Some Questions and Answers" information brochures. 1-2 ------- a. Regions (EPA and BMCS) to distribute b. DOT/BMCS to distribute c. EPA headquarters to distribute (1) 15,000-Requests, etc. (2) 5,000-Public Affairs (3) 35,000 - Mailed directly to public June 16,1975 1. EPA headquarters press release on CNRP 2. EPA headquarters release of two radio broadcasts (nationwide) on CNRP 3. EPA TV advertisement on EPA noise program. July 1,1975 1. Sound on slide presentations to be sent to regions July/August 1975 1. Advertisements on CNRP to appear in motor carrier trade journals 1-3 ------- 2. MOTOR CARRIER NOISE REGULATION AND STANDARDS ------- SECTION 2 MOTOR CARRIER NOISE REGULATION AND STANDARD BACKGROUND Noise emission regulations for interstate motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce were issued by EPA in October 1974, to become effective October 15, 1975 These regula- tions are in accord with the Congressional requirements prescribed in Section 18 of the Noise Control Act of 1972. That Act further requires that no State or local government may adopt or enforce a different standard, unless an exemption due to special local conditions is granted by the Administrator of EPA on a case-by-case basis. However, state and local juris- dictions employing identical standards are encouraged to act as independent enforcement authorities The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, is responsible for enforcement of the Federal regulation. APPLICABILITY The new standards, which apply to all interstate motor carrier vehicles over 10,000 Ib. gross vehicle-weight rating or gross combination weight rating (GVWR), take into account the best available noise reduction technology and the cost of compliance (as specified in Section 18) achievable within the I-year time period for conformance with the standard by interstate carriers The choice of 10,000 Ibs. GVWR will be discussed later. The number of vehicles regulated is therefore determined by two factors: (1) those over 10,000 Ibs. GVWR and (2) those engaged in interstate commerce. A motor carrier engaging in interstate commerce is defined under the definition of Section 203 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. 303 (a)) Therefore, a motor carrier is engaged in interstate commerce if it transports commodities that arc within the continuous flow of interstate commerce, whether or not the motor vehicle actually crosses state lines. PROVISIONS Noise emission standards are established for both high and low speed motor vehicle operations to quiet both engine-related noise and tire noise. There are provisions to prevent noisy exhaust systems and tires. The noise levels stipulated in the regulations are • 88 dBA @ 50 feet under stationary runup • 86 dBA @ 50 feet for speeds under 35 mph • 90 dBA @ 50 feet for speeds over 35 mph 2-1 ------- Furthermore, a vehicle's exhaust system must be free of noise-producing defects or modifications; and the vehicle cannot have new or retread tires with pocket (nonventcd cavity) tread design. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE REGULATION This regulation is the first significant Federal step in a series of actions to reduce high- way noise This standard, applicable to in-use vehicles operated by interstate carriers, will have an impact within I year on reducing highway traffic noise. The 90 dB(A) limit will result in a 3.6 db(A) decrease in L^n for a typical Eastern U.S. interstate highway. This decrease represents a reduction of about 50 percent in the average sound energy near the highway In conjunction with the more stringent new medium and heavy-duty truck noise con- trol regulations proposed by the Agency, further traffic noise reduction will be accomplished in a systematic time-phased manner to permit application of available technology while keeping the costs to meet the standards as low as reasonably possible As new control retrofit technology is developed and can be applied at reasonable cost, the interstate motor carrier regulations will be revised accordingly. Such further revision of the interstate motor earner regulations will assure that new trucks manufactured m accor- dance with the more stringent new product noise control standards will not be degraded acoustically during inservice operation by interstate carriers. SELECTION OF 10,000 LBS. GVWR AND ABOVE The decision to make the standards applicable to vehicles 10,000 Ibs GVWR and above (medium and heavy duty trucks) resulted from an analysis of the highway noise problem and analyses of alternative regulator matrices. These analyses are briefly discussed below Analysis of the environmental impact of highway noise indicates that highway noise levels are determined almost entirely by the noise levels of the heavier trucks. In addition to their higher noise emissions, medium and heavy duty motor vehicles are distinguished from lighter vehicles by their typical use for long distance intercity and interstate hauling. They are, therefore, operated many more miles per year on the average than light duty vehicles. Since light duty vehicles are typically used for general service and delivery work within relatively small areas and are not usually subject to the noise emission regulations of many different jurisdictions, national uniformity of treatment of the noise emissions resulting from their operation does not appear necessary now. Vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 Ibs. were therefore excluded from regulation at this time Also studied were the effects of limiting coverage to motor vehicles over 26,000 Ibs. GVWR or to motor vehicles with three or more axles Such limitation would have excluded approximately 56% of trucks over 10,000 Ibs. GVWR from regulation. Such limitation was not environmentally feasible, particularly because technology exists to quiet these trucks at reasonable cost. Distinction between light duty or small vehicles and medium and heavy duty vehicles, for purposes of the regulation, is largely a technical judgment A break at 10,000 Ibs. GVWR is convenient because most states use that weight rating as a distinction in their vehicle registration categories. Furthermore the Department of Commerce and the Motor 2-2 ------- Vehicle Manufacturers Association divide light duty and medium duty vehicles at that weight rating. The 10,000 Ibs. GVWR becomes even more significant because it is the standard weight category distinction used by the Department of Transportation in their safety regu- lations. Compatibility of the interstate motor carrier regulations with the present DOT weight categories is advantageous, since DOT is the Federal enforcement agent. AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY Technology does exist that will enable motor carriers to meet the Federal standards by the effective date. Such technology encompasses retrofit of exhaust and cooling and fan systems as well as tires. Trucks arc already being retrofitted in several states to meet 86 dB(A) limits enacted by those states. Most trucks that currently exceed 86 dB(A) at speeds below 35 mph require only the addition of a muffler or the replacement of defective muffler to comply with the standard. Muffler manufacturers have testified publicly that enough adequate mufflers can be available so that all trucks can comply with these interstate motor carrier regulations by the effective date of the regulation. Some vehicles in violation of the proposed regulations might require retrofit of all or part of the fan installation. Some would need minor work on the air intake system In some instances, the elimination of some crossbar tires on heavy trucks with a large number of axles will be necessary. However, it should still be possible for these trucks to operate with crossbar tires on the drive axles. COST OF COMPLIANCE The cost to the interstate carrier industry as a whole will be somewhat less than S9 million. That cost was calculated as follows. Of the 5 million trucks over 10,000 Ibs. in the United States, I million are operated by interstate carriers and are thus subject to these standards. Of these I million vehicles, the total cost for the 7% (or 70.000) requiring some degree of retrofit at an average of $135 per vehicle would amount to somewhat less than S9 million. If, as a worst case, it is assumed that all 5.2 million motor vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR are engaged in interstate commerce and therefore would be required to meet the standards and that 8% of them would require retrofit at a cost of$ 135 per vehicle, then the total direct retrofit cost to the trucking industry could be as high as $56 million. However, a retrofit cost of$ 135 per vehicle does not constitute a major burden for the interstate motor carrier industry. For a truck running 50,000 revenue miles per year, a $135 retrofit cost represents an increased expense of$.003 per revenue mile, when amor- tized over a single year. These regulations will achieve noise reduction. As illustrated by the foregoing informa- tion, this reduction is achievable by reasonable application of existing technology and at reasonable cost. 2-3 ------- (ft TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1974 WASHINGTON, D.C. Volume 39 • Number 209 PART III ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MOTOR CARRIERS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE Noise Emission Standards ------- 38208 RULES AND REGULATIONS Title 40—Protection of Environment CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FBL 281-8] PART 202—MOTOR CARRIERS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE On July 27, 1073 notice was published In the FEDERAL REGISTER (38 FR 20102) that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) was proposing noise emission standards for motor car- riers engaged In Interstate commerce. The purpose of this notice Is to estab- lish final noise emission standards for motor carriers engaged in Interstate commerce by establishing a new Part 202 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This final rulemaklngr is promulgated pursuant to section 18 of the Noise Control Act of 1972: 86 Stat. 1234; Public Law 92-574. INTRODUCTION In section 2 of the Noise Control Act, Congress expressed Its judgment "that. while primary responsibility for control of noise rests with State and local gov- ernments. Federal action Is essential to deal with major noise sources in com- merce, control of which require national uniformity of treatment." As a part of this essential Federal action, section 18 requires the Administrator to promul- gate noise emission regulations for mo- tor carriers engaged in interstate com- merce. Such motor carriers include com- mon carriers by motor vehicle, contract carriers by motor vehicle and private carriers of property by motor vehicle as these terms are defined by paragraphs (a)(14), (a)(15). and (a)(17) of sec- tion 203 of the Interstate Commerce Act [49 URC 303(a)J. After the effective date of a regulation under section 18, applicable to noise emissions resulting from the operation of any motor carrier engaged in interstate commerce, no State or political subdivision thereof may adopt or enforce any standard ap- plicable to the operation of the same equipment of such motor carrier, unless such standard is identical to a standard applicable to noise emissions resulting from such operation prescribed by these regulations. The Administrator, after consultation with the Secretary of Transportation may. however, deter- mine that the State or local standard, control, license, regulation, or restric- tion is necessitated by special local con- ditions and is not in conflict with regu- lations promulgated under section 18. Procedures for State and local govern- ments to apply under section 18(c) (2) of the Act will be published by this Agency within 120 days of promulgation of this regulation. The EPA regulations promulgated under section 18 are to Include "noise emission standards setting such limits on noise emissions resulting from oper- ation of motor carriers engaged in In- terstate commerce which reflect the de- gree of noise reduction achievable through the application of the best available technology taking into account the cost of compliance." These final regulations are being promulgated fol- lowing consultation with the Secretary of Transportation to assure appropriate consideration for safety and for availa- bility of technology. The Administrator. after consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, has determined that the regulations are to take effect one year after promulgation In order to per- mit the development and application of the requisite technology. Appropriate consideration has been given to the cost of compliance within the one year pe- riod. The regulations promulgated under section 18 may be revised from time to time, in accordance with subsection 18(a). They shall be in addition to any regulations proposed for new motor ve- hicles under section 6. Section 18 of the Noise Control Act reflects the desire of Congress to protect both the public health and welfare and interstate commerce through the es- tablishment of uniform national noise emission regulations for those opera- tions of Interstate motor carriers which require national uniformity of treat- ment in order to facilitate Interstate commerce Such treatment is requisite for those operations of interstate motor carriers which would be burdened by con- flicting State and local noise controls. Preemption under section 18 occurs only for State or local noise regulations on operations of Interstate motor carriers for which Federal regulations are In ef- fect. After final interstate motor carrier noise emission standards have been promulgated by EPA and after consult- ing with the Administrator of EPA, the Secretary of Transportation Is responsi- ble for promulgating regulations to in- sure compliance with the EPA standards. This will be accomplished through the use of the Secretary's powers and duties of enforcement and inspection as au- thorized by the Interstate Commerce Act, the Department of Transportation Act, and the Noise Control Act of 1972. In March 1974, in accordance with section 5(a) (2) of the Noise Control Act of -1972, EPA published a document in which levels of environmental noise req- uisite to protect public health and wel- fare were Identified. Recognizing that the Noise Control Act was enacted to protect the public from adverse health and welfare effects due to noise, EPA is carrying out its reg- ulatory responsibilities for abating noise from motor carriers through regulatory actions under sections 6 and 18, in par- ticular, of the Act These regulatory ac- tions are In consonance with the levels identified in the March 1974 document, considei ing the mandated constraints of available technology and cost of com- pliance. Studies have been performed to measure the noise levels hi residential areas and to estimate the number of people subjected to noise in those areas. The data collected clearly Indicate that motor vehicles are the principal source of environmental noise in urban residential areas. Accordingly. EPA has' developed a regulatory strategy that places high priority on the control of motor vehicle noise. The Noise Control Act contains two sections of primary Importance for the control of motor vehicle noise. Section 6 contains authority by which EPA may promulgate noise emission performance standards for new motor vehicles that are applicable at the time of sale of such vehicles. Section 18 of the Act requires EPA to promulgate noise emission reg- ulations for motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce. Accordingly, EPA has developed and is now implementing a motor vehicle noise control strategy based on sections 6 and 18 of the Act that should prove to be ef- fective In reducing environmental noise from motor carriers In many areas to the levels Identified as protective of public health and welfare. The strategy calls first, for the reduction, within one year of the promulgation of these regulations under section 18. of the noise from ve- hicles over 10.000 pounds GVWR or GCWR operated by motor carriers en- gaged In interstate commerce, to the lowest noise level consistent with the noise abatement technology available for retrofit application during the one year period, taking into account the cost of compliance. Subsequently, under section 6, new product noise emission standards will be proposed for medium and heavy duty trucks It Is contemplated that the new product standards will be maintained for new trucks beyond the Initial point of sale and through subsequent modifica- tion to these initial Interstate Motor Carrier Regulations to require that ve- hicles manufactured to comply with new product performance standards and used in interstate commerce shall maintain noise emission levels during operation which are consistent with noise abate- ment technology available and required at the time of manufacture. Additionally, It is anticipated that the performance standards in the interstate motor carrier regulations relating to older vehicles will be made more stringent as more advanced retrofit technology be- comes available and the cost of compli- ance permits A number of component changes re- quired for compliance with the regula- tions could potentially affect the con- sumption of fuel, but overall, these regulations are expected to have a neg- ligible effect on fuel consumption. The installation of a muffler suitable for at- taining the noise abatement levels pre- scribed by these regulations could result In an Increase in the back pressure on the engine and in turn increase the fuel consumption Considering the wide va- riety of mufflers available, however, a sig- nificant increase in back pressure Is avoidable. For those trucks requiring in- stallation of a quieter, more efficient fan. the amount of engine power wasted may be reduced, and the addition of a ther- mostatically controlled fan clutch on some trucks may decrease fuel consump- tion by l to 1.5 percent. If the installation of a suitable muffler Increases engine back pressure. It can cause a change In the composition of the FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 209—TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1974 ------- RULfS AND REGULATIONS 38209 emission of gaseous air pollutants. How- ever, since a significant increase In back pressure is avoidable and undesirable from a truck performance standpoint, no significant Increase in engine back pressure Is anticipated as a result of these regulations. Accordingly, these reg- ulations are not expected to have any significant effect on motor vehicle air pollutant emissions. The legal basis and factual conclusions which support promulgation of this reg- ulation were set forth in substantial de- tail in the notice of proposed rulemaklng published In the FEDERAL REGISTER on July 27. 1973 (38 FR 20101). This publi- cation solicited public comment, with the comment period extending from July 27, 1973 to September 10.1973. On November 7. 1973. a notice was published In the FEDERAL REGISTER (38 FR 23869) announcing the availability of the "Background Document to the Pro- posed Interstate Motor Carrier Regula- tions" and further soliciting public com- ment. This comment period extended from November 7, 1973 to December 5, 1973. To ensure that an the Issues Involved In the proposed regulations had been fully addressed prior to the promulgation of final regulations, a public hearing was held on March 20 and 21, 1974 in Wash- ington, D.C. The principal Issues reviewed at this meeting related to the adequacy of the available technology to meet require- ments in the proposed standards and the Impact of Federal preemption of State and local noise regulations by these Fed- eral Regulations. The transcript of this hearing, plus additional materials sub- mitted for the record, constitute a third body of public comment. This comment period extended from March 21,1974 to Apr iM. 1974. Fiji lie comments received during each of th three public comment periods are mat - • Jne-: at the EPA headquarters. 401 M f jet 3W.. Washington, D.C. 20460 and .re available to the public during non lal working hours (Monday to Fri- day, 8 am to 4:30 pm). STTMMART OF COMMENTS RECEIVED The EPA has considered carefully an of the comments received and a discus- sion of these comments with the Agency's response thereto follows:. (1) Some commenters requested clari- fication of the types and numbers of ve- hicles subject to the regulations. The Agency has addressed further In this preamble the types of vehicles to which these regulations are applicable. The number of vehicles subject to these regulations may be identified through the definition of "Interstate commerce" used in these regulations. The definition of "interstate com- merce" contained In section 203 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act was adopted In relevant part by EPA. Sec- tion 203 (a) of that Act is cited In the Noise Control Act of 1B72 as defining the term "motor carrier" and Is con- sidered to be appropriate for defining "interstate commerce." as used In these regulations. Section 203(b) (8) of the In- terstate Commerce Act expressly exempts the operation of carriers within the com- mercial zone of an Interstate metropoli- tan area. EPA has not adopted such com- mercial zone exemption since the Noise Control Act of 1972 does not refer to sec- tion 203 (b). Thus, a motor carrier will be subject to these regulations if It trans- ports commodities which cross state lines. There are approximately 5.2 million motor vehicles over 10.000 pounds GVWR/GCWR In the existing fleets many of which are not involved in inter- state commerce as defined in the regula- tions. The number of motor vehicles actually engaged in Interstate commprce as defined Is not accurately known "he Agency believes that most combi./ vehicles will, by definition of Intc. motor carrier, be found to be subject to these regulations. Further, the Agency has conservatively assumed that all 5 2 million registered trucks could be subject to this interstate motor carrier regula- tions. (2) Four commenters Indicated that further classification of motor vehicles Into categories over 10.000 pounds and promulgation of standards for each cate- gory would be desirable. Slx'commenters indicated that further classification would be neither meaningful nor de- sirable. Studies performed for EPA Indicate that mcU>r vehicle mean noise levels in- crease with vehicle size (or number of axles) and speed. Accordingly, stand- ards are being promulgated for both high and low speed motor vehicle operations in order to quiet both engine-related noise and tire noise. The Agency considered the development of classification scheme for trucks based on variations in weight and number of axles. This was done in order to permit consideration of requir- ing the use of "best available technology" as it might apply to trucks of varying configurations. Although there Is a dif- ference between the mean noise levels of medium and heavy duty trucks. It was found that there Is considerable overlap in the distributions of noise levels of trucks of different sizes and that mean- ingful classification of vehicles at speeds under 35 MPH within the 10,000 pound GVWR/GCWR category Is not practical at this time. The basic problem is that noisy propulsion systems are not con- fined to heavy duty trucks. Many truck manufacturers offer, and have tradi- tionally sold, the same diesel engines in trucks having two or three axles, and due to the rise In fuel prices, more and more medium duty trucks are expected to be built with diesel engines, which until recently were Installed primarily in heavy duty trucks. The non-existence of a breakpoint with regard to propulsion system selection has also characterized the use of noisy gasoline engines. An analysis of the feaslbllty of classify- ing trucks at speeds over 35 MPH Indi- cated that 88 dB(A) could likely be achieved by two-axle vehicles, since they use fewer tires than multi-axle com- bination vehicles. However, the analysis of the environmental Impact of the high speed standard Indicated that highway noise levels are determined almost en- tirely by the noise levels of the heaviest trucks (those with four and five axles). In the Agency's analysis, the require- ment of an 88 dB(A) limit on two-axle trucks above 10.000 pounds GVWR. and an 82 dB(A) limit on all passenger cars and light trucks, in addition to the cov- erage imposed by the proposed standards, was shown to produce essentially no fur- ther decrease in highway noise levels be- yond that of the proposed standards The Agency will, however, continue its activi- ties in endeavoring to identify particular classifications of vehicles which will per- mit additional noise quieting consider- ing available technology and the costs of compliance Accordingly, no change has been made at this time In the proposed standards In the regulations. (3) Several commenters recommended modifications in the coverage of the regu- lations with regard to the vehicle weight rating. Some commenters recommended the addition of light duty vehicles under 10,000 pounds GVWR, while other com- menters recommended that medium duty vehicles above 10.000 pounds GVWR be excluded from coverage in the regula- tions. The Agency analyzed the effect of lim- iting coverage to motor vehicles over 26,000 pounds GVWR, or to motor vehi- cles having three or more axles because several States had requested that cov- erage be limited In order that more strin- gent State regulations could be applied to vehicles under 26,000 pounds GVWR. Limiting coverage to motor vehicles over 26.000 pounds GVWR would potentially exclude 56 percent of all trucks over 10,- 000 pounds GVWR from Federal regula- tions. Limiting coverage to motor vehi- cles with more than two axles would ex- clude approximately 72 percent of all trucks over 10,000 pounds GVWR from Federal regulation. Even though only about 2 percent of all two-axle trucks over 10,000 pounds GVWR exceed 86 dB(A) at speeds under 35 MPH. or 90 dB(A) at speeds over 35 MPH, the actual number of trucks ex- ceeding the standards is not small. The Intent of section 18 Is clearly to provide nationwide noise regulation for vehicles Involved in Interstate commerce. Fur- ther limitation of coverage would allow medium duty trucks Involved in Inter- state commerce to go unregulated In many States. The Agency has determined that at this time all trucks over 10,000 pounds GVWR operated in Interstate commerce should be subject to Federal regulations. Prior to proposing regulations appli- cable only to vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR/GCWR, the Agency analyzed both the relative noise contribution to traffic noise levels and the typical use patterns of different kinds of motor ve- hicles. Light trucks and automobiles were separated from medium and heavy duty trucks for the analysis because they have a higher power-to-weight ratio, they are quieter In normal operation and they have different uses than larger vehicles. FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL 39, NO. 209—TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1974 ------- 38210 RULES AND REGULATIONS The data resulting from the analysis clearly Indicated that medium and heavy duty motor vehicles contribute the most sound energy to the environment of any highway vehicles and that any Individual medium or heavy duty truck will typically be perceived to be louder than other mo- tor vehicles. In addition to their higher noise emis- sions, medium and heavy duty motor ve- hicles are distinguished from lighter ve- hicles by their typical use for long dis- tance Intercity and Interstate hauling. They are, therefore, operated many more miles per year on the average than light duty vehicles which are normally used for general service and delivery work within a relatively small area. Additionally, medium as well as heavy duty motor vehicles operated by inter- state motor carriers are. In significant numbers, constantly in transit between different Jurisdictions, and it would be Impractical for them to comply with a different noise emission standard In different jurisdictions. Thus, "medium duty" as well as "heavy duly" motor vehicles .operated by Interstate motor carriers are construed by the Agency to be major noise sources In commerce, con- trol of which require uniform national treatment under section 18 of the Noise Control Act. Conversely, since light duty vehicles are typically used for general service and delivery work within relatively small areas and are not usually subject to the noise emission regulations of many different Jurisdictions, national uniform- ity of treatment of the noise emission resulting from their operation does not appear necessary at this time. The specifications of a precise delinea- tion between "light duty" or "small" vehicles and "medium and heavy duty* vehicles for purposes of regulation Is largely an exercise of technical Judg- ment. EPA has chosen to make that delineation at 10,000 pounds GVWB/ CCWR in these regulations. A break at 10,000 pounds GVWR/ GCWR Is convenient because most States use that weight rating as a distinction In their vehicle registration categories. The Department of Commerce and the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Associa- tion divide light duty and medium duty vehicles at that weight rating In addi- tion. It Ii a standard weight category distinction used by the Department of Transportation (DOT) In their safety regulations, and compatibility of the In- terstate Motor Carrier Regulations with the present DOT weight categories is ad- vantageous because DOT Is the Federal enforcement agent. However, If in the future It appears that the coverage of the Interstate Motor Carrier Regulations should be changed, these regulations may be revised pursuant to subsection 18(a). Additional wording under the Appli- cability section of the regulations and clarification within the preamble has been added In response to these com- ments. (4) Certain Industry and environ- mental groups questioned whether the data collected In three States (California. Washington, and New Jersey) were rep- resentative of nationwide truck noise levels. The Agency, In order to verify previous estimates of potential nationwide viola- tion rates,-has reviewed new highway noise survey data collected In Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, New York, Texas and Pennsylvania. These States, together with California, Washington, and New Jersey, contain over one-third of the total number of trucks registered In the United States. The data Indicate that In some areas os few as five percent of the trucks meas- ured exceed the 90 dB(A) level, while in other areas the percentage of trucks measured above the 90 dB(A) level may be as high as 55 percent. The areas re- flecting the higher percentages directly correspond to thos£ areas In which the greatest percentage of heavy duty trucks operate. In areas in which a small per- centage of heavy duty trucks operate, or areas In which State and local noise regulations are already being enforced, a smaller percentage of trucks are ex- pected to violate the standard. On a nationwide basis approximately 23 percent of the trucks measured In the above cited studies exceed 90 dB(A) at highway speeds. The preamble to the proposed rule-making had estimated 19 percent of the trucks measured would ex- ceed 90 dB(A) at highway speeds based on a much more limited data base than is now available. Further analysis was completed relat- ing measured truck highway passoy noise levels to medium and heavy duty motor vehicle State registration data. Results indicate that approximately seven percent of the registered in-service motor" vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR will exceed 90 dB(A) at highway speeds when measured at typical road- side sites. The difference between meas- ured highway passby violation rates and predicted violation rates for registered vehicles Is due to the difference In over- the-road operating times for interstate motor vehicles which is higher than those of other vehicles. For example, 5- axle combination trucks average 63,000 miles per year while single unit trucks average less than 11,000 miles per year. The new data Is presented in the Back- ground Document to this Final Rule- making. There has been no change in the basis on which the regulations were originally proposed, and thus no change In the regulation has been made as a result of the new data or these comments. (5) Some commenters expressed con- cern that the Agency had underestima- ted the costs to the trucking Industry of compliance with these regulations. Agency estimates of costs are based on the actual expendltuers In 1973 of $50- 200 that were required to retrofit vehicles to comply with State and local noise standards Identical to the standards In these regulations. The average cost esti- mate of$114 for motor vehicles In viola- tion of similar standards In 1973 was based to a large extent on a thorough evaluation of data describing the actual modifications made on some 7,800 medium and heavy duty trucks. Since prices of most commodities and services have risen over the past year, and appear likely to continue to rise in the next year,.the average retrofit cost can be expected to rise as well. Accord- ingly, the Agency believes that a reason- able average retrofit cost estimate for 1975 will be $135 per applicable motor vehicle requiring retrofit in order to meet the standards. The Agency estimates that approxi- mately one million motor vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR are engaged In Interstate commerce and that seven per- cent of them would require retrofit, at an aveiage cost of (135 per vehicle. The total direct retrofit cost to the trucking industry is therefore estimated to be$9 E million. However, If, as a worst case, It is as- sumed that all 5 2 million motor vehicle: above 10,000 pounds GVWR would be required to meet the standards, then the total direct retrofit cost to the trucking industry could be as high as $56 million assuming 8 percent required retrofit The Agency is of the opinion that i retrofit cost of$135 per vehicle does no constitute a major burden for the inter- state motor carrier Industry, For a trucl running 50,000 revenue miles per year a $135 retrofit cost represents an In creased expense of$ 003 per revenui mile when amortized over a single year This increase may be compared with thi 1970 average expense of the industry o $1 20 per revenue mile. From a review of the estimated num bcr of vehicles which will require somi degree of retrofit, the costs of such retro fit, and the costs to the Industry, th Agency does not believe that the anticl pated retrofit requirement costs are si stringent as to preclude the promulga tion of these noise emission standards a, required by the Act. The high speed standard exceeds th low speed standard only by the nois> differential associated with the lncreas< in tire noise at higher speeds Consider able high speed noise reduction can b< obtained through the replacement o "pocket retread" tires by crossbar tire: at no Increase fn cost or loss of perform ance. A four decibel margin has beer added to the 86 dB(A) low speed stand- ard In order to take tire noise Into ac- count at high speeds Actual experience indicates that this will require the elim- ination of some crossbar tires on some heavy trucks that have a very large num- ber of axles However, it should still be possible for these trucks to operate with crossbar tires on the drive axles. One industry association has indicated that the total direct and Indirect costs of compliance might be as high as$150 million. No data have been submitted to support this estimate, but even should this estimate be correct the Agency does not believe it represents an unreasonable burden. (6) Several Industry commenters Indi- cated that 86 dB(A) at speeds under 35 MPH was too stringent and unachiev- able within one year, while other Indus- FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL 39, NO. 209—TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29. 1974 ------- RULES AND REGULATIONS .18211 stand- try oommeaten stated ards were feasible. - SPA believes that a noise level of 68 dB(A). measured at typical roadside cites, similar to those used in the surveys described in Section 4 of the Background Document. Is achievable within one year through the use of best available tech- nology by almost all medium and heavy duty trucks in the existing fleet. Trucks are already being retrofitted to reach 86' dB(A) for this condition as a result of noise regulations enacted in several States. Additionally, at least one major truck manufacturer has Indicated its in- tention to work with suppliers to develop a retrofit noise control package to bring older trucks into compliance with noise standards already proposed or which are being anticipated for the future: It is also achievable by buses, since they use the same engines and tires as trucks. Most trucks currently exceeding 86 dB(A) at speeds below 35 MPH require only the addition of a muffler where none was being used before, or the replace- ment of a now defective muffler In order to be in compliance. Muffler manufac- turers have testified in public hearings that adequate mufflers can be available in sufficient numbers to permit compliance of all bracks with these Interstate Motor Carrier Regulations within one year of promulgation. (7) Three Industry commenters Indi- cated that more than a muffler improve- ment would be needed for their trucks to meet the 86 dB(A) and 90 dB(A) levels. There is no disagreement with the comment since all sources of noise from the various componente are Intended to be included. The regulation is not di- rected at noisy mufflers alone. The eco- nomic analysts considered the total prob- lem of retrofit The Agency indicated In :he Background Document to the pro- ->oseJ rulemaking that ten percent of all vehicles u. violation of the proposed reg- ulations might require retrofit of all or part of the fan installation and that five percent would need minor work on the air Intake system. The Agency also indicated that approximately two per- cent of the in-use heavy duty dlesel fleet that is in violation might be uneconomi- cal to retrofit, and considered this to be reasonable in terms of "cost of compli- ance." Industry commenters have Indi- cated that the two percent number Is low. However, no specific data has been pro- vided by such commenters. nor Is addi- tional information available to EPA which supports a higher national per- centage estimate of vehicles which will not be economical to retrofit. (8) Two commenters Indicated that the regulations permit quiet vehicles to become noisier through the use of min- imally effective replacement mufflers. Three commenters Indicated that this did not appear to have occurred In States having similar regulations. Since, at the present time, a large pro- portion of medium duty vehicles have noise levels that are considerably below 80 dB------- 38212 RULES AND REGULATIONS having surfaces that range from fully paved between the source and the micro- phone (hard site) to largely grass be- tween road edge and microphone (soft site). Specific measurement methodology was not Included In the proposed regula- tions as. under the Act. the DOT has the responsibility after consultation with EPA, for promulgating compliance regu- lations; specific measurement method- ology Is more appropriately addressed by that Department through their regu- latory responsibility. EPA has Indicated the rationale used to specify the sound levels in the standards and anticipates that the DOT compliance regulations will be consistent with this rationale. The stationary run-up test Is a means of determining maximum propulsion sys- tem noise. A vehicle propulsion system which emits a given sound power by this test will typically emit that same value in use when power requirements are maximum for conditions of load, acceler- ation, and grade on a hard surface open site. Trucks sometimes exhibit slightly different noise levels when tested accord- tag to both the stationary run-up testa and SAE J366a, but the correlation be- tween the two tests is sufficient to es- tablish their equivalency. The motor carrier regulation Includes three different tests which enforcement agents may choose to use as best meets their circumstances. Motor carriers may thus encounter any or all of these tests from time to time. These three tests are Intended to be equally stringent, so that those vehicles which meet the require- ments of one test should have Uttle or no difficulty with the others. An exception to this relation Is Intended: If a vehicle is equipped with tires which emit more noise than does its propulsion system, the vehicle noise could exceed the standard for high speed but be within the limits of the other two standards. There are two roadside pass-by tests, one for speed zones of 35 MPH and less the other for speed zones of over 35 MPH. There is not a high correlation to be ex- pected in absolute noise levels measured In the two speed ranges because the noise sor.-ces may be different. I.e., propulsion system noise dominating at low speeds and tire noise at high speeds. The high speed standard Is 4 dB higher than the low speed standard because the maxi- mum noise including tires Is a function of vehicle speed. The Intent of the regu- lation Is to limit maximum propulsion system noise to the same level In both speed -zones, but to provide a necessary additional margin to account for tire noise. The comprehensive surveys conducted by EPA show that the noise level stand- ards applicable to the two speed zones are equally stringent In that equal num- bers of vehicles are out of compliance at the regulatory noise limits. The Society of Automotive Engineers' J366a test, which Is currently performed by many vehicle manufacturers, then* customers, and then- suppliers, is wholly unsuitable for use In roadside enforce- ment of a motor carrier regulation be- cause of Ha technical requirements. How- ever, the J386a test correlates well with the Stationary Runup test of these reg- ulations. This enables a comparison to be made between the methodology used by Industry and the requirements pf the regulation. The stationary standard Is stated as 88dB(A) while the low speed standard is SBdBJA) because of the different measurement sites expected to be used. EPA could have stated both standards as equal numbers If both were to be Im- plemented on pavement on a hard site or both on grassy, or soft sites. This number would have been the same if the J366 maximum noise test were Included hi the standards. In a tabular form the relation is: Stationary Mai-nol»low TMOa runup apeed pushy Hud rite..... Bolt die BO (12) Four commenters indicated that the proposed regulations were not ade- quate to protect public health and wel- fare. The noise emission standards Impact directly upon those motor vehicles which presently make the most noise. The prin- cipal noise reduction will be of the in- trusive noise peaks which have been widely acknowledged as more objection- able to people than much lower levels of continuous noise. These peaks can be 12 dB or more above ambient highway noise levels. Therefore, significant noise reduc- tion benefits will he-realized by the effec- tive date of these regulations, producing substantial benefits In terms of public health and welfare as Indicated by a de- crease In community noise levels near highways. In a study performed under contract to the Agency Ldn (day-night sound level) values were computed for an In- terstate highway, using hourly traffic volume statistics submitted by the Mary- land Department of Transportation. The baseline Ldn was computed using actual distributions of noise levels for various classes of trucks aa measured in Mary- ' land. The results of the study Indicated that a 90 db(A) limit for all trucks above 10,000 IDS (avWR/OCWB will produce a 3 6 dB(a) decrease In Ldn for a typical Eastern US. Interstate Highway This represents a decrease of about 50 percent In the average sound energy near the highway. As mentioned above, these regulations should not be considered alone, but only as a first step In quieting motor vehicle noise. Under the specific requirements of section 18 (a) the Agency believes that these regulations meet the Intent of both this section and ol the Noise Control Act as a whole, and no change has been made as a result of these comments. (13) Two commenters stated that the regulations were Insufficient because truck In-cab noise levels were not ad- dressed. The Agency believes that the Intent of section 18 Is to set limits on motor vehicle exterior noise emissions, not to ngulate In-cab noise levels. The Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety of the Department of Transportation ha* estab- lished an In-cab noise level standard. Under the Agency's authorities as de- nned by section 4 of the Noise Control Act, which states that EPA Is to co- ordinate all Federal programs relating to noise research and control, EPA will coordinate with that Department in any future revision of their In-cab noise level. Accordingly, as 'no In-cab noise level Is called for here, none has been set. (14) Two commenters Indicated that the C scale would be more appropriate for this regulation than the A scale. It has been argued that the A-weight- ed sound level discriminates against low frequencies and. thus, should be replaced by C-weighted sound level. However, the ear also discriminates against low fre- quencies so that pt low frequencies the sound pressure level must be compara- tively high before It can even be heard. Since the correlations between A- welghted sound level and human response are consistently better than that ob- tained with the C-weighted sound level, EPA believes that the measurement pro- cedures using the A scale on which these regulations are based are appropriate, and therefore, no change has been made. (15) There were a number of com- ments from State and local governments, private citizens, and Industry relating to enforcement. Numerous recommenda- tions were offered for what measurement' sites, equipment, tolerances, etc., should be used, and many Industry commenters reserved the right to comment on meas- urement procedures adopted for enforce- ment purposes. EPA will bring these comments and recommendations to the attention of the Department of Trans- portation which is the Agency respon- sible for enforcement procedures. (16) Several commenters recom- mended further clarification of the spe- cific applicability of the standards to motor vehicle auxiliary equipment. Some types of auxiliary equipment used on vehicles operated by motor car- riers are necessary for the comfort or safety of passengers, or for the pres- ervation of cargo. These noise control standards are applicable to these types of equipment and for the purpose of these regulations such auxiliary equipment constitute essentially refrigeration or air conditioning units, and concrete mixer bodies and drives These auxiliary equip- ment noise emissions are at a level far enough below other significant compo- nents of total vehicle noise, as EPA's data indicate, to be masked by other noise sources during normal vehicle highway operation. EPA has Identified other auxiliary equipment as normally being operated only when the transporting vehicle la- stationary or moving at a very slow speed, normally less than 5 MPH. Examples of such equipment Include cranes, asphalt spreaders, ditch diggers, liquid or slurry pumps, air compressors, welders, and trash compactors. The noise from the operation of such auxiliary equipment Is not intended to be covered by these regu- FEDEtAl REGISTER. VOL 39, NO. 109—TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29,_I974 ------- RUES AND REGULATIONS 38213 and, are not fipplfT^t* to the noise resulting tram the operation erf this type of equip- ment. Die transporting vehicle, however, if operated by an Interstate carrier and if above 10,000 rat. GVWR/OCWR. to subject to the Federal noise control regu- lation when such vehicle is to normal highway operation. <17) Farther clarification of the ap- plicability of .these standards to emer- gency equipment and vehicles te also appropriate. Because of the emergency or safety aspects of then* operation these regulations are not applicable to vehicles such as fire engines, ambulances, police vana, and rescue vans when responding to emergency calls. Similarly, these regula- tions are not Intended to apply to snow plow operation. Conrnnmra AGDTCT RESPOHSI TO PUBLIC COMHEMZS As mentioned In fee foregoing Agency responses to pabBe comments, additional stady is required to a number of areas. EPA win evaluate (be Impact o* Uiese regulations after they become effective through monitoring and other activities, Including evaluation of DOT and State enforcement data. If data collected by or made available to the Agency Indicate the existence of any problem curtailing the effectiveness of the regulations, these regulations may be re vised subsequent to section 18 (a) (2) of the Act REVISION or THX PROPOSED RKGOTJITIOHS PBIOB TO PROMULGATION The Interstate Motor Carrier Noise Emission Regulations which are now be- ing promulgated Incorporate several changes from the proposed regulations which were published on July 27. 1973. These changes are based upon the public comments received and upon the con- tinuing study of motor carrier noise by the Agency. In all but one Instance such changes are not substantial; they are only intended to further clarify the In- tent Of the rpfpllnMrmn The sole substantive change la the de- letion of proposed {202.13, "Standards for Level Street Operations 35 MPH or Under." This section was originally pro- posed as it was felt that vehicles which could comply with a standard of 86 dB(A) under any conditions on high- ways with speed limits of 35 MPH or less could be driven so as to comply with a standard of 80 dB(A) when operated at constant speed on level streets with speed limits of 35 MPH or less. It was the in- tent of the Agency through this section to thereby regulate the manner of opera- tion of the vehicle, oy the driver, without impnming pjiy additional noise reduction requirement to the vehlde proper beyond that needed to meet the 86 dB( A) stand- ard. Substantial questions were raised regarding the validity of the data upon vhlcn the standard was based. The a review of the relevant' data. thgly. tte Standards for level (Street Those* <**"g»« mp/fc to clarify **M> In- tent of the regulations, and the reasons therefore, are as follows: Section 202J0—DefMttous. The def- Inttian of "motor carrier" was expanded to incorporate, by reference, the defini- tion of related terms in paragraphs 14. 15, and 17, of section 203(a) of the In- terstate Commerce Act (49 DSC 303 A). This treatment more closely follows sec- tion 17(d) of the Noise Control Act and thereby insures that any question as to the definition of such related terms will be resolved by reference to the body of Jaw which Congress Intended to apply to section 18. The definitions of "dB(A),M "sound pressure level," and "sound level," were changed slightly to be consistent with the definitions of those terms used In the document, "Information on Levels of En- vironmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Ade- quate Margin of Safety," Issued by the Environmental Protection Agency in March 1974. "Fast meter response" has been expanded for clarity. "Gross combination weight rating" (OCWR) has been added to avoid any possible confusion over whether the regulation Is applicable to combination trucks (I.e., tractor-trailer rigs) over 10,000 pounds weight rating. The provi- sions of Subpart B of the regulation are applicable to all single and combination vehicles over 10,000 pounds weight rating. "Interstate commerce" has been modi- fied to insure that any questions as to Its scope would be resolved by reference to section 203 (a) of the Interstate Com- merce Act, consistent with the reference to that Act in section 18 (d) of the Noise Control Act. "Person" has been deleted, since (as discussed below) that word Is no longer used in Subpart B of the regulations. "Street," and "official traffic device," have been deleted, since proposed { 202.12 In which they were used has been deleted. "Muffler" has been added to simplify the language of proposed S 202.14, "Vis- ual igrhttiuA System Inspection.1* "Open site" has been added to further clarify the standards. Section 202Jl—Effective Date. An ef- fective date of October l, 1974 was originally proposed for the regulations. The Intent of the Agency in the notice of proposed mlfmaklng was that the proposed •regulations would become ef- fective one year from the date of promulgation. Thin intent Is retained In this new section. Section 202.12—Applicability. •Ap- plicability" was moved to Subpart A of the final regulations as It is appropri- ately considered a "general provision" of the regulations. It has been modified to clarify the intent of the Agency that the standards do not apply to noise emis- sion from wanting deilcu or auxiliary equipment mounted on motor vehicles except for refrigeration and ah* condi- tioning diuluiiuiHl, and for concrete mixer uults and-drives. Illustrative ex- amples have been cited for added clarity. Mbport B—Interstate Motor Canter Operations. The language used in Sub- part B has been changed frmn, "no per- «on «taan operate." to "no motor carrier subject to these regulations shall op- erate* • •;" and the language m{ 202.20 was modified slightly to conform to this change. This change is Intended to more accurately reflect fee Intent of Congress and these regulations, that they are to establish uniform national noise emis- sion regulations for those operations of Interstate motor carriers which require such treatment The revised language clearly Imposes sole responsibility for meeting the requirements upon the motor carriers which own and operate the sub- ject motor vehicles. The proposed lan- guage, using the broad term "person," would have Imposed that responsibility upon the drivers of subject motor vehicles as well as the companies which operate them. "Motor carrier," as •defined in these regulations. Includes independent truckers who both own and drive their own vehicles. Section 202.2;—Standard* far Opera- tion Under Stationary Test. The lan- guage of this section has been modified to further clarify that It applies only to vehicles which have an engine speed governor. Application of a stationary run-up test to vehicles which are not equipped with engine speed limiting devices could result hi engine damage. Section 202.22—Visual Exhaust Sys- tem Inspection. The Intent of the Agency in requiting motor vehicles sub- ject to this regulation to be equipped with exhaust system noise disslpatlve devices has been further clarified through modification of the language of proposed S 202.14. In addition, the exception to the proposed requirement relating to vehicles with gas driven turbochargers and equipped with engine brakes, which were demonstrated to meet the other stand- ards of Subpart B, has been deleted. Such equipment Is Included hi the term "other noise disslpatlve device." and therefore need not be treated separately. Section 202.23—Visual Tire Inspection. The Intent of the Agency was to specif- ically preclude the use of "pocket re- tread" tires which when new are demon- strably noisier without having any ac- companying benefit In safety or cost over other types of tires. The proposed S 202.15 has been modified in response to com- ments by tire manufacturers that the regulation as proposed could have cov- ered some types of tires which are not in fact exceptionally noisy. Proposed Section 202.16—Enforcement procedures. This proposed section has been deleted. As the Noise Control Act places enforcement responsibilities for these regulations with the Department of Transportation, the section as proposed added nothing not specified In the Act Proposed Subpart C—Special Local Conditions Determinations. The proce- dures for applying for determinations as called tor in section 18 (c) (2) of the Act. will be published by EPA as "procedures" and not as part of this regulation. Ac- cordingly. Subpart C has been delated. Preemption. Under subsection U (1) «f the Noise Control Act. after toe ef- WH. n, NO. 209—WESOAY, M, 1*74 ------- 38214 RULES < : ,-GUU . ../: fectlve date of these regulations no State or political subdivision thereof may adopt or enforce any standard applicable to noise emissions resulting from the opera- tion of motor vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR/GCWR by motor carriers en- gaged In Interstate commerce unless such standard Is identical to the standard prescribed by these regulations. Subsec- tion 18(c)(2). however, provides that this section does not diminish or enhance the rights of any State or political sub- division thereof to establish and enforce standards or controls on levels of en- vironmental noise, or control, license, regulate, or restrict the use, operation or movement of any product If the Admin- istrator, after consultation with the Sec- retary of Transportation, determines that such standard, control, license, regulation, or restriction Is necessitated by special local conditions and Is not In conflict with regulations promulgated under section 18. Procedures for applying for such determinations will be pub- lished by the Agency within 120 days. Conversely, subsection 18 (c) (1) does not In any way preempt State or local standards applicable to noise emissions resulting from any operation of Inter- state motor carriers which Is not covered by Federal Regulations. Thus, under the proposed regulations States and localities will remain free to enact and enforce noise regulations on motor carrier oper- ations other than their operation of mo- tor vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR/ GCWR, without any special determina- tion by the Administrator. Only after a Federal regulation on noise emissions re- sulting from a particular Interstate motor carrier operation has become ef- fective must the States and localities ob- tain a special determination by the Ad- ministrator under subsection 18(c)(2>, In order to adopt or enforce their own use restrictions or environmental noise limits on that operation. Some Interstate motor carrier opera- tions on which no Federal noise stand- ards or regulations have become effective, and which may, therefore, be subjected to State and local noise standards with- out any special determination by the Ad- ministrator, may Indirectly Include motor vehicles which are covered by preemptive Federal regulations. Motor carrier main- tenance shops, for example, may from time to time emit the noise of trucks un- dergoing tests along with noises common to many Industrial operations such as forging and grinding; and motor car- rier terminals and parking areas Include trucks among their many types of noise sources. In most Instances, compliance with State or local standards on non-Federally regulated operations of motor carriers is achleveable without affecting the Fed- erally regulated motor vehicles within them. Standards on noise emissions from repair shops, for example, can be met by such measures as Improved sound in- Bulatlon In the walls of the shop, buffer zones of land between the shop and noise- Impacted areas, and scheduling the oper- ation of the shop to reduce noise at those times of the day when Its Impact Is most severe. Standards on mote* carrier ter- minals and parking areas L .u be met by a variety of steps, Including reducing the volume of loudspeaker sys- >ns by using a distributed sound systerr. .IT replacing speakers with two-way ra . ->s. reducing noise emissions from equipment which la not covered by Federal regulations. In- stalling noise barriers around noisy equipment, acquiring additional land to act as a noise buffer, and locating noisy equipment such as parked trucks with operating refrigeration equipment as far as possible from adjacent noise-sensitive property. State or local regulations on noise emissions from motor carrier oper- ations which the motor carrier can rea- sonably meet by Initiating measures such as these are not standards applicable to noise emissions resulting from the opera- tion of motor vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR/GCWR, and thus would not be preempted by the proposed regulations. No special determination by the Admin- istrator under subsection 18(c> (2) would be necessary. State or local noise stand- ards on operations Involved In interstate commerce such as motor carrier termi- nals are. of course, subject to Constitu- tional prohibition If they are so stringent as to place an undue burden on Interstate commerce. In -some cases, however, a State or local noise regulation which Is not stated as a regulation applicable to a Federally regulated operation may be such a regu- lation In effect, if the only way the regu- lation could be met would be to modify the equipment which meets the Federal regulation applicable to It. This would be the case, for example, if after the pro- posed regulations become effective, a State or locality attempted to adopt or enforce a limit on noise emissions from motor carrier terminals In urban areas which could, not reasonably be met by measures such as noise barriers or relo- cating the motor vehicles to which this regulation is applicable. Such regulation would, In effect, require modifications to motor vehicles even though they met the Federal regulations and would thus be a regulation applicable to them which would be preempted under subsection 18 streets as truck routes, and prcr 'iltlon of trucks from other streets, by i ue or local governments, are valid with > ;i any special determination under sut. -tlon State or local use or operation regula- tions which are applicable to noise emis- sions resulting from the operation of Federally regulated equipment and facili- ties can, of course, stand If the Adminis- trator made the determinations specified in subsection 18 (c) (2) regarding them. The same would be true of any State or local standard on motor carrier opera- tions which could not reasonably be met except by modifying motor vehicles which comply with the proposed Federal standards. State and local regulations on motor carrier operations which are not directed at the control of noise, or which Include noise control as only one of many pur- poses such as safety, traffic control, and the like, are not preempted by subsection 18(c) (1) of the Noise Control Act and require no special determination under subsection 18(c) (2) to be adopted or en- forced. Thus, the designation of some Compliance Procedures. Corr.'-.ance procedures are to be developed aru pro- mulgated under separate rule making by the Department of Transportation Such compliance procedures will specify mini- mum requirements for Instrumentation. test sites, and other conditions necessary to Insure uniformity in testing and a minimum level of precision. Enforcement of the standards is con- templated to be more efficient under some conditions If measurements are permitted to be made at Distances other than 50 feet under procedures that provide for equiv- alency to the standards measured at 50 feet. Effective Date. The effective date of these regulations Is set as one year from promulgation of these regulations to al- low adequate time for Interstate motor carriers io make necessary equipment modifications to their motor vehicles dur- ing a normal maintenance cycle. BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Notice of the availability of the Docu- ment entitled "Background Document to proposed Interstate Motor Carrier Reg- ulations" was published In the FEDERAL REGISTER on November 7, 1972 (38 PR 23869). This document has been revised and new data have been added This new Document Is quite lengthy, and It would be Impractical to publish it In its entirety In the FEDERAL REGISTER. Copies may be 6btalned from the EPA Public Infor- mation Center, PM 215, Room 2104D, Waterside Mall. 4th and M Streets SW., Washington. DC. 20460. To the extent possible, the significant aspects of the material have been presented In sum. mary form In the- foregoing preamble, The topics contained In the Document are the following: 1. The EPA Motor Vehicle Noise Con- trol Strategy. 2. The Technology and Cost of Quiet- ing In-Service Motor Vehicles. 3. The Relationship Between the Standards. 4. Noise Measurement of In-Servlce Vehicles. 5. The Economic and Environmental Impact of the Regulations. FUTURE PUBUC COMMENT If as a result of continuing govern- ment studies, or as the result of develop- ments by Industry or other Institutions, It becomes evident to the Agency that more advanced technology is available. at some reasonable cost within a pre- scribed compliance period, prompt revi- sion of the regulations will be Initiated. Accordingly, comments and recommen- dations are solicited from all Interested persons as to new or advanced tech- nology and Its projected cost or on any other topic relevant to these regulations or revisions thereof. Prior to actual for- mulation of any revision to these regula- tions. notice of proposed rulemaUng will be published so that there may be maxt- FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 209—TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1974 ------- RULES AkD REGULATIONS 38215 tniino contribution, to the rulemaklng de- velopment process by Interested parties. Interested persons may submit written data or views to the Office of Noise Abate- ment and Control UJ3. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington; D.C. 20460. This regulation Is promulgated under the authority of 42 U.B.C. 4917(a), 86 Stat. 1240. Dated: October 21.1974. JOHN QTJARLES, Acting Administrator. Part 202 of title 40 shall read as fol- lows: PART'202—MOTOR CARRIERS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE SubpartA—Gantrol Prevtalom Bee. 203.10 Definitions. 303.11 Effective date. 303.13 Applicability. Subpart D—Interstate Motor Cantor Operation* Standard* 303 JO Standards for highway operations. 303-21 Standard for operation •under sta- tionary test. 203.39 Visual exhaust system inspection. 203.23 Visual tin Inspection. AUTHORITY: flection 18, 86 Stat 1340. 43 U.8C.4917(a). Subpart A—General Provisions S 202.10 Definitions. As used In this part, all terms not de- fined herein shall have the meaning given them In the Act: (a) "Act" means the Noise Control Act Of 1972 (Pi. 92-574. 88 Stat. 1234) (b) "Common carrier-by motor ve- hicle" means any person who holds him- self out to the general public to engage in the transportation by motor vehicle In Interstate or foreign commerce of pas- sengers or property or any class or clas- ses thereof for compensation, whether over regular or Irregular routes. (c) "Contract carrier by motor vehicle" means any person who engages In trans- portation by motor vehicle of passengers or property hi, Interstate or foreign com- merce for compensation (other than transportation referred to In paragraph (b) of this section) under continuing contracts with one person or a limited number of persons either (1) for the famishing of transportation services through the assignment of motor vehicles for a continuing period of tune to the exclusive use of each person served or (2) for the furnishing of transportation services designed to meet the distinct need of each Individual customer. (d> "Cutout or by-pass or similar de- vices" means devices which vary the ex- haust system gas flow so as to discharge the exhaust gas and acoustic energy to tins atmosphere without passing through the entire, length of the exhaust system. Including all exhaust system sound at- tenuation components. (e> "dB(A) means' the standard ab- breviation for A-welghted sound level la decibels. (f) "Exhaust system" means the sys- tem comprised of a combination of'com- ponents which provides for enclosed flow of exhaust gas from engine parts to the atmosphere. (g) "Fast meter response" means that the fast dynamic response of the sound level meter shall be used. The fast dynamic response shall comply with the meter dynamic characteristics In para- graph 5.3 of the American National Standard Specification for Sound Level Meters. ANSI 81. 4-1971. This publica- tion Is available from the American Na- tional Standards Institute. Inc.. 1420 Broadway. New York, New York 10018. (h> "Gross Vehicle Weight Rating" means the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle. (1) "Gross Combination Weight Rat- Ing" (GCWR) means the value specified .•by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a combination vehicle. (j) "Highway" means the streets, roads, and public ways In any State. (k) "Interstate commerce" means the commerce between any place In a State and any place in another State or be- tween places In the same State through another State, whether such commerce moves wholly by motor vehicle or partly by motor vehicle and partly by rail, ex- press, water or air. This definition of "In- terstate commerce" for purposes of these regulations Is the same as the definition of "Interstate commerce" in section 203 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act £49 U.8.C. Section 303 (a) J. (1) "Motor carrier" means a common carrier by motor vehicle, a contract car- rier by motor vehicle, or a private car- rier of property by motor vehicle as those terms are defined by paragraphs (14), (15). and (17) of section 203(a) of the Interstate Commerce Act [49 U.S.C. 303 (a)]. (m) "Motor vehicle" means any vehi- cle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semi- trailer propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used upon the highways In the transportation of passengers or property, or any combination thereof, but does not Include any vehicle, locomotive, or car operated exclusively on a rail or rails. (n) "Muffler" means a device for abat- ing the sound of escaping gases of an Internal combustion engine. (o) "Open site" means an area that is essentially free of large sound-reflecting objects, such as barriers, walls, board fences, signboards, parked vehicles. bridges, or buildings. (p) "Private carrier of property by motor vehicle" means any person not in- cluded In terms "common carrier by motor vehicle" or "contract carrier by motor vehicle", who or which transports in Interstate or foreign commerce by motor vehicle property of which such person Is the' owner, lessee, or bailee, when such transportation Is for sale, lease; rent or bailment, or In furtherance of any commercial enterprise. (q) "Sound level" means the quantity In dedbles measured by a sound level meter'satisfying the requirements of ^American National Standards Specifics— tlon for Sound Level Meters Sl.4-1971. This publication Is available from tbe American National Standards Institute. Inc., 143D Broadway, New York, New York 10018. Sound level is the frequency- weighted sound pressure level obtained with the standardized dynamic char- acteristic "fast" or "slow" and weighting A. B, or C: unless Indicated otherwise. the'A-weighting Is understood. §202.11 Effective date. The provisions of Subpart B shall be- come effective October 15,1975. § 202.12 Applicability. (a) The provisions of Subpart B apply to all motor carriers engaged la Inter- state commerce. (b) The provisions of Subpart B apply only to those motor vehicles of such motor carriers which have a gross vehicle weight rating or gross combination weight rating In excess of 10,000 pounds, and only when such motor vehicles are operating under the conditions specified In Subpart B. (c) Except as provided hi Subsections (d) and (e) of this section, the provisions of Subpart B apply to the total sound produced by such motor vehicles when operating under such conditions, includ- ing the sound produced by auxiliary equipment mounted on such motor ve- hicles. (d) The provisions of Subpart B do not apply to auxiliary equipment which Is normally operated only when the transporting vehicle is stationary or is moving at a speed of 5 miles per hour or less. Examples of'such equipment In- clude, but are not limited to. cranes, asphalt spreaders, ditch diggers, liquid or slurry pumps, air compressors, welders, and trash compactors. (e) The provisions of Subpart B do not apply to warning devices, such as horns and sirens: or to emergency equipment and vehicles such as fire engines, ambu- lances, police vans, and rescue vans, when responding to emergency calls; or to snow plows when in operation. Subpart B—Interstate Motor Carrier Operations Standards § 20220 Standards for highway opera- tions. No motor carrier subject to these regu- lations shall operate any motor vehicle of a type to which this regulation is ap- plicable which at any time or under any condition of highway grade, load, ac- celeration or deceleration generates a sound level In excess of 88dB(A) meas- ured on an open site with fast meter response at 50 feet from the centerline of lane of travel on highways with speed limits of 35 MPH or less; or 00 dB(A) measured on an open site with fast meter response at 50 feet from the centerline of lane of travel on highways with speed limits of more than 35 MPH. 8 202.21 Standard for operation under stationary leal. No motor carrier subject to these regu- lations ahuii operate any motor vehicle of s type to which this regulation is ap- plicable- which generates a sound level In FDEftM teefSTHt, VOL 39, NO. 209—TUISOAY, OCTOB. J, 1974 ------- 38216 excess of 88dB(A) measured on an open alte with last meter response at SO feet from the longitudinal centerllne of the vehicle, when Its engine Is accelerated from Idle with wide open throttle to governed speed with the vehicle station- ary, transmission hi neutral, and clutch engaged. This section 202.21 shall not apply to any vehicle which is not equipped with an engine speed governor. § 202.22 Visual exhaust system inspec- tion! No motor carrier subject to these regulations shall operate any motor ve- hicle of a type to which this regulation RULES AND IE* ULATr NS Is applicable unless the exhuost system of such vehicle Is (1! free from defects which affect sound reduction; (2) equipped with a muffler or other noise disslpatlve device; and (3) rot equipped with any cut-out, by-pass, ct similar de- vice. § 202.23 Visual lire inspection. No motor carrier subject to these regulations shall at any time operate any motor vehicle -of a type to which this regulation is applicable on a tire or fares having a tread pattern which as originally manufactured, or as newly retreaded, is composed primarily of cavi- ties In the tread (excluding slpes and local chunking) which are not ven"*! by grooves to the tire shoulder or circum- ferentially to each' other arom.. the tire. This section 202.23 shall not apply to any motor vehicle which is demon- strated by the motor carrier which oper- ates It to be in compliance with the noise emission standard specified for op- erations on highways with speed limits of more than 35 MPH in 5 202.20 of this subpart B, if the demonstration Is con- ducted at the highway speed limit in ef- fect at the inspection location, or, if speed is unlimited, the demonstration Is conducted at a speed of 65 MPH. . IFH Doc 74-25032 Filed 10-25-74,8:45 Om] KDERAl REGISTER, VOL 39. NO. 209—TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29. 1974 ------- 3. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ------- New Federal/EPA Regulation Governing Interstate Motor Carriers SOME ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS ------- The questions contained in the following pages of this section represent the type of information requests about the interstate motor carrier regulation which will probably arise. The following answers to these questions have been developed in concise, adequate, practical form for your ease in handling the information requests. These questions and answers are also printed in the brochures mailed to you for distribution. For your reference, the brochures are entitled "NOISE-New Federal/EPA Regulation Governing Interstate Motor Carriers-Some Answers to your Questions." ------- New Federal/EPA Regulation governing interstate motor carriers Some Answers To Your Questions motor carrier regulation How does the new Federal Interstate Motor Carrier Reputation on noise emissions Jttect me.' If you own a truck, bus or other motor vehicle having a GVWR/GCWR of more than 10,000 Ibs. and arc engaged in inter- state commerce, vour vehicle must not ex- ceed the following maximum permissible exterior noise levels: • 88 dBA @ SO ft. under stationary runup • 86 dBA @ 50 ft. for speeds under 35 mph • 90 dBA @ 50 ft. for speeds over 35 mph Additionally, your vehicle's exhaust sys- tem must be free of noise producing defects or modifications and the vehicle cannot have tires, as originally made or retreaded, with pocket (non-vented cavity) tread design. Who set these vehicle noise regulations? Congress directed the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Fed- eral Noise Control Act of 1972 to regulate interstate motor carrier noise emissions. EPA has established initial standards that permit retrofit for non-complying vehicles with available technology and off-the-shelf equipment at reasonable cost. Why do we need this noise regulation? It is needed to protect both the general public and vehicle operators from the harm of high intensity noises. Of equal impor- tance, the Federal regulation provides the interstate motor currier industry with uni- form national noise emission standards that superccdc multiple and conflicting State and local regulations. When does this Federal regulation g!» into effect? October 15, 1975. However, State and lo- cal regulations remain in effect until this date regardless of how they compare to the Federal standard. Why are there three different noise level stand* ards? For flexibility of enforcement. The sta- tionary runup test is a quick, reliable test that vehicle inspectors and owners can use to test for maximum noise emissions. The low speed test is provided for jurisdictions • primarily concerned with urban noise. The high speed test accounts for tire noise; that's why its limits arc higher. All three tests are intended to be equally stringent. noise measurement What is a 'dBA' and how is it related to noise? dB is the abbreviation for the term deci- bel, a measure of noise level. Measurements in terms of human hearing response arc described technically as A-wcightcd and are expressed in dBA. The louder the sound, the higher the decibel reading. Sound is measured with a sound level meter that reads in dBA. Some typical sound levels are: threshold of hearing (0 dBA); rustling leaves (20 dBA); soft-whisper (30 dBA); conversational speech (60 dBA); heavy city traffic (85 dBA); discotheque (120 dBA); jet takeoff (125 dBA): thres- hold of pain (140 dBA). How can I tell if my rig is too noisy? The only reliable way is to have noise measurements made with a sound level meter; do-it-yourself sound level meters should be selected with care to avoid errone- ously high noise readings. Many mainte- nance facilities and component manufac- turers offer noise measurement service either as a courtesy or at a small, nominal cost Look for advertisements for noise testing and noise reduction services and equipment or for more information con- tact your regional EPA, Department of Transportation/Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Office, State or local motor vehicle office. ------- correcting noise problem III have a noise problem, what's the most likely cause? Exhaust systems and cooling fans are the most common high noise makers under sta- tionary and low speed conditions; at high- way speeds, tires frequently make the most noise. Other sources which can add to the total noise le\el are: • engine (mechanical) • air intake system • transmission • auxiliary engine equipment • brakes • aerodynamic flow Isn't my stock muffler quiet enough? Not necessarily. Heavy-duty motor vehicle manufacturers have not had to build to specific noise emission standards. Muf- flers have often been selected for their low cost, appearance, size, and back pres- sure rather than for noise quieting ability. Check muffler manufacturers or distribu- tors; they can give you information about the noise reduction capabilities and other operational features of various models when fitted to specific engines. You may also want to investigate the addition of a turboch~'gcr to jour vehicle. Recent in- dustry test results show impressive noise reduction in addition to fuel savings and improved engine periorm.!ncc. I understand cooling fans can cause high noise. How can I tell if this is my problem, and what can I do about it? Cooling fans can cause high noise. How- ever, maintenance shops vsith noise testing facilities should be able to tell if this is your problem. If. tor example, you in- stalled especially quiet mulllers for >our particular engine and the (ruck is still too noisy, it's likely your fan may need shroud repair, adjustment tor fan tip clearance, blade repair or replacement, or possibly a different blade design Remember, modifi- cations to cooling >\sieins should not be done without expert adviee. You may \\ar.l to consider a temperature controlled tan: resultant tuel ami eoM «-.IMIICS aic as im- pressive as tneir noi-e rvuue:ion. If my tires cause a noise problem at highway speeds, what type tire should I replace them with? This is a matter of judgment based on your operational requirements. Generally, tread patterns with non-vented cavities (suction cups) produce unusually high noise levels. This condition exists in pocket re- treads and can occur in other tread designs with tire wear. Tests show that rib tires are quieter than many other popular designs. Tire manufacturers and dealers can give you guidance in selecting quiet tires that meet your specific requirements. advantages of early compliance Are there any advantages if I comply with the Federal noise standard before October 15,1975? Yes. You can benefit in a number of ways if you comply early. For example: 1. You can reduce the possibility of a fine for violation of motor vehicle noise regulations in the numerous States and local jurisdictions that have current laws. (State and local authorities are not required to wait until October 15 to enforce their noise standards.) 2. You can take advantage of courtesy noise measurements now offered by many component manufacturers and various Fed- eral, State and local authorities. An un- hurried, thorough investigation of your principal noise problem could save you dollars. 3. You will have time to "shop around" for the best, low-cost solution to your problem. 4. You can reduce your costs of com- pliance by scheduling noise measurements and corrective work, if needed, during normal maintenance periods instead of rushing to meet a deadline. 5. You may save in tuel consumption and cost and realize an increase in avail- able power where noise reduction steps arc taken that improve engine breathing and cooling fan efficiency. 6. You can improve the public imago of truckers and of the trucking industry. 7. You can enjoy greater driving com- fort, productivity and safety. ------- enforcement Who will enforce the regulations? The Department of Transportation's Bu- reau of Motor Carncr Safety will handle enforcement at the Federal level. State and local jurisdictions will also have enforce- ment responsibility. The new law requires that all noise regulations applied to motor vehicles involved in interstate commerce be identical to the Federal regulation. information & assistance Where can I get more information abort the regulation?, Contact any office of the U. S. Environ- mental Protection Agency or DOT/Bureau of Motor Carrier Saiety Olhcc listed below by Regions served. Also >our local main- tenance shop, motor vehicle component manufacturer* and either State or local highway/vehicle divisions should be able to assist you. Region 6 States: Arkansas, Louisiana, Okla- homa, Texas, New Mexico USEPA DOT/BMCS Room 1107 819 Taylor Street 1(00 Patterson Street Fort Worth. TX 76102 Dallas, TX 75201 Region 7 States: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Ne- braska USEPA 1735 Baltimore Street Kansas Cit>, MO 64108 DOT/BMCS P. O. Box 7186 Country Club Station Kansas City, MO 64113 Region 8 States: Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota USEPA DOT/BMCS Suite 900 Room 151, Building 40 1860 Lincoln Street Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80203 Denver, CO 80225 Region 9 States: Arizona, California, Nevada, Hawaii USEPA DOT/BMCS 100 California Street 4'JO Golden Gate Avrnue San Francisco. CA 94111 Box 36096 San Francisco, CA 94102 Region 10 States: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Wash- ington USEPA DOT/BMCS Room lie Room412, Mohawk Bldg. 1200 Sixth Avenue 222 S. W. Morrison Street Seattle. WA 98101 Portland. OR 97204 Region 1 States: Connecticut. Maine, Massachu- setts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont USEPA DOT/BMCS Room 2113 4 Normanskill Boulevard JFK Federal Building DC I mar, NY 12054 Boston, MA 02203 Region 2 Mates: New Jersey, New York USEPA DOT/BMCS Room 9076 4 Normanskill Boulevard 26 Federal Plaza Delmar, NY 12054 New York. NY 10007 Region 3 States: Delaware. Maryland. Pennsyl- vania, Virginia, West Virginia, District of Columbia USEPA Room 225 Curtis Building 6th and Walnut Streets Philadelphia. PA 19106 DOT/BMCS Room 816-A Federal Building 31 Hopkins Plaza Baltimore. MD 21201 Region 4 Slates: Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky DOT/BMCS Suite 200 USEPA Koom 109 1421 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 1720 Peachtree Road N. W. Atlanta, GA 30309 Region 5 States: Illinois. Indiana. Ohio, Michi- gan, Wisconsin. Minnesota USFPA DOT/BMCS 203 South Dearborn Street l.i:<)9 South Dixie Hiphway Chicago, IL 60n04 Homewood. IL 60430 ------- 4. EFFECTS OF NOISE ON HEALTH AND WELFARE ------- SECTION 4 EFFECTS OF NOISE ON HEALTH AND WELFARE BACKGROUND Environmental noise is growing to the point where it is becoming a threat to our health and welfare. A recent state and municipal survey,1 the results of which arc given in Table 1, illustrates the major types of noise sources in our environment in order of their ranking by 237 respondents This table reveals that 44% of the respondents identified motor vehicles, including medium and heavy duty trucks, as the main source of noise in their neighborhoods. Long exposure to high levels of noise can cause hearing damage. However, there are other effects of noise that result in annoyance and anxiety and distress. These include inter- ference with speech communication, with telephone communication, with listening to TV and radio, with listening to music, with concentration during mental activities and in the performance of tasks, and with sleep and relaxation. TABLE I RANK ORDER OF STATE AND MUNICIPAL SOURCES OF NOISE PROBLEMS AS IDENTIFIED BY RESPONDENTS (237) TO THE STATE AND MUNICIPAL NONOCCUPATIONAL NOISE SURVEY OF 1974 State and Municipal Sources of Noise Problems Cumulative Rank Order 1 . Motor Vehicles (General) 2. Aircraft 3. Industrial 4. Construction 5 Air Conditioners Cumulative Total And % Out of 237 No. 105 39 39 36 34 % 44% 16% 16% 15% 14% Unpublished United States bnvironmenlal Protection Agency "State and Municipal Noise Program Survey" 4-1 ------- HEARING DAMAGE Our cars consist of three parts outer, middle, and inner car (represented in Figure 1). In the hearing process, sound waves enter the car, passing through the car canal to the ear- drum, which transmits the sound as vibrations to three tiny bones called ossicles. It is here that the acoustic reflex occurs, which protects the inner ear from loud sounds. The acoustic reflex actually is the tightening of the muscle in that area which therefore reduces the sensi- tivity of the ear to sound, to the degree necessary. The ossicles then transmit the vibrations to a fluid contained in the tiny structure of the inner ear, the cochlea. Within the cochlea arc microscopic hair cells that wave back and forth in response to the sound waves. It is the energy impulses created by the movement of these hair cells that go to the brain, where the impulses arc interpreted as sound. Hair cells can be damaged by sound waves that arc too intense The duration of the exposure and the frequency of the sound arc other factors that effect the risk of damage. So, although the acoustic reflex protects the inner ear from some loud sounds, other excessive sounds arc transmitted to the inner car before the reflex can control the sound or when the sound is sustained. In the case of an impulse sound, such as a gunshot, the reflex is virtually useless as a defense When excessive sound occurs only briefly, the damage may be temporary and the hear- ing loss is called a Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS). However, if loud noises arc frequent or sustained, the damage can be permanent; and the hearing loss becomes a Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) ANNOYANCE Environmental noise interferes with an extensive range of human activities In Table 2 arc shown the activities specifically identified as being disrupted by surface vehicle noise. The effect of such activity interference is usually described as annoyance, which is a response to auditory experience. Such annoyance has its roots in the unpleasant nature of some sounds, in the ongoing activities disturbed or disrupted by noise, in the physiological reactions to noise, and, as some research suggests, "Some reactions may be attributed to the message conveyed by the sounds, prior experiences and conditioning".2 Everyone is familiar with noise that interferes with the understanding of speech The effect of different noise levels on communications among people is shown in Table 3. Other factors that enter into speech communications and not shown in the table include the qual- ity of speech, the age of the listener, and individual hearing acuity. Noise also interferes with sleep It can cause an individual to arouse from sleep, prevent an individual from falling asleep, and disrupt the various sleep stages. Noise can shift the sleep pattern from the deep, dreamless stage to a lighter stage ^ It is possible, however, that some types of sounds only disturb sleep when they arc unfamiliar. Studies indicate that individuals do become accustomed to some sounds and can sleep through such sounds. "United States linvironmental Protection Agency, Public Health and Welfare Criteria for Noise. EPA Docu- ment No 550/9-73-002 (Washington, DC US Government Printing Office), pp 1-3 . pp 7-13 4-2 ------- Semicircular Canals Cochlea Nerve Fibers Figure 1. Diagram of the Human Ear ------- TABLE 2 ACTIVITIES OF RESPONDENTS DISTURBED BY SURFACE VEHICLE NOISE (All Situations: Respondent's Usual Activity) Category Driving Walking Talking with people present Working at home Reading, writing, thinking Sleeping Other Not relevant Listening to TV, radio, records Resting (awake) Not ascertained Total No. of Situations 47 16 42 12 80 155 13 179 92 35 22 693 Percentage of Total Situations 7 2 6 2 12 22 2 26 13 5 3 100 Other studies show that excessive noise reduces one's feeling of well-being, thereby causing anxiety. Noise on a regular, unrelenting basis can jeopardize physical and mental health.4 The effect of noise on the performance of tasks has been studied extensively in the laboratory and in actual work situations. These effects are often conceptualized in terms of• I. Arousal - Arousal by noise can result in either detrimental or beneficial effects on human performance, depending on the nature of the task and the person's state prior to exposure. For instance, noise might induce muscular tension that could interfere with needed delicate movements (i.e., typing). 2. Distraction - Distraction by noise can be considered as a lapse in attention or a diversion of attention from the task being performed It is usually due to the annoying characteristics of noise. 3. Specific Effects - Specific effects include auditory masking and muscular activation, such as startle responses to sonic booms 4Unitcd Sidles Environmental Protection Agency, kffects of Noise on People. EPA Document No NTID300 7 (Washington, DC US Environmental Protection Agency, July 27, 1973), p 78 4-4 ------- TABLE 3 NOISE LEVEL RANGES INTERFERING WITH COMMUNICATIONS Communication Method Face-to-Face Conventional Intercom Conventional telephone Loudspeaker Noise Level Ranges, dB(A) 50-70 Speakers may be separated by more than 3 feet Satisfactory to difficult Satisfactory to slightly difficult Any loud- speaker satisfactory 70-90 Some effort required for good communi- cation to be maintained over 1 to 3 feet Unsatisfactory Difficult unsatisfactory Good quality speaker needed for adequate intelligibility 90-110 Maximum satisfactory communication distance is 1 foot Impossible Press-to-talk and acoustic booth needed Must be inside helmet or ear protector 110-130 Very difficult to impossible Impossible Special tele- phone needed Inadequate >230 Impossible Impossible Impossible Inadequate ------- ANXIETY AND DISTRESS Physical and mental changes occur as a response to noise. Noise can trigger mechanisms that produce mental stress and stress-related physical changes, such as dilation and constric- tion of blood vessels, rise in blood pressure, changes in heart rhythm, dilation of the pupils of the eyes, and additional endocrine secretion into the blood stream. Even the sound of a heavy truck passing on the other side of the street can produce these changes. While most of these physical reactions are temporary, some of these effects may become chronic through prolonged exposure to noise. Although we may not be currently aware of such changes, such reactions occur daily as we encounter noise from traffic, machinery, household appli- ances, lawnmowers, and typewriters. Physical difficulties related to stress include heart disease and cardiovascular dysfunction, migraine headaches, gastrointestinal problems such as ulcers and indigestion, allergies, endo- crine problems, and metabolic changes. Since our bodies can interpret noise as stress, there is increasing evidence that noise is a contributing factor in the rate of occurrence of these stress-related diseases. Stress is also a factor m mental illness. While environmental noise alone probably does not produce mental illness, the continual bombardment by noise on an already depressed person may be harmful. Strong evidence to support this thesis is provided by a 1969 compara- tive research study of persons living adjacent to London's Heathrow Airport. Results re- vealed that persons living in this noisy environment had a significantly higher rate of ad- mission to mental hospitals than those living in a quieter environment. Environmental noise is a threat to our health and welfare. It must, therefore be abated and controlled 4-6 ------- 5. PRINCIPLES OF SOUND ------- SECTION 5 PRINCIPLES OF SOUND How is sound produced, what are its characteristics and how is it measured? The following discussion presents the principles of sound in answer to these questions. Sound is produced when a vibrating object (sound source) causes minute variations in atmospheric pressure by alternately compressing and decompressing air molecules to vibrate. These minute variations are called sound pressure. The vibrating air molecules adjacent to the sound source also push and pull against their neighboring air molecules, and they in turn against theirs, thus causing the sound to travel away from the source. This movement of sound is called a sound wave, because of the similarity to the wave motion produced by dropping a pebble in water. When a sound wave reaches the ear, it imparts its vibrating motion to the ear drum, which in turn sets several other ear mechanisms into motion before the sound is heard. Sound has three major components: amplitude, frequency, and duration. Amplitude refers to how loud or soft a sound is, its volume. The amplitude of a sound is determined by the distance that the sound source moves back or forth when vibrating. For example, the harder you hit the surface of a drum, the further that surface will move in and out; and the louder that the sound will be. Frequency is determined by the number of times the sound source vibrates backward and forward per second. This is commonly referred to as the number of cycles per second (cps), or the number of Hertz (Hz). A string that undergoes 256 complete oscillations in 1 second (middle C) produces a vibration of the same frequency in the surrounding air and in the eardrum of an observer in the sound field. This assumes that the source and the observer are at rest with respect to the medium, the usual assumption in room acoustics. Frequency is a physical phenomenon; it can be measured by instruments, and it is closely related to, but is not the same as pitch - a psychological phenomenon. Figure 1 shows the piano keyboard and the relative ranges in frequency of male and female voice types. The faster a source vibrates, the higher the frequency of the sound produced. The young, healthy human ear can detect frequencies from 20 to 20,000 Hz, which is often called the audible, or sonic, range. The terms ultrasonic and infrasonic refer to sound frequencies that are higher and lower, respectively, than the audible frequency range of 20 to 20,000 Hz. The vast majority of audible sounds are actually composed of many frequencies, just as a chord played on a piano is actually composed of several notes truck simultaneously. The third major component of sound is the duration, i.e., the time period during which the sound can be heard. Duration is related and dependent upon the length of time the source vibrates. 5-1 ------- 125 250 500 1000 Figure 1. Piano Keyboard Showing Human Voice Octave Ranges The relative amplitude (loudness) of sound, or sound pressure level is measured in decibels (dB), just as distance can be measured in miles (see Figure 2). Zero on the decibel DCC'CELS RE ?0|iN/m3 THRESHOLD OF f\\N 1JO— HYDRAULIC PRESS (3-) I SIREN AT IIOO'I JET PLANE 150') —130 AUTOMOBILE HORN 13') —1JD ROCK R ROLL BAND I CHAIN SAW 150') 110 I UNMUFFLEOSNOVvMOBILEISO'l DCBAIRLINEn Hi SIDE)—100 MOTOR CYClc (50) ._.o'0 ARH*CccEuVuf G DO! ^l" MUFFLED SNOWMOBILE isoi 10 — INSIDE CAR AT ISC MPHI VACUUM CLFANCH UO'I 70 — CONVERSATION I3JI DB—PRIVATE BUSINESS OFFICE SOFT WHISPER (5'l ) — STUDIO FOR SOUND PIC1URES THRESHOLD OF HEAR^G . I YOUTHS - 1000 -SOOO c,'s I ° Typical A weirhted raund levels mc3iuicd Kiih o uunH lael meter These valuos arc taken from ih» hl»ratu>c Sound Ic'.cl n-.2.'sjrup-nis 11 'e only r'rt ol the inlormaiion uuially i: »?rv 'o I'and'c TL ro ("Cl1*1 n^: .niul •''? o icn :uii|J iiinur'l by pnzl'^is ol the noiS25p:rlra Figure 2. Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels 5-2 ------- scale indicates the lowest sound the unimpaired human ear can detect. However, there is a difference between sound and distance measurements. The decibel scale of measurement is logarithmic, while the scale of miles is arithmetic. This means that decibels cannot be directly added or subtracted. For instance, if two trucks each drove 100 miles, the total number of miles driven by the two trucks combined is 200. But, if the sound level of each of these trucks is 85 dB alone, when they are driven side by side their combined sound level is 88 dB, not 170 dB (refer to Figure 3). Furthermore, since decibels are logarithmic, 10 decibels on the decibel scale are 10 times more intense than one decibel; 20 decibels are 100 times more intense (1 Ox 10); 30 decibels are 1,000 times more intense (1 Ox 1 Ox 10). \ \ \ I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DIFFERENCE IN dB BETWEEN TWO LEVELS BEING ADDED Two noises of approximately equal sound levels give a total leading 3dB higher than either noise measured alone for instance 85 dB + 85 dB = 88 dB Figure 3. This more complicated measurement scale is used for the following two reasons: 1. The range of sound pressures that can be detected by the human ear have a ratio of one million to one if measured on an arithmetic scale. By using a logarithmic scale this tremendous range is condensed into a scale that ranges from 0 dB to 120dB. 2. The human ear tends to react to sounds in a logarithmic manner. That is to say, the ear is capable of detecting a small increase in sound pressure when the original sound pressure is low. But when the original sound pressure is high, it takes a much larger increase in sound pressure before the ear can detect the change. For example, your ear can detect the difference in sound pressure level 5-3 ------- between one truck idling and two trucks idling side by side, but it cannot hear the difference in sound pressure level between 100 trucks idling side by side and 101 trucks idling side by side. Frequency analysis is a method of measuring sound that provides information regarding the sound's frequency composition. To represent properly the total noise of a noise source, it is usually desirable or necessary to break the total noise down into its various frequency components; that is, how much of the noise is low frequency, how much high frequency and how much is in the middle frequency range. This is essential for any comprehensive study of a noise problem for two reasons: 1. People react differently to low frequency and high frequency noise (for the same sound pressure level, high frequency noise is much more disturbing and is more capable of producing hearing loss than is the case for low frequency noise). 2 The engineering solutions to reduce or control noise are different for low fre- quency and high frequency noise (low frequency noise is more difficult to con- trol, in general). It is conventional practice in acoustics to determine the frequency distribution of a noise by passing that noise successively through several different filters that separate the noise into 8 or 9 octaves on a frequency scale. Just as with an octave on a piano keyboard, an octave in sound analysis represents the frequency interval between a given frequency (such as 250 Hz) and twice that frequency (500 Hz in this illustration). 125 250 Middle "C" 500 1000 Figure 4. Piano Keyboard Showing #3 Octave Range In conducting noise studies it is often necessary to determine the distribution of sound pressure with frequency because hearing loss, annoyance, speech interference, sound absorp- tion, etc., all vary with frequency. This can be done by measuring the sound pressure in frequency bands of various widths. Those most commonly used are the octave, half-octave, and third-octave bands. An octave band is a frequency interval in which the upper frequency is twice the lower frequency, such as 150 to 300 cycles per second or 1200 to 2400 cycles per second. Other methods of measurement which consider sound frequencies are the A-, B-, and C-weighted sound levels. Sound level meters are usually equipped with weighting circuits that tend to represent the frequency characteristics of the average human ear for various 5-4 ------- sound intensities. Hence, overall readings are sometimes taken with A-scale or B-scale or C-scale settings on the meter. The A-scale setting of a sound level meter filters out as much as 20 to 40 dB of the sound below 100 Hz, while the B-scale setting filters out as much as 5 to 20 dB of the sound below 100 Hz. The C-scale setting is reasonably flat with frequency, i.e. it retains essentially all the sound signal over the full overall frequency range. For several years the A-scale and B-scale readings were held in disfavor because they do not provide any knowledge of the frequency distribution of the noise, but there is a revival in the use of A-scale readings as a single-number indicator of the relative loudness of a sound as heard by the human ear. (The new Federal interstate motor earner regula- tions utilize the A-scale.) It is very important, when reading A-, B- or C-scale sound levels, to positively identify the scale setting used. The resulting values are called sound levels and arc frequently identified as dB(A), or dB(B) or dB(C) readings. Note that these readings do not represent true sound pressure levels because some of the actual signal has been removed by the weighting filters. Many sound measures take duration into account. These measures are commonly referred to as sound exposure measures. Sound levels that vary over a time period, such as those produced by highway traffic, can be measured by the equivalent steady A-weighted sound level, having the same energy content as the fluctuating sound level. This steady A-weighted sound level is called the Equivalent Sound Level (Leq). Sometimes the number of hours over which the equivalent sound level is calculated is put in parentheses after the symbol. For example, an equivalent sound level of 60 dB determined over an eight-hour period might be stated as: Leq(8) = 60 dB. This measure is based on the equal energy hypothesis that the degree of harm done to hearing is a function of the sound energy. The Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn) is another measure of sound exposure. It is equal to the Equivalent Sound Level calculated over a 24-hour period, with the exception that a 10 dB increment is added to the equivalent sound level occurring during the night-time hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. This night-time increment is added because sounds occurring during those hours may interfere with sleep. 5-5 ------- 6. MAJOR VEHICLE NOISE SOURCES AND NOISE CONTROL MEASURES ------- SECTION 6 MOTOR VEHICLE NOISE SOURCES The noise level an enforcement officer will measure for a given motor vehicle will not be just from the exhaust system or from the cooling fan, but rather will be the sum of the individual noises from several sources on the vehicle. In Figure 1 are shown the known sources of noise in a truck, however investigations have shown the major ones generally are: • Exhaust System • Engine Cooling Fan • Engine (Mechanical) • Engine Intake System • Tire/Roadway Interaction The first four souces listed are of particular importance for motor vehicles traveling at low speeds (less than 35 mph) or under stationary run-up conditions. At higher speeds (35 mph and above), tires become the predominant noise source. A brief discussion of the major noise sources, the noise reduction techniques, and the estimated costs are presented is the following subsections. EXHAUST SYSTEM Exhaust noise is created when engine exhaust gases cause oscillations within the exhaust pipe. These oscillations are radiated to the atmosphere at the tail pipe. The noise is a function of engine type, induction system, and other associated parameters. In addition to being radiated from the end of the tail pipe, exhaust noise is transmitted through the exhaust pipe and muffler walls. Noise is also produced by the application of engine brakes (on trucks so equipped), which assist the wheel brakes by producing a retarding force on the engine. Typical exhaust noise levels range from 77 to 85 dB(A) at 50 ft, independent of vehicle speed, and can be much higher in poorly maintained trucks. Although the exhaust system is a major noise source, significant noise level reductions can be achieved fairly easily. A good muffler is mandatory, and for maximum quieting a double-wall, or wrapped muffler, can be used to reduce radiation through the walls. Con- sideration can also be given to wrapping the tail and exhaust pipes with insulation. The system must be free from leaks and should be attached by isolation mounts to the truck frame. The location of the muffler in the overall system, the exhaust pipe length and diameter, and the tail pipe length and diameter should be considered, although these factors assume a gradually lessening importance as the noise reducing capability of the muffler increases. Muffler specifications and suggested exhaust system configurations are currently 6-1 ------- A. B. C. D. E. Major Noise Sources Engine (Mechanical) Engine Cooling Fan Engine Exhaust Air Intake System Tire/Roadway Interaction F. G. H. I. Other Sources Transmission Ancillary Equipment Aerodynamic Flow Brakes Figure 1. Truck Noise Sources offered by major muffler manufacturers for almost every engine, although no muffler exists that is the best for all types of engines. From motor vehicles equipped with the best available mufflers, exhaust noise alone typically ranges from 72.5 to 80.0 dB(A) at 50 ft. These mufflers provide attenuation of from 9.5 to 27.0 dB and are installed on some new trucks as standard equipment. A good quality muffler typically costs from $35 to$45; and, since the installation is simple, many trucking companies do it themselves. Installation costs for either single or dual systems are about $15. For maximum effect, it is necessary to replace existing flexible exhaust pipes with rigid pipe and slip joints at a cost of about$45 per side, including labor. ENGINE COOLING FAN Trucks generally use axial fans to draw air through a front-mounted radiator. The air cools water, which in turn cools the engine. Fan noise is the result of air flow irregularities and is partially governed by the proximity of shrouds, radiators, grills, and radiator shutters. The noise produced by the fan is related to fan tip speed. Most diesel engines on heavy trucks reach maximum rated horsepower at about 2100 rpm. At this speed, the fan can be a major contributor to the overall truck noise level. Typical heavy vehicle fans alone exhibit noise levels in the range of 78 to 83 dB(A) at 50 ft at rated engine speed. 6-2 ------- Since noise from a cooling fan increases with its rotational speed, it is possible to reduce the noise while maintaining the same air flow (to satisfy the same cooling requirement) by using a larger fan turning at a slower speed. In many cases this may require the installation of a larger radiator, which would result in an expensive modification to the front of the engine compartment. It is often possible to install a fan blade that produces less noise while at the same time providing adequate cooling. Most existing fans are stamped out of metal, with equal spacing between the blades, and they are driven at a predetermined fixed ratio of fan-to-engine speed by a belt-driven pulley. This type of fan was not originally designed to be quiet, nor is it particularly efficient in cooling. Trucks are designed to be able to cope with heat rejection at maximum engine power with little or no ram air. Since ram air increases with vehicle speed, fans become less impor- tant at higher vehicle speeds and could be slowed or stopped in many instances. The critical cooling requirement occurs when the vehicle is moving slowly in a low gear while the engine is developing full horsepower (e.g., when pulling a heavy load up a long grade). Trucks, unlike automobiles, usually do not have an overheating problem when the vehicle is stopped and the engine idles at low rpm. Given these characteristics, it is possible for a truck to have a fan that does not operate continuously. Fan noise can frequently be reduced by as much as 7 to 12 dB by replacing the standard fan with a more sophisticated one. Overall vehicle noise can be reduced by about 1 dB in some cases by incorporating a venturi-type shroud with a small tip clearance. Fans are now available that operate only when additional engine cooling is required and that idle when the cooling due to ram air flow is sufficient. A typical fan of this type has cither a thermostatically controlled mechanical clutch or a viscous fluid clutch. The viscous fluid clutch permits the fan to rotate at reduced speeds, and the thermostatically controlled mechanical clutch permits the fan to stop completely when it is not needed. Fans utilizing these clutches are from 3 to 10 dB quieter than conventional fans. The replacement of a standard stamped fan with a more sophisticated one will cost between S40 and $45, including installation. Incorporation of a venturi-type shroud will cost about$45, including installation. A viscous clutch costs about $240, including about$15 for the suggested fan blade. A thermostatically controlled, mechanical clutch, including the necessary fittings, costs from about $285 to$360. plus $40 to$50 for installation. ENGINE (MECHANICAL) Mechanical noise in internal combustion engines is caused by the combustion process, which produces the high gas pressures necessary to force the piston down the cylinder to turn the crankshaft. The rapid rise in cylinder pressure immediately following combustion creates mechanical vibrations in the engine structure that are transmitted through the cylinder walls, oil pan, rocker arm, and covers. Some of this vibration is subsequently radiated into the atmosphere as acoustic energy. 6-3 ------- Gasoline engines initiate combustion with a flame that spreads smoothly throughout the cylinder until the fuel-air mixture is burned. Diesel engines, however, rely on much higher compression ratios (about 17:1 rather than 9:1) to produce spontaneous combustion. This higher compression ratio causes a more rapid change in pressure in the cylinder, which in turn results in increased engine vibration and, thus, higher noise levels than those associ- ated with gasoline engines. As a result, the mechanical noise levels of diesel engines often are as much as 10 dB higher than those of gasoline engines. The engine mechanical noise contribution in typical diesel-powered trucks is on the order of 78 to 85 dB(A). Turbochargers are often used to increase the pressure of the intake air. This reduces the pressure fluctuations in the engine and, in turn, lowers the engine noise level. There are generally two kinds of retrofit method for reducing engine noise: 1. Modification of certain exterior surface covers. 2. Installation of acoustical absorption material and acoustical barriers in the engine enclosure. Engine noise reduction kits suitable for a limited number of engine models are available from a few major engine manufacturers. These kits consist of various acoustically treated panels and covers and provide a reduction of about 3 dB in engine mechanical noise (as opposed to total vehicle noise level). Noise reduction kits, in limited production at the time of this writing, cost between $50 and$ 100 for materials. However, these kits have not yet undergone complete dura- bility testing. AIR INDUCTION SYSTEM Induction system noise is created by the opening and closing of the intake valves; this action causes the volume of air in the system to pulsate. The associated noise levels depend upon the type of engine, the engine operating conditions, and whether the engine is turbo- charged or naturally aspirated. Typical intake noise levels vary from 70 to 80 dB(A). The state of intake noise reduction technology is similar to that of exhaust noise reduction. Major manufacturers are able to provide assistance in proper selection of air intake systems for all popular engine models. Retrofitting the intake systems of in-service trucks consists of replacing older air cleaners with modern quality, dry element air cleaners. Intake cleaners and silencers are manufactured largely by the major muffler manufac- turers and are readily available at costs ranging from $100 of$ 130. TIRES Heavy motor vehicle tires for highway use can be classified into two categories - rib tires and crossbar tires (also known as lug or cross-rib tires). Rib tires look like automobile tires, with the tread elements oriented circumferentially around the tire. This is the most common type of truck tire and can be used in all wheel positions. Rib tires are used almost exclusively on steering axles because of their superior lateral traction and uniform wear characteristics. Crossbar designs have the tread elements oriented transversely to the plane 6-4 ------- of the tire. Many trucking companies prefer to use crossbar tires on drive axles, since they provide up to 60 percent greater initial tread depth, and, thus, greater mileage before recap- ping. The noise-generating mechanisms of tire/roadway interaction are not completely understood. It is known that the entrapment and release of air from the tire tread cavities produces noise. Also, it appears that the vibration of the tire contributes to the total noise level. However, the effect on noise levels of the large lugs on crossbar tires and of the road surface are not well quantified. Basically, all the available noise information has been obtained experimentally, and tire manufacturers do not appear to be close to any major breakthrough that would result in quieter crossbar tire designs. Extensive measurements of the noise level produced by tires mounted on the drive axle of a truck-tractor have been conducted by the National Bureau of Standards and the Department of Transportation (see Figure 2). Typical values of the noise level measured at 50 ft are 68 and 73 dB(A) at 35 mph for new rib and crossbar tires, respectively, on a con- create roadway. At 55 mph, these levels typically increase to 75 and 83 dB(A). Test data also indicates that some retread tires, having a tread composed largely of pockets that are not vented either around the tire or to the side, produce excessive noise levels by allowing air to be trapped, compressed, and subsequently released as the pockets pass through the footprint area of the tire. In general, rib tires produce lower noise levels that either the crossbar (by approxi- mately 9 dB) or suction cup (pocket) retread (approximately 23 dB) tires. Tire wear also affects noise level, noise increases until a maximum level is reached when the tread is approximately half worn. Tests show increases of about 5 dB and 8 dB for rib and crossbar tires, respectively. Finally, tire loading can also influence tire noise level. Tests have shown increases of 2-4 dB in rib tire noise levels dB as a result of loading the test vehicle to its limit. Identical tests of crossbar and pocket retread tires showed increases of 7 to 9 db. Considerable high speed noise reduction can be obtained through the replacement of suction-cup (pocket) retread tires by crossbar tires at no increase in cost or with loss of performance. Additional noise reduction can be realized through proper tire inflation and vehicle loading and through a proper tire replacement schedule. Since crossbar tires begin to dominate overall vehicle noise levels at speeds in excess of about 45 mph, the high-speed standard of 86 dB(A) might suggest the elimination of virtually all crossbar tires. However, performance and safety requirements must be con- sidered. Therefore, a 4 dB margin has been added to the 86 dB(A) low-speed standard, resulting in a 90 dB(A) high-speed standard to account for tire noise. Experience indicates that it will be necessary to eliminate some crossbar tires on heavy trucks having a large number of axles. However, it should still be possible for these trucks to operate with cross- bar tires on the drive axles. For those trucks that must be changed from crossbar to rib tires in order to comply with the standards, a small cost penalty may result. Under a strategy of recapping each tire only once, the cost difference between crossbar and rib tires is approximately $0.23 per 6-5 ------- Speed, KM/Hr 60 70 80 90 100 100 Pocket Retread Cross-Bar Rib 30 40 50 Speed, mph Figure 2. Peak A-Weighted Sound Level, as Measured at 50 Feet, Versus Speed for a Loaded Single-Chassis Vehicle Running on a Concrete Surface. Various Types of New Tires are Represented on the Graph. These Were Mounted on the Drive Axle 6-6 ------- thousand miles. For a single-drive-axle truck, this represents a cost difference of less than$0.001 per mile. It appears that per-mile cost differentials between tires having different types of tread may depend on tire composition and terrain as well as on motor carrier recapping policies. A comprehensive study of cost differentials associated with the use of truck tires of different types is being conducted by EPA. SUMMARY There is a practical limit to noise level reductions that can be achieved on motor vehicles through retrofit actions. EPA studies indicate it is not cost-effective and often not feasible to quiet in-service motor vehicles below that noise level that characterized them when new. For instance, there are trucks in the existing fleet with certain diesel engines that are too noisy to be sold in jurisdictions that currently enforce an 86 dB(A) noise emission standard measured at 50 feet. Although these engines are being phased out of use in new trucks, they represent an obstacle to setting limits lower than 86 dB(A) for interstate motor carrier regulations, when best available technology and cost of compliance are taken into account. EPA believes a low speed noise level of 86 dB(A), a high speed noise level of 90 dB(A), and a stationary noise level of 88 dB(A) are all achieveable with available technology for almost all medium and heavy duty trucks in the existing fleet and buses, since both types of vehicles use the same engines and tires. Table 1 indicates that nearly all trucks currently exceeding 86 dB(A) require only the addition or replacement of a muffler to be in compliance. Manufacturers have testified publicly that adequate mufflers can be available in sufficient numbers of permit compliance of all motor vehicles needing mufflers within year of promulgation of the Interstate Motor Carrier Regulations. 6-7 ------- TABLE I APPROXIMATELY COSTS TO RETROFIT MOTOR VEHICLES TO VARIOUS NOISE LEVELS (ACCORDING TO SAE J336a) Noise Level Typical Estimated Cost dB(A) @ 50' Treatment Per Truck % Trucks Exceeding Specified Noise Level Requiring Component Change 90 Exhaust1 50-105 100% Total $50-$105 88 Exhaust1 50-105 Fan2 40-45 100% 5% Total $90-$150 Exhaust3 100 86 Fan4 85-90 Intake5 100-130 100% 10% 5% Total J280-$310 Exhaust6 100-200 84 Fan? 650-740 Intake5 100-130 Engine8 80-130 100% 50% 25% 25% Total$930-$! 200 1. Muffler and labor—single or dual system. 2. Replaced fan blade. 3. Mean cost for muffler and labor, plus additional cost for some trucks requiring replacement of flexible tubing, etc. 4. Replaced fan blade and added shroud in some cases. 5. Average cost of dry element air cleaner with built-in silencer. 6. Muffler and replacement of feasible pipes— single or dual system. 7. Viscous fan clutch and new fan blade in conjunction with shroud, Thermostatically controlled clutch. 8. Partial engine kit plus installation. 6-8 ------- 7. ENFORCEMENT ------- SECTION 7 ENFORCEMENT Section 18 of the Noise Control Act of 1972, requires the Secretary of Transportation, ;it'ter consultation with the EPA Administrator, to promulgate regulations to ensure compli- ance with applicable standards promulgated by EPA under section 18. "The Secretary of Transportation shall carry out such regulations through the use of his powers and duties of enforcement and inspection authorized by the Interstate Commerce Act and the Department of Transportation Act." The authorities just cited have been vested in the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS), which is part of the Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation. The basic power and duties referred to in section 17(b) of the Noise Control Act are derived from section 220 of the Interstate Commerce Act. Section 220 requires motor carriers to submit all properties including vehicles, documentation, and offices if necessary, for inspection or examination by designated agents of the Federal Highway Administration. Using this authority, BMCS safety investigators routinely conduct safety compliance checks of both drivers and equipment at various roadside locations, truck weigh stations, and ports of entry throughout the country. These inspections arc not limited to specific times of day, seasons of the year, or locations; such inspections arc usually conducted in close cooperation with state police and other interested state and local authorities. Enforcement of EPA's exterior noise standards will be effected as part of this existing safety inspection program. However, great emphasis will be placed on independent enforce- ment by state and local authorities in those jurisdictions having appropriate noise ordinances. TEST CONDITIONS The EPA standard specifies three different operating conditions that can be used to ascertain the level of noise meitted by a motor vehicle. Each test carries with it a maximum acceptable noise level as follows: 88 dBA - stationary run-up 86 dBA - low speed passby (speeds 35 mph or less) 90 dBA - high speed passby (speeds above 35 mph) In addition the standard calls for visual inspection of exhaust systems to look for noise producing defects or modifications and for visual inspection of tires for pocket (non-vented cavity) tread designs. The principal intent of these three different test conditions and visual inspections is to provide maximum enforcement flexibility. 7-1 ------- Although the test conditions and their respective maximum noise levels differ, they are designed to be equally stringent, and they exhibit high correlation among test results. TEST PROCEDURES A brief description of the test methodologies to be used for the EPA noise emission standard are presented below (for detailed descriptions sec DOT Proposed Compliance Pro- cedures A9CFR 325 appended hereto): 1. Stationary Run-up Test - The stationary noise test is the quickest way to determine the exterior noise level of a vehicle. It is expected that this test will be used ex- tensively in vehicle safety check lanes and vehicle weigh stations. The test is also useful to the licet owner who wants to spot check vehicle noise levels. The test involves locating the vehicle within an open site. The ground surface within the test site should be covered by concrete or other similar hard surfaces. The microphonc/observor is located 50 feet from the longitudinal centcrlmc of the vehicle, and, the vehicle engine is accelerated, at wide open throttle, to its maximum governed rpm. The maximum sound level is then measured with either a Type I or II meter, during this engine runup procedure Two or more tests of this type arc conducted until two readings are obtained within 2 dBA of each other These two sound levels are then arithmetically averaged to obtain the noise level for the test vehicle. The maximum allowable noise level permitted under these test conditions is 88 dBA. 2 Low Speed Passby Test - A typical low speed passby test will probably consist of location of the microphone of a Type I or II sound level meter (or other similar sound measuring system) at a distance of 50 feet from the ccnterlme of the test vehicle's path of travel, as shown in B-l. Sites for these enforcement measure- ments are generally picked to be soft sites, that is, sites having some kind of grass or similar short-cut vegetation ground cover between the roadway and loca- tion of the microphone. Measurements are made with the vehicle passing the site at any speed less than 35 mph under any condition of power and generally with- out the prior knowledge of the driver. Due care is taken to assure the absence of reflecting surfaces or other vehicles that might contribute extraneous noise to the overall noise reading. The maximum allowable sound level under these test conditions is 86 dBA. The posted speed limit at the test site for this testing condi- tion must be 35 mph or less. 3. l/igh Speed Passby Test - The high speed passby test procedure and instrumenta- tion setup are basically the same as those for the low speed passby test, with the exception that measurements arc taken at sites having a posted speed limit m excess of 35 mph. The maximum allowable measured sound level under these test conditions is 90 dBA. In the initial stages, BMCS will be conducting all or most of its noise inspections using the stationary test. It is anticipated that passby tests, without the knowledge of the driver, will be the principal method used by state and local enforcement agencies. The Federal Highway Administration may conduct high and low speed passby tests at a later date 7-2 ------- VIOLATIONS & PROSECUTION If a vehicle is found by BMCS investigators to be in violation, the driver will be given a written report of the inspection and will be instructed to submit this report to the motor carrier. The report form includes a place on which the motor carrier certifies the corrective action he has taken. He must return the report to the Federal Highway Administration within 15 days. State and local enforcement agencies are not obligated to follow this procedure and may issue formal citations requiring court appearance and fines. It is not expected or intended that every inspection revealing a noise level exceeding that permitted by the regulation will result in any kind of a prosecution or other enforce- ment action. However, in those instances in which a motor carrier continues to use a vehicle that exceeds the noise level, or in which he falsely certifies that corrective actions or repairs have been made to a vehicle, prosecution can result. The case would be developed against the motor carrier operating the vehicle or, in the case of leased vehicles, possibly against the owner of the vehicle if he were a deliberate party to the continuance of the violation. Penalties and fines will be both (1) state and local and/or (2) Federal. The penalties and fines levied as a result of state and local laws will vary from location to location. In the case of Federal prosecution, the individual is subject to a fine or as much as$25,000. SUMMARY The motor carrier safety staff of the Federal Highway Administration will be responsi- ble for determining compliance with provisions of the regulations under the Noise Control Act. Although this responsibility will not be a fulltime occupation for these safety investi- gators (a portion of their time must be spent in performing safety related activities), it will be significant when coupled with the enforcement of DOT's in-cab noise regulation. Further, as a part of the Noise Control Program, it is anticipated that many state and local jurisdictions will adopt the Federal Noise Control Regulations. It is planned that BMCS and EPA personnel will assist in the training and orientation of state and local people who will then make the required noise inspections and will administer the regulations under the laws of their respec- tive jurisdictions. In the final analysis, a well rounded and cooperative Federal, state and local program should result, which will control the level of noise emitted by motor earner transportation vehicles. 7-3 ------- FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1975 WASHINGTON, OjC. Volume 40 • Number 41 PART II DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS Proposed Compliance Procedure* ------- 8658 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration [49 CFR Part 325] (Docket No MC-62, Notice No 76-4] INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS Compliance with Standards The Director of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety is issuing this notice of proposed rule making for the purpose of inviting interested persons to comment on the text of proposed regulations estab- lishing methodologies for determining whether commercial motor vehicles con- form to the Interstate Motor Garner Noise Emission Standards of the Environ- mental Protection Agency. INTRODUCTION On October 21, 1974, the Acting Ad- ministrator of the Environmental Pro- tection Agency issued flnal regulations establishing standards for maximum ex- ternal noise emissions of motor vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating or a gross combination weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds that are operated by commercial motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce (39 PR 38208). Those regulations were Issued under the authority of section 18 of the Noise Con- trol Act of 1972 Section 18 of the Noise Control Act of 1972 also directs the Sec- retary of Transportation to promulgate regulations to ensure compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency's standards The Secretary is required to carry out the regulations through the use of his powers and duties of enforcement authorized by the Interstate Commerce Act and the Department of Transporta- tion Act. Those two statutes vest in the Department of Transportation the re- sponsibility for Issuing and enforcing the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. The objective of the regulations under consideration at this tune is to prescribe the manner in which commercial motor vehicles will be Inspected and examined. and their performance will be monitored and measured, to determine whether they conform to the EPA standards. Those standards become effective on October 15, 1975 and, as noted above, are applicable only to motor vehicles with a QVWR or a GCWR of more than 10,000 pounds, which are operated by Interstate motor carriers. The Department of Transporta- tion has no statutory authority to alter or amend the EPA noise emission stand- ards or to decline to issue procedures for their full enforcement. Therefore, the Director does not propose to reopen for consideration questions relating to the bases of the EPA noise emission stand- ards which were fully considered and acted upon by EPA during the rulemak- ing proceeding in which It promulgated the interstate Motor Carrier Noise Emis- sion Standards. Those questions Included. but were not limited to, (a) denning the "best available technology" consistent PROPOSED RULES with the motor carrier Industry's ability to comply with the standards; (b) cost of compliance: (c) Federal preemption of State and local noise laws and ordi- nances; (d) applicability of the stand- ards to various weight classes of vehicles; and (e) the appropriate definition of an Interstate motor carrier, to whose equip- ment the standards are applicable. In the present rulemaklng proceeding, the Director is concerned primarily with the following issues relating to the en- forcement regulations now under consid- eration: (1) adequacy of the proposed rules to ensure that the EPA standards are fully enforced; (2) flexibility of the enforcement procedures specified in the proposed rules to ensure that enforce- ment agencies can make use of a wide range of measurement sites; and (3) technical validity of the proposed rules, in that they maintain, but do not de- crease or increase, the stringency of the EPA standards. In developing the proposed enforce- ment regulations, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety has given extensive con- sideration to the experience gained by enforcement personnel of the States of New York and California, the city of Chicago, and the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, which now operate programs of noise emission regulation and enforce- ment, as well as the enforcement experi- ence of the Bureau's own personnel. Background studies of noise enforcement methodology prepared for those, and other, government agencies have been extensively consulted during the prepa- ration of this proposal. Among the stud- ies consulted were the following: Research on Highway Noise Measurement Sites, Ben H Sharp, Wyle Laboratories, El Segundo. CA, Prepared for California High- way Patrol under Contract No. C-219-71- 72. March 1972. Truck Noise—/, Peak A-Welghted Sound Levels Due to Truck Tves, National Bureau of Standards, prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation, Report No. OST-ONA- 71-9, Sept. 1970. Truck Noise—II, Interior and Exterior, A- Welghted Sound Levels of Typical Highway Trucks, W. H. Close and R. M. Clarke. IT 8. Department of Transportation Report No. OST/TST 72-2, July 1972. Field Measurement Procedures for Noise En- forcement. Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Cambridge, MA, submitted to the Corpora- tion Counsel, City of Chicago, Department of Environmental Control, July 1973. Background Document for Interstate Motor Carrier Noise Emission Regulations, US. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA- 650/9-74-017, October 1974. Secomemndations: Vehicle Noise Emission Regulations and Measurement Procedures, C W Dietrich, Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc , Cambridge, MA, Report No. 2782, sub- mitted to New Jersey Turnpike Authority, Jan. 1974. MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES The measurement procedures the Di- rector proposes to institute are basically identical to those now used by most agencies that currently enforce noise emission regulations. There are, however, some notable differences from those standard practices in this propose! Among them are the following - 1. Measurement tolerances. The rules of the State of Hawaii and the city of Chicago currently specify a tolerance level to take into account the inaccuracy of sound level measurement systems as currently manufactured. The Director •iocs not now Intend to specify such a tol- erance factor in the Bureau's enforce- ment regulations, even though the Bu- reau is aware of the fact that noise en- forcing agencies routinely add or sub- tract tolerances of l to 2 dB to or from the observed noise emission levels of mo- tor vehicles they monitor before consid- ering enforcement action. The Director believes that if a tolerance factor is ap- plied, It should be applied through the mechanism of administrative policy in- structions to enforcement personnel, rather than by a specified tolerance level written into the enforcement regulations. This is the case because the tolerance level that Is appropriate in one situation may be entirely inappropriate In others. Some of the variants are discussed below. In addition, the Director is cognizant of the fact that, under section 18(c) (1) of the Noise Control Act of 1972, State and local governments will have to utilize the procedures specified in the Federal regu- lations when they carry out their own motor carrier noise emission regulatory programs. Tolerances are considered necessary for a number of reasons, such as limita- ment instruments and atmospheric con- tions in the accuracy of sound measure- ditions. The specification to which sound level measurement systems are currently manufactured (American National Standard Specification for Sound Level Meters, ANSI Sl.4-1971. of the American National Standards Institute) specifies a tolerance band for meter response. In the case of Type 1 meters, this tolerance band Is ±1 dB(A) for A-welghting throughout the frequency range from 50 to 4,000 Hz. (At frequencies above or be- low this range, the tolerance exceeds ± 1 dB.) In thec ase of Type 2 meters, this tolerance band is ±2 dB for A-weight- Ing throughout the frequency range from 315 to 630 Hz and from 1,000 to 1,250 Hz. (Again, at frequencies above or below the specified range, the tolerance exceeds ± 2 dB.) What this means is that, In the case of a Type 2 meter, for example, an ob- served meter reading may deviate as much as 2 dB from the actual A-weighted sound level generated by the noise source, even though the meter conforms to the specifications of ANSI Sl.4-1971. It should be noted, however, that the devia- tions referred to in those specifications are measured at single, discrete frequen- cies. The overall frequency response tol- erance of Type 1 and Type 2 meters to broad band (multi-frequency) noise Is not specified In ANSI Sl.4-1971. Never- theless, the fact that ANSI Sl.4-1971 permits deviations from the true reading FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 41—FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1975 ------- PROPOSED RULES 8659 of the magnitude noted above Indicates that enforcement tolerances are In order. Weather conditions at and near a measurement site can have an effect on noise measurements at the site. The pre- cise magnitude of these effects Is not en- tirely known at present, but several pub- lished studies indicate that they exist.1 Because of the above-mentioned vari- ables and others, the Director has con- cluded that a tolerance factor to be sub- tracted from the observed meter reading would be warranted as a general operat- ing practice. At the same time, the Direc- tor also has concluded that no single tolerance factor can, or should, be speci- fied in the regulations This is the case tscause differences in the circumstances under which measurements are made will require application of different tol- erance factors. For example, the Bureau's enforcement staff will, In the initial phases of the Federal enforcement pro- gram, be using Type 2 sound level meters. They will be conducting measurements at a large number of sites under varying weather conditions. In these circum- stances, It is anticipated that a tolerance factor of 2 dB would be appropriate. On the other hand, a municipal government may be enforcing noise emission regula- tions using equipment meeting the ANSI requirements for Type 1 meters, and it may be using only a single site, with sound attenuation characteristic known to provide repeatable results, in relatively stable weather conditions. In this type of case, a smaller administrative tolerance, on the order of 1 dB, could possibly be justified. For the foregoing reasons, the Bureau does not propose to establish enforce- ment tolerance factors in the proposed rules. The Bureau will be available to work with States and other government agencies to establish reasonable adminis- trative tolerances for specific measure- ment conditions and locales. It is the opinion of the Bureau that motor carriers and manufacturers of motor vehicles. would be best advised to apply no toler- ance factor when testing the noise propa- gation characteristics of their equip- ment or products. 2. Open site requirements The open site characteristics proposed in the text of the rules set forth below differ some- what from those employed by some en- forcement agencies. Figure A, below, shows the open site currently utilized by the California Highway Patrol, the city of Chicago, and the New Jersey Turnpike Authority. 1 Ruteriiig, E O , The Application of Vehicle Noue Test Results in the Regulatory Process, In Proceedings- Conference on Motor Vehicle Noise, General Motors Corp. (1073); Hemdal, J. P., et al, A Study of the Repeatability at Motor Vehicle Noise Measurement Situ, En- vironmental Research Institute of Michigan, ERIMNo. 301300-1-F (1974). f \ / \ MICROPHONE TMGETFOMT MICROPHONE LOCATION CENTO OF MICROPHONE UNE FiguraA Figure B, below, shows the open site referred to in the Environmental Protec- tion Agency's Background Document for Interstate Motor Carrier Noise Emission Regulations MICROPHONE LOCATION Figure B The open site characteristics are spec- ified with the intention of eliminating or minimizing the effects of sound that is reflected from surfaces that would not be present in a hypothetical^ "perfect" measurement site. The contribution that this reflected sound can make to the ob- served sound level reading varies: it is a function of several variables, including the acoustical properties of the reflect- ing surface and the distance between the surface and both the vehicle and the microphone of the sound level measure- ment system. The Director is proposing to require measurements to be made at a site that has an open area around both the micro- phone and the vehicle for a distance equivalent to the distance between the microphone and the vehicle. This re- quirement is a compromise between the need for a test site that is, so far as practicable, free of reflecting surfaces— other than the ground—particularly in the critical area between the microphone and the vehicle—and the need to maxi- mize the number of sites available for enforcement of the standards. Because the open site distances are equal to the distance between the micro- phone and the vehicle, reflected sound waves will always have to travel a dis- tance to reach the microphone (and so be detected by the measurement system) that is significantly greater than the dis- tance the primary sound waves propa- gated by the vehicle must travel to reach the microphone. This will result In a sub- stantial attenuation of reflected sound waves, so that the maximum contribu- tion that reflected sound could make to an observed sound level reading would be negligible. 3. Distance correction factors. The dis- tance correction factors in § 325 73 of the proposed rules do not provide for making measurements at distances closer than 35 feet from the vehicle or farther than 83 feet from the vehicle. This is a de- parture from the practice followed by California authorities, who permit meas- urements to be made at distances up 10 118 feet It Is also a departure from the practice In several jurisdictions of allow- ing measurements to be made in the range from 25-35 feet. There is good reason for these "aria- tions. The theory of measuring sound emissions is based on the premise that sound levels drop 6 dB every tune the distance between the sound source and the receiver Is doubled. This premise as- sumes that there is a single-point source radiating sound into free space. In the real world, this is obviously not the case. Motor vehicles do not emit noise from a single point The fact that tires and numerous engine and other mech&mcal components emit noise makes for a com- plicated sound propagation source The environment into which this noise is emitted is obviously not free space; in- deed, in many cases, the environment is not even hemispherical free space be- cause of variations in terrain at or near the test site. Accordingly, erratic "near field" effects may be found at measure- ment distances closer than 35 feet, mak- ing repeatable measurements at those distances difficult. For this reason, the proposal would not permit measurements made at distances closer than 35 feet from the centerllne of the path of the vehicle to be used for enforcement pur- poses Measurements made at distances greater than 83 feet from the vehicle also pose open site and ambient sound level problems which make measure- ments at such distances impracticable as a general rule Therefore, the Director is proposing to restrict the range of measurement dis- tances to not less than 35 feet and not more than 83 feet from the center of the path of vehicle travel. These restrictions arc identical to those employed by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, and their presence does not appear to have hampered the Authority's enforcement program. 4. Ground surface correction factor.' The proposed rules take into account differences in the acoustical character- FEDEML REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 41—FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1975 ------- f fififl HOPOSED U)US IsUcs of different t>pes ol ground sur- faces that may be found between the tehkle and the microphone. The En- Mroruneutal Protection Agency. In Issu- ing the standards, dearly Intended that both high-speed and low-speed pass-by measurements would be made at typical roadside sites rather thin m a laboratory situation The sites that neie used to ac- cumulate the suney data typjcaLly had a short grass cover between the highway and the microphone location pD-nt These t>pes ol sites are considered acoustically 1 soft' sites When pass-by measurements are made at sites which hate asphalt. concrete, or other acoustically ' hard ' surface material between the sehicle and the microphone, readings substantially higher than tiMee observed at soft'sites are obtained. Accordingly, the Director proposes to require subtraction of a 2 cLB correction factor from a measurement of noise em- niissions during highway operations when the measurement is made at a hard ' sue. Subtraction of that figure w ill ensure that the' hard site measure- ment produces an observed reading sub- stantially equivalent to the reading that would hare been obtained if the meas- urement had been made at the "soft' site contemplated 1:1 the EPA standards Sjmlarly. the Em iroiimenta! Protec- tion Agencv In promulgating it* stand- ard for noise emissions under stat.onary test clearl* contemplated a measure- ment to be conducted at an acoustically 'hard' site If a measurement is made at a 'soft site it would fail to show ac- curately whether and the extent to whicn the vehicle either conforms to the standard or fails to conform to it unless a correction factor is added to the ob- served sound level generated by the motor vehicle under stationary test For this reason the Director proposes a 2 dB correction factor to be added to observed sound levels generated by motor vehicles under stauonary test at 'soft sites 5 Guard rails. The Director is propos- ing to consider a test site adequate for noise emission measurements e\en though there are metal guard rails with- in the. site The purpose ol this proposal Is to make available for measurement purposes a large number of sites near irAjar highways which contain no sub- sia^ual sound-rejecting surfaces other than guard rails Numerous potential sites are adjacent to four-lane divided highways, having conunuous metal guard rails separating opposing lanes of t.-a£3c The Bureau believes ihat the cor.- tnbuuoa. of sound waves reflected off guard raUs of that type to the overall observed sound level at a sue adjacent to such a highway would be negligee Ke\ ertheless the Director does not pro- pose to allow guard rails within the measdremerr. area, tee area between the \ eiLde and the murrophcne 6 \ifucl t:re inspection The EPA s-ar.dard on tires '40 CFR 202 23> makes :r.e use o' tires having A tread pattern co.-.sist:.::g mainly of cavities or pockets i • iolat!on if the tread of the tire when c-finally manufactured or newly re- manufactured »as composed pnmnuh . of cat ities or pockets It is. of coarse, difficult fbr an inspec- tor, looking at a motor vehicle during a roadside or terminal inspection, to de'ermine whether the tire tread thnt meets his eyes is IdenOcnl to. or dif- ferent from, the trend that the tire had when it was new To achieve the objec- tive of the standard, the Duector pro- poses to place on the motor carrier w hose \ehlcle is equipped nitli a tire haung n ' cm its" or • pocket" tread pattern the burden of establishing that the tread pattern was of a permissible variety nhen originally manufactured or newly remanufactured. Another feature of tne tire standaid that creates difficulties for enforcement agencies m the "savines" clause which absolves a mother earner of liabllitv for operating a motor vehicle on a tire hav- ing a prohibited trend pattern If the carrier ' demonstrates it to be In com- pliance VMth the noise emission standard specified for operations on highways with speed limits of more than 35 MPH u c . the high-speed pass-b> standard1. The st-anaiid is mute on the subject of where the demonstration will be con- ducted Tlv Bureau frequently conducts inspections of motor vehicles nt loca- tions where a high-speed pass-by test cannot be marie if g at carriers' termi- nals1 . a::d it does not appear practicable to m.ike sound levei measurements in conjunction with eveiy usual tire In- spectio:-. For these le.isons the Director proposes that the motor carnc will be given the opportunitv to de: ..nstrate tlie \ehicles conformity to the high- speed noise emission standard for high- way operations at a place and tune to be selected by the Burea1:. It may be that pass-by measurements are being made at the same time and place as visual tire Inspections. In which event the demonstration can be performed at that tune and place. But if the two en- forcement activities are not being con- ducted jointly the demonstration will have to be conducted at another tune fcnd place The Bureau has not found it neces- sary to make any provision In the pro- posed rules for measurement of noise emissions of motor vehicles operating at a speed of 65 miles per hour on highways hanng unlimited speed limits By vtrtue of the enactment and Implementation of section 2 of the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act, Pub L 9&-239 and 23 U S.C. 154 there is no highway without a posted speed limit in the United States and the highest posted speed limit U 55 miles per hoar 7 Vehicles equipped with fan clutches The proposed procedures would permit; a vehicle equipped with a fan clutch to undergo the test for compliance with the stariArd for operation under sta- tionary teat while the fan clatch is dis- engaged Experience with fan dutches Indicates that they produce salutory re- sults in the contest of truck noise abate- ment and that according!}, their ir.- staliatlon should be encouraged In the interest of carrying out the purpose of tbeNoice Control Acl M part ol One '-quiet truck program" sponsored by the Department of Traas- pertaU0n. International Harvester Com- pany, a truck manufacturer, equipped the radiator fan drives of 24 heavy duty trucks with either "on-off" or modulAt- ig-type fin clutches These devices »ere designed either to disengage the fan from. its pulley drive completely or to reduce the radiator fan's rotational speed below that of the engine during periods of re- duced engine cooling thermal load. It be- came apparent that installation of fan clutches produced a twofold benefit. First viith. the fan either totally stopped or operating at a reduced rpm rate. radiator fan noise Is significantly re- duced Reductions in fan-generated noise on the order of 20 dBiAJ are tipical nher. these t>pes of devices ore in- stalled • Second, the instillation of a fan dutch lesults m a reduction or elimina- tion of tile e:;gi:ie hoisepower thnt would otherwise be required to operate the rariiatci fan at times when Its engine- cooling capability Is not needed As a re- sult. the vehicle achieves n 5- to 10-per- cent saving in fuel consumption.' Field tests of the 24 vehicles-, involving more than 30 000 hours of vehicle opera- tion ar.d nenrlv 1 100000 vehicle miles, mdicr.ted that the average fan-on time for vehicles equipped with an on-ofT type of fan clutch is slightly under 3 percent Significant fan-on time * was less than I percent for vehicles equipped with this type of fan clutch Significant fan-on time for vehicles equipped with modu- lated far.-dnve clutch units was also less than 1 percent of total engine operating time, even during the warm summer months It Is apparent therefore, that Installa- tion of radjator fan-drive clutches re- sults in significant noise abatment bene- fits as weil as other benefits. The noise reduction associated with installation of fan clutches occurs between 97 and 99 percent of the time the vehicle ts operat- ing In light of these benefits, the Direc- tor has concluded that widespread in- stallation of fan clutches should be en- couiaged He proposes, therefore, to re- quire the stationary test of a vehicle equipped with a fan clutch to be per- formed with the. clutch disengaged. The Bureau at this time anticipates that it will conduct a program, of enforc- ing the noise emission standards through the same techniques that are used to en- : Dan^.e-.ala R J ev al. .Voue Control ffaidboo': 'or Di-:;el Pouertd Vehicles. U S D O T B«por'. No. DOT-TSC-QST-74-5 US74). : U SJD O T um U.5.E FA. Study o} Poten- tial far Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy 1m- praie^ieni, Truct and Bus Panel Report (19751 • S:g:ii5car; .'aji-on time ' was defined as -.-.e period of -.!:-_e during »hlch the fan operated &• a speed of 1,600 rpm or more This -pin :eiel was se'ected because at l 600 rp-n fa- nolfe wcjld be approximately 10 dB A i te.c" i's r.a^ltr.bm level HOHAl IKimi VOL 40, NO 41- r. FEUVAIY ja, ?»7i ------- PROPOSED RULES 8661 force the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations Inspection and surveillance of motor carriers will be carried out through terminal surveys and equipment inspection and driver-equipment com- pliance checks at roadside sites. Under the Noise Control Act, a violation of an EPA motor carrier noise emission stand- ard gives rise to the possibility of im- posing sanctions under section 11 of the Act. The sanctions include criminal pros- ecution of knowing or willful violators, in which the maximum sentence is a fine of $25,000 per day, imprisonment for 1 year, or both, in the case of first offend- ers, and a flne of$50,000 per day, im- prisonment for 2 years, or both. In the case of subsequent offenders. In addi- tion, section 11 authorises the United States to secure an Injunction against future violations in the appropriate United States District Court and per- mits the Administrator of the Environ- mental Protection Agency, after notice and the opportunity for hearing, to issue cease-and-deslst orders against violators. Section 18(b) of the Act authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to carry out the regulations for ensuring compliance with EPA noise emission standards "through the use of his powers and du- ties of enforcement and inspection au- thorized by the Interstate Commerce Act and the Department of Transportation Act" The basic "powers and duties" re- ferred to hi section 18(b) are derived from section 220 of the Interstate Com- merce Act, 49 U S.C. 320. Section 220 re- quires motor carriers to submit their properties and documents for Inspection and examination by designated special agents of the Department of Transpor- tation's Federal Highway Administra- tion. This is the statutory basis for sec- tion 325.13 of the proposed .rules. Section 220 also authorizes the Department of Transportation to require periodic and special reports from motor carriers sub- ject to the Department's jurisdiction. It Is on this basis that the Bureau now re- quires motor carriers whose equipment is found to be defective during a driver- equipment compliance check to make a report to the Bureau certifying that re- pairs have been made. See 49 CFR 396 5. The Bureau Is considering adopting a similar procedure in the case of motor vehicles which are found to be In viola- tion of the noise emission standards. The use by the Bureau of the enforce- ment techniques described above does not limit or restrict the enforcement tech- niques or sanctions that a State or politi- cal subdivision thereof may employ In carrying out its motor carrier noise emission regulatory program, even after the effective date of the EPA standards and the Department of Transportation's regulations for Implementing those standards. Section 18 (c) of the Noise Control Act provides that, after the Fed- eral regulations have become effective. a State or Its political subdivisions may not adopt or enforce noise emission standards applicable to motor carriers subject to the Federal standards unless (1) the State or local standard is iden- tical to the Federal standard; or (2) a special variance for a differing standard is granted by the Administrator of EPA after consultation with the Secretary of Transportation. It is the position of the Bureau that, while the "preemption" provisions of section 18(c) require States and ttwlr political subdivisions that have not secured a special variance to apply the identical criteria and measurement methodologies as are specified in Federal regulations to determine whether a motor vehicle is in conformity with noise emis • slon standards, once a violation is de- tected, the State or local government may proceed to Impose sanctions or take other corrective action in accordance with its own la1. Thus, for example, a State could, it it wishes, bring a civil penalty proceeding against a violator, notwith- standing the fact that, under Federal law, the violation Is a crime. Similarly, a State could, if its law permits, impound equipment found In violation of the noise emission standards, even though Federal law does not provide for impoundment as a sanction. The rules under consideration at this time do not explicitly refer to the matters discussed here under the heading of "En- forcement." This is the case because the resolution of issues relating to the im- position of sanctions after violations of the noise emission standards are detected Is a function of statutory construction rather than regulatory Issuance. The dis- cussion is included at this point in order to give interested persons insight Jnto the Bureau's current thinking on these important issues. In consideration of the foregoing, the Director of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety proposes to amend Subchapter A of Chapter m in title 49. OFR, by adding a new part 325, reading as set forth below. Interested persons are Invited to sub- mit written data, views, or arguments pertaining to the proposed amendment. All comments submitted should refer to the docket number and notice number that appear at the top of this document. Comments should foe submitted In tripli- cate to the Director, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, US. Department of Transportation, Washington, D C. 20590. All comments received before the close of business on May 1, 1975 will be con- sidered before further action Is taken on the proposal. All comments received will be available for examination in the pub- lic Docket Room of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Room 3401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington. D.C. both be- fore • and after the closing date for comments. This notice of proposed rule making Is Issued under the authority of section 18 of the Noise Control Act of 1972, 42 U.SC. 4917, the delegation of authority by the Secretary of Transportation at 49 CFR 1.48 (p), and the delegation of au- thority by the Federal Highway Admin- istrator at paragraph 7, Chapter 7, Part I of FHWA Order 1-1. Issued on February 20,1975 ROBERT A KAYE, Director, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety. PART 325—COMPLIANCE WITH INTER- STATE MOTOR CARRIER NOISE EMIS- SION STANDARDS Subpart A—GwMril Provision* Sec. 325 1 Scope of the rules In this Part. 326 8 Effective date. 328.5 Definitions Subpart B—Administrative Provision* 32611 Isuance, amendment, and revoca- tion of the rules In this Part. 325 13 Inspection and examination of motor vehicles Subpart C—Instrumentation 325.21 Scope of the rules In this subpart 325 23 Types of measurement systems which may be used. 325 25 Calibration of measurement systems. 326 27 Use of a windscreen. Subpart D—Measurement of Noise Emissions: Highway Operations 32531 Scope of the rules In this subpart. 32533 Site characteristics, highway opera- tions. * 32635 Ambient conditions; highway opera- tions. 325 37 Location and operation of sound level measurement systems; highway operations 325 39 Measurement procedures; highway operations. Subpart E—Measurement of Nohw Emissions; Stationary Test 325 51 Scope of the rules In thla aubport 325 53 Site characteristics, stationary test 32565 Ambient conditions; stationary test. 325 57 Location and operation of sound level measurement systems; sta- tionary test 326 SO Measurement procedure; stationary teat. Subpart F—Correction Factors 326 71 Scope of the rules In this subpart. 32573 Microphone distance correction fac- tors. 826 76 Ground surface correction factors S25.77 Computation of open site require- ments—nonstaadard site*. 32570 Application of correction factors. Subpart G—Exhaust Systems and Tires 325 91 Exhaust systems. 826 93 Tires. AUTHORITY: The provisions of this Part 825 Issued under sec. 18, 86 Stat. 1234. 1249- 1250. 42 TJ.SC. 4917. Subpart A—General Provisions § 325; 1 Scope of the rules in this Part. (a) The rules In this Part prescribe procedures for the inspection, surveil- lance, and measurement of motor vehi- cles and motor vehicle equipment oper- ated by motor carriers to determine whether those vehicles and that equip- ment conform to the Interstate Motor Carrier Noise Emission Standards of the Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR Part 202. (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the rules in this Part apply to each motor vehicle operated by an interstate motor carrier, regardless of whether the motor vehicle Is used in in- terstate or foreign commerce by the motor carrier. (c) The rules in this Part do not apply to— (.li A motor vehicle that has a Gross FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 41—FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1975 ------- 8662 PROPOSED RULES Vehicle Weight Rating of 10,000 pounds (4,536 kg.) or less; (2) A combination of motor vehicles that has a Gross Combination Weight Rating of 10,000 pounds (4.536 kg.) or less; (3) The sound generated by a warning device, such as a horn or siren, installed in a motor vehicle; (4) An emergency motor vehicle, such as a flre engine, an ambulance, a police van, or a rescue van, when it is respond- ing to an emergency call; (5) A snow plow in operation, or (6) The sound generated by auxiliary equipment which is normally operated only when the motor vehicle on which it Is installed is stopped or is operating at a speed of 5 miles per hour (8 kph) or less. Examples of that type of auxiliary equip- ment include, but are not limited to, cranes, asphalt spreaders, ditch diggers. liquid or slurry pumps, auxiliary air com- pressors, welders*and trash compactors § 325.3 Effective dale. The rules in this Part are effective on October 15. 1975. § 325.5 Definitions. (A) Statutory definitions. All terms de- fined in the Noise Control Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-574, 86 Slat. 1234) arc used as they are defined in that Act. (b) Definitions in standards. All terms defined in 9202.10 of the Interstate Motor Carrier Noise Emission Standards, 40 CFR 202.10, are used as they are de- fined in that section. Subpart B—Administrative Provisions § 325.11 Issuance, amendment, and rev- ocation of the rules in this Part. The procedures specified in Part 389 of this Chapter for the issuance, amend- ment, or revocation of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations apply to rule- making proceedings for the Issuance, amendment, or revocation of the rules in this Part. § 325.13 Inspection and examination of motor vehicles. (a) Any special agent of the Federal Highway Administration (designated In Appendix B to Subchapter B of this Chapter) is authorized to Inspect, ex- amine, and test a motor vehicle operated by a motor earner in accordance with the procedures specified in this Part for the purpose of ascertaining whether the motor vehicle and equipment installed on the motor vehicle conform to the Inter- state Motor Carrier Noise Emission Standards of the Environmental Protec- tion Agency, 40 CFR Part 202. (b) A motor carrier, its officers, driv- ers, agents, and employees must, at any time, submit a motor vehicle used in Its operations for Inspection, examination, and testing for the purpose of ascertain- ing whether the motor vehicle and equip- ment Installed on It conform to the In- terstate Motor Carrier Noise Emission standards of the Environmental Protec- tion Agency, 40 CFR Part 202. Subpart C—Instrumentation § 325.21 Scope of the rules in this sub- part. Ti.w rules in this subpart specify cri- teria for sound level measurement sys- tems which are used to make the sound level measurements specified In Subpart D and Subpart E of this Part. § 325.23 Types of measurement systems which may be used. The sound level measurement system must meet or exceed the requirements of American National Standard Speciftca- , tion for Sound Level Meters (ANSI 81.4- 1971), approved April 27, 1971, Issued by the American National Standards Insti- tute,1 throughout the frequency range of 50 to 10,000 Hz for either— (a) A Type 1 sound level meter; (b) A Type 2 sound level meter; o< (c) A Type S sound level meter which has— (1) A-weighting frequency response; (2) Fast dynamic characteristics of its Indicating instrument; and (3) Relative response level tolerances consistent with those of either* a Type 1 or Type 2 sound level meter, as specified In section 3 2 of ANSI Sl.4-1971. § 325.25 Calibration of measurement systcmo. (a) The sound level measurement sys- tem must be calibrated at one or more frequencies in the range from 250 to 1,000 Hz at the beginning and at the :nd of each series of measurements. Th. sound level measurement system must also be calibrated at one or more of those fre- quencies immedlat:.y after measurement of a violation of a Standard in 40 CFR 202 20 or 40 CFR 202.21. (b) The calibra,or used to calibrate the sound level measurement system in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section must produce a sound pressure level at the microphone that Is known to be accurate within a tolerance of ±1.0 dB of the sound pressure level of a pre- scribed source. The calibrator must have been checked within the preceding year by its manufacturer, a representative of Its manufacturer, or a person, of equiva- lent special competence to verify that its output meets the manufacturer's design criteria. § 325.27 Use of a windscreen. A windscreen shall be Installed on the microphone of the sound level measure- ment system. Installation of the wind- screen shall not cause a change in the sensitivity of the system of more than ±0.5 dB in the frequency range from 0 to 5 kHz or more than ±2.0 dB In the frequency range from 5 kHz to 8 kHz. Subpart D—Measurement of Noise Emissions; Highway Operations § 325.31 Scope of the rules in this sub- part- The rules In this subpart specify con- ditions and procedures for measurement of the sound level generated by a motor vehicle engaged In a highway operation for the purpose of ascertaining whether the motor vehicle conforms to the Standards for Highway Operations set forth In 40 CFR 202.20. § 325.33 Site characteristics; highway operations. (a) Measurements shall be made at a test site which Is adjacent to, and in- cludes a portion of. a travelled lane of a public highway. A microphone target point shall be established on the center- line of the travelled lane of the highway, and a microphone location point shall be established on the ground surface not less than 35 feet (10.7 m.) or more than 83 feet (25.3 m.) from the microphone target point and on a line that is per- pendicular to the center-line of the travelled lane of the highway and that passes through the microphone target point. In the case of a standard test site. the microphone location point is 50 feet (15.2 m.) from the microphone target point. Within the test site is a triangular measurement area. A plan view diagram of a standard test site, having an open site within a 50-foot (15.2 m.) radius of both the microphone target point and the microphone location point, is shown in Figure 1. Measurements may be made at a test site having smaller or greater dimensions in accordance with the rules In subpart F of this Part. MICROPHONE TARGET POINT CENTERLINEOF THE TRAVELLED LANE OF THE HIGHWAY 1 Copies of the specification may be secured from American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, New York 10018 MEASUREMENT AREA MICROPHONE LOCATION POINT figure 1 STANDARD TEST SITE; HIGHWAY OPERATIONS (b) The test site must be an open site, essentially free of large sound-reflecting objects. The following objects may be within the test site if they are outside of the triangular measurement area of the site: (1) Fire hydrants. (2) Telephone and other utility poles. (3) Rural mailboxes. FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 41—FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1975 ------- PKOfOSED RULES 8*363 (4) Guardrails of any type of con- struction except solid concrete barriers. (5) Any vertical surface (such as a billboard), regardless of size, having a lower edge more than 15 feet (4.6 m) higher than the surface of the traveled lane of the highway. (6) Any uniformly smooth sloping surface slanting away from the highway (such as a rise in grade alongside the highway) with a slope that is less than 45 degrees above the horizontal. (7) Any surface slanting away from the highway that is 45 degrees or more and not more than 90 degrees above the horizontal, if all points on the surface are more than 15 feet (4.6 m ) above the sui face of the traveled lane of the highway. (c) One or more curbs having a vertical height of 1 foot (3 m.) or less may be within the test site (including the triangular measurement area of the site) However, the test site must be free of any cu u with a vertical height ex- ceeding 1 foot (.3m). fd) The surface of the ground within the measurement area must be flat to within +2 feet (+.6 m.) and —6 feet (-18m) of a horizontal plane passing through the centerhne of the travelled lane of the highway Except for the high- way and its adjacent shoulder, the sur- face of the ground within the measure- ment area of a standard test site must be predominantly covered with grass or other ground cover. However, If the sur- face of the ground within the measure- ment area (exclusive of the highway and its adjacent shoulder) is predominantly covered with concrete, asphalt, packed dirt, gravel, snow, or similar reflective material, the correction factor specified in § 325.75 applies to the measurement. (e) The travelled lane of the highway within the test site must be dry, paved with relatively smooth concrete or as- phalt, and free of— (1) Holes or other defects which would cause a motor vehicle to emit Irregular tire noises or body.or chassis Impact noises; and (2) Loose material, such as gravel or sand. (f) The travelled lane of the highway on which the microphone target point Is situated must not pass through a tun- nel or underpass located within 100 feet (30 5 m.) of that point. § 325.35 Ambient conditions; highway operations. (a) Sound. The ambient A-welghted sound level at the microphone location point, measured with fast meter response using a sound level measurement system that conforms to the rules in { 325.23, must not exceed the level specified In Table 1 or Table 2 set forth below. TABLB 1 -Unmrtmaitt Mali at "OUT TW Site u If Uu distant* between the micropimM location point and Uiemlcio- phone target point Is— Th> minimum amMcnt •rand level for tests M highway: with a posted speed limit of 85 mph (58 3 kph) or less Is— The maximum ambient sound level lor test] at highways with* period spc-jd Hralt ol more than 85 mph (56 3 kph) is— 35 foci (10 7m) or more but less than 39 (eel (11 9 m) 39 feet (11 9m) or more but less than U feet (131 m) 43 fret (181m) or more but lesi than 48 feet (14 (1m) 48 feet (146m) or more hut less than 58 feet (171 m) 58 feel (17 1 m ) or more but loss thnn 70 feet (218m) 70 fret (21 3 in ) or more but less than 83 feet (2S3m) 79dB(A) 78 dn (A) 77dB(A) 78dB(A) 76 dB(A) 74 SB feet (17 1m.) or more but less than 70 foet tZlJim) 70 feel (21 3 m ) or more but less than 83 feet (253 m) The minimum ambient sound level for tests at highways with n posted speed limit of 85 mph (M 3 kph) or less k— 81 dB(A) 80 dB(A) 70 dD(A) 78dB(A) 77 dB(A) 70dB(A) The maximum ambient sound levrl for tcsls at highways with a posted speed limit of moiethanSi mph (M 3 kph)ls- 85dTI(A) 84dB(A) S3dB(A) 82dB(A) 81 dB(A) 80 dB(A) (b) Wind. The average continuous wind velocity and the goat wind velocity must not exceed 12 miles per hour (19.3 kph) at the microphone of the sound level measurement system. (c) Precipitation. Measurements must not be made while It Is raining or snowing at the test site. § 325.37 Location and operation oC sound level ateasurcment system; •Jghwar operations. (a) The microphone of a sound level measurement system that conforms to the rifle* in « 325.23 shall be located as foDowE: (1) If the microphone location point is at or below a horizontal plane that In- tersects the microphone target point, the microphone shall be positioned above the microphone location point so that it Is not less than 3& feet (1.1 m) and not more than 4'/2 feet (1 4 m.) above that horizontal plane. (2) If the microphone location point is above a horizontal plane that inter- sects the microphone target point, the microphone shall be positioned above the microphone location point so that it is at least 3'/2 feet (11 m.) above that point, not more than 4'/2 feet (1.4 m) above that point, and not more than 6 feet (18m) above that horizontal plane. (b) When the sound level measure- ment system is hand held or is other- wise monitored by a person located near its microphone, the holder or monitor must orient himself so that his torso— (1) Is at least 2 feet (6m) from the system's microphone; (2) Is facing in a direction parallel to the centerline of the travelled lane of the highway; and (3) Is not located between the micro- phone location point and the microphone target point. (c) The microphone of the sound level measurement system shall be oriented to- ward the traveled lane of the highway at the microphone target point at an angle that is consistent with the recom- mendation of the system's manufac- turer. If the manufacturer of the system does not recommend an angle of orien- tation for its microphone, the micro- phone shall be oriented toward the high- way at an angle of not less than 70 de- grees and not more than perpendicular to the horizontal plane of the traveled lane of the highway at the microphone target point. (d) The sound level measurement sys- tem shall be set to the A-weighting net- work and "fast" meter response mode. § 325.39 Measurement fvoredare; high- way operations. (a) In accordance with the rules in this subpart, a measurement shall be made of the sound level generated by a motor vehicle operating through the measurement area on the traveled lane of the highway within the test site, re- girdless of the highway grade, load, ac- celeration or deceleration. (b) The sound level generated by the motor vehicle is the highest reading ob- served on the sound level measurement system as the vehicle passes through the measurement area, corrected, when ap- propriate, in accordance with the rules in subpart F of this Part. However, the sound level reading is valid only if the observed sound level of the vehicle be- ing measured, before application of any correction factor, is observed to rise at FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 41—TODAY, FEBRUARY 28. 1975 ------- 8664 least 6 dB(A) before the maximum sound level occurs and to fall at least 6 dB(A) after the maximum sound level occurs. NOTE—The Standards for Highway Op- erations specify a maximum permissible cor- rected sound level reading of 86 db(A) on highways with speed limits of 35 MPH or less and DO dB(A) on highways with speed limits of more than 35 MPH when measured at a standard test site at a distance of BO feet See 40 CFB 202 20 Subpart E—Measurement of Noise Emissions; Stationary Test § 325.51 Scope of llir rule* in lliis suh- PROPOSED RULES MICROPHONE TARGET POINT (a) The rules in this subpart specify conditions and procedures for measuring the sound level generated by a motor ve- hicle when the vehicle's engine is acceler- ated from idle with wide open throttle to governed speed with the vehicle sta- tionary, its transmission in neutral, and its clutch engaged, for the purpose 01 as- certaining whether the motor vehicle conforms to the Standard for Operation Under Stationary Test. 40 CFR 202 21. (b) The rules in this subpart apply only to a motor vehicle that is equipped with an engine speed governor. § 325.53 Site cliuruclcristics; stationary tost. (a) The motor vehicle to be tested shall be parked on the test site. A micro- phone target point shall be established on the ground surface of the site on the centerline of the lane in which the motor vehicle is parked at the point on that centerline which Is Intersected by a transverse plane passing through the front face of the vehicle's front bumper. A microphone location point shall be established on the ground surface not less than 35 feet (10 7 m.) and not more than 83 feet (25 3 m.) from the micro- phone target point on the ground sur- face not less than 35 feet (10.7 m.) centerline of the lane in which the ve- hicle is parked and that passes through the microphone target point. In the case of a standard test site, the microphone location point Is 50 feet (15.2 m) from the microphone target point. Within the test site is a triangular measurement area. A plan view diagram of a standard test site, having an open site within a 50-foot (15.2 m.) radius of both the microphone target point and the micro- phone location point. Is shown In Fig- ure 2. Measurements may be made at a test site having smaller or greater di- mensions in accordance with the rules In subpart F of this Part. must not exceed the level specified ii Table 3 set forth below. MICROPHONE IOCATIDN POINT Figult 2 STANDARD TEST SITE STATIONARY TEST (b) The test site must be an open site. essentially free of large sound-reflecting objecU The following objects may be within the test site if they are outside the triangular measurement area of the site- (1) Fire hydrants. (2) Telephone and other utility poles. (3) Rural mailboxes. (4) Guard rails of any type of con- struction except solid- concrete barriers. (5) Any vertical surface, regardless of size (such as a billboard), having a lower edge more than 15 feet (4.6 m.) above the ground. (6) Any uniformly smooth surface slanting away from the vehicle with a slope that is less than 45 degrees above the horizontal (7) Any surface slanting away from the vehicle that is 45 degrees or more and not more than 90 degrees above the horizontal, if all points on the surface are more than 15 feet (4.6 m.) ut-ove the surface of the ground in the test site. (c) One or more curbs having a height of 1 foot (3m) or less may be within the test site (including the triangular measurement area of the site). How- ever, the test site must be free of any curb with a vertical height exceeding 1 foot (3m). (d)(l) Except as provided in para- graph (d) (2) of this section, the surface of the ground within the measurement area must be— (1) Flat and level to within +2 feet (+6 m.) and —6 feet (—1.8 m.) of the ground surface at the microphone target point; (ii) Predominantly paved with rela- tively smooth concrete or asphalt or pre- dominantly covered with packed dirt or gravel; and (iii) Free of snow. (2) If the surface of the ground within the measurement area is predominantly covered with grass or other vegetation, the correction factor specified in § 325 75 applies to the measurement. § 325.55 Ambient conditions; stationary test. (a) Sound. The ambient A-welghted sound level at the microphone location point, measured with fast meter response using a sound level measurement system that conforms to the rules in § 325.23 TADLE 3 —Ambient Sound iMtli, Maturcmiiilt I 'udrt Stationary Tat II the dislanca he- The maximum Thmnniiinuni twecn the micro- ambient sound ambient sound phone location level Tor testa level for tosls point anil the at a "hard" at a "soft" site microphone tor- slleassprcl- assprcilu-ilin goliiatnlis— ncdln§3J5- 5 3JS 75(1)) Is— 83(d) Is- 35 feel (10 7 m ) or mure hut Irss than 3'i for UM 9 m) .. 81 dD(A) 3'Jfi'ct (11 dm )or mom 1ml loss tli.m 43 fret (13 1 m) SOdH(A) 43(n(U6m )or mnrf hut loss limn M foct (17 1 in) 7BdFi(A) S8feut(17 :m)nr more hut Joy. lhnn7Cfoct(Jl 3 m) 77<1B(A) 70[<-i>tll!l 3 m) or more but Irss limn S3 Icct (2fi 3 m) 70dB(A) TM.IIliA) 78dH(A) 77dl»(A) 7GdB(A) 7Sdli(A) 74dn(A) (b) Wind. The average continuous wind velocity and the gust wind velocity must not exceed 12 miles per hour (193 kph) at the microphone of the sound level measurement system. (c) Precipitation. Measurements must not be made while it is raining or snow- ing at the test site. § 325.57 Ixicntion and operation of sound lc\cl measurement ^slnn; sUilitmary lest. (a) The microphone of a sound level measurement system that conforms to the rules in § 325 23 shall be positioned not less than 3'/2 feet (1.1 m) and not more than 4'/2 feet (1.4 m.) above the microphone location point. (b) When the sound level measure- ment system is hand held or is monitored by a pet son located near its microphone, the holder or monitor must orient him- self n-o that his torso— (1) is at least 2 feet (6m.) from the system's microphone; (2) Is facing in a direction parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the mo- tor vehicle; and (3) Is not located between the micro- phone location point and the microphone target point (c) The microphone of the sound level measurement system shall be oriented to- ward the vehicle at an angle that is con- sistent with the recommendation of the system's manufacturer. If the manufac- turer of the system does not recommend an. angle or orientation for Its micro- phone, the microphone shall be oriented at an angle of not less than 70 degrees and not more than perpendicular to the horizontal plan of the test site at the microphone target point. FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 41—FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1975 ------- PROPOSED RULES 866T> Repeat the procedures specified In paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section until two maximum sound level read- ings within 2 dB(A) of each other are recorded. Numerically average those two maximum sound level readings. When appropriate, correct the average figure in accordance with the rules in subpart F of this Part. (g> The average figure, corrected as appropriate, obtained In accordance with paragraph (f) of this section, is the sound level generated by the motor vehi- cle for the purpose of determining whether it conforms to the Standard for Operation Under Stationary Test, 40 CFR20221. Nor* —The Standard for Operation Under Stationary Teat specifies a maximum cor- rected sound level reading of 88 dB(A) when measured at a standard test Bite at a dla- t»no»of60feet See40CFH20211. Subpart F—Correction Factors § 325.71 Scope of the rules in this sub- part. (a) The rules In this subpart specify correction factors which are added to, or subtracted from, the reading of the sound level generated by a motor vehi- cle, as displayed on a sound level meas- urement system, during measurement of the motor vehicle's sound level emissions at a test site which Is not a standard site. (b) The purpose of adding or sub- tracting a correction factor Is to equate the sound level reading actually gen- erated by the motor vehicle to the sound level reading it would have generated if the measurement had been made at a standard test site. § 325.73 Microphone diMuncc correction factors. If the distance between the micro- phone location point and the microphone target point is other than 50 feet (15.2 m), the maximum observed sound level reading generated by the motor vehicle in accordance with B 325.39 of this Part or the numerical average of the recorded maximum observed sound level readings generated by the motor vehicle in ac- cordance with 6 325 59 shall be corrected as specified in the following table: TABLE 4—DISTANCE CORRECTION FACTORS If the distance between the microphone lo- The value (dB(A)) cation point and to be applied to the microphone the observed sound target point Is: level reading is— 35 feet ^101 m) or more but less than 39 feet (11.9 m) -3 39 feet (119 in) or more but less than 43 feet (13 1 m) -a 43 feet (13 1 m) or more but less than 48 feet (14 6 m) — i 48 feet (140 HI) or more but less than 58 feet (171 m) 0 5B feet (IT 1 m) or more but less than 70 feet (21 3 m) -f-1 70 feet (213 m) or more but leas than 83 feet (25 3 m) +3 § 325.75 Ground surface correction fac- tors. (a) Highway operations. When meas- urements are made in accordance with the rules in subpart D of this Part upon a test site at which the measurement area (exclusive of the travelled lane of the highway and the shoulder of that lane) is predominantly covered with concrete, asphalt, packed dirt, gravel, or similar reflective material, a correction factor of 2 dB(A) shall be subtracted from the maximum observed sound level reading generated by the motor vehicle to determine whether the motor vehicle conforms to the Standards for Highway Operations, 40 CPR 202.20. (b) Stationary test. When measure- ments are made in accordance with the rules in subpart E of this Part upon a test site at which the measurement area is predominantly covered with grass or other ground cover, a correction factor of 2 dB(A) shall be added to the numeri- cal average of the recorded maximum ob- served sound level readings generated by the motor vehicle to determine whether the motor vehicle conforms to the Stand- ard for Operation Under Stationary Test, 40 CFR 202.21 § 325.77 Computation of open ailr re- quirements—nonstanrfard sites. (a) If the distance between the micro- phone location point and the micro- phone target point is other than 50 feet (152 m.), the test site must be an open site within a radius from both points which is equal to the distance between Che microphone location point and the microphone target point. (b) Plan view diagrams of nonstand- ard test sites are shown in Figures 3 and 4 Figure 3 illustrates a test site which is smaller than a standard test site and is based upon a 35-foot (10.7-m.) distance between the microphone location point and the microphone target point. (See § 325 79(b) (1) for an example of the ap- plication of the correction factor to a sound level reading obtained at such a site) Figure 4 Illustrates a test site which is larger than a standard test site and is based upon a 60-foot (183-m.) distance between the microphone location point and the microphone target point. (See § 325 79(b> (2) for an example of the correction factor to a sound level reading obtained at such a site.) MICROPHONE TARGET POINT CENTERUNE OF THETRAVELLED LANE OF THEHIGWAY MEASUREMENT AREA MICROPHONE. LOCATION POINT (35 FT (107M| DISTANCE BETWEEN MICROPHONE LOCATION AND TARGET POINTS) COMBINATION VEHICLE MEASUREMENT. AREA MICROPHONE LOCATION POINT MICROPHONE TARGET POINT NON-STANDARD TEST SITE. (60 FT |183M| DISTANCE BETWEEN MICROPHONE LOCATION AND TARGET POINTS] FEDERAL REGISTEf, VOl. 40, NO. 41—FRIDAY. FEBRUARY IB. 1975 ------- § 325.79 Application ef correction fn.. tors. (a) If two correction factors apply to a measurement, both are applied cumula- tively. (b) The following examples Illustrate the application of correction factors to sound level measurement readings- (1) Example 1—Highway operations Assume that a motor vehicle generates a maximum observed sound level reading of 93 dB(A) during a measurement in accordance with the rules in subpart D of this Part. Assume also that the dis- tance between the microphone location point and the microphone target point was 35 feet (10.7 m.) and that the measurement area of the test site was acoustically "hard." eg., paved with asphalt. The corrected sound level gen- erated by the motor vehicle would be 88 dB(A). calculated as follows: 93 dB(A) Uncorrected reading —3 dB(A) Distance correction factor —2 dB(A) Ground surface correction factor 88 dB(A) Corrected reading (2) Example 2—Stationary test. As- sume that a motor vehicle generates maximum sound level readings which average 86 dB(A) during a measurement In accordance with the rules in subpart E of this Part Assume also that the dis- tance between the microphone location point and the microphone target point was 60 feet (18.3 m.). and that the meas- urement area of the test site was covered with grass. The corrected sound level generated by the motor vehicle would be 89 dB(A), calculated as follows: 86 dB(A) Uncorrected average of readings + 1 dB(A) Distance correction factor +2 dB(A) Ground surface correction factor 80 dB(A) Corrected reading Subpart G—Exhaust Systems and Tires § 325.91 Exliaust systems. A motor vehicle does not conform to the exhaust system requirements of the Interstate Motor Garner Noise Emission Standards. 40 CPR 202 22. If Inspection of the exhaust system of the motor vehi- cle discloses that the system— (a) Has a defect which adversely af- fects sound reduction, such as exhaust gas leaks or alteration or deterioration of muffler elements; (b) Is not equipped with either a muffler or other noise dissipatlve device, such as a turbocharger (supercharger driven by exhaust gases); or (c) Is equipped with a cut-out, by- pass, or similar device. § 325.93 Tires. (a) Except as provided In paragraph (b) of this section, a motor vehicle does not conform to the tire requirements of the Interstate Motor Carrier Noise Emis- sion Standards, 40 CFR 202.23, If Inspec- tion of any tire on which the vehicle is operating discloses that the tire has a tread pattern composed primarily of cavities In the tread (excluding slpes and local Chunking) which are not vented by grooves to the tire shoulder or circum- ferentlally to each other around the tire. (b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to a motor vehicle operated on a tire having a tread pattern of the type specified In that paragraph, if the motor carrier who operates the motor vehicle demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety or his deslgnee that either— (1) The tire did not have that type of tread pattern when It was originally manufactured or newly remanufactured; or (2) The motor vehicle generates a maximum sound level reading of 90 dB (A) or less when measured at a stand- ard test site for highway operations at a distance of 50 feet and under the fol- lowing conditions: (1) The measurement must be made at a time and place and under conditions specified by the Director or his deslgnee. (11) The motor vehicle must be op- erated on the same tires that were In- stalled on it when the Inspection specified in paragraph (a) of this section oc- curred. (ill) The motor vehicle must be op-' erated on a highway having a posted speed limit of more than 35 miles per hour (56.3 kph). (iv) The sound level measurement must be made while the motor vehicle is operating at the posted speed limit [FR Doc. 76-6088 Filed 3-37-76:8.46 am] FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40. NO. 41—TODAY. FEBRUARY 28. 197S ------- 8. STATE AND LOCAL ROLES ------- SECTION 8 ROLE OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS The interstate motor carrier regulation represents the Federal Government's first major step to control noise from motor vehicles. Enforcement of the regulation is the responsibility of the Department of Transportation's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS). There are approximately 1,000,000 interstate motor carrier vehicles covered by the regulation; however, the BMCS has only 123 inspectors throughout the U.S. who are currently inspecting 20 - 25,000 vehicles per year for various types of violations. Even if they are able to cover the same number of vehicles once noise control is added to their duties, they will be inspecting less than 3 percent of those to be covered by the regulation. Since the number of inspectors will not be increased for at least another ye^ar, state and local cooperation is essential to the success of the enforce- ment effort. Any state or locality may enforce the interstate truck regulation once it has been enacted into law by the jurisdiction. Many communities already have laws regulating noise from motor vehicles; and, these need only modify that portion of their ordinances affecting interstate motor carriers (trucks and buses) over 10,000 pounds to make it conform to the Federal regulation. (The state or local regulation can also apply to intrastate vehicles, and the same enforcement procedure may be utilized to control noise from these sources.) The Environmental Protection Agency has noise representatives in 10 regions through- out the country who can provide assistance to those states and communities desiring it. This assistance is available both for modifying existing ordinances and for drafting new noise con- trol laws. The regional offices can also provide information on the measurement procedure to be used in determining vehicle compliance with the regulation. Since vehicle noise, particularly that from heavy interstate trucks and buses, is a prob- lem in many areas and, since state and local cooperation is required for the Federal efforts to be successful, states and communities are urged to enact and enforce the interstate vehicle provisions. The motor carrier regulation provides the mechanism to reduce the noise impact on areas adversely affected by interstate vehicles. It should be emphasized that, after the effective date of the standards (October 15, 1975), state and local regulations affecting interstate trucks and buses must be identical, both as to noise levels specified and measurements procedures, or they will be preempted. The purpose of this is to have a single set of standards truckers must meet throughout the country. The EPA regional offices may be contacted for further information on preemption if a community is uncertain whether its law is in conformity with the Federal regulation. 8-1 ------- 9. VEHICLE NOISE TEST CENTERS ------- The following noise control centers in the United States and Canada are equipped to measure truck noise and to provide corrective measures if needed. Donaldson Co., Inc., International Harvester Co., Mack Trucks Inc., Stemco Manufacturing Co. and the White Motor Corpo- ration are the firms operating the centers. ------- DONALDSON CO., INC. Delaney and Ahlf 3901 Mercury St. Bakersfield, Calif. 93308 805/322-5064 Watkins & Meehan 1960 Folsom St. San Francisco, Calif 94103 415/621-8930 Everroad Supply Co. 5400 E. 56th Ave. Commerce City, Colorado 80022 303/287-0141 Doering Truck Parts 212 E. State St. Peoria, 111. 61602 309/654-1621 Service Engineering Co. 5825 W. Ogden Ave. Cicero, 111. 60650 312/242-3770 AGA Corporation 3758 W. Morris St. Indianapolis, Ind. 46241 317/248-0327 Indiana Central Engine Co. 7330 W. Chicago Ave. Gary, Ind. 46406 219/949-9535 M. M. Supply Co. 206 12th St. Des Moines, Iowa 50309 515/288-0192 Northwest Filter Supply 8890 Wentworth Ave. South Bloomington, 111. 55420 612/881-5040 ------- Cummins Missouri Diesel 7210 Hall St. St. Louis, Missouri 63147 314/389-5400 Sleep Mate Products 4319 Northwest Highway-A Riverside, Missouri 64150 816/741-5875 Everroad Supply Co. 5513 Center St. Omaha, Neb. 68106 402/556-8921 Ely Motor Supply 201 Ogden Ave. Ely, Nev. 89301 702/289-4461 Diesel Equipment Company Box 36 Lafayette Road Hampton Falls, N.H. 03844 603/926-5859 Laban Equipment Corp. 627 W. Merrick Road Valley Stream, L.I., New York 11580 516/561-2203 King-Mclver Sales, Inc. Box 20088 Greensboro, N.C. 27420 919/294-4600 Cummins Diesel Sales 4100 W. Main Fargo, N.D. 58102 701/282-2466 Clarke G. M. Diesel 11536 Gondola St. Cincinnati, Ohio 45241 513/771-2200 ------- Big 4 Service & Supply 4314 So. 76th East Ave. Tulsa, Okla. 74145 918/663-3143 Safety Service Company 15 Fairfield Ave. Nashville, Tenn. 37210 615/244-2853 Stewart & Stevenson 4516 Harrisburg Blvd. Houston, Texas 77001 713/923-2161 Fuel Systems 12730 Robbins La. Brookfield, Wise. 53005 414/781-4353 CANADA Downey Supplies Ltd. 102 61st Ave., S.W. Calgary, Alberta 403/255-6033 Mil liam Fleet Ltd. Main Office 132 W. 2nd Ave. Vancouver 10, British Columbia William Fleet Ltd. Branch Office 1321 Blundell Road Mississauga, Ontario 416/279-5673 Ideal Filter Supply 584 Roseberry St. Winnipeg, Manitoba 204/786-6946 Mecho Supply Ltd. 1350 Scarth St. Regina, Saskatchewan 306/525-8195 ------- INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. Atlanta Region International Harvester Company International Harvester Company 1700 Cherry Street Knoxville, TN 37917 International Harvester Company 6020 Adamo Drive Tampa, FL 36601 International Harvester Company 1315 North Graham Street Charlotte, NC 28206 Bal timore Region International Harvester Company 3064 North Boulevard Street Richmond, VA 23230 International Harvester Company (Baltimore West) 1800 Sulphur Spring Road Baltimore, MD 21227 International Harvester Company 712 South Cameron Street Harrisburg, PA 17105 Boston Region International Harvester Company Syracuse, New York Branch 105 7th N. & Terminal Road Liverpool, NY 13210 International Harvester Company Albany, New York Branch 980 Broadway Albany, NY 12204 International Harvester Company North Boston Branch 340 Mystic Avenue Medford, MA 02155 ------- International Harvester Company Hartford, CT Branch 130 Brainard Road Hartford, CT 06114 Chicago Region International Harvester Company 3333 South Archer Avenue Chicago, IL 60608 International Harvester Company 420 South First Street Milwaukee, WI 53204 International Harvester Company 611 Hansen Road Green Bay, HI 54304 International Harvester Company South Bend Indiana Branch 4849 West Western Avenue South Bend, IN 46619 Cincinnati Region International Harvester Company Cincinnati Gest Street Branch 1200 Gest Street Cincinnati, OH 45203 International Harvester Company Springfield, Ohio Branch 705 W. Leffel Lane Springfield, OH 45506 International Harvester Company Indianapolia West Branch P.O. Box 41303 Indianapolis, IN 46241 Cleveland Region International Harvester Company Detroit Branch 4840 Wyoming Dearborn, MI 48126 ------- International Harvester Company Buffalo Branch 2335 Fill more Avenue Buffalo, NY 14214 International Harvester Company Cleveland/East Branch 6100 Canal Road Valley View, OH 44125 International Harvester Company Pittsburgh Branch 1 301 Beaver Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 16230 Dallas Region International Harvester Company 4619 Navigation Blvd. P.O. Box 3050 Houston, TX 77011 International Harvester Company 3722 Irving Blvd. Dallas, TX 75247 International Harvester Company 1735 West Reno Oklahoma City, OK 73106 International Harvester Company 715 Steves Avenue San Antonio, TX 78210 International Harvester Company 1924 Second Street, N.W. Albuquerque, flM 87103 Kansas City Region International Harvester Company 1910 East Euclid Des Moines, IA 50313 International Harvester Company 3701 Chouteau St. Louise, MO ------- International Harvester Company 1608 Charlotte Street Kansas City, MO 64108 International Harvester Company 3280 Brighton Blvd. Denver, CO Memphis Region International Harvester Compnay 1 750 East Brooks Road Memphis, TN 38116 International Harvester Company 5000 Gentilly Road New Orleans, LA 70126 International Harvester Company 711 Murfreesboro Road Nashville, TN 37210 Oak! and Region International Harvester Company 390 Doolittle Drive San Leandro, CA 94577 International Harvester Company 4501 South Alameda Street Los Angeles, CA 90058 International Harvester Company 317 South Ninth Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85007 International Harvester Company 2712 South Fourthe Street Fresno, CA 93725 International Harvester Company 409 West Fourth South Salt Lake City, UT 84101 International Harvester Company 2445 Evergreen Street W. Sacramento, CA 95691 ------- Philadelphia Region International Harvester Company Newark Branch 41-85 Doremus Avenue Newark, NJ 07105 International Harvester Company Allentown Branch 728 Union Blvd. Allentown, PA 18103 International Harvester Company Philadelphia East Branch 4298 Macalester Street Philadelphia, PA 19124 Portland Region International Harvester Company 635 N.E. Second Avenue Portland, OR 97232 International Harvester Company 917 First Avenue North Billings, MT 59101 International Harvester Company 715 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane, WA 99220 Twin Cities Region International Harvester Company 3000 Broadway Street Northeast Minneapolis, MN 55413 International Harvester Company 925 Dace Street Post Office Box 717 Sioux City, IA 51102 International Harvester Company 775 Rice Street Saint Paul, MN 55117 ------- Kansas City Region International Harvester Company 1770 N. Broadway Witcha, Kansas 67214 International Harvester Company 500 E. 10th Street Topeka, Kansas 66607 International Harvester Company 320 W. Broadway St. Louis, Missouri 63147 International Harvester Company 3250 Harvester Road Kansas City, Kansas 66115 International Harvester Company 1529 E. Chestnut Street Springfield, Missouri 65801 International Harvester Company 2500 S. 4th Street St. Joseph, Missouri 64501 International Harvester Company 3131 Corn Husker Highway Lincoln, Nebraska 68501 International Harvester Company 110 & J Street Omaha, Nebraska 68137 International Harvester Company 2740 6th Street Road S.W. Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52404 ------- MACK TRUCKS. INC Alabama Mack Trucks, Inc. 3101 Airport Highway P.O. Box 10125 Birmingham, 35202 California Motor Truck Distributors Co. 220 Rexford Drive Col ton, 92324 Motor Truck Distributors Co. 2940 Broadway P.O. Box 4569 Eureka, 95501 Motor Truck Distributors Co. 2340 East Olympic Blvd. P.O. Box 21916 Los Angeles, 90021 Motor Truck Distributors Co. 425 Market Street P.O. Box 2040 Oakland 94604 Motor Truck Distributors Co. 3333 S. Market St. P.O. Box 1985 Redding, 96001 Motor Truck Distributors Co. 301 Broadway P.O. Box 8109 Sacramento, 95818 Motor Truck Distributors Co. 55 E. Brokaw Road San Jose, 95112 Motor Truck Distributors 2800 Cherry Avenue P.O. Box 2899 Signal Hill, 90806 ------- Colorado Mack Trucks, Inc. 4850 Vasquez Blvd. P.O. Box 16364 Stockyard Station Denver, 80216 Florida Mack Trucks, Inc. 2203 West Beaver Street P.O. Box 2880 Jacksonville 32203 Georgia Mack Trucks, Inc. 780 Memorial Drive, S.E. P.O. Box 18027 Atlanta, 30316 Mack Trucks, Inc. Conley Used Truck Center 4570 Moreland Avenue P.O. Box 299 Conley, 30027 Hawaii Motor Truck Distributors Co. 231 Sand Island Access Road Honolulu, 96819 IIlinois Mack Trucks, Inc. 3300 S. Wentworth Avenue Chicago, 60616 Indiana Mack Trucks, Inc. 1810 W. 16th Street Indianapolis, 46202 Kentucky Mack Trucks, Inc. 1820 Arthur Street Louisville, 40217 ------- Louisiana Mack Trucks, Inc. 110 E. Airline Highway P.O. Box 887 Kenner, 70062 Massachusetts Mack Trucks, Inc. 75 North Beacon Street Boston, 02134 Michigan Mack Trucks, Inc. 10401 Ford Road P.O. Box 490 Dearborn, 48121 Minnesota Mack Trucks, Inc. 21 95 West County Road C2 P.O. Box 3579 St. Paul, 55165 Missouri Mack Trucks, Inc. 3738 Gardner Avenue Kansas City, 64120 Mack Trucks, Inc. 2350 Chouteau Avenue St. Louis, 63103 Nebraska Mack Trucks, Inc. 7210 "L" Street Omaha, 68137 New Jersey Mack Trucks, Inc. 480 Mundet Place Hillside, 07205 ------- New Mexico Mack Trucks, Inc. 2941 East Main Street P.O. Box 214 Farmington, 87401 New York Mack Trucks, Inc. 1064 Broadway P.O. Box 1152 Albany, 12201 Mack Trucks, Inc. Erie Blvd., East P.O. Box 279 East Syracuse, 13057 Mack Trucks, Inc. 58-40 Borden Avenue Maspeth, 11378 Mack Trucks, Inc. 205 Del afield Street P.O. Box 471 Poughkeepsie, 12602 North Carolina Mack Trucks, Inc. 228 Dal ton Avenue P.O. Box 1967 Charlotte, 28201 Mack Trucks, Inc. 201 Waughtown Street P.O. Drawer E, Salem Station Winston-Sal em, 27108 Ohio Mack Trucks, Inc. Akron Used Truck Center 1 237 S. Arlington St. P.O. Box 7057 Akron, 44306 Mack Trucks, Inc. 1100 Triplett Blvd. P.O. Box 7155 Akron, 44306 ------- Mack Trucks, Inc. 1223 West Eighth Street P.O. Box 14526 Cincinnati, 45203 Mack Trucks, Inc. 13600 Broadway Cleveland, 44125 Marietta Truck & Trailer Repairs 813 Gilman Street Marietta, 45750 Oklahoma Mack Trucks, Inc. 3200 West Reno Avenue Oklahoma City, 73107 Oregon Automotive Equipment Company 933 Franklin Blvd. P.O. Box 1108 Eugene, 97401 Automotive Equipment Company 5030 Crater Lake Highway Medford, 97501 Automotive Equipment Company 5411 No. Lagoon Avenue Portland, 97217 Pennsylvania Mack Trucks, Inc. Rts. 22 & 309 P.O. Box A Allentown, 18105 Mack Trucks, Inc. 2020 Paxton Street P.O. Box 1643 Harrisburg, 17105 Mack Trucks, Inc. Bl ue Grass Road & Grant Avenue Philadelphia, 19114 Mack Trucks, Inc. 1 501 Beaver Avenue Pittsburgh, 15233 ------- Rhode Island Mack Trucks, Inc. 190 Service Avenue P.O. Box 152 Warwick,02886 Texas Mack Trucks, Inc. 3611 Irving Blvd. P.O. Box 47107 Dallas, 75247 Mack Trucks, Inc. 5331 Gulf Freeway P.O. Box 18515 Houston, 77023 Utah Mack Trucks, Inc. 704 South 4th West Salt Lake City, 84101 Virginia Mack Trucks, Inc. 1705 Commerce Road P.O. Box 4160 Richmond, 23224 Washington Automotive Equipment Company 2025 Airport Way South Seattle, 98134 ------- WHITE MOTOR CORPORATION Alamo White Truck Services, Inc. San Antonio, Texas Arkansas White Springdale, Arkansas Baumert Sales Hartford, Connecticut Boise White Truck Boise, Idaho Chattanooga White Trucks Chattanooga, Tennessee Chesley Co. Waterloo, Iowa B. H. Chesley White Mankato, Minnesota Contractors Equip. & Supply Albuquerque, New Mexico Corley-Wetsel White Abilene, Texas Delta White Truck Sales Stockton, California Detroit White Autocar Detroit, Michigan Fox & James White Trucks Latrobe, Pennsylvania Ft. Worth White Trucks Ft. Worth, Texas Fulton White Roanoke, Virginia Fyda White Trucks Youngstown, Ohio Hall & Fuhs, Inc. Mountainside, New Jersey ------- Hill White Truck South Bend, Indiana Hodges Tire & White Wichita Falls, Texas Lucas White Charlotte, North Carolina Nebraska White Trucks Grand Island, Nebraska Mew Orleans White Trucks New Orleans, Louisiana Sacramento White Trucks W. Sacramento, California Salina White Trucks Sal ina, Kansas Tinder White Trucks Bluefield, West Virginia Truck & Trailer Sales Savannah, Georgia West Texas White Trucks Odessa, Texas Western Ohio White Toledo, Ohio Wichita White Trucks Wichita, Kansas WorChester White Autocar Worcester, Massachusetts B. H. Chesley Co. Fargo, North Dakota Sterling Truck Sales Co. Larksvilie, Pa. ------- WHITE MOTOR CORPORATION Akron Akron, Ohio Atlanta Atlanta, Georgia Baltimore Baltimore, Maryland Birmingham Birmingham, Alabama Chicago Southside Chicago, Illinois Charlotte Region Charlotte, North Carolina Cleveland Cleveland, Ohio Dallas Dallas, Texas Dallas Region Dallas, Texas Denver Denver, Colorado Hou ston Houston, Texas Jacksonville Jacksonville, Florida Kansas City Kansas City, Missouri Kansas City Region Kansas City, Missouri Los Angeles Los Angeles, California ------- Ft. Lauderdale Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Mewa rk Newark, New Jersey New York Region New York, New York Oakland Oakland, California Oklahoma City Oklahoma, Oklahoma Philadelphia Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Portland Portland, Oregon St. Louis St. Louis, Missouri Winston-Sal em Kernersville, North Carolina ------- STEMCO MANUFACTURING COMPANY Alabama Diesel Equipment Co., Inc. Birmingham Truck Parts & Equipment Company Birmingham Peter's Garage, Inc. Dothan Fleet Parks and Equipment Montgomery Tri-City Truck Parts Muscle Shoals Arizona Motor Rim & Wheel Service Phoenix Wheel Industries Tempe Arkansas Holt White Trucks, Inc. Little Rock T&T Parts Warehouse, Inc. Little Rock California Truck and Auto Supply Anaheim Triangle Truck Parts Azusa Franks Brake Service Bakersfield San Gabriel Valley Truck Parts Baldwin Park Bob Wymore Service Chino Truck and Auto Supply Co. Escondido ------- Stemco Manufacturing Co., Inc. - Cont'd California - Cont'd Motor Rim and Wheel Service Fresno So-Cal White Trucks Long Beach Mack Trucks of Los Angeles Los Angeles Wheel Industries - Div. of Budd Co. Los Angeles Motor Rim & Wheel Service Montebello Engs Motor Trucks Pico Rivera E. M. Tharp Co., Inc. Porterville Mack Trucks Inc. Redding Pacific Coast Truck Repair, Inc. Richmond Mack Trucks Inc. Sacramento Norm Presley Truck Center San Diego Motor Rim & Wheel Service San Diego Motor Rim & Wheel San Leandro Brakes & Alignment Co., Inc. San Jose Colorado Elder/Quinn & McGill, Inc. Denver ------- Stemco Manufacturing Co., Inc. - Cont'd Connecticut Connecticut Drive Shaft Co., Inc. Mi 1 ford Connecticut Wheel and Rim Co. New Haven Delaware Brake & Equipment Co. Dover Brake & Equipment Co. Wilmington Florida American Trucking Equipment Co. Jacksonville Fleet Supply, Inc. Tallahassee Clutch and Gear Inc. Tampa Idaho Bob & John's, Inc. Caldwell Eastern Idaho Diesel Idaho Falls Illinois Schien Body & Equipment Co. Carlinvilie Merit Truck Parts & Wheel Co. Chicago All Brake & Drive Unit Service, Inc. Cicero Mutual Wheel Company Moline Illinois Wheel & Brake Springfield Botts Welding & Truck Service, Inc. Woodstock ------- Stemco Manufacturing Co., Inc. - Cont'd Indiana Auto Wheel & Rim Service Co., Inc. Evansville Indiana Wheel & Rim Indianapolis Wheel and Rim Sales Co. Ft. Wayne Gail Catt Sales Vincennes Whiteford Sales and Service South Bend Iowa Midwest Wheel & Rim Co. Davenport Des Moines Wheel & Rim Co. Des Moines Midwest Wheel & Rim Co. Dubuque Mutual Wheel Co. Dubuque Kansas Sam Brown Co. Kansas City Borbein, Young & Company Wichita Kentucky Auto Wheel and Rim Service Bowling Green Trucks Parts & Equipment Lexington Auto Wheel & Rim Service Louisville Cummins Diesel Sales of Louisville, Inc Louisville ------- Stemco Manufacturing Co., Inc. - Cont'd Louisiana Precision Brake & Clutch, Inc. Baton Rouge Louisiana Brake & Clutch, Inc. New Orleans Southern Wheel & Rim New Orleans Maine New England Wheel of Maine Portland Maryland Chesapeake Rim & Wheel Distrs., Inc. Baltimore Wareheim Air Brakes, Inc. Baltimore Air Brakes & Control of D.C., Inc. Bladensburg Brake & Equipment Co. Salisbury Massachusetts New England Wheel & Rim Boston Brake & Electric Sales Medford New England Wheel and Parts West Springfield Michigan L&M Truck Parts Detroit Nu-Way Brake & Equipment Detroit Road Equipment Truck Service Grand Rapids Michigan Truck Equipment Saginaw ------- Minnesota Wheel Service Co., Inc. St. Paul Mississippi Precision Brake & Clutch Jackson Missouri Borbein, Young & Co. Springfield Borbein, Young & Co. St. Louis Plaza Automotive, Inc. St. Louis Montana Montana Wheels & Equipment Billings Northwest Wheel, Inc. Great Falls Nebraska Morgan Wheel & Equipment Co. Omaha Nevada Jordan's Thermo-King Reno New Hampshire Brake & Electric Sales Corp. Manchester New Jersey Guy's Brake Service Pennsauken Kay Wheel Sales Co. Vine!and ------- Stemco Mfg. Co - Cont'd New York Heavy Duty Truck Parts Warehouse Buffalo A.C.I. Supply Co. Elmira Frey The Wheel Man Rochester Laban Equipment Corp. Valley Stream North Carolina Carolina Rim & Wheel Co. Charlotte Salem Spring Co. of Charlotte Charlotte Brake and Spring Service Greensboro Bales & Truitt Co. Kernersville Raleigh Spring and Brake Service Raleigh Brake and Spring Service Wilmington North Dakota Wheel Service Co., Inc. Fargo Ohio Cummins Diesel of Northern Ohio Akron Wheel and Rim Sales Co. Akron Cramer Deluxe Sales, Inc. Akron Young White Trucks, Inc. Canton Rim and Sales Service Inc. Cincinnati ------- Stemco Mfg. Co. - Cont'd Ohio - Cont'd Wheel and Rim Sales Co. Cleveland Carnegie Body Co. Cleveland Custom Maintenance Service Circleville Wheel and Rim Sales Co. Circleville Hogan Transportation Equipment Columbus Hogan Transportation Equipment Dayton Defiance Mack Sales and Service Defiance O.S. Hill & Co. East Liverpool CR&M, Inc. Gal ion Commercial Truck & Trailer, Inc. Girard Lima Mack Sales & Service, Inc. Lima Wheel and Rim Sales Co. Perrysburg Glockner Supply Co. Portsmouth Lojek's Sales & Service Richfield Gipson Bearing & Supply Co. Steubenville Knauer Supply Company Toledo Toledo Mack Sales & Service Toledo Southwest Truck Parts Co. Wooster ------- Stemco Mfg. Co. - Cont'd Oklahoma Perfection Equipment Co. Oklahoma City Oregon Myrmo & Sons, Inc. Eugene Auto Wheel Service, Inc. Portland Cummins Oregon Diesel, Inc. Portland Pennsylvania Commercial Parts Div. of Bethlehem Bethlehem Brake Drum & Equipment Company Clearfield Kay Wheel Sales Co. Cornwells Heights Fleet Sales & Parts Co. Erie Reslink & Wiggers Truck Parts, Inc. Erie Wheel and Rim Sales Co. Parrel! Brake Drum & Equipment Co. Greensburg Standard Wheel Harrisburg United Equipment, Inc. Philadelphia Brake Drum & Equipment Co. Pittsburgh Stewart Speedometer Service Youngwood ------- Stemco Mfg. Co. - Cont'd Rhode Island Brake & Electric Sales Corp. Providence New England Wheel and Rim Providence South Dakota Godfrey's Brake Service Rapid City Holcomb White Trucks, Inc. Sioux Falls Tennessee Wheels & Brakes, Inc. Kingsport Wheels & Brakes, Inc. Knoxville Haygood, Inc. Memphis Memphis White Trucks, Inc. Memphis Safety Service Co., Inc. Nashville Texas Southwest Wheel, Inc. Beaumont E. G. Boyd Trailer Co, Dallas Houston Trailer & Truck Body, Inc. Houston Southwest Wheel, Inc. Houston Southwest Wheel, Inc. San Antonio Ludwell & Sons, Inc. Texarkana ------- Stemco Mfg. Co. - Cont'd Utah Page Brake Salt Lake City Henderson Wheel and Warehouse Supply Salt Lake City Virginia Standard Parts Corp. Chesapeake Standard Parts Corporation Richmond Dixie Wheel Co. Richmond Standard Parts Corporation Roanoke Washington Fleet Equipment, Inc. Seattle Bearing & Rim Supply Co. Spokane Rockwell Northwestern Ltd. Vancouver West Virginia Wheel and Rim Sales Co. Fairmont Power Supply Co. Wheeling Wisconsin Wisconsin Wheel & Rim Appleton Truck Equipment, Inc. Green Bay Wisconsin Wheel & Rim Milwaukee ------- Stemco Mfg. Co - Cont'd Vlyomi ng Elder/Quinn & McGill, Inc. Casper ------- 10. LOW-NOISE EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS ------- 1. Aeroquip Jackson, Michigan 49203 Exhaust Systems 2. Stemco Mfg. Company, Inc. P. 0. Box 1989 Longview, Texas 75601 Mufflers, Exhaust Systems, In Cab Noise Control 3. Parker-Hannifin Corp. Cleveland, Ohio Hydraulic Systems, Noise 4. Speciality Composites Corp. Newark, Delaware Acoustical Floormats 5. Cowl, Division of James B. Carter Ltd. 88 Fennel1 Street Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T3M4 6. Riker Manufacturing, Inc. 4901 Stickney Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43612 Mufflers 7. Donaldson Co., Inc. P. O. Box 1299 Minneapolis* Minnesota 55440 Exhaust Systems 8. Arvin Industries, Inc. Automotive AfterMarket Division Columbus, Indiana 472O1 Mufflers 9. H. L. Blaekford, Inc. 1855 Stepheson Highway Troy, Michigan 48O84 Acoustical Panels, Enclosures, etc. ------- 11. TECHNICAL DATA ------- ------- EPA-550/9-74-017 BACKGROUND DOCUMENT FOR INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER NOISE EMISSION REGULATIONS OCTOBER 1974 PREPARED BY U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 20460 This document has been approved for general availability It does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. EPA STRATEGY FOR CONTROL OF MEDIUM AND HEAVY DUTY MOTOR VEHICLE NOISE 1 Noise Levels Protective of Public Health and Welfare 1 Actual Noise Levels in Residential Areas 3 EPA Regulatory Strategy for Motor Vehicles 3 Rationale for the CoveraRc of Vehicles Over 10,000 Pounds GVWR/GCWR 6 SECTION 2. TECHNOLOGY AND COST OF QUIETING IN-SERVICE MOTOR VEHICLES 8 General Characteristics of Large Trucks 9 Component Noise Sources and Quieting Techniques 10 Exhaust System 14 Cooling Fan 15 Engine (Mechanical) 16 Air Induction System 17 Tire/Roadway Interaction 18 Cost of Retrofitting Individual Trucks 19 Technology and Cost Required to Comply with a Low-Speed Standard 21 Technology and Cost Required to Comply with a High-Speed Standard 25 ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT) Page SECTION 3. INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER REGULATIONS ... 27 Summary of the Regulations 27 Revision of the Proposed Regulations Prior to Promulgation ... 2H Preemption 32 Enforcement Procedures, Violations, and Penalties 35 Relationship between Low-Speed Measurement Procedures .... 35 Stationary Run-Up Test Correlation with SAE J366a *2 SECTION 4. NOISE MEASUREMENT OF IN-SERVICE VEHICLES.. 44 Measurement Methodology 44 Surveys of Truck Noise 45 A *7 Analyses of High Speed (Over 35 MPH) Survey Data Analysis of Low Speed (Under 35 MPH) Survey Data 56 Analysis of Stationary Runup Test Data 56 Classification of Trucks into Categories 59 Potential Degradation of Vehicles g2 SECTION 5. IMPACT OF THE FEDERAL NOISE REGULATIONS. . 6'1 Economic Impact of the Regulations G4 Environmental Impact of the Noise Emission Standards 66 Relative Stringency of Federal Regulations and Those of Other Jurisdictions 63 11 ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT) REFERENCES 72 APPENDIX: MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY 76 Applicable Documents 76 Instrumentation 7t Calibration 77 Standard Measurement Site 77 Weather 73 Microphone Location 7 Noise Measurement Procedures 73 iii ------- Section 1 EPA STRATEGY FOR CONTROL OF MEDIUM AND HEAVY DUTY MOTOR VEHICLE NOISE In March, 1974, in accordance with Section 5(a)(2) of the Noise Control Act of 1972, EPA published a document in which levels of environmental noise requisite to protect public health and welfare were identified . Since EPA studies have shown that actual environmental noise levels in many parts of the country exceed the levels identified as desirable, a Federal strategy is being developed to control environmental noise. NOISE LEVELS PROTECTIVE OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE As part of the identification of noise levels protective of public health and welfare, EPA has selected the noise measures it believes are most useful for describing environmental noise and its effects on people. Environmental noise is defined in the Noise Control Act as "the intensity, duration and the character of sounds from all sources. " The measures for characterizing environment noise must, therefore, evaluate these factors. However, the measures must also predict human response and be simple to monitor if they are to be useful. EPA has chosen two cumulative equivalent sound level measures as its basic indicators of noise that constitutes a long- term hazard to public health and welfare. The first measure is the equivalent sound level (L ), which is the constant sound level (dBA) that in a given situa- tion and time period would convey the same sound energy as does the actual time-varying sound; L is used as an indicator of long-term hazard to hearing. A variation of L , the day-night sound level (L, ) is the equivalent sound level cq an during a 24 hour period with a 10 dB(A) penalty added to events occurring between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. to account for the increased annoyance caused by noise at night; L, is used as an indicator of long-term annoyance. ------- The relationships between environmental noise and human response have been quantified using the simple measures described above. The human response examined was a combination of such factors as hearing interference, sleep interference, speech interference, desire for a tranquil environment and the ability to use telephones, radios, and TV satisfactorily. The levels identified by EPA as desirable from a public health and welfare viewpoint are predicated on minimizing the average number of people who may experience an adverse reaction to noise as a result of extended exposure. However, different individuals do not have the same susceptibility to noise. Even groups of people may vary in response depending on previous exposure, age, socio-economic status, political cohesiveness and other social variables. In the aggregate, however, the average response of groups of people is predic- table and related to cumulative noise exposure as expressed by L, or L . on eq Detailed discussions of the relationships between environmental noise and human response is provided in the EPA document Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Desirable outdoor noise levels are summarized in Table 1 in terms of yearly equivalent levels which, if not exceeded, would be safe from a health and welfare viewpoint. Public health and welfare for the purpose of this analysis was defined so as to include personal comfort, well- being, and the absence of clinical symptoms. TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF NOISE LEVELS IDENTIFIED AS REQUISITE TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE WITH AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY. Effect Level in dB Area Hearing L 0,. £ 70 All Areas Loss eq(Z4) Activity Interference L. £ 55 -Residential Outdoors Areas ------- ACTUAL NOISE LEVELS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS Studies have been performed to measure the noise levels in residential areas and to estimate the number of people subjected to noise in those areas. Table 2 contains estimates of the number of people residing in urban areas which are exposed to noise principally caused by urban traffic, freeway traffic, and aircraft operations. TABLE 2 ESTIMATED CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN MILLIONS IN THE UNITED STATES RESIDING IN URBAN AREAS WHICH ARE EXPOSED TO VARIOUS LEVELS OF OUTDOOR DAY/NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL(3) Outdoor L, Exceeds dn 60 65 70 75 80 Urban Traffic 59.0 24.3 6.9 1.3 0.1 Freeway Traffic 3.1 2.5 1.9 0.9 0.3 Aircraft Operations 16.0 7.5 3.4 1.5 0.2 Total 78.1 34.3 12.2 3.7 0.6 The data in the table clearly indicate that motor vehicles are the principal source of environmental noise In urban areas. EPA REGULATORY STRATEGY FOR MOTOR VEHICLES Accordingly, EPA has developed a regulatory strategy that places high priority on the control of motor vehicle noise. As part of the development of the strategy, studies were performed for EPA that provide information on the relative noise contribution of different kinds of motor vehicles to traffic noise levels in urban areas. Table 3 gives information on the typical sound level at 50 feet of seven types of motor vehicles and also indicates the ------- estimated total daily sound energy emitted into the environment by all in- service vehicles of each type. For the purpose of the analysis, trucks and automobiles were divided into groups having different noise emission and technology characteristics. Light trucks were separated from medium and heavy duty trucks because they have a higher power-to-weight ratio and are quieter in normal operation. Large passenger cars were separated from compact and sports cars for the same reason. Motor Vehicles TABLE 3 Typical Sound Level dB (A) at 50 feet Estimated Total Sound Energy KW-Hrs/Day 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Trucks (medium & heavy) Automobiles (sports, compacts) Automobiles (passenger) Trucks (light, pickup) Motorcycles (highway) Buses (city and school) Buses (highway) 84 75 69 72 82 73 82 5800 1150 800 570 325 20 12 The sound level (dB(A)) at 50 feet is a measure that suggests which motor vehicles will be perceived as noisy by the community when they are operated alone. The daily total sound energy emission is useful because it is an aggregate measure that takes into account the sound energy emission rate of the vehicle, the number of vehicles operating, and the amount of time they arc operated each day. Neither measure directly relates human exposure or response to the vehicle's noise emission; but when several kinds of vehicles are operated in similar situations, these two measures serve to indicate which are the major sources of noise. ------- The (1,'ilii in Tsible X clearly indicates that medium and heavy duty trucks contribute more soumf energy to the environment than any other type of high- way vehicle and that an individual truck will typically be perceived to be louder than some other type of motor vehicle. These values are a composite of noise emitted in both urban traffic conditions and on freeways, and there can be little doubt that medium and heavy duty trucks are the major contributor to traffic noise in many situations. The Noise Control Act contains two sections of primary importance for the control of motor vehicle noise. Section 6 contains authority by which EPA may promulgate product noise emission standards for new motor vehicles that are applicable at the time of sale of such vehicles. Section 18 of the Act requires EPA to promulgate noise emission regula- tions that include "noise emission standards setting such limits on noise emissions resulting from operation of motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce which reflect the degree of noise reduction achievable through the application of the best available technology, taking into account the cost of compliance.1' Accordingly, EPA has developed and is now implementing a motor vehicle noise control strategy based on sections 6 and 18 of the Act that should prove to be effective in reducing environmental noise in many areas to the levels identified as protective of public health and welfare. The strategy calls first, lor the reduction, within one year of the promulgation of these regulations under section 18, of the noise from vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR/GCWH oper- ated by motor carriers engaged ia Interstate commerce, to the lowest noise level consistent with the noise abatement technology available for retrofit application flurmg the one year period, taking into account the cost of compliance. Subsequently, under section fi, new product noise emission standards will be proposed for medium and heavy duty trucks, and it is contemplated that the new product standards will be maintained for new trucks beyond the initial point of sale through subsequent modification of these initial Interstate Motor Carrier Regulations pursuant to section 18 to require that vehicles manufactured ------- to comply with new product performance standards and used in interstate com- merce shall maintain the lower noise emission levels during operation. Additionally, it is anticipated that the performance standards in the inter- state motor carrier regulations relating to older vehicles will be made more stringent as more advanced retrofit technology becomes available and the cost of compliance permits. The effect of the initial Interstate Motor Carrier Regulations will be noticeable principally around highways. The principle noise reduction will be of the intrusive "noise peaks," which have been widely acknowledged as more IA\ objectionable to people than much lower levels of continuous noise* . However, the reduction of traffic noise to levels protective of public health and welfare is not feasible through retrofit programs alone and must await the replacement of the current vehicle population by new quiet vehicles in conformance with noise standards promulgated under Section 6. RATIONALE FOR THE COVERAGE OF VEHICLES OVER 10, OOP POUNDS GVWR/GCWR Prior to proposing regulations applicable only to vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR/GCWll, the Agency analyzed both the relative noise contribution to traffic noise levels and the typical use patterns of different kinds of motor vehicles. Light trucks and automobiles were separated from medium and heavy duty trucks for the analysis because they have a higher power-to-weight ratio, they are quieter in normal operation, and they have different uses than larger vehicles. In addition to their higher noise emissions, medium and heavy duty motor vehicles are distinguished from lighter vehicles by their typical use for long distance intercity and interstate hauling. They are, therefore, operated many more miles per year on the average than light duty vehicles, which are normally used for general service and delivery work within a relatively small area. Medium as well as heavy duty motor vehicles operated by interstate motor carriers are in significant numbers constantly in transit between different jurisdictions, and it would be impractical for them to comply with a different noise emission standard in different jurisdictions. Thus, "medium duty" as ------- well as "heavy duty" motor vehicles operated by interstate motor carriers are construed by the Agency to be "major noise sources in commerce control of which require uniform national treatment" under section 18 of the Noise Control Act. Conversely, since light duty vehicles are typically used for general service and delivery work within relatively small areas and are not usually subject to the noise emission regulations of many different jurisdictions, national uniformity of treatment of the noise emission resulting from their operation does not appear essential at this time. The specification of a precise delineation between "light duty" or "small" vehicles and "medium and heavy duty" vehicles for purposes of regulation is largely an exercise of technical judgment. EPA has chosen to make that deline- ation at 10,000 pounds GVWR/or GCWR in these regulations. A break at 10,000 pounds GVWR/GCWR is also convenient because most states use that weight rating as a distinction in their vehicle registration categories. The Department of Commerce nnd the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association divide lighl. duty and medium duty vehicles at that weight rating. In addition, it is a standard weight category distinction used by the Department of Transportation in their safety regulations, and compatibility of the Inter- state Motor Carrier Regulations with the present DOT weight categories is advantageous because DOT is the Federal enforcement agent. ------- Section 2 TECHNOLOGY AND COST OF QUIETING IN-SERVICE MOTOR VEHICLES Section 18(a)(l) of the Noise Control Act requires that noise emission standards pursuant to that part set limits on noise emissions resulting from the operation of motor carriers which "... reflect the degree of noise reduction achievable through the application of best available technology, taking into account the cost of compliance. " In order to implement this section of the Act, "best available technology" and "cost of compliance" have been defined as follows: "Best available technology" is that noise abatement technology available for retrofit application to motor vehicles that produces mean- ingful reduction in the noise produced by vehicles used by motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce. "Available" is further defined to include: 1. Technology applications that have been demonstrated and can be retrofitted on existing motor vehicles. 2. Technology for which there will be a production capacity avail- able to produce the estimated number of parts required soon enough to allow for distribution and installation prior to the effective date of the regulation. 3. Technology that is compatible with all safety regulations and takes into account operational considerations, including mainte- nance, and other pollution control equipment. "Cost of compliance" means the cost of identifying and carrying out the action that must be taken to meet the specified noise emission level, including the additional cost of operation and maintenance. Discussion of the technology and cost required to achieve specified noise emission levels must be based on an understanding of the sources of motor vehicle noise. This section describes the noise characteristics of large ------- n otor vehicles, the technology available, and the cost of achieving noise reduction. It specifically discusses multiaxle diesel trucks because (1) they make the most noise, (2) most of the available data relate to these trucks, and (3) any regulation which is feasible for such trucks will also be feasible for other large vehicles. The noise produced by a truck depends on the type and the quality of its component parts. Large trucks are not standardized as are automobiles. Specialized user needs result in a greatly varied assembly of components, especially with respect to power train and related equipment. As a result, truck noise can vary considerably from vehicle to vehicle. To illustrate the extent of this variation, the discussion of noise sources below is preceded by a brief description of truck components. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LARGE TRUCKS Diesel engines may be naturally aspirated (air introduced at atmospheric pressure), turbocharged, or supercharged by the engine itself. The engine can be located either at the front of the cab (in "conventional" trucks) or under the cab (in "cab-over-engine" trucks). Exhaust pipes may be routed horizontally underneath the body of the vehicle or vertically to the rear of the cab - commonly referred to as a "straight stack". A straight stack is usually preferred, because it directs exliaust fumes away from motorists and pedestrians. Either single or dual exliaust systems may be installed. The engine intake may be situated on or under the hood in a conventional style truck or to the rear of the cab in either the conventional or the cab-over-engine (COE) style. If it is behind the cab, it may be on the same or opposite side of the cab as the exhaust system. The power-to-weight ratio for a fully laden truck is significantly less than that for an automobile, with the result that the necessary torque must be transmitted through a wide range of gears - up to as many as 15. The torque is usually applied to either one or two drive axles. The number of axles on the entire vehicle, including the trailer, can range from 2 to 11, the limit varying according to state regulations. In general, the greater the ------- number of axles, the greater the load-carrying capacity of the truck. Corre- sponding in part to the number of axles, the number of tires on a heavy truck trailer combination can range from 10 to 42. Figure 1 shows the effect of vehicle speed and engine rpm on engine noise at 25 ft. However, noise from the propulsion system is not the only contributor to the overall noise level. At speeds greater than about 45 mph, additional noise of significant magnitude is produced by the interaction between the tires and the road surface* '. The relationship between pro- pulsion system noise and tire noise as a function of vehicle speed is shown f6 "7^ in Figure 2l * '. The speed at which tire noise begins to dominate depends primarily on the type and number of tires on the truck, the degree of tire wear, tire load, type of pavement, and tire inflation pressure* '. COMPONENT NOISE SOURCES AND QUIETING TECHNIQUES The total noise level produced by a truck is the logarithmic sum of the individual noise levels produced by several different components. These component noise sources, shown in Figure 3, are as follows (not necessarily (9) in order of Importance) • • Exhaust system • Engine cooling fan • Engine (mechanical) • Air intake system • Transmission (gearbox, drive shaft, rear axles(s)) • Auxiliary engine equipment • Tire/roadway interaction ii Aerodynamic flow n Brakes The first four sources are of major importance for the trucks of concern here when they are traveling at low speeds (less than 45 mph/ '. As Figure 2 shows, at higher speeds (greater than 45 mph), tire noise assumes a much greater significance. A brief discussion of these major sources is contained in the following sections. 10 ------- 100 I I I I I I Maximum Engine Speed I I a. o 01 S CO 80 o 01 I 70 60 I I I I 7 8 9 10 15 20 Vehicle Speed, mph 30 40 50 100 90 2 oa •o a o 1 80 70 60 1000 I I 8 mph I I J I 2000 3000 4000 Engine Rev./Mm. Microphone 7.5 Meters (25 Feet) From Centerline of Vehicle's Path Figure 1. Propulsion System Noise Versus Vehicle Speed and Engine Speed ------- 100 i Tire Combinations Steering Axle o New Ribs ii New Ribs A New Ribs Drive Axles '/4 Worn X-Bars New X-Bars New Ribs Trailer Axles New Pocket Retread New Rib Retread New Rib Retread 90 Engine Related Noise Alone Thru 12 Gear Steps o in 10 •o I •2 i 80 •§ 70 60 10 20 30 Vehicle Speed, mph 40 50 Figure 2. Propulsion System and Tire Noise for a Typical 5 Axle Tractor Trailer (from reference 6 and 7) 12 ------- B Major Noise Sources A. Engine (Mechanical) B. Engine Cooling Fan C. Engine Exhaust D. Air Intake System Other Sources E. Transmission F. Ancillary Equipment G. Tire/Roadway Interaction H. Aerodynamic Flow I. Brakes Conventional (C) Cab Cab-Over-Engine (COE) Figure 3. Truck Noise Sources and Cab Types 13 ------- KXIIAIIST SYSTKM L']xh;iust noise is created when engine exhaust gases cause oscillations williin the exhaust pipe. These oscillations are radiated to the atmosphere at the tail pipe. The noise is a function of engine type, induction system, exhaust system, and other associated parameters' '. In addition to being radiated from the end of the tail pipe, exhaust noise is transmitted through the exhaust pipe and mufflpr walls. Noise is also produced by the ann'irn- tion of engine brakes (on trucks so equipped), which assist the wheel brakes by producing a retarding force on the engine. Typical exhaust noise levels range from 77 to 85 dB(A) at 50 ft, independent of vehicle speed^ ', and can be much higher in trucks which have been poorly maintained. Although the exhaust system is a major noise source, significant noise level reductions can be achieved fairly easily. A good muffler is mandatory, and for maximum quieting, a double-wall or wrapped muffler can be used to reduce radiation through the walls. Consideration can also be given to wrapping the tail and exhaust pipes with insulation. The system must be free from leaks and should be attached by isolation mounts to the truck frame. The location of the muffler in the overall system, the exhaust pipe length, and diameter, and the tail pipe length and diameter should be considered, although these factors assume a gradually lessening importance as the attenuation capability of the muffler increases. Muffler specifications and suggested exhaust system configurations are currently offered by major muffler manufacturers for almost every engine, although no universal muffler exists which is the best for all types of engines. Exhaust noise alone from trucks equipped with the best available mufflers typically ranges from 72.5 to 80 dB(A) at 50 ft. These mufflers provide attenuation of from 9.5 to 27 dB and are installed on some new trucks as (12} standard equipment '. A good quality muffler typically costs from $35 to$45, and since the installation is simple, many trucking companies do it themselves. Installation costs for either single or dual systems are about $15* ' For maximum effect, it is necessary to replace existing flexi- ble exhaust pipes with rigid pipe and slip joints at a cost of about$45 per side including labor. 14 ------- COOLING FAN Trucks generally use axial fans to draw air through a front -mounted radiator. The air cools water which in turn cools the engine. Fan noise is the result of air flow irregularities and is partially governed by the proximity of shrouds, radiators, grills, and radiator shutters ' '. The noise produced by the fan is related to fan tip speed. Most diesel engines on heavy trucks reach maximum rated horsepower at about zLw rpm. At this speed, the fan can be a major contributor to the overall truck noise level. Typical truck fans alone exhibit noise levels in the range of 78 to 83 dB(A) at 50 ft at rated engine speed*16\ Since noise from a cooling fan increases with the rotational speed, it is possible to reduce the noise while maintaining the same air flow (to satisfy the same cooling requirement) by using a larger fan turning at a slower speed. In many cases this may require the installation of a larger radiator, which could result in an expensive modification to the front of the engine compartment. It is often possible to install a fan blade that produces less noise while at the same time providing adequate cooling. Most existing fans are stamped out of metal with equal spacing between the blades, and they are driven at a predetermined fixed ratio of fan-to-engine speed by a belt-driven pulley. This type of fan was not originally designed to be quiet, nor is it particularly efficient in performing its task. In many cases, it can be replaced with a more sophisticated design that affords a fan noise (not total truck noise) reduction of from 7 to 12 dB* \ The cost is in the range of $40 to$35 including installation1 '. Overall truck noise can also be reduced by about 1 dB in some cases by incorporating a venturi-type shroud with a small tip clearance, at a cost of about $45 including installation. 15 ------- Trucks arc designed to be able to cope with heat rejection at maximum engine power with little or no ram air. Since ram air increases with vehicle speed, fans become less important at higher vehicle speeds and could be slowed or stopped in many instances. The critical cooling requirement occurs when the truck is moving slowly in a low gear but the engine is developing full horsepower (e.g. when pulling a heavy load up a long grade). Trucks, un- like automobiles, usually do not have an overheating problem when thp vehicle is stopped and the engine idles at low rpm. Given these character- istics, it is possible for a truck to have a fan which does not operate continuously. Fans are now available which operate only when additional engine cooling is required and which idle when the cooling due to ram air flow is sufficient. A typical fan of this type has either a thermostatically controlled mechanical clutch or a viscous fluid clutch. The viscous fluid clutch permits the fan to rotate at reduced speeds and the thermostatically controlled mechanical clutch permits the fan to stop completely when not needed. Fans utilizing these clutches are about 3 to 10 dB quieter than conventional fans*19). A viscous clutch costs about$240 including about $15 for the suggested fan blade. A thermostatically controlled mechanical clutch including the necessary fittings costs from about$285 to $360, plus$40 to $50 for installation*20' 21). ENGINE (MECHANICAL) Mechanical noise in internal combustion engines is caused by the combustion process, which produces the high gas pressures necessary to force the piston down the cylinder and turn the crankshaft. The rapid rise in cylinder pressure immediately following combustion creates mechanical vibrations in the engine structure which are transmitted through the cylinder walls, oil pan, rocker arm, and covers. Some of this vibration is subse- quently radiated into the atmosphere as acoustic energy. 16 ------- Gasoline engines initiate combustion with a flame which spreads smoothly throughout the cylinder until the fuel-air mixture is burned. Diesel engines, however, rely on much higher compression ratios (about 17:1 rather than 9:1) to produce spontaneous combustion. This causes a more rapid change in pressure in the cylinder, which in turn results in increased engine vibration and hence higher noise levels than those associated with gasoline engines. As a result, the mechanical noise levels of diesel engines often are as much as 10 dB higher than those of gasoline engines ^2^. The engine mechanical noise contribution in typical /23\ diesel-powered trucks is on the order of 78 to 85 dB(A)v '. Turbochargers are often used to increase the pressure of the intake air. This reduces the pressure fluctuations in the engine and, in turn, (241 lowers the engine noise lever '. However, turbochargers may in some cases whine, contributing to the overall noise level. Retrofit methods of reducing engine noise are generally one of two kinds: 1. Modification of certain exterior surface covers. 2. Installation of acoustic absorption material and acoustic bar- riers in the engine enclosure. Engine noise reduction kits suitable for a limited number of engine models are available from a few major engine manufacturers. These kits consist of various acoustically treated panels and covers and provide a reduction of about 3 dB in engine mechanical noise (as opposed to total vehicle noise level) at a cost of$50 to $100 for materials^ ^ and, typically,$30 for installation^ ' . Such kits are in limited production at this time and have not undergone complete durability testing v AIR INDUCTION SYSTEM Induction system noise is created by the opening and closing of the intake valves; this action causes the volume of air in the system to pulsate. The associated noise levels depend upon the type of engine, the engine operating conditions, and whether it is turbocharged or naturally aspirated. Typical intake noise levels alone vary from 70 to 80 dB(A)' '. 17 ------- The state of intake noise reduction technology is very similar to that of exhaust noise reduction. Major manufacturers are able to provide assistance in proper selection of air intake systems for all popular engine (29) models '. Retrofitting the intake systems of trucks in service consists of replacing older air cleaners with modern quality, dry element air cleaners at an aversige cost of from $100 to$130* '. Intake cleaners and silencers are manufactured largely by the major muffler manufacturers. TIRE/ROADWAY INTERACTION Truck tires for highway usage can be classified into two categories - rib tires and crossbar tires (also known as lug or cross rib tires). Rib tires look like automobile tires, with the tread elements oriented circum- fcrentially around the tire. This is the most common type of truck tire and can be used in all wheel positions. Rib tires are used almost exclusively on steering axles because of their superior lateral traction and uniform wear characteristics. Crossbar designs have the tread elements oriented trans- versely to the plane of the tire. Many trucking companies prefer to use crossbar tires on drive axles, since they provide up to 60% greater initial (31.) tread depth^ ', and hence greater mileage before recapping. The noise-generating mechanisms of tire/roadway interaction are not completely understood. It is known that the entrapment and release of air from the tire tread cavities produces noise. Also, it appears that the vibration of the tire contributes to the total noise lever '. However, the effect on noise levels of the large lugs on crossbar tires and of the road surface arc not well quantified. The result is that basically all the noise information available has been obtained experimentally, and tire manu- facturers do not appear to be close to any major breakthrough that would result in crossbar tire designs exhibiting significantly lower noise levels. There seem to be no conclusive data which indicate any significant difference in traction properties between rib and crossbar tires under dry, wet, or icy conditions Any advantage in traction is probably in favor of 18 ------- rib tires, becaube they normally provide about 59o more rubber in contact with the road. However, in snow, sand, gravel, mud, or loose dirt, where the tire does not come into contact with a firm surface, some cross- bars will give better traction than rib tires . Extensive measurements of the noise level produced by tires mounted on the drive axle of a truck-tractor have been conducted by the National Bureau of Standards and the Department of Transportation' ' (ccc Figure 4). Typical values of the noise level measured at 50 ft are 68 and 73 dB(A) at 3!> mph for new rib and crossbar tires, respectively, on a concrete roadway. At 55 mph these levels typically increase to 75 and 83 dB(A)* ', respectively, although higher values are by no means uncommon. In general, rib tires produce lower noise levels than crossbar tires. The noise produced increases with tire wear, reaching a maximum value when the tread is approximately half worn. An increase in noise level of 5 dB(A) over the levels of new tires is not uncommon* '. Data indicate that some retread tires having a tread composed, largely of pockets which are not vented either around the tire or to the side produce excessive noise levels by allowing air to be trapped, compressed, and subsequently released as the pockets pass through the footprint area of the tire. These pocket retreads are responsible for noise levels around 95 dB(A) at highway speeds * ''. COST OF RETROFITTING INDIVIDUAL TRUCKS The noise control information given in the preceding section reflects the state of available retrofit technology for each noise source. To reduce the noise level produced by an existing vehicle, it is necessary to apply one or more of the modifications outlined, depending upon the vehicle in question and the overall noise reduction required. For example, more components of an old, poorly maintained truck will normally need to be modified than those of one in new condition. Also, more treatment will be required for trucks originally built with very noisy diesel engines. 19 ------- 50 60 Speed, KM/Hr 70 80 90 100 m •o 1 c o VI (TJ ------- TECHNOLOGY ANL> COST REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH A LOW- SPEED STANDARD Treatments indicative of what might be required to lower truck noise (other than from tire/road interaction) to various levels and the associated costs per treatment are listed in Table 4. The noise levels are for low- speed full-throttle acceleration measured according to SAE J366a on an open site over a hard surface. Since the noise levels of individual trucks vary, not all trucks requiring treatment would require the treatments indi- cated to meet each noise level. The percentage of trucks in Table 4 that need each type of component change were estimated by an EPA contractor from data gathered by a company located in a regulated region of the country which has been extensively engaged in retrofitting trucks to reduce their noise. The estimated costs to achieve 90, 88 and 86 dB(A) are comparable to the actual costs incurred by that company in retrofitting 7600 large multi- axle trucks, which are shown in Table 5* . The 7600 trucks include both gasoline and diesel-powered units, representing the proportion of each type that required retrofit or repair to meet the noise limits. Very few trucks have actually been retrofitted to achieve a noise level of 84 dB(A), since few State and local jurisdictions have low speed noise standards at levels below 86 dB(A). The EPA contractor estimated a range of costs of $292-462 to quiet the average multiaxle truck to 84 dB(A), while the retrofit service company estimated that it might cost$950 to quiet a diesel multiaxle truck to that level. Costs should be some- what lower for smaller medium and heavy duty trucks, some of which could be quieted to 84 dB(A). There is a practical limit as to what noise levels can be achieved on all trucks through the use of retrofit technology. EPA studies have indi- cated that it is not cost-effective and often not feasible to quiet in-service motor vehicles much below the noise levels that characterized them when new. There are trucks in the existing fleet that contain diesel engines that are 21 ------- TABLE 4 ESTIMATED COSTS TO RETROFIT TRUCKS TO VARIOUS NOISE LEVELS (According to SAE J366a) IN 1973 DOLLARS Noise Level Typical Estimated Cost % Trucks Exceeding Avg. Cost Per dB(A) @ 50' Treatment Per Item $Specified Noise Level Truck Retrofitted Requiring Component Change 90 Exhaust1 50-100 100%$50-$100 Total$50-$100 88 Exhaust 50-100 Fan2 35 100% 5% 50-100 2- 2 Total$52-$102 3 Exhaust 100 86 Fan4 80 Intake5 115 100% 10% 5% 100 8 6 Total$114 Exhaust6 100-200 Fan7 285-400 84 Intake5 115 Engine8 80-130 100% 50% 25% 25% $100-$200 $143-$200V $29-$ 29 $20-$ 33 Total $292-$462 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Muffler and labor — single or dual system Replaced fan blade Mean cost for muffler and labor, plus additional cost requiring replacement of flexible tubing, etc. Replaced fan blade and added shroud in some Average cost of dry element air cleaner with cases built-in Muffler and replacement of feasible pipes — single or for some trucks silencer dual system Viscous fan clutch and new fan blade in conjunction with shroud. Thermostatically controlled clutch Partial engine kit plus installation. 22 ------- TABLE 5 ACTUAL COSTS OF RETROFITTING 7600 TRUCKS TO ACHIEVE / SPECIFIED NOISE LEVELS ACCORDING TO SAE J3G6al Level 90 dB(A) 88 dB(A) 86 dB(A) 84 dB(A) Actual Cost (1973 $>$45-100 $50-110$50-205 _ Per Truck 23 ------- too noisy to be sold in jurisdictions that enforce an 8<> dH(A) noise emission standard at 50 feet. These engines arc being phased out of new trucks, but they represent an obstacle to limits lower than 8G d!3(A) for Interstate Motor Carrier Regulations that must take best available technology and cost of compliance into account. Many heavy trucks are custom-built, and it is technologically possible to replace engines or rebuild in-service trucks to achieve large reductions in noise emissions. However, this is not considered to be within the definition of "best available technology," and would involve very high costs. Even achieving 84 dB(A) for all trucks would require the extensive use of engine enclosures that are not currently available and that have not been adequately tested for safety and compatibility with engine maintenance needs. EPA believes that a noise level of 86 dB(A), measured according to SAE J366a, is achievable through the use of best available technology by almost all medium and heavy duty trucks in the existing fleet. It is also achievable by buses, since they use the same engines and tires as trucks. Trucks are already being retrofitted to reach 86 dB(A) in a number of states and actual experience indicates that the associated costs were $50-205 per truck in 1973 for those in-service trucks that had to be retrofitted. Additionally, at least one major truck manufacturer has indicated its intention to work with suppliers to develop a retrofit noise control package to bring older trucks into compliance with noise levels already proposed. This should help provide the retrofit service capability that will be needed to enable vehicles to comply with the Interstate Motor Carrier Regulations. Table 4 indicates that most trucks currently exceeding 8G dB(A) require only a muffler to be in compliance, and muffler manufacturers have testified in public hearings that adequate mufflers can be available in sufficient numbers to permit compliance of all trucks within one year of promulgation of the Interstate Motor Carrier Regulations. 24 ------- TECHNOLOGY AND COST HKQUIHKI) TO COMPLY WITH A IIIGII-SIM-.'KD STANDAIID Since engine-related noise does not increase at high speed above the levels associated with low speed maximum acceleration, the high speed standard should exceed the low speed standard only by the noise differential associated with the increase in tire noise at higher speeds. Figure 4 indicated that tire noise continues to increase as truck speed increases. Considerable high speed noise reductions can be obtained through the replacement of "pocket retread" tires by crossbar tires at no increase in cost or loss of performance. However, crossbar tires begin to dominate overall truck noise levels at speeds in excess of 45 mph and a high speed standard of 86 dB(A) might require the elimination of virtually all crossbar tires. It appears that per-mile cost differentials between tires having different types of tread may depend on tire composition and terrain as well as on motor carrier recapping policies. A comprehensive study of cost-differentials associated with the use of truck tires of different types is being carried out by EPA as preparation for possible future tire regulations and/or revisions of the Interstate Motor Carrier Regulations. However, due to performance and safety requirements it does not appear feasible or desirable to require the elimination of all crossbar tires at this time. It may be desirable to further restrict the use of noisy crossbar tires in the future, but such an action requires more data on cost, performance, and safety differentials between tires of different treads than currently is available. Accordingly, a four decibel margin has been added to the 86 dB(A) low speed standard to take tire noise into account. Actual experience indicates that this will require the elimination of some crossbar tires on heavy trucks that have a very large number of axles. However, it should still be possible for these trucks to operate with crossbar tires on the drive axles. A comparison of the results of surveys of actual truck noise levels (data from the surveys is presented in section 4), indicates that essentially the same percentages of trucks exceeded 86 dB(A) under low speed acceleration 25 ------- as exceeded 90 dB(A) under high speed conditions, and also tiiat the per- centages are very nearly the same for each MVMA class of trucks considered separately by number of axles. This strongly suggests that the two standards are comparable. For those trucks that must change from crossbar tires to rib tires in order to comply with the standards, a small cost penalty may result. Under a strategy of recapping each tire only once, the cost difference between crossbar and rib tires is approximately$. 23 per thousand miles. For a single drive axle truck, this represents a cost difference of less than $.001 per mile. A high-speed noise level of 88 dB(A) would be achievable by two-axle trucks because they have fewer tires than multiaxle trucks. A separate standard was considered for this category, but an analysis of highway noise levels performed using a DOT Highway Noise Prediction Model indicated that reducing the noise emissions of a portion of the truck fleet over 10,000 pounds by two decibels would have no measurable effect on highway noise levels. Accordingly, one high-speed noise limit seemed reasonable for all motor vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR operated by motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce. 26 ------- Section :J INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER REGULATIONS This section contains a summary of the regulations, a short explanation of Hie changes made in the regulations since the notice of proposed rule- making, and an analysis of the relationship between the various test measure- ment procedures used to ascertain compliance of motor vehicles with noise emission standards. SUMMARY OF THE REGULATIONS The Interstate Motor Carrier Noise Emission Standards are applicable to all motor vehicles above 10,000 Ib GVWR/GCWR operated by motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce. There are two interrelated standards directed to the way in which the motor vehicles arc operated while in use. The first is a requirement that motor vehicles generate no more than 86 dB(A) at 50 feet in speed aonos at or under 35 mph under all conditions. The second is that the vehicles generate no more than 90 dB(A) at 50 feet in speed zones over 35 mph under all conditions. The intent of these two standards is to limit maximum propulsion system noise to the same level in both speed zones, but to provide an additional margin for tire noise in the high speed zones. If the actual vehicle speed (rather than the posted speed limit) were used in the regulation, then enforcement would require the simultaneous measure- ment of each vehicle's speed and noise level. This would be quite difficult in the case of a truck operating in a stream of faster-moving passenger car traffic. To remove this obstacle to enforcement, the standards are keyed to the speed zone in which the vehicle is operating rather than its actual speed. This is the rationale for setting the low-speed, high-speed break at 35 mph rather than 45 mph, where tire noise could begin to be important. A stationary engine run-up test standard of 88 dB(A) has been included in order to permit enforcement at roadside weighing stations. This test will 27 ------- typically be performed over a hard site and is applicable only to vehicles with engine speed governors. The test is inappropriate for vehicles without governors because of the following: a. Wide variability is introduced by operator technique and tachometer errors in accelerating to maximum rated rpm in tests of ungoverned engines. b. Wide variability exists in the maximum rated rpm for ungoverned engines, and maximum rpm in a stationary i-un-up test may be far nhovc maximum rpm of the engine when in operation. c. The possibility of catastrophic failure exists when an ungoverned engine is accelerated rapidly to maximum speed when not under load. Most vehicles will violate the regulations only when their exhaust systems are faulty, and a visual exhaust system inspection standard has been included to cover this possibility. A visual tire inspection standard has also been included to provide an effective means of eliminating the noisiest type of tire treat pattern, except in cases where it can be shown that the vehicle can meet the 90 dB(A) standard even when using tires whose tread appears to be noisy. The effective date of the regulations is one year from the date of promul- gation. EPA has determined that the required retrofit components will be available within this period and that a one year effective date will not impose an undue hardship on the trucking industry. REVISION OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS PRIOR TO PROMULGATION The Interstate Motor Carrier Noise Emission Regulations which are now being promulgated incorporate several changes from the proposed regulations which were published on July 27, 1973. These changes are based upon the public comments received and upon the continuing study of motor carrier noise by the Agency. In all but one instance such changes are not substantial; they are only intended to further clarify the intent of the proposed regulations. 28 ------- The sole substantive change is the deletion of proposed Section 202.12, "Standards for Level Street Operations 35 MPH or Under." This section was originally proposed as it was felt that vehicles which could comply with a stan- dard of 86 dB(A) under any conditions on highways with speed limits of 35 mph or less could be driven so as to comply with a standard of 80 dB(A) when operated at constant speed on level streets with speed limits of 35 mph or less. It was the intent of the Agency through this section to thereby regulate the manner of operation of the vehicle, by the driver, without imposing any additional noise reduction requirement to the vehicle proper beyond that needed to meet the 86 dB(A) standard. Substantial questions were raised regarding the validity of the data upon which the standard was based. The Agency, upon review of the relevant data, agrees with the comments and accordingly, the Standards for Level Street Operations section has been deleted. Those changes made to clarify the intent of the regulations, and the reasons therefore, are as follows: Section 202.10 - Definitions "Common carrier by motor vehicle, " "contract carrier by motor vehicle, " and "private carrier of property by motor vehicle" were deleted. In their place, the definition of "motor carrier" was expanded to incorporate, by reference, the definition of those terms in paragraphs 14, 15, and 17, of Section 203 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 USC 303 A). This treatment more closely follows Section 18(d) of the Noise Control Act and thereby insures that any question as to the definition of those terms will be resolved by reference to the body of law which Congress intended to apply to Section 18. The definitions of "dB(A),""sound pressure level, "and "sound level," were changed slighty to be consistent with the definitions of those terms used in the document "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety," issued by the Environmental Protection Agency in March 1974. "Fast meter response" has been expanded for clarity. 29 ------- "Gross combination weight rating" (GCWR) has been added to avoid any possible confusion over whether the regulation is applicable to combination trucks (i. e., tractor-trailer rigs) over 10,000 pounds weight rating. The provisions of Subpart B of the regulation are applicable to all single and com- bination vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR or GCWR operated by interstate motor carriers. "Interstate commerce" has been modified to insure that any questions as to its scope would be resolved by reference to Section 203(a) of the Inter- state Commerce Act, consistent with the reference to that. Act in Section 18(d) of the Noise Control Act. "Person" has been deleted, since (as discussed below) that word is no longer used in Subpart B of the regulations. "Street," and "official traffic device," have been deleted, since pro- posed Section 202.12 in which they were used has been deleted. "Muffler" has been added to simplify the language of proposed Section 202.14, "Visual Exhaust System Inspection. " "Open site" has been added to further clarify the standards. Section 202.11 - Effective Date An effective date of October 1, 1974 was originally proposed for the regulations. The intent of the Agency in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was that the proposed regulations would become effective one year from the date of promulgation. This intent is retained in this new section. Section 202.12 - Applicability "Applicability" was moved to Subpart A of the final regulations as it is appropriately considered a "general provision" of the regulations. It has been modified to clarify the intent of the Agency that the standards do not apply to noise emission from warning devices or auxiliary equipment mounted on motor vehicles; and that compliance with any provision of Subpart B does not excuse any motor vehicle from compliance with the other provisions of Subpart B. 30 ------- Subpart B - Interstate Motor Carrier Operations The language used in Subpart B has been changed from, "no person shall operate," to "no motor carrier subject to these regulations shall operate...;" and the language in section 202.20 was modified slightly to conform to this change. This change is intended to reflect more accurately the intent of Congress and these regulations, that they are to establish uniform national noise emission regulations for those operations of interstate motor carriers which require such treatment. The revised language clearly imposes sole responsibility for meeting the requirements upon the motor carriers which own and operate the subject motor vehicles. The proposed language, using the broad term "person," would have imposed that responsibility upon the drivers of subject motor vehicles as well as the companies which operate them. "Motor carrier," as defined in these regulations, includes independent truckers who both own and drive their own vehicles. The phrase "on an open site over any surface," was added to the standards of Subpart B to further clarify the standards. Section 202.21 - Standard for Operation Under Stationary Test The language of this section has been modified to further clarify that it applies only to vehicles which have an engine speed governor. Application of a stationary run-up test to vehicles which are not equipped with engine speed limiting devices could result in engine damage. Section 202.22 - Visual Exhaust System Inspection The intent of the Agency in requiring motor vehicles subject to this regulation to be equipped with exhaust system noise dissipative devices has been further clarified through modification of the language of proposed Section 202.14. In addition, the exception to the proposed requirement relating to vehicles with gas driven turbochargers and equipped with engine brakes, which were demonstrated to meet the other standards of Subpart B, has been deleted. Such equipment is included in the term "other noise dissipative device," and therefore need not be treated separately. 31 ------- Section 202. 23 - Visual Tire Inspection The intent of the Agency was to specifically preclude the use of "pocket retread" tires which when new are demonstrably noisier without having any accompanying benefit in safety or cost over other types of tires. The pro- posed Section 202.15 has been modified in response to comments by tire manufacturers that the regulation as proposed could have covered some types of tires which are not in fact exceptionally noisy. Proposed Section 202.16 - Enforcement Procedures This proposed section has been deleted. As the Noise Control Act places enforcement responsibilities for these regulations with the Department of Transportation, the section as proposed added nothing not specified in the Act. Proposed Subpart C - Special Local Conditions Determinations The procedures for applying for determinations as called for in Section 18(c)(2) of the Act, will be published by EPA as "procedures" and not as part of this regulation. Accordingly, Subpart C has been deleted. Preemption Under Subsection 18(c)(l) of the Noise Control Act, after the effective date of these regulations no State or political subdivision thereof may adopt or enforce any standard applicable to noise emissions resulting from the operation of motor vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR or GCWR by motor carriers engaged in inter- state commerce unless such standard is identical to the standard prescribed by these regulations. Subsection 18(c)(2), however, provides that this section does not diminish or enhance the rights of any State or political subdivision thereof to establish and enforce standards or controls on levels of environmental noise, or to control, license, regulate, or restrict the use, operation or movement of any product if the Administrator, after consultation with the Secretary of Trans- portation, determines that such standard, control, license, regulation, or restric- tion is necessitated by special local conditions and is not in conflict with regula- tions promulgated under Section 18. 32 ------- Conversely, Subsection 18(c)(l) does not in any way preempt State or local standards applicable to noise emissions resulting from any operation of interstate motor carriers which is not covered by Federal regulations. Thus, under the proposed regulations States and localities will remain free to enact and enforce noise regulations on motor carrier operations other than their operation of motor vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR or GCWR, with- out any special determination by the Administrator. Only after a Federal regulation on noise emissions resulting from a particular interstate motor carrier operation has become effective must the States and localities obtain a special determination by the Administrator under Subsection 18(c)(2), in order to adopt or enforce their own use restrictions or environmental noise limits on that operation. Some interstate motor carrier operations on which no Federal noise standards or regulations have become effective, and which may, therefore, be subjected to State and local noise standards without any special determina- tion by the Administrator, may indirectly include motor vehicles which are covered by preemptive Federal regulations. Motor carrier maintenance shops, for example, may from time to time emit the noise of trucks undergoing tests along with noises common to many industrial operations such as forging and grinding; and motor carrier terminals and parking areas include trucks among their many types of noise sources. In most instances, compliance with State or local standards on non- Federally regulated operations of motor carriers is achievable without affecting the Federally regulated motor vehicles within them. Standards on noise emissions from repair shops, for example, can be met by such measures as improved sound insulation in the walls of the shop, buffer zones of land between the shop and noise-impacted areas, and scheduling the operation of the shop to reduce noise at those times of the day when its impact is most severe. Standards on motor carrier terminals and parking areas can be met by a variety of steps, including reducing the volume of loudspeaker systems by using a distributed sound system or replacing speakers with two-way radios, reducing noise emissions from equipment which is not covered by Federal regulations, installing noise 33 ------- hurriors :iround noisy equipment, :icc|iiirmu :i»ldilion;iJ hind lo :ict as :i noise huffcr, mid locating noisy equipment such ns p:irked trucks with operating refrigeration equipment as far us possible from adjacent noise-sensitive property. State or local regulations on noise emissions from motor carrier operations which the motor carrier can reasonably meet by initiating measures such as these are not standards applicable to noise emissions resulting from the operation of motor vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR or GCWR, and thus would not be preempted by the proposed regulations. No special determination by the Administrator under Subsection 18(c)(2) would be necessary. State or local noise standards on opera- tions involved in interstate commerce such as motor carrier terminals are, of course, subject to Constitutional prohibition if they are so stringent as to place an undue burden on interstate commerce. In some cases, however, a State or local noise regulation which is not stilted as ;i regulation applicable to a Federally regulated operation may be such a regu- lation in effect, if the only way the regulation could be met would be to modify the equipment which meets the Federal regulation applicable to it. This would be the case, for example, if after the proposed regulations become effective, a State or locality attempted to adopt or enforce a limit on noise emissions from motor carrier terminals in urban areas which could not reasonably be met by measures such as noise barriers or relocating the motor vehicles to which this regulation is applicable. Such regulation would, in effect, require modifications to motor vehicles even though they met the Federal regulations and would thus be a regu- lation applicable to them which would be preempted under Subsection 18(c)(l). It could not stand if it differed from the Federal regulations, unless the Administrator made the determinations specified in Subsection 18(c)(2). The same would be true of any State or local standard on motor carrier operations which could not reasonably be met except by modifying motor vehicles which comply with the proposed Federal standards. State and local regulations on motor carrier operations which are not directed at the control of noise, or which include noise control as only one of many purposes such as safety, traffic control, and the like, are not preempted by Subsection 18(c)(l) of the Noise Control Act and require no special determination under Subsection 18{c)(2) 34 ------- to be adopted or enforced. Thus, the designation of some streets as truck routes, and prohibition of trucks from other streets, by State or local governments, are valid without any special determination under Subsection 18(c)(2). Auxiliary Equipment Considerations Some types of auxiliary equipment used in vehicles operated by interstate motor carriers are necessary for the comfort or safety of passengers, or for the preser- vation of cargo. Principal examples of such auxiliary equipment are refrigeration or air conditioning units and concrete mixer bodies and drives. The auxiliary equip- ment noise emissions for these two types of vehicles, in particular, are at a level far enough below other significant components of vehicle noise, as EPA's data indicate, to be masked by other noise sources during normal vehicle highway operations. Other auxiliary equipment, however, normally operates only when the trans- porting vehicle is stationary or moving at a very slow speed, normally less than 5 mph. Examples of such equipment include cranes, asphalt spreaders, ditch diggers, liquid or slurry pumps, air compressors, welders, and trash compactors. The operation of such equipment is not intended to be covered by these regulations. Emergency Equipment and Vehicles because of the emergency or safety aspects of their operation the regulations arc not applicable to vehicles such as fire engines, ambulances, police vans, and rescue vans when responding to emergency calls. Similarly, these regulations are not intended to apply to snow plow operations. Enforcement Procedures, Violations, and Penalties Enforcement procedures are to be developed and promulgated under separate rule making by the Department of Transportation. Such enforcement procedures will specify minimum requirements for instrumentation, test sites, and other conditions necessary to insure uniformity in testing and a minimum level of precision. Enforcement of the standards is contemplated to be more efficient under some conditions if measurements are permitted to be made at distances other than 50 feet under procedures that provide for equivalency to the standards measured at 50 feet. 35 ------- Section 10 of the Act specifies that any violation of these and any future regulations established under the authority of section 18 of the Act constitutes a prohibited act. Any person who willfully or knowingly violates the regulation shall be punished by a fine of not more than$25,000.00 per day of violation or imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both, or a fine not exceeding $50,000.00 per day of violation, or imprisonment for not more than two years or by both, following a conviction for a previous violation of the Noise Control Act. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOW-SPEED MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES During the Public Hearings on Noise Abatement and Control held in San Francisco in September 1971, testimony was offered to show the variations in noise level of a truck as measured under maximum acceleration low-speed conditions at nine different sites. Compared to a hard surface open site, grass- covered sites produced noise levels that were 1.5 to 2.0 dB(A) lower, while the presence of near-by buildings produced noise levels 1.5 to 2.0 dB(A) higher. This implies that a truck in compliance with a standard as measured over a soft surface could be out of compliance as measured over a hard surface unless suitable correction factors are applied. In actual practice, highway measurement and enforcement of the noise emis- sion standards contained in these regulations will occur on sites having surfaces that range from hard to soft. Motor vehicles covered by the regulations should have no trouble being retrofitted to comply with an 86 dBA standard as measured at a typical roadsite site. This same rationale has been used to set the level of 88 dB(A) for the Sta- tionary Run-up Test Standard. The stationary run-up test (SRUT) is a means of determining maximum propulsion system noise. A vehicle propulsion system which emits a given sound power by this test will typically emit that same value in use when power requirements are maximum due to conditions of load, accelera- tion, and grade when measurement site parameters are comparable. The stationary standard at 88 dB(A) is approximately equivalent to the low speed standard at 86 dB(A) because of the different measurement sites used. Both levels would be the same if both were to be implemented on pavement, or 36 ------- both on grassy sites. This level would also be the same if the J366 maximum noise test were included in the standards. In a tabular form the relationship between the three test methods is as follows: Stationary Max-Noise Low Runup Speed Passby J36G Hard Site 88 88 88 Soft Site 86 86 86 SHUT was developed because the Society of Automotive Engineers J3(iGa tost, which is almost universally performed by vehicle manufacturers, their customers, and their suppliers, is wholly unsuitable for use in roadside enforcement of a motor carrier regulation because of its technical require- ments. In order to obtain information on the feasibility of using SHUT as an enforcement test procedure, tests were performed at the International Harvester Company Truck Engineering Center at the request of EPA. Although the data collected do not represent a sample large enough to have statistical significance, the experiment is indicative of what relationship can be expected between SAE J36Ga, SRUT, and Maximum Acceleration Passby results as measured over a hard surface. The data are presented in Figures 5, 6, and 7 and Table 5. 37 ------- 90 dBA CO 00 80 70 90 .3 dBA dBA 80 70 86.8 dBA I I I I I SECONDS I I I I I I SECONDS J366a: TRACTOR ONLY STATIONARY RUNUP TEST Figure 5. Noise Level of a Large Diesel Truck as it Approaches and Passes a Microphone in the J366a Test. Figure 6. Noise Level of the Same Truck as it Idles, Followed by Engine Accel- eration to Maximum Governed rpm in the Stationary Run-up Test. ------- 05 CD 90 80 dBA 70 60 •86.3 dBA I I i I SECONDS MAXIMUM ACCELERATION TEST: TRACTOR PLUS TRAILER (GCW = 72,600 Ib) j I Figure 7. Noise Level from the Same Tractor while Pulling a Load as it Accelerates Past a Microphone in a Pass-by Test. ------- Table 5 MEASURED VALUES OF NOISE LEVEL IN dB(A) OF SEVERAL TESTS ON TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF TRUCKS. PASSBY MICROPHONE LOCATIONS ARE ALL 50 FT FROM THE LINE OF TRAVEL, EACH 50 FT SUCCESSIVELY FARTHER FROM THE START POSITION. 72,600 LB DIESEL 56,000 LB DIESEL TEST CAB-OVER-ENGINE CONVENTIONAL CAB LEFTSIDE RIGHTSIDE LEFTSIDE RIGHTSIDE J366a (Tractor only) 86.4 dB(A) 86. 3 dB(A) 87.3 dB(A) 87.0 dB(A) SRUT 86.4 86.8 87.0 89.2 Acceleration Passby Location #1 87.0 86.3 87.5 88.0 Location #2 86.3 87.0 85.9 87.5 Location #3 85.4 85.8 86.3 88.0 Location #4 86.0 86.8 85.5 87.2 Two large dies el trucks were used for the tests, and in performing these tests all measurement conditions were identical: paved surface, microphone located 4 ft high, 50 ft from the source. The same series of tests, if performed at a different site, would be expected to produce results differing in proportion to the acoustic reflectivity of the surface between microphone and test vehicle and due to normal variations in the tests themselves which render them less than exactly repeatable. This example shows essentially the same maximum noise level for all tests. However, identical results are not always achievable under such comparisons; the statistical correlation between J366a and SRUT is discussed below. Maximum noise measured during acceleration will vary to some extent as a result of the chance location of the microphone in relation to the maximum noise point in the vehicle gearshift cycle. 40 ------- 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 92 91 90 • 89 87- J-366a dB(A) 90 91 92 93 ~94 9598 97~ 87 86 85 84 83 82 Correlation Between 81 J 366a & Stationary Test 80 79 52. Sea a"0 78 := Figure 8. Plot of Test Results According to SRUT and SAE J366a for 877 Trucks. ------- STATIONARY RUN-UP TEST CORRELATION WITH SAE J366a A very substantial data base has recently become available that relates the measurements of truck noise taken using the SAE J366a maximum acceleration pass-by test and the stationary Runup Test (SHUT). The data has been collected and compiled by the Society of Automotive Engineers from several industrial sources. The stationary run-up test consists of measuring the maximum A-weighted sound level at a distance of 50 feet from the vehicle engine exhaust during maximum acceleration of the engine from low idle to high idle. The test is conducted with the transmission in neutral and the clutch engaged. The inertial load of the engine during rapid engine speed acceleration makes an external load on the engine unnecessary. SRUT site and sound measurement instrumen- tation requirements are similar to the SAE - J366a requirements. Most truck weigh stations can meet these site requirements. The stationary run-up test will be quite useful for enforcement at State inspection stations and weigh stations. A fleet owner may also use the test to check his vehicle for compliance. The correlation of the stationary run-up test with SAE-J366a is very good. Over 800 different trucks with governed engines have been tested per SAE-J366a and per the stationary run-up test procedure. The results of these tests are plotted in Figure 8. To better understand the meaning of the data points in Figure 8, a statistical analysis of this information is presented in Figure 9. The analysis shows that given comparable site conditions the SAE J366a test yields noise level measurements that are about 0.5 decibels higher on the average for a given truck than the stationary run-up test measurements. The standard deviation of the difference between the two measurements was 1.4 dB(A) for the trucks in the sample. This means that for 95% of the 877 trucks tested, the stationary run-up test measurement did not exceed the SAE J366a measure- ment by more than 2 dB(A). The correlation coefficient for the two sets of test results was computed for a sub-sample of 210 of these trucks, and was found to be 0. 71 (where 1. 0 represents perfect correlation). The fact that the correlation was so high indi- cates that a stationary run-up test can be used as a good approximation to a low speed acceleration test. 42 ------- 70 60 50 £ 40 u 01 ------- Section 4 NOISE MEASUREMENT OF IN-SERVICE VEHICLES This section presents the results and implications of a number of surveys of the noise produced by motor vehicles of different kinds, measured at different speeds and conditions according to several standard test procedures. Light trucks - those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 Ib. or less - typically produce peak passby noise levels of 64 to 72 dB(A) at 35 mph when measured at 50 ft. These noise levels are about the same as those pro- duced by passenger cars at the same speed (40). This result is not surprising, s ince the major noise-producing components of light trucks are very similar to those of automobiles: both are powered by similar gasoline engines, both have two-axle chassis, and both usually use similar rib-type tires. Heavy and Medium Duty Vehicles (those with a GVWR or gross combination weight rating (GCWR) of more than 10,000 Ib.) can produce peak passby noise levels of 95 dB(A) or more at 50 ft. (41). Although all vehicles contribute to the noise emitted along streets and high- ways (which determines the ambient noise level in most urban communities (42)), Heavy and Medium Duty trucks cause a noise problem that can be separated from the problem of motor vehicle noise in general. Heavy trucks emit noise levels that are so much higher than those of other motor vehicles that they stand out very noticeably. Noise peaks of 12 dB above the ambient noise level from other traffic arc commonly observed when a heavy truck passes by (43). MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY Noise is measured by determining (by means of a sound level meter) the magnitude of pressure variations of various frequencies in the air. Since a person's subjective estimate of the magnitude of a sound is dependent upon the relative magnitude of its component frequencies, a weighting network is usually employed to match the response of the sound level meter to that of the human 44 ------- ear (44). The most commonly used network is the A-weighting network, which is contained in all sound level meters. Noise levels measured on the A-weighted noise scale are recorded using the notation dB(A). Noise scales other than A, B, and C are available, but they require a more complex analysis procedure, which is normally not justified by improved correlation with human assessment (45). Because noise levels can peak rapidly as a truck passes by, the sound level meter is usually set to "fast" response. It has been argued that the A-weighted sound level discriminates against low frequencies and, consequently, should be replaced by the C-weighted sound level in motor carrier noise standards. However, the ear also discriminates against low frequencies so that at low frequencies the sound pressure level must be comparatively high before it can even be heard. This may explain why the correlations between A-weighted sound level and human response are consistently better than that obtained with the C-weighted sound level. A-weighting has been shown to be a fairly good and consistent indicator of loudness for a variety of common noises (46, 47). On the other hand, the C- weighted level is consistently and significantly poorer than the A-weighted level (48). Insofar as a predictor for speech interference for a variety of noises, the C-weighted level is very poor as compared to A-weighted level (49). It may be concluded from the literature that of all standardized weightings, the A-weighted sound level has been the most successful of these measures as an indicator of human response. Some improvements could probably be gained by the new weighting characteristics that have been suggested recently (N, D, Dl, and D2); however, these have not been nationally or internationally agreed upon; thus, no standardized procedures or equipment exist for them at the present time. Noise levels decrease with distance from the noise source, so it is important to specify the distance at which measurements are to be made. For measuring truck noise, the most usual measurement distance selected is 50 ft. At closer distances, slight variations in measurement distance can produce significant errors in the measured noise level (50); at greater distances, background noise levels and the presence of noise-reflecting surfaces can pose problems in site selection (51). 45 ------- In the surveys presented in this section, an effort was made to maintain standard conditions at almost all sites. Suitable instrumentation was used; sound level meters met the requirements of ANSI SI. 4-1971, American National Standard Specification for Sound Level Meters. Microphone calibra- tion was performed by an appropriate procedure and at prescribed intervals. An anemometer was used to determine wind velocity, and microphones were equipped with suitable wind screens. Restrictions were made to prevent measurements during unfavorable weather conditions (e.g., wind and precipitation). The standard site for pass- by measurements was an open space free of sound reflecting objects such as barriers, walls, hills, parked vehicles, and signs. The nearest reflector to the microphone or vehicle was more than 80 feet away. The road surface was paved, and the ground between the roadside and the microphone was covered by short grass in most cases. The standard site for the stationary runup test included space requirements that were the same as for pass-by measurements, and the surface between the microphone and vehicle was paved. Microphones for stationary and pass-by measurements were located 50 feet from the centerline of the vehicle or lane of travel, 4 feet off the ground, and oriented as per manufacturer's instructions. Variations from the standard measurement sites and microphone locations were allowed if the measurements were suitably adjusted to be equivalent to measure- ments made via the standard methods. Exact procedures for the tests are included in the appendix. SURVEYS OF TRUCK NOISE Truck noise surveys have been conducted in California in 1965 (52), and 1971 (53), in the State of Washington in 1972 (54), and in New Jersey in 1972 (55). In 1973, EPA contractors conducted additional truck noise surveys of 6,875 trucks operating at speeds over 35 MPH in the states of California, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas, and of 2,583 trucks operating under acceleration conditions at speeds under 35 MPH in the states of California, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Texas, and Virginia. 46 ------- In almost all cases, measurements were made at a distance of 50 ft from the center of the first (outer) lane of travel, using A-weighting and fast response on the sound level meter. In the 1973 surveys, the type of truck and number of axles were recorded in order to permit detailed analyses of the noise level dis- tributions for various types of trucks. In addition, a study of noise levels of 60 trucks produced during a stationary run-up test was carried out by EPA in Virginia in February, 1974. ANALYSES OF HIGH SPEED (OVER 35 MPH) SURVEY DATA Figure 10 shows cumulative probability distributions for the peak passby noise levels measured at 50 ft under high-speed freeway conditions in the surveys conducted prior to 1973. The data shown are for heavy trucks: 5,838 diesel trucks in California in 1965 (56), 172 combination trucks in California in 1971 (57), 531 trucks with 3 or more axles in Washington in 1972 (58), and 1,000 trucks with 3 or more axles in New Jersey in 1972 (59). The data are in close agreement: typi- cally, 50% of the trucks were observed to exceed 87 to 88 dB(A) and 20% were observed to exceed 90 dB(A). Figure 11 shows that under high-speed freeway conditions, buses are about 2 dB quieter than heavy trucks. Approximately 50% exceed 85 dB(A), and 6% exceed 90 dB(A). These data were obtained in New Jersey in 1973. Table 6 shows the mean noise levels and percentages of all trucks with six or more wheels that were observed to exceed 90.0 dB(A) under high-speed free- way conditions in ten states. These data were all obtained in 1973, except for the Washington state data, which were obtained in 1972. The arithmetic mean of the percentage of trucks exceeding 90.0 dB(A) is 23.1%. When the data is weighted by the sample size obtained in each state, this percentage drops to 22.6%. When the data are weighted by the number of registered trucks above 10,000 Ib GVWR/GCWR, the percentage drops to 21.0%. 47 ------- as.u 99.8 99.5 99 98 95 90 80 70 .1 60 +-> 1 50 c 40 fi 0 30 jz JU 01 •S 20 10 5 2 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01 *V_ A X ^s ^ k\ A ^V^ ' •^ Data I QCa • Ca AIM • Ni (^ ?JK vS N N Source lifornia (1971) 172 Combination Vehicle lifornia (1965) 5.838 Diesel Trucks jshington (1972) 531 Trucks, 3 or More Axles (w Jersey 1972) 1000 Trucks 3 or More Axles i WO\ vS N L\ t> X. ^ y5; o ^ !^§ s, \ ^A \N \ s.A ^ 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 Enforcement Limit, dB(A) at 50 Ft Figure 10. Enforcement Limit, dB(A) At 50 Ft 94 96 98 100 48 ------- aa.y 99.8 99.5 o 99 S 98 CD > 1 5 2 1.0 0.5 0.2 0 1 =\ \ \ — \ \ \ — — — — — — ~ I I X Xs \ \ *s I — All Trucks (N = 1394) ] — All Buses (N = 93) ] \ \ \ N I \ \ 'N \ N \ I V \ I — — — — — — — N,- 76 80 84 88 92 Peak Passby Noise Level, dB(A) at 50 ft 96 100 Figure 11. Cumulative Distribution Of Peak Passby Noise Levels For All Trucks And All Buses At Speeds Over 35 MPH 49 ------- Table 6 ALL TRUCKS ABOVE 10,000 LBS GVWR OR GCWR State CA CO IL KY MD NJ NY PA TX WA Source W.L. BBN BBN BBN Md. DOT BBN BBN W.L. BBN WA-72 Mean Noise Level 85.4dB(A) (a) 84.6 89.1 88.8 88.1 87.2 88.8 86. 2 (a) 83.7 86. 6 (a) Mean Speed _ 51. 7mph 57.2 61.3 - 56.5 60.0 - 56.1 - % Above 90. 0 dB(A) 5.0% 10.0 42.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 43.0 13.0 12.5 16.0 mean percentage exceeding given noise level: 23.1% (a) median 50 ------- Table 7 shows the same results by type of truck for the nine states in which data were obtained in 1973. The mean percentages of trucks exceeding 90.0 dB(A) ranges from 1.9% of 2-axle trucks to 36.1% of 5-axle trucks. A crucial distinction must now be made. The fact that approximately 23% of all trucks observed in these surveys exceeded 90.0 dB(A) does not mean that 23% of all registered trucks above 10,000 Ib GVWR/GCWR will exceed this level. This is because larger trucks operate many more miles per vehicle per year than smaller trucks do and accordingly show up more frequently in surveys than their actual numbers would indicate. For example, 2-axle trucks average 10,600 vehicle miles per year, while 5-axle trucks average 63,000 vehicle miles per year (60). Using data from the 1972 Census of Transportation - Truck Inventory and Use Survey (61), the following breakdown was obtained for the population of registered trucks above 10, 000 Ib GVWR/GCWR. TRUCK POPULATION OVER 10,000 POUNDS GVWR/GCWR 2-axle straight truck 71.7% 3-axle straight truck 10.6% 3-axle combination truck 2.4% 4-axle combination truck 5.3% 5-axle combination truck 8.1% Not reported or other 1.9% 100.0% Table 8 shows that when these percentages are multiplied by the mean per- centages of each type exceeding 90.0 dB(A) from Table 7, a total of about 7% of all registered trucks above 10,000 Ib GVWR/GCWR exceed 90.0 dB(A) at freeway speeds. 51 ------- Table 7 2 AXLE STRAIGHT TRUCK ABOVE 10,000 LKS GVWR State CA CO IL KY MD NJ NY PA TX Source W.L. BBN BBN BBN Md. DOT BBN BBN W.L. BBN Mean Noise Level 81. OdB(A) (a) 80.4 83.1 82.9 83.9 82.3 85.1 81. 2 (a) 78. G Mean Speed - 50. 9mph 55.7 57.7 - 55.7 59.4 - 54.6 % Above 90.0 dB(A) 1.2% 1.9 1.0 1.0 3.5 0.6 6.0 0.9 0.6 moan percentage exceeding given noise level: 1.! 3 AXLE STRAIGHT TRUCK CA CO IL KY MD NJ NY PA TX W.L. BBN BBN BBN Md. DOT BBN W.L. W.L. BBN 85. 2 (a) (b) 84.1 85.8 87.7 87.5 84.7 88.0 (a)(b) 84. 5 (a) (b) 84.8 - 47.7 54.5 59.9 - 57.4 - - 50.6 8.0 1.2 9.0 * * * 26.0 2.0 * mean percentage exceeding given noise level: 9.3% (a) median (b) all 3 axle trucks * insufficient data 52 ------- Table 7 (Continued) 3 AXLE COMBINATION TRUCK State CA CO IL KY MD NJ NY PA TX Source W.L. BBN BBN BBN Md. DOT BBN W.L. W.L. BBN Mean Noise Level 85. 2 (a) (b) 83.8 86.0 87.8 86.6 85.7 88.0 (a) (b) 84. 5 (a) (b) 83.0 Mean Speed - 51.9 55.7 59.0 - 57.2 - - 56.5 % Above 90.0 dB(A) 8.0% * * * 17.0 1.0 26.0 2.0 * mean percentage exceeding given noise level: 10.1 4 AXLE COMBINATION TRUCK CA CO IL KY MD NJ NY PA TX W.L. BBN BBN BBN Md. DOT BBN BBN W.L. BBN 84. 2 (a) 84.8 87.1 88.0 87.9 86.7 88.8 85. 7 (a) 83.9 - 49.0 55.4 61.0 - 57.7 58.8 - 56.4 3.0 9.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 11.0 26.0 9.0 4.5 mean percentage exceeding given noise level: 15.1 (a) median (b) all 3 axle trucks * insufficient data 53 ------- Table 7 (Continued) 5 AXLE COMBINATION TRUCK State CA CO IL KY MD NJ NY PA TX Source W.L. BBN BBN BBN Md. DOT BBN BBN W.L. BBN Mean Noise Level 85.9 (a) 87.0 90.2 90.6 89.7 88.3 91.2 87. 6 (a) 87.5 Mean Speed - 53.7 57.7 G2.6 - 58.7 61.6 - 57.9 % Above 90.0 dB(A) 7.0% 18.0 51.0 56.0 42.0 32.0 74.0 22.0 23.0 mean percentage exceeding given noise level: 36.1% (a) median 54 ------- Table 8 TRUCKS EXCEEDING 90.0 dI3A AT SPEEDS OVER 35 MPH 2 axle straight truck 3 axle straight truck 3 axle combination 4 axle combination 5 axle combination All other (b) % of all trucks above 10, 000 Ibs (a) 71.7% 10.6 2.4 5.3 8.1 1.9 100. 7% % of type exceeding 90.0dB(A) 1.9% 9.3 10.8 15.0 36.1 36. 1 (c) % of all trucks above 10, 000 Ibs affected (a) 1.4% 1.0 0.3 0.8 2.9 0.7 7.1% (a) Estimates are for all trucks over 10,000 pounds GVWR or GCWR, including trucks not involved in interstate commerce. (b) "All other" includes straight truck with trailer, combinations with 6 or more axles, and combinations not specified in the 1972 Census of Transportation survey. (c) No data available. Percentage exceeding noise level is assumed to be the same as for 5 axle combinations. 55 ------- ANALYSIS OF LOW SPEED (UNDER 35 MP1I) SURVEY DATA Table 9 shows the percentages of trucks above 10,000 Ibs GVWR/GCWR that exceeded 86 dB(A) under low speed acceleration conditions in various states. These data were collected at roadside sites in seven states with acoustic charac- teristics similar to those of the sites used for the collection of high speed data, except in Maryland and Virginia. At these two sites, the paved surface covered the entire distance between the roadway and the microphone, and there was no grassy shoulder area. A site correction factor of -1.5 dB has been assumed for the data obtained at these sites in order to permit direct comparison with the other data, most of which was taken at open sites over a "soft" surface. A comparison of the results shown in Table 9 with those of Tables 6 and 7 demonstrates not only that similar total percentages of trucks were observed to exceed 86 dB(A) under low speed acceleration as exceeded 90 dB(A) under high speed conditions, but also that these percentages are very nearly the same for each class of trucks considered separately. For example, 2% of all 2-axle trucks exceeded 86 dB(A) under low speed acceleration, while 1.9% exceeded 90 dB(A) under high speed freeway conditions. For 4-axle trucks, the results are 21% and 15%, respectively. In this sense, an 86 dB(A) limit under low speed condi- tions can be considered to be about as stringent as a 90 dB(A) high speed limit. The calculations in Table 10 yield an estimate that at the present time about 8% of the nationwide truck fleet over 10,000 pounds exceeds 86 dBA during low- speed acceleration measured at an open site over a soft surface. ANALYSIS OF STATIONARY RUNUP TEST DATA EPA conducted a small-scale investigation to determine that the Stationary Runup Test (SHUT) is suitable with respect to practical enforcement, particu- larly in terms of repeatability, and to check that predicted violation rates as enforced would be consistent with those of the low-speed passby test. A state- weighing station in Virginia cooperated by allowing a survey team to request the participation of drivers as they appeared for weighing their trucks. Sixty trucks were measured by the method outlined in the appendix. 56 ------- Table 9 PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS AT OR ABOVE 86 dB(A) DURING ACCELERATION BELOW 35 MPH State California Colorado Florida Maryland (a) Missouri Texas Virginia (a) Mean Excluding California * insufficient data (a). -1.5 dB site correction factor assumed (see text) 2-Axle 2% 3 1 * 0 2 * 2% 3-Axle 12% 6 7 11 28 13 11 13% 4-Axle * 27 13 20 27 * 20 21% 5-Axle 20% 24 36 40 49 26 42 36% All Trucks 10% 17 10 35 39 17 40 24% 57 ------- Table 10 PERCENT OF TRUCKS OVER 10,000 POUNDS EXCEEDING 86 dB(A) UNDER 35 MPH % of Trucks Above % of Type Ex- % of Trucks Above No. of Axles 10. OOP pounds (a) ceeding 86 dB(A) 10,000 pounds Affected (a) 2 axle 3 axle 4 axle 5 axle All other (b) 72% 13 5 8 2 2% 13 21 36 36 (c) 1.4% 1.7 1.1 2.9 0.7 100% 7.8% a) Estimates are for all trucks over 10,000 pounds GVWR or GCWR, including trucks not involved in interstate commerce. b) "All other" includes straight truck with trailer, combinations with 6 or more axles, and combinations not specified in the 1972 Census of TnmsporUition survey. c) No data available. Percentage exceeding noise level is assumed to be the same as for 5 axle trucks. 58 ------- A representative from the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety explained to each driver the technique required to achieve a maximum engine runup. Four runups were performed for each truck and the noise level measurements were recorded. In many cases, the first attempt by the driver did not produce the rapid engine acceleration necessary for the test. However, in most cases the tost was performed properly in subsequent attempts. Tins average of the three hignest noise levels obtained from the four tests was used to characterize the SRUT level for comparison with the EPA standard level of 88 dB(A). The consistency of the three highest levels was such that for 93% of the trucks tested, the range of noise levels was 1. 5 dB(A) or less. Of the small population tested 35% exceeded the noise level standard of 88 dB(A). CLASSIFICATION OF TRUCKS INTO CATEGORIES The studies performed indicate that truck mean noise levels increase with vehicle size (or number of axles) and speed. Accordingly, regulations have been promulgated for high and low speed truck operations in order to quiet both engine- related noise and tire noise. An effort was also made to develop a suitable classi- fication for trucks based on weight or number of axles in order to require the use of best available technology in trucks of all sizes. Figure 12 presents cumulative distributions of peak pass-by noise levels over 35 MPH at 50 feet for trucks by number of axles. These data were obtained in New Jersey in 1973, but the differences observed between different vehicle classes are typical of other states as well. Mean noise levels for 2-axle, 3- axle, 4-axle, and 5-axle trucks are 82, 86, 87, and 89 dB(A), respectively. The greatest difference in means occurs between 2 and 3-axle trucks. Since this is also the break point between medium and heavy duty trucks, the Agency examined the feasibility of classifying trucks over 10,000 pounds into two categories in order to promulgate stricter regulations for smaller vehicles. Although there is a significant difference between the mean noise levels of medium and heavy duty trucks, there is considerable overlap in the distributions of noise levels of trucks of different sizes currently on the road. The basic problem is that noisy propulsion systems are not confined to heavy duty trucks. Many truck manufacturers offer and have traditionally sold the same engines in trucks having 2 or 3 axles. For example, 59 ------- CS o I 01 <£ 'o 99.9 99.8 99.5 99 98 95 90 0) .2 80 O 01 § 70 60 50 40 3 30 o *— < 0) O) 03 ^ 0) if I 20 10 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 1 _ ^N — — — _ — i i \ \ i i \ y \ \ \ N \ \ \ ^L \. \ ^k \ 1 V • • X. • • , \ \ \ \ \ v \ \ \ N^ 1 1 \\ \ \ • • \\ k \ * \ \ •. N \ \ \ \ \ \ X ^T ^k ^ >, 1 "1 Passenger Cars (Data Collected in Baltimore) — — 2-Axle Trucks (Six Wr •— - 3-Axle — . — . 4-Axle 5-Axle 1 * ^ \ \ \ ^ 1 '.. \ »L \ • • , \ \ V * *• \ \ ^k \ i N \ V ^ 1 eels) Trucks Trucks Trucks • \ K \. V \ •... 1 _ — — — _ — \ ***. 1 \ Figure 12. 60 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100 Peak Passby Noise Level, dB(A) at 50 ft Cumulative Distribution of Peak Passby Noise Levels for Various Classes of Trucks at Speeds Over 35 MPH. ------- according to MVMA data, 3.5% of all new medium duty trucks sold in 1972 were powered by diesel engines similar or identical to those engines used on heavy duty trucks. The same situation has characterized the use of noisy gasoline engines. For this reason, further classification of motor vehicles into categories over 10,000 pounds GVWR is not feasible for the low speed standard. An analysis of the feasibility of classifying trucks at speeds over 35 MPH indicated that 88 dBA could probably be achieved by 2-axle vehicles, since they use fewer tires than multi-axle combination vehicles. However, the analysis of the environmental impact of the high speed standard indicated that highway noise levels are determined almost entirely by the noise levels of the heaviest trucks (those with 4 and 5 axles). The additional assumption of an 88 dB(A) limit on 2-axle trucks above 10, 000 Ibs GVWR and an 82 dB(A) limit on all passenger cars and light trucks in addition to the proposed standards in the analysis pro- duced essentially no further decrease in highway noise levels. The Agency considered limiting the coverage of the Interstate Motor Carrier Regulations to trucks over 26,000 pounds GVWR/GCWR or to trucks having 3 or more axles because several states had requested that coverage be limited so that more stringent state regulations could be applied to the medium duty trucks. However, limiting coverage to trucks over 26,000 pounds would exclude 56% of all trucks over 10,000 pounds GVWR/GCWR from Federal regulation. Limiting coverage to trucks over 3 axles would exclude 72% of all trucks over 10,000 pounds GVWR/GCWR from Federal regulation. Even though only a small percentage (2%) of all medium duty trucks exceed 86 dB(A) at speeds under 35 MPH and 90 dB(A) at speeds over 35 MPH, the actual number of trucks exceeding the standard is not small. Since the intent of Section 18 is clearly to provide uniform nationwide noise regulation for all vehicles involved in interstate commerce, and since limitation of coverage would allow medium duty trucks to go unregulated in many states, the Agency has determined that at this time medium and heavy duty trucks over 10,000 pounds operated in interstate commerce shall be subject to identical Federal regulations. 61 ------- POTENTIAL DEGRADATION ()!•' VKIMCLKS Since a l:irge proportion of medium duly vehicles at tho prosonl time have noise levels that are considerably below 90 dB(A) at speeds above 35 MPH, it has been suggested that degradation of these vehicles could occur until their noise levels reach 90 dB(A) due to the promulgation of Federal regulations. At the present time a few states enforce noise regulations equal to the proposed Federal regulations, while in other states vehicle noise is currently unregulated. Therefore, there is no a priori reason to believe that the change from this situa- tion to one of Federal regulation should cause any vehicle to become noisier than it would be otherwise. Nevertheless, some data are available that can be used to investigate the likelihood of degradation at speeds in excess of 35 MPH. In Figure 10 surveys of noise level distributions were presented for certain vehicle populations in Washington State (1972), New Jersey (1972), and California before and after stale noise regulations were promulgated (1965 and 1971). Unfortunately, the vcluclc populations and other conditions (e.g. speed, grades, and measurement sites) were not uniform in all states. The New Jersey and Washington studies examined vehicles of 3 or more axles, while the 1971 California study examined only combination vehicles. Since combination vehicles are the heavier portion of the heavy trucks having 3 or more axles, the California noise levels measured in the 1971 study would be expected to be above the noise levels measured in the other states. An analysis of Figure 10 indicates that the 1971 California noise distribution is about one decibel above the other distributions at noise levels below 84 dB(A). The distributions are virtually identical between 84 and 92 dB(A) for all states in all years and for all vehicle populations. Above 92 dB(A), the effect of the California noise regulation is noticeable, since a smaller proportion of of vehicles are currently above 92 dB(A) in California than in other states. As expected, no evidence exists to indicate that vehicles degrade more when regulated than when unregulated. In fact, since the California noise level distribution for very heavy combination vehicles (tractor trailers) is 62 ------- only one decibel above the distribution of medium and heavy trucks in other states, the state regulation may well have resulted in a reduction of the noise emissions of trucks that were already below 90 dB(A) prior to regulation. Testimony from muffler manufacturers during EPA public hearings indi- cated that an increased demand for their better mufflers has been noted in noise-regulated areas. These manufacturers and the American Trucking Asso- ciation (ATA) indicated they had no reason to believe that degradation had occurred in any states with noise regulations. However, it is possible that when motor carriers replace the mufflers on their vehicles in order to comply with the Federal regulation requiring an exhaust system "free from defects which affect sound reduction, " they will occasionally choose a muffler that is not as good as the original equipment. This is unlikely to occur with heavy duty trucks because it would lead to violation of the performance standards. However, it could happen with some medium duty trucks that originally had noise levels below the standard. The agency investigated the possibility of requiring a muffler "comparable to original equipment," but this requirement was determined to be undesirable because in many cases the original muffler supplied on old trucks did not sufficiently attentuate noise to meet the Federal emission standards. In the event that future studies of the noise levels of in-serve medium duty trucks indicate that motor carriers are using replacement mufflers that are inferior to effective original equipment, regulations can be developed to label mufflers, and the Interstate Motor Carrier Regulations can be revised to require the use of mufflers comparable or superior to original equipment. Muffler manufacturers already provide information about the effectiveness of their mufflers on specific engine models, although measurement methods vary to some degree. Consequently, if degradation is found to occur, a remedy can be developed relatively easily. 63 ------- Section 5 IMPACT OF THE FEDERAL NOISE REGULATIONS Three kinds of potential impacts are associated with the promulgation of the Interstate Motor Carrier Regulations. An economic impact will occur because motor carriers will be required to retrofit those motor vehicles that arc not in compliance with the regulations. An impact on highway and urban noise levels will occur because many vehicles will be made quieter. Finally, some States and local jurisdictions may be required to alter their existing regulations because the Federal regulations are preemptive. I-ICONOMIC IMPACT OK TIIK REGULATIONS According to Ihc :in:ilysis presented in Section .1, approximately 7-8% ol nil i-cnislcrcd (nicks ?il»ove K), 000 II) (1VWK/GCWK will initially I'nil In comply with (he standards its measured :t( typical roadside sites. Until such time us sl;ile :md local jurisdictions adopt these standards as their own, the standards will apply only to motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce. There is no direct method for determining precisely how many trucks above 10,000 Ib GVWR/GCWR are engaged in interstate commerce. Based on truck population statistics, industry information, and inputs to the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Docket, it appears that at least 1,000,000 of the 5,147,000 trucks above 10,000 Ib GVWR/GCWR will be affected C62.63.64'65). As discussed in Section 3, the heaviest impact of the standards will fall on multiaxle trucks, and available statistics indicate that an average of$114 was required in 1973 to bring these trucks into compliance with local standards that were identical to the Federal Standards. Since prices of most commodities and services have risen significantly over the past year and appear likely to continue to rise in the next year, the average retrofit cost can be expected to rise also. A reasonable average retrofit cost estimate for 1975 is therefore $135 per vehicle in violation of the standards. ------- U, ns .1 worst case, it is assumed that all 15. 2 million motor vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWll/GCWll would be required to meet the standards, and thai 8% of them would require retrofit at a cost of$135 per vehicle, then the total direct retrofit cost could be as high as $5(i million. Although the number and composition of trucks operating in interstate commerce is not known, most of the 5-axle trucks are thoueht to be used for hauling intercity freight, and most of them are involved in interstate commerce. Table 10 indicated that this group of trucks included half of all the trucks over 10,000 pounds GVWR expected to exceed the standards. Accordingly, the total retrofit cost is likely to be at least$28 million. In 1970, the average revenue per intercity vehicle mile for Class I intercity carriers of all types was 91 cents. For Class I intercity carriers of general freight, average revenue was $1. 24 per intercity vehicle mile. Total expenses for the latter group of carriers averaged$1.20 per intercity vehicle mile. Of these expenses, wages represented 46 cents; repairs and servicing, 8 cents; fuel and oil, 3 cents; tires and tubes, 2 cents; and depreciation and amortiza- tion, 5 cents. Direct wages represent 38% of expenses per intercity vehicle mile and 52 cents of every truck revenue dollar. Social security taxes, work- men's compensation payments, and welfare benefits bring total wages to 60 cents per truck revenue dollar^ . A retrofit cost of $135 per vehicle is not a major burden for the interstate motor carrier industry. For a truck running 50,000 revenue miles per year, a$135 retrofit cost represents an increased expense of $. 003 per revenue mile when amortized over a single year. When this increase is compared with 1970 average expenses of$1.20 per revenue mile, it can be seen that retrofit cost is not an obstacle to lower noise emission standards. Additional costs include loss of revenue resulting from trucks being out of service during retrofit. Also, the installation of a suitable muffler may in some cases increase the back pressure on the engine and in turn increase the fuel consumption. Considering the wide variety of mufflers available^ , however, a significant increase in back pressure is avoidable. 65 ------- Some factors reduce the total cost to the trucking industry. First, the muffler on a line-haul truck is normally replaced at 1-1/2 to 2 year intervals. Thus, of those trucks that require a replacement muffler, about one-half will be installing a new muffler even in the absence of the regulations. In these cases, the cost incurred will be the difference between that for the required muffler nnd that for the one that would have been installed anyway, and ilie difference is within the range of a few dollars. Secondly, for those trucks requiring installation of a more efficient fan, the amount of engine power wasted in driving a fan unnecessarily will be reduced. Standard fans on diesel engines typically consume 15 to 25 horsepower* '. The addition of a thermostatically controlled fan clutch can decrease fuel consumption by 1 to 1. 5%^ ' and can reduce operating cost for the life of the truck. With these considerations, the long-term cost of compliance with the noise regulations may be less than that given above. Component suppliers appear to be capable of providing the needed retrofit components within the one year time period. The muffler manufacturing industry is capable of significantly expanding its muffler production, probably by a factor of two, because it already has the necessary facilities and material*7 '. In the case of tires a large majority of such trucks will require new tires within a year regardless of the existence of the regulation. There should not, therefore, be a significant increase in the total truck tire production required, though there may be a slight shift in production from some tread patterns to others. Other retrofit items discussed in Section 3 are in current production, and no significant problems are foreseen in meeting the production levels necessary to retrofit the small percentage of trucks that will need these items in order to comply with the standards. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS The noise emission standards impact directly those trucks which presently make the most noise and require that they be quieted to levels that are feasible from a cost and technology standpoint within one year of final promulgation. 66 ------- The principal noise reduction will be of the intrusive noise peaks which have been widely acknowledged as more objectionable to people than much lower (71) levels of continuous noise ^ '. These peaks can be 12 dB or more above ambient highway noise levels. Therefore, significant noise reduction will be realized within a year, producing substantial benefits in terms of public health and welfare as indicated by a decrease in community noise levels near highways. In a study performed under contract to the Environmental Protection (72) Administration * ', L, levels were computed for an interstate highway, using hourly traffic volume statistics submitted by the Maryland Department of Trans- portation. This study was carried out using a modified version of the Highway Noise Prediction Model of the Transportation Systems Center, U. S. Department of Transportation. Baseline L , (day-night sound level) levels were computed using actual distributions of noise levels for various classes of trucks as measured in Maryland. Comparison levels were then computed using noise level distributions corresponding to several alternative regulation strategies. The results of the study indicated that a 90 dB(A) limit for all trucks above 10,000 Ibs GVWR/GCWR will produce a 3.6 dB decrease in L^ for a typical East Coast Interstate highway. This represents a decrease of about 50% in the average sound energy near the highway. An additional study of the impact of the Federal regulations has been per- formed using the Highway Research Board Design Guide model. This model is designed to perform an analysis of L (A-weighted equivalent sound level) etj at 50 feet from the right of way of highways during the design hour. The model was used to estimate the impact of the regulations in both highway and normal urban conditions. It was found that at 50 feet from a typical highway, the L during the design eq hours (peak hour) is 80.9 dB for cruise conditions. This analysis is predicated on the following assumptions: 67 ------- (1) during the worst Imfl'ir hour there ;vre 7200 vehicles per hour I r;iv( at. :in :ivur:«ne spciil ol !>!"> in. p. h. (2) the mixture of vehicles is 10 peri-enl lirsivy (Inly trucks :uid !)() percent medium duty trucks, light trucks, and automobiles. (3) the typical highway has 6 lanes of traffic. The tjITect of the Federal regulations will be a significant reduction in highway noise levels. The results of the analysis indicate that 2 years after the operating rule goes into effect, the L for highways during the design hour will have been eq reduced by 2.3 dB(A). The level will drop from 80. 9 to 78. 6 dB(A). An analysis of normal urban conditions indicated that on city streets, the A- weighted equivalent level is 68.1 dB for a mixture of 1 per cent heavy trucks, 6 per cent medium trucks and 93 per cent automobiles, traveling at an average speed of 27 m. p. h. The Federal regulations will affect only a few trucks on city streets because most of the traffic on urban streets is due to automobiles and light or medium trucks. Thus, the rule will bring about only a 0.3 dB(A) reduction in noise levels. A significant reduction in urban noise levels will not occur until medium duty trucks and automobiles are regulated to lower levels, since they are the dominant noise source in urban areas. RELATIVE STRINGENCY OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND THOSE OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS Jurisdictions with noise regulations planned or in effect have expressed an interest in the relative stringency of the EPA regulations because their regula- tions may be preempted by the Federal regulations. Test methodology and all techniques of enforcement must be compared in order to assess different regula- tions in terms of relative stringency. Maximum noise emission levels alone can be very misleading. A pronounced effect on noise as measured exists as a result of the surface texture between vehicle and microphone. The EPA standards address this prob- lem in that the stated levels apply to typical roadside sites with acoustically soft reflecting surfaces between the vehicle and the microphone. 68 ------- Other factors affecting regulatory stringency in terras of measurement metho- dology cim be as important as site variation. Microphone placement has a critical (ifTucl. on measured noise levels. One city noise regulation calls Tor a microphone location 2.r> feet from the lane edge. This is .'31 1'ccl from the lane ccntcrlinc and the regulated level would theoretically need to be 4 dli higher than the KI'A standard sp'jcificE in order to be of similar stringency (:'!! other fcctcrs bcin.£ ccpi?.!). In actual practice, at such close distances, ground surface reflections would result in a difference less than 4 dB. Another area of variability deals with enforcement techniques and policies. The difficulty in assessing relative stringency is compounded by the fact that these techniques and policies, as actually enforced, are sometimes not made clear by the written regulations. A western State has a 90 dB(A) highway noise limit but has chosen not to issue citations if the enforcement officers determine that tire noise predomi- nates. As enforced, this standard would be less stringent than an identically worded one in a jurisdiction enforcing against total noise emission. A New England State has a noise regulation which appears to be as stringent as the EPA standards, and which calls Cor increased stringency in the next year. Even though the wording of its regulation calls for compliance under all conditions of grade and accelera- tion, as does the EPA regulation, that State has chosen to enforce the regulation under level-road, no-acceleration conditions. The actual violation rate is for this reason much lower than the predicted violation rate for the EPA regulations and therefore the actual stringency is less. The categories of vehicles subject to different State and local noise regula- tions vary. Those regulations which exclude certain classes of vehicles are less stringent as applied than regulations which include these vehicles. Some local regulations are based on measurement tests that are entirely different from the Federal tests. Determination of the relative stringency in such cases would re- quire extensive technical research. Where measurement methodology is absent from a written regulation, relative stringency cannot be determined. Tolerances in measurement condi- tions or vaguely defined conditions (e. g., measurement distance defined as "50 feet or nearest property line") and the use of different frequency weighting scales in different regulations also make comparison almost impossible. 69 ------- Table 11 presents information on the noise limits currently in effect in a large number of State and local jurisdictions. Many of these jurisdictions currently appear to have regulations identical to the Federal regulations, but as mentioned, this can only be verified through a comprehensive analysis of (73) the test measurement and enforcement procedures used in each jurisdiction '. 70 ------- TABLE 11 TABLE H QUANTITATIVE NOISE REGULATIONS FOR VEHICLE OPERATION (Maximum Levels at 50 ft) Limits Under Vehicle Type Trucks State, County, or City California (over 6000 lb)* Chicago (over 8000 lb) Colorado (over 6000 lb) Connecticut Cook County (over 8000 lb) Idaho* Indiana (over 7000 lb) Minneapolis (over 6000 lb) Minnesota (over 6000 lb) Nebraska (over 10,000 lb) Nevada (over 6000 lb) New York New York City (over 6000 lb) Oahu (over 6000 lb) Pennsylvania (over 7000 lb) Salt Lake County (over 6000 lb) Level Road Only 82 — 82 82 ^«B — — All Roads Now 86 86 86 86 86 92 88 88 88 88 86 88 86 73-86 90 86 35 mph Change Year — — — 1975 ~™ — 1975 1975 1975 — — — 1974 — ^^ dB(A) All Roads Then — — — 84 «•• — 86 86 86 — — — 73-84 — ^ — Limits Over 35 mph dB(A) All Roads Now 90 90 90 90 90 92 90 — 90 90 90 — 90 86 92 ~ All Change Roads Year Then — — — 1975 88 "•"• ^~ — — — — — — — 1974 84 — _ v •_« *No citation if tire noise predominates rAt 20 ft or more ------- REFERENCES 1. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 1974. 2. Ibid., p. 40. 3. Ibid., pp. B4-5. 4. Effects of Noise on People, NTID 300.7. 5. Truck Noise I - Peak A - Weighted Sound Levels Due to Truck Tires, National Bureau of Standards Report prepared for Department of Transporta- tion, Report No. OST-ONA 71-9, Sept. 1970. 6. Ibid. 7. Personal communication with W. H. Close, Department of Transportation. 8. Op. Cit., DOT Report No. OST-ONA 71-9, p. 3-4. 9. "Transportation Noise and Noise from Equipment Powered by Internal Combustion Engines, " U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report NTID 300.13, Dec. 31, 1971, p. 94. 10. Ibid., p. 100. 11. Ibid., p. 102. 12. "Diesel Exhaust and Air Intake Noise," Stemco Manufacturing Company for Department of Transportation, Report No. DOT-TSC-OST-73, March 1973. 13. Ibid. 14. Data from Service Engine Company, Cicero, Illinois. 15. Op. Cit., NTID 300.13, p. 103. 16. Ibid., p. 102. 72 ------- 17. Wyle Ljltoi'itorics, personal communic:ilion with Flcsc-A-LiU1 Corponlimi, Tacoma, Washington. 18. Wyle Laboratories, personal communication with Advanced Products Group, White Motor Company, Torranoe, California. 19. Shipe, M. D., "Operating Principles of the Schwitzer Viscous Fan Drive, " Schwitzer Division of the Wallace-Murray Corp., Indianapolis, Indiana, March 1971. 20. Op. Cil., NTID 300.13, p. 103. 21. Published literature from Schwltzer Division of the Wallace-Murray Corpo- ration, Indianapolis, Indiana. 22. Op. Cit., NTID 300.13, p. 104. 2:5. Tbid., p. 102. 24. fbid., p. 104. 25. Law, R. M. , "Diesel Engine and Highway Truck Noise Reduction," Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Report 730240, Jan. 1973. 26. Op. Cit., Data from Service Engine Co. 27. Op. Cit., NTID 300.13, p. 7. 2H. Ibid., p. 103. 29. Literature from Donaldson Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 30. Op. Cit., ODT-TSC-OST-73, March 1973. HI. Davisson, J.A., "Design and Application of Commercial Type Tires," SAE Paper SP 344, Jan. 1969. 32. Wik, T. R., and Miller, R. F. , "Mechanisms of Tire Sound Generation, " SAE Paper SP 373, Oct. 1972. 33. Wyle Laboratories personal communication, with major tire companies. 34. Op. Cit., DOT Report OST-ONA 71-9. 35. Ibid., p. 42. 36. Ibid., p. 44. 73 ------- 37. Ibid., p. 42. 38. Op. Cit., Data from Service Engine Co. 39. Op. Cit., NTID 300.13, p. 92-95. 40. Close, W. H., and Atkinson, T., "Technical Basis for Motor Carrier and Railroad Noise Regulations," Sound and Vibration, Vol. 7, No. 10, Oct. 1973. 41. Op. Cit., NTID 300.13, p. 92-93. 42. "Community Noise, " U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report NTID 300.3, Dec. 31, 1971, pp A-5, A-7. 43. Ibid., p. 4. 44. Op. Cit., NTID 300. 3, pp. A-5, A-7. 4.r>. (bid., p. 5. 'Ifi. Young, R.W. , "Single Number Criteria for Room Noise," JASA, 36, 2, Feb. 1964, p. 289. 47. Klumpp, R.G., and Webster, J. C., "Physical Measurement of Equal Speech Interfering Navy Noises," JASA, 35, Sept. 1963, p. 1328. 48. Wells, R. J., "A New Method for Computing the Annoyance of Steady State Noise versus Perceived Noise Level and Other Subjective Measures, " JASA, 46, July 1969, p. 85. 49. Webster, J. C., "Affects of Noise on Speech Intelligibility," Proceedings of Conference, Noise as a Public Health Hazard, Washington, D. C., June 1969, ASI-IA Report #4. 50. Op. Cit., NTID 300.13, p. 94. 51. "Research on Highway Noise Measurement Sites," Wyle Laboratories Report for California Highway Patrol, March 1972. 52. "Use of Motor Vehicle Noise Measuring Instruments, " California Highway Patrol Report, 1965. 53. "California's Experience in Vehicle Noise Enforcement, " California Highway Patrol Report, 1965. 54. Foss, R. N. , "Vehicle Noise Study - Final Report," Applied Physics Labora- tory, University of Washington, Report for Washington State Highway Commis- sion, Department of Highway, June 1972. 74 ------- 55. Unpublished data, Bolt, Beranek and Newman. 56. Op. Cit., "Use of Motor Vehicle Noise Measuring Instruments". 57. Op. Cit., Exhibit G., (ONAC Docket M070). 58. Op. Cit., "Vehicle Noise Study - Final Report". 59. Op. Cit., Unpublished Data, Bolt, Beranek and Newman. 60. 1972 Census of Transportation - Truck Inventory and Use Survey, U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 61. Ibid. fi2. American Trucking Trends. 1972. by the American Trucking Associa- tion, Inc., Washington, D. C. 63. "1973 Motor Truck Facts," by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturer Associa- tion, Detroit, Michigan. 64. Response from American Trucking Association, (ONAC Docket M058). 65. Op. Cit., 1972 Census of Transportation Truck Inventory and Use Survey. KG. Op. Cit., American Trucking Trends. 67. Op. Cil., Literature from Donaldson Company. 68. Wyle Laboratories communication with the Schwitzer Division of Wallace- Murray Corporation and the Flex-a-lite Corporation, 1973. 69. Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc. , Report No. 2563, "The Cost of Quieting Heavy Cab-Over-Engine Diesel Tractors," July 1973. 70. Op. Cit., Wyle Laboratories personal communication with 3 major muffler manufacturers. 71. Op. Cit., NTID300.7. 72. Study conducted by Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc. 73. Maryland Department of Transportation submission to the Docket. 75 ------- Appendix: MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY The procedures given herein are intended to permit measurement of the A-weighted sound level of individual motor vehicles under specified conditions. The methods are consistent with the required accuracy of measurement. Suitable instrumentation for the measurements is prescribed; standard (ideal) measurement sites are described; and appropriate operational procedures are given for carrying out the measurements. Applicable Documents ANSI SI. 4-1971, American National Standard Specification for Sound Level Meiers is appropriate for these procedures and is available from American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, New York 10018. 1 n strumentat i on A precision sound level meter meeting all the requirements of ANSI SI. 4-1971 throughout the frequency range from 50 Hz to 10,000 Hz for a Type I or Type SIA instrument should be used for all measurements. However, a magnetic tape recorder, graphic level recorder, or other device to record maximum sound level may be used for the measurement. In all such cases, the overall per- formance of the total system should conform to the ANSI SI. 4-1971 requirements. The necessary auxiliary equipment for the sound level meter includes a mounting to hold the microphone at a height of 4 ft + 1 in (1. 2 m) above the ground, and a cable at least 15 ft (4. 5 m) in length, designed to be used with the sound level meter. The microphone manufacturer's instructions should be followed concerning the maximum permissible cable length. An acoustical calibrator of the microphone coupler type should be used for calibration of the measurement instrumentation. The frequency of the calibra- tion signal should be 1000 Hz, + 5%. The calibrator should be checked at Icasl annually by a method traceable to the U. S. National Bureau of Standards to verify the correct performance within + 0.5 dB. 76 ------- A windscreen should be used for all measurements to reduce the effects of turbulence at the microphone surface. An anemometer, accurate to within + 10% at 12 mph (20 kph), should be used to determine the local velocity of wind gusts prevalent at the time of the measurements. The measurement of wind velocity should be taken at the height of the microphone and approximately 10 ft from the microphone. Calibration The sound level meter (including the entire sound instrumentation recording system) should be calibrated with the acoustic calibrator immediately before each series of measurements and at approximately 1/2-hour intervals during a measurement period. The manufacturer's directions for the calibration pro- cedure should be followed. The entire measurement system, including all cables, but not the windscreen, should be included in the instrument chain for this calibration. The entire measurement system should be calibrated, over the frequency range between 50 and 10,000 Ilz, at intervals not exceeding one year, by pro- cedures of sufficient precision :ind accuracy to determine compliance with the requirements of Section 3 of ANSI SI. 4-1971. If there is any reason to suspect that the equipment has been altered or damaged, it should be given a complete calibration, regardless of the date of the last complete calibration. Standard Measurement Site The measurement site for roadside pass-by and stationary tests should be such that the vehicle radiates sound into an essentially open space above the ground. This condition may be considered fulfilled if the site consists of an open space free of large sound-reflecting objects (such as barriers, walls, fences, hills, hedges, signboards, parked vehicles, bridges or buildings) within the boundaries indicated in Figures Al and A2 for the pass-by and the stationary vehicle measurements, respectively. For the purposes of this requirement, "large" means dimensions greater than about one foot (0.3 m). Objects that would not be considered "large," and are therefore permitted within the measurement area, are fire hydrants, tele- phone or power poles, and rural mail boxes, but not, for example, telephone booths, or trees of any kind. 77 ------- Weather Weather conditions may adversely affect measurement precision. Accord- ingly, measurements should not be made during precipitation. The wind velocity should be read from the anemometer immediately before each series of measurements and at intervals of 1/2 hour during the measurement period, if wind conditions warrant. Measurements should not be made when the average continuous or gust wind speed exceeds 12 mph (20 kph). Microphone Location For all measurements, the surface upon which the microphone is located should be within + 2 ft of the plane of the road surface. The microphone height should be 4 ft + 1 in (1. 2 m +_2. 5 cm) above the surface upon which it is located. For the pass-by measurements the microphone should be located at a distance of 50 + 1/2 ft (15 + 0.15 m) from the centerline of the nearest travel lane. The microphone should have a clear and unobstructed line-of-sight to the entire side of the vehicle for all points along the roadway within 35 feet of the point of nearest approach. For the stationary vehicle measurement the microphone shall be located 50 + 1/2 ft (15 + 0.15 m) from the fore-and-aft centerline of the vehicle, in a plane normal to that centerline and passing within 3 ft (1 m) of the nearest exhaust outlet. Noise Measurement Procedures The following procedures should be followed to assure accurate results in the measurement of motor vehicle noise emissions: (1) The microphone should be oriented with respect to the vehicle being measured in accordance with the instructions or recommendations of the microphone manufacturer for optimum flat frequency response. (2) To minimize the influence of the observer on the measurements, no person should be positioned within 10 feet of the microphone nor between the vehicle and the microphone. (3) All noise measurements should be made with A-weighting and the fast meter response of the sound level meter. 78 ------- (4) The background noise at the site (namely, the noise level measured with A-weighting and fast meter response due to all other sources of noise except the vehicle being measured) should be measured from time to time between vehicle passages. Vehicle noise measurements should not be made when the background noise level is within 10 dB of the permissible noise standard for the measurement in question. (!3) Corrections for measurement at different altitudes above sea-level should be made in accordance with the instructions of the microphone manufacturer. (6) For vehicle pass-by measurements the maximum sound level observed as the vehicle passes through the measurement site should be recorded. (7) For stationary engine run-up measurements the vehicle engine should be accelerated as rapidly as possible from a low idle speed to maximum governed speed with wide-open throttle, in neutral gear, and clutch engaged. Measurement of the highest sound level that occurs during the engine acceleration should be made at least twice, but more measurements should be made if necessary to achieve a satisfactory test. 79 ------- MICROPHONE LOCATION "*" Figure A-l. Test site clearance requirements for pass-by test. VEHICLE EXHAUST(S) ON THIS LINE MICROPHONE/ LOCATION VEHICLE FORE-AFT CENTEfiTlNE Figure A-2. Test site clearance requirements for stationary run-up test. 80 ------- 12. REFERENCES TO TECHNICAL LITERATURE ------- REFERENCES 1. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 1974. 2. Tbid., p. 40. :i. Tbid., pp. B4-5. •I. Kf feels of Noise on People, NTID oOO. 7. r>. Truck Noise I - Peak A - Weighted Sound Levels Due to Truck Tires, N;Uiona] Bureau of Standards Report prepared for Department of Transporta- tion, Report No. OST-ONA 71-9, Sept. 1970. (i. Ibid. 7. Personal communication with W. H. Close, Department of Transportation. H. Op. Cit., DOT Report No. OST-ONA 71-9, p. 3-4. 9. "Transportation Noise and Noise from Equipment Powered by Internal Combustion Engines," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report NTID 300.13, Dec. 31, 1971, p. 94. 10. Ibid., p. 100. 11. Ibid., p. 102. 12. "Diesel Exhaust and Air Intake Noise, " Stemco Manufacturing Company for Department of Transportation, Report No. DOT-TSC-OST-73, March 1973. 13. Ibid. 14. Data from Service Engine Company, Cicero, Illinois. 15. Op. Cit., NTID 300.13, p. 103. 16. Ibid., p. 102. ------- 17. Wvlo l,.ilx>r:ilorics, prrson.il eommuimulion wilh l'losc-A-Lite Corporation, T.icomn, Washington. is. VVyle Laboratories, personal communication with Advanced Products Group, White Motor Company, Torrance, California. 19. Shipe, M.D., "Operating Principles of the Schwitzer Viscous Fan Drive," Schwitzer Division of the Wallace-Murray Corp., Indianapolis, Indiana, March 1971. 20. Op. Cit., NTID 300.13, p. 103. 21. Published literature from Schwitzer Division of the Wallace-Murray Corpo- r:ilLon, Indianapolis, Indiana. 22. Op. Cit., NTID 300.13, p. 104. 2:i. Tbid., p. 102. 24. Ibid., p. 104. 25. Luw, R. M., "Diesel Engine and Highway Truck Noise Reduction," Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Report 730240, Jan. 1973. 2fi. Op. Cit., Data from Service Engine Co. 27. Op. Cit., NTID 300.13, p. 7. 2H. Ibid., p. 103. 2!i. I.iturature from Donaldson Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota. :»0. Op. Cit., ODT-TSC-OST-73, March 1973. :t1. DiLvisson, J.A., "Design and Application of Commercial Type Tires," SAE Paper SP 344, Jan. 1969. :t2. Wik, T. R., and Miller, R. F., "Mechanisms of Tire Sound Generation, " SAE Paper SP 373, Oct. 1972. 33. Wyle Laboratories personal communication with major tire companies. 34. Op. Cit., DOT Report OST-ONA 71-9. 35. Ibid., p. 42. 36. Ibid., p. 44. ------- 37. Ibid., p. 42. 38. Op. Cit., Data from Service Engine Co. 39. Op. Cit., NTID 300.13, p. 92-95. 40. Close, W. H., and Atkinson, T., "Technical Basis for Motor Carrier and Railroad Noise Regulations," Sound and Vibration, Vol. 7, No. 10, Oct. 1973. -11. Op. CH., NTID 300.13, p. 92-93. 42. "Community Noise," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report NTID 300.3, Dec^ 31, 1971, pp A-5, A-7. 43. Ibid., p. 4. '14. Op. Cit., NTID 300. 3, pp. A-5, A-7. 4f>. Ibid., p. 5. •Hi. You UK, H. W., "Single Number Criteria for Room Noise," JASA, 36, 2, Feb. 1904, p. 289. 47. Klumpp, R.G., and Webster, J, C., "Physical Measurement of Equal Speech Interfering Navy Noises," JASA, 35, Sept. 1963, p. 1328. 48. Wells, R. J., "A New Method for Computing the Annoyance of Steady State Noise versus Perceived Noise Level and Other Subjective Measures," JASA, 46, July 1969, p. 85. 49. Webster, J. C., "Affects of Noise on Speech Intelligibility," Proceedings of Conference, Noise as a Public Health Hazard, Washington, D. C., June 1969, AS1IA Report #4. 50. Op. Cit., NTID 300.13, p. 94. 51. "Research on Highway Noise Measurement Sites," Wyle Laboratories Report for California Highway Patrol, March 1972. 52. "Use of Motor Vehicle Noise Measuring Instruments," California Highway Patrol Report, 1965. 53. "California's Experience in Vehicle Noise Enforcement," California Highway Patrol Report, 1965. 54. Foss, R. N., "Vehicle Noise Study - Final Report," Applied Physics Labora- tory, University of Washington, Report for Washington State Highway Commis- sion, Department of Highway, June 1972. ------- 55. Unpublished data, Bolt, Beranek and Newman. 56. Op. Cit., "Use of Motor Vehicle Noise Measuring Instruments". 57. Op. Cit., Exhibit G., (ONAC Docket M070). 58. Op. Cit., "Vehicle Noise Study - Final Report". 59. Op. Cit., Unpublished Data, Bolt, Beranek and Newman. 60. 1972 Census of Transportation - Truck Inventory and Use Survey, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Gl. Ibid. 62. American Trucking Trends, 1972, by the American Trucking Associa- tion, Inc., Washington, D. C. 63. "1973 Motor Truck Facts, " by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturer Associa- tion, Detroit, Michigan. 64. Response from American Trucking Association, (ONAC Docket MOSS). 65. Op. Cit., 1972 Census of Transportation Truck Inventory and Use Survey. (!(i. Op. Cit., American Trucking Trends. 67. ()p. Cit., Literature from Donaldson Company. 6H. Wyle Laboratories communication with the Schwitzer Division of Wallace- Murray Corporation and the Flcx-a-lite Corporation, 1973. 69. Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc. , Report No. 2563, "The Cost of Quieting Heavy Cab-Over-Engine Diesel Tractors," July 1973. 70. Op. Cit., Wyle Laboratories personal communication with 3 major muffler manufacturers. 71. Op. Cit., NTID 300.7. 72. Study conducted by Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc. 73. Maryland Department of Transportation submission to the Docket. ------- Reprinted by Permission of Sound and Vibration Magazine Technical Basis for Motor Carrier and Railroad Noise Regulations William H. Close and Thomas Atkinson, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. Technical considerations behind the interstate motor carrier and railroad noise regulations proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency are reviewed in light of the EPA task force findings and subsequent analysis by the authors. As of this writing the first decisions have been made regarding the Federal regulation of noise generated by motor carrier and railroad operations which are subject to the provisions of the Noise Control Act of 1972. The following is a brief discussion and analysis of the tech- nical information developed by the interagency task forces and public docket which was made available to the EPA for development of their regulatory strategy. It should be noted that the Department of Transporta- tion personnel worked particularly closely with EPA in these task force endeavors since the Noise Control Act stipulates that DOT enforce the noise emission standards promulgated by EPA for motor carrier and railroad opera- tions. Many of the facets of the EPA noise emission stan- dards are appropriately drawn to facilitate enforcement, but until DOT enforcement regulations are promulgated (target date October 1974) a complete package of Federal standards will not be available for state and local emula- tion as provided for in the Act. Interstate Motor Carrier Operations A good body of data exists on the character of noise generated by interstate motor carriers. Good, albeit local- ized experience has been gained in the enforcement of motor vehicle noise regulations, and substantive research is underway to ascertain the technology and cost involved to significantly lower the engine-related and tire noise generated by trucks. Data provided by vehicle manufacturers on specific ve- hicle noise generation,1 roadside survey data from Cali- fornia,2 Washington State,3 and New York 4 plus research findings of a number of DOT contracts 5'13 provided the bases for the characterization of noise generated by inter- state motor carriers and delineate the norms of reasonably good practice in operation and maintenance insofar as noise is concerned. It is evident that engine-related noise and tire noise are distinctly different, responding differently to vehicle operational variables, and are amenable to dif- fering degrees of noise reduction involving different in- dustries. On the other hand, it is total vehicle noise which must be controlled in order to improve the acoustic en- vironment of roadside communities. The technical data assembled for the EPA noise emission standards decisions accordingly centered on the total vehicle noise at road- side locations and on the separate vehicle sources and driver techniques wherever special considerations were appropriate. Figure 1 — Truck population noise levels at low speeds. (v ^ 35) Figure 2 — Truck population noise level at high speed. (v > 35) The three roadside surveys2'3'4 provided substantive statistics for typical truck population noise levels at low speeds (Figure 1) where tire noise is not a significant factor, and for highway speeds (Figure 2) where tires are frequently the dominant source of noise. For speeds less than 35 mph, the samples tend to indicate that the active new vehicle and vehicle-in-use noise enforcement program in California has reaped a substantial benefit over the un- controlled population of vehicles which may be repre- Sound and Vibration • October 1973 ------- 1- i Figure 3 — Comparison of stationary runup and vehicle ac- celeration (J366a) test results. sented by the New York sample. (Note that New York State was the first to impose objective statewide noise level limits, but enforcement of numerical limits has been minimal.) Washington State, which has no motor vehicle noise limit regulations, apparently is benefitting from the active enforcement program in California, many miles away but linked by the many interstate trucks which must meet the California noise limits. The high speed data (Figure 2) again shows New York State to possess the noisier trucks, but no difference ap- pears between California and Washington truck noise levels. At the higher speeds encompassed by these data, tire noise becomes a significant if not the dominant fac- tor. Since these samples are not weighted according to actual vehicle speed and since tire noise is a direct func- tion of vehicle speed (for a given tire type, vehicle weight, number of tires and road surface) 5'6'7 one cannot a priori assess the full implications of these data. One can, how- ever, say that normal practice results in the distribution of noise levels indicated. (Caution must be exercised in interpreting such independent surveys since bias errors of say 2 dB could collapse all of the data to essentially one curve.) If one then selected some cut-off level for the regulation, a given percentage of trucks would be found to be in violation and the remainder of the popu- lation would verify the existence of sufficient technology, etc., to comply. One cannot, however, say with any as- surance that a simple fix would bring all vehicles into compliance or that all vehicles can be brought into com- pliance regardless of expense. Another basis for decision exists in the voluntary stan- dard set in 1954 by the Automobile Manufacturers As- sociation (now known as the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association) for all new trucks. This standard calls for a maximum loudness of 125 Sones. In 1968, the Society of Automotive Engineers re-studied this standard and is- sued a similar 125 Sone maximum loudness Recommended Practice (J672a)14 and another Recommended Practice using the simpler A-weighted sound level with an equiva- lent 88 dB(A) maximum recommended level (J366a).15 Since these three documents have been subscribed to by the truck building industry for a period of time encom- passing the manufacture of virtually all the trucks oper- ating today, one can safely say that such a maximum noise level represents the standard of practice. The prob- Figure 4 — Engine related and tire noise, 50 feet from lane of travel for a typical 18 wheel tractor-trailer. lem then is to relate this standard of practice to the noise levels generated in service, and to prepare enforceable regulations. This was accomplished by the task force as follows. Low speed truck noise should be somewhat less than the maximum noise level of the AMA and SAE statements. Two decibels less was determined to be reasonably lower and had been found to be enforceable by the California Highway Patrol.2 Six percent of the California population of trucks and eighteen percent of the New York popula- tion of trucks would be out of compliance at this level — many of which could be assumed in need of exhaust sys- tem maintenance. DOT research projects completed but not yet reported in the literature clearly illustrate the com- mercial availability of exhaust and intake mufflers which will adequately reduce these two noise sources to low enough levels to meet the proposed 86 dB(A) at 50 feet low speed operational level. These same studies, how- ever, indicate that although naturally aspirated engines require such exhaust mufflers (costing between $30 and$50 each) some turbocharged engines can comply without an exhaust muffler. Thus, appropriate equipment provi- sions have been proposed as guidance for operators and as easily enforceable provisions requiring no sound mea- surement equipment. Another section that has been proposed relates directly to the manufacturer standards; this is a stationary engine run up test for vehicles powered by governed engines. Some pilot testing of this noise measuring technique is re- ported in reference 8, but the statistically significant veri- fication of the approach has been provided by the SAE Vehicle Sound Level Committee as shown in Figure 3. Such a test will be quite useful for enforcement at weigh stations, for example, for us at state inspection stations and conceivably for use by the fleet owner to check his vehicle. The final aspect of the low speed noise regulation pro- posed is oriented toward the truck driver. This facet of the regulation requires the driver of an in-compliance ve- Sound and Vibration • October 1973 29 ------- hicle to operate his vehicle in a quiet fashion when he is not on an expected truck route. California survey data2 show that an 80 dB(A) level at 50 feet will be exceeded by five percent of trucks on level streets. While California has adopted an 82 dB(A) level in their regulations, the lower level was selected by EPA with appropriate cave- ates for grade, street type, distance from traffic signals and traffic conditions such that the percentage of vehicles expected to be in violation would be the same as for the unrestrained low speed regulations. The high speed regulations were proposed taking into account the fact that engine related noises do not increase with vehicle speed but are a function of engine speed only. Thus, the vehicle noise increases from idle to near maximum and fluctuates up and down by a few decibels as the vehicle is accelerated through the various gears. (Engine speed varies through a typical range of 1700 to 2100 rpm for each gear.) As the vehicle speed increases, tire noise increases as a continuous function of vehicle speed as shown on Figure 4 for a typical 18-wheel tractor trailer. Significant differences exist between the sound levels generated by suction-cup retread, cross-bar tread, and rib tread tires as shown. Tire use surveys by the Rub- ber Manufacturers Association1B and Stevens Institute1T for DOT show that slightly less than half the truck popu- lation is equipped with cross-bar tires on the drive axles, virtually all trucks are equipped with rib tires on the front or steering axle, and that rib tires predominate the usage on trailer axles although suction cup treads and well-worn cross bars are frequently used on trailer axles as well. An informal survey by the American Trucking Associa- tions 18 and an interesting study by the Western High- way Institute 1D confirm these general tire use practices. A special subset of the Stevens and RMA data was ex- amined to look more closely at the tractor drive axle tire usage. This indicated that up to two-thirds of this popu- lation used cross bar tires on drive axles. The typical tire noise situation is, therefore, best represented by the mid- dle tire noise curves of Figure 4. Tire noise research findings documented by DOT8-6 and General Motors20 provide a good parametric pic- ture of truck tire noise variables for a representative selection of commercial truck tires. The Society of Auto- motive Engineers has developed a truck tire noise test procedure (Recommended Practice J57) which specifies a truck coast-by with four test tires on the rear axle and rib or quiet tires on the steering axle (as per the DOT and CM procedures). The SAE selected smooth concrete and 50 mph speed as the standard test conditions. The tester is responsible for determining the noisiest condition of normal tire wear for the tests and reporting the result and level for the particular tire type. To relate such tests to typical roadside noise levels at 60 mph (tires plus 86 dB(A) engine-related noise) we have constructed Table I.7 This indicates the expected sound level for various truck configurations using half-worn rib tires on trailer and steering axles and half-worn tires of various types on the drive axles. The 50 mph coast-by sound level of four tires of the type used on the drive axle is indicated across the top line and the full configuration sound levels at 60 mph and appropriate (sometimes lower) axle loadings are shown in the columns below. The high speed roadside noise surveys have shown that a relatively wide range of noise levels are generated. Hence, the choice as to which level should be set for the regulations was based upon the precedent of the existing regulations in California and other states taking into account the statistical data as well as the deterministic tire and engine noise data. A level of 90 dB(A) at 50 feet to the side of the centerline of the lane of travel was thus selected. Some 12 to 16 percent of California and Washington vehicles and up to 33 percent of New York vehicles would be in violation. From Table 1 it can be seen that this implies drive axle use of tires with certification levels of 82 dB(A) or lower for most truck configurations to comply with this portion of the regulation. Such high speed noise standards obviously outlaw the use of the suction cup retreads (hence, visual inspection for such tires is included in the standard) and limit the use of cross-bar tires To date, despite claims by manu- facturers and users alike, no real tractor or economic benefit has been found for highway use of cross-bar tires. Off-road and possibly snow conditions may be better met with cross-bar tires, but even if this is proven to be im- portant the limited occurrence of such conditions seems to be outweighed by the mandate for noise reduction on the highway. Perhaps improved tires will now be devel- oped which can provide clear advantages to specialty users yet meet the noise level limits of the use regulations and possible future new product regulations by states and the EPA. Interstate Railroads While various community noise surveys indicate that Table 1 — Effects of tire noise certification levels @ 50 feet on passby sound levels ® SO feet. Truck Config. Gross Wt. Certification Limit 78 dB(A) 80 dB(A) 82 dB(A) 84 dB(A) 86 dB(A) 90 dB(A) 95 dB(A) 4X2 Straight 27k* 6X4 Straight 45k* 4X2 Single Axle Trailer 45k# 4X2 Double Axle Trailer 59k# 4X2 Double Bottom 73k* 6X4 Double Axle Trailer 73k* 6X4 Double Bottom 73k* 50 Feet Passby Sound Level, dB(A) 88.0 87.5 88.8 90.8 89.9 94.8 98.3 89.0 88.4 90.3 93.0 91.7 96.7 101.2 88.5 88.2 89.3 91.1 92.1 95.4 98.6 88.8 88.5 89.6 91.3 91.8 95.0 100.4 89.0 88.9 89.5 90.8 91.5 94.3 101.8 89.4 88.9 90.1 92.2 92.4 96.4 100.5 89.4 89.1 89.1 90.2 91.4 94.0 101.7 30 Sound and Vibration • October 1973 ------- noise from railroad operations does not constitute a wide spread source of community annoyance, certain operations do constitute a source of localized annoyance, and have precipitated numerous local ordinances. Most importantly the Congress has directed EPA and DOT to regulate this noise. Since the railroad noise problems are not as exten- sive nor as intensive as a number of other sources, the body of information in the literature is quite sparse as evidenced in two recent Government literature surveys.21-22 The task force approach was again taken by EPA to evolve a basis for the mandated noise regulations but in this case the EPA has made the determination that suf- ficient data were not made available to issue proposed regulations by the July date specified in the Noise Con- trol Act. What data were developed, however, are sum- marized below. Due to the lack of data in the open literature and in light of the keen desire of the railroads to attain a degree of standardization in the regulations with which they must comply, the task force sought and received a high degree of cooperation from many railroads and the two major locomotive builders through the good offices of the As- sociation of American Railroads (AAR). Specifically, a number of railroads (too many to reference here) con- tributed for task force use, copies of reports from numer- ous small noise studies made on their properties and pro- vided a large volume of statistical information regarding right-of-way, yards, motive power, rolling stock, fixed facilities, etc. (A summary of this information was sub- mitted to the docket at EPA.) 23 The task force pondered the problem and addressed the question of identifying major noise sources and technology available to control these sources. No attempt was made to rank the major sources in order of priority due to the paucity of data. The major sources identified were: locomotives, rail-wheel interaction, whistles and horns, classification yard re- tarders, mechanical refrigerator cars, and a potpourri of fixed facility noises such as public address systems, main- tenance facilities, piggyback refrigerator units, loading equipment, etc. Whistles and horns were determined to be a major source of annoyance but were considered to be absolutely necessary safety appliances for both right-of-way opera- tion and yard operation. Regulation of this source was, therefore, considered to be inappropriate but study and improvement of the grade crossing safety problem con- tinues to be a high priority matter with the DOT. Rail-wheel interaction noise was recognized as a per- vasive source of railroad noise emissions but data on the subject was sparse. Personnel of the DOT Transportation Systems Center had acquired some wayside noise data on high speed passenger trains and they were ordered into the field to acquire a body of conventional passenger and freight train wayside data.24 This data now in prepublica- tion form and other data supplied through a joint contract effort by the AAR and Southern Pacific Railroad 26 were analyzed by the coauthor. A typical train passby record- ing is shown on Figure 5. The maximum noise generated by the locomotive (exclusive of horn or whistle noise) is determined as signified by line no. 1. An "eyeball" aver- age of the rail-wheel noise generated by the cars (exclu- sive of the confused areas immediately behind the loco- motive and the intermediate area at the end of the train) is signified by line no. 3. The upper and lower bounds Figure 5 — Graphic level recording of a typical freight train passby indicating sound level values selected for further analysis: (1) — peak engine level; (2) — peak car level; (3) — average car level; (4) — minimum car level. Figure 6 — Peak, average, and minimum rail-wheel sound level vs. speed for typical railroad cars on welded and bolted rail. Figure 7 — Locomotive population noise level. are likewise determined as shown by lines 2 and 4. The peak, average, and minimum rail-wheel noise levels for freight and conventional passenger trains and for high speed pasenger trains are shown on Figure 6 for opera- tions on welded and bolted rail. The average points were weighted by the number of cars in the train, but the maximum and minimum points are plotted as unweighted absolute values. An average reduction in rail-wheel noise levels of up to 3 dB can be observed as a result of the use of welded rails. The peak excursions, however, are seen to be inexplicably higher in the welded rail data set. The small improvement yielded through use of welded rail is more than offset by the huge cost involved in con- version of the 334,000 miles of total trackage in the na- Sound and Vibration • October 1973 31 ------- tion or the 205,000 route miles of track. Such conversion as is economically beneficial to the railroads is, of course, taking place but a major acceleration of this change-over or broadening of its scope could not be justified on the basis of noise. Wheel maintenance, of course, has a major role to play in this picture, but insufficient data exist to say just how much. Safety regulations now ad- dress wheel flats and for safety reasons one may expect these considerations to be made more stringent in the future, but regulations for noise purposes are not now appropriate. Diesel locomotive noise as shown on Figure 7 is typi- cally somewhat higher than the average rail-wheel noise level even at the highest speeds. Note also that median electric locomotive noise levels are 7 dB lower than diesel locomotive noise levels at the measurement distance of 100 feet. Correlation of present locomotive noise level data with speed and number of locomotive levels failed to show significance but a relationship seems to exist with load as seen in Figure 8. In this representation, a rather chancy load designation scheme was used to test for sig- nificance of load without really knowing the throttle notch settings of the locomotives measured. Nonetheless a relationship appears to be significant when we define load as: high (light weight, high speed, up grade or heavy weight, low speed, level or up grade); medium (light weight, high speed, level or down grade, or heavy weight, high speed, level or down grade); and low (light weight, low speed or any grade or heavy weight, low speed or down grade). The highest sound level recorded in the data sets was 98 dB(A) at 100 feet (1.5% of the measured population). The median locomotive sound level of the data set was 93 dB(A) at 100 feet. (Recall that this encompasses trains of one to six locomotives and train speeds up to 80 mph.) Proprietary data made available to DOT shows that commercially available earth moving equipment mufflers (@ $200 to$300 per muffler, not in- stalled) will reduce the noise level of one conventional freight locomotive by six dB at 100 feet when operated at full load on a stationary load box (locomotive generated electric power dissipated remotely through resistor ele- ments rather than through traction motors on the axles). Thus, it is presumed that for all conditions of heavy load except for speeds in excess of perhaps 60 mph where locomotive rail wheel noise may increase the overall noise level, 90 dB(A) at 100 feet would be an achievable level. The addition of mufflers would reduce the low frequency portions of locomotive noise which propagates quite far into the community and is especially noticeable at night. The noise sources of yard operations are many and are unpredictable in terms of diurnal cycling and duration of any one cycle. To gain some definitive information on the subject, several members of the task force met with the AAR to examine plot plans and through-put data of a number of railroad yards. Arrangements were made to send three measurement teams to several railroad yards to acquire definitive data. As of this writing, the data are available from only the Kansas City yards of the Atcheson, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad known as the Argentine Yards. The Argentine Yards is a massive complex with an east-bound and a west-bound classification hump yard, engine service facilities and the full gamut of yard facili- ties. Measurements were made during a three and one- half day period along the South property line of the yard, at the throats of the yard, at locations near the active re- Figure 8 — Relationship of locomotive passby noise level with apparent engine load. Figure 9 — Railroad yard property line noise levels. Figure 10 — Retarder noise levels as a function of distance. Insert is typical retarded noise spectra. tarders, at locations farther down the classification tracks, near the engine service facilities, and beyond the yard along the mainline. A full report of these data is in pre- paration for publication this Fall.24 In summary this sur- vey found the retarders (remotely activated devices which squeeze the car wheels as the cars drift down the hump gradient) to be clearly the dominant source of yard noise; locomotives and mechanical refrigerator cars were the only 32 Sound and Vibration • October 1973 ------- other sources reasonably identified as pervasive noises in the yard. The twenty-minute samples of property line data were reduced in terms of Lmai, L10, Lso, Lgo, and L«, as shown in Figure 9. Large variations in all descriptors were noted particularly adjacent to the active retarders depending upon the level of activity on the hump during the sampling period. Significant variations were also noted at the throat of the yard and on the main line but some reasonable time integrated descriptor could be used to regulate total yard noise if the retarder input were lowered. More definitive measurements made at Argentine Yards, other data from the literature, past railroad studies and current AAR/SP research were compared to better assess the magnitude of the retarder noise problem as shown in Figure 10. Retarder noise is seen to be extremely intense in level and to have its energy concentrated in the 2 to 4 kHz bands making the perceived noise even more annoy- ing than the A-weighted levels indicate. Many attempts at lubricating and damping the retarder shoes have proved to be unsuccessful at reducing the level of the noise gen- erated but have tended to reduce the probability of occur- rence of squeal from a given car when retarded. At least one study of a simple barrier has, however, demonstrated the ability of a lined barrier to attenuate the retarded sound level by 20 dB or more.2S Accordingly the task force recommended that a specific regulation for retarder noise be set at 100 dB(A) at 100 feet which is the median sound level of the retarder sound level data available to the task force. Barrieis would likely be re- quired on all active retarders to ensure that the range of emissions would be within the 100 dB(A) recommenda- tion. It was also recommended that mechanical release devices be installed within a reasonable time on all inert retarders (located on each track at the end of the classifi- cation to restrain coasting cars from entering the main line) to permit strings of cars to be pulled through these retarders without squealing. The barrier is not applicable to the inert retarders due to space limitations (which may also limit application or effectiveness on some active re- tarders) but the application of manual retractors seems quite fitting. Finally, the DOT and AAR believed that joint research efforts could and should be undertaken to more thoroughly explore the noise generation mechanisms and possible solutions to the retarder noise problem The final area of potential regulation appears to be mechanical refrigerator cars. Typical levels measured by DOT and AAR/SP studies yield 70-75 dB(A) at 50 feet. Since these-units are powered by small diesel engines, it was felt that muffler technology demonstrated for trucks would easily reduce the dominant exhaust noise by 5 dB or more and thus some relief could be afforded residents at locations where refers are set out and left overnight with the refrigeration unit running. Summary A strong technology base exists for the initial motor carrier regulations stemming from past California, indus- try and DOT efforts. Future revisions will likely be possi- ble as new technology is evolved by DOT research and incorporated into future production trucks. Tire noise appears to be the toughest problem to be faced in motor carrier regulations. Railroad noise regulations have been deferred pending better resolution of the problem. Demonstrations of noise reduction fixes by AAR and DOT are planned to proceed as rapidly as possible to resolve such questions. References 1. Various manufacturers submissions to the Environmental Protection Agency Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Motor Carrier Noise Emission Standards Docket No ONAC 7202001. 2 Anon., "Noise Survey of Vehicles Operating on California Highways," by the Department of California Highway Patrol, 1971, Sacramento, California 3 Foss, Rene N., "Vehicle Noise Study—Final Report," pre- pared for Washington State Highway Commission, De- partment of Highways, 30 June 1972. 4 New York State Department of Environmental Conserva- tion Comments on Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Motor Carrier Noise Emission Standards Docket No ONAC 7202001. 5 Anon , "Truck Noise I—Peak A-Wcighted Sound Levels Due to Truck Tires," DOT Report OST-ONA-71-9, Sep- tember 1970, Washington, DC 6. Leasure, W. A, et al., "Truck Noise I—Peak A-Weighted Sound Levels Due to Truck Tires, DOT Report OST/TST- 72-1, Addendum, July 1972 7 Close, \V H. and Leasure, W , "Truck Noise I-A" to be published 8. Close, W H and Clarke, R , "Truck Noise II—Interior and Exterior A-Weighted Sound Levels of Typical High- way Trucks," DOT Report OST/TST-72-2 9. Unpublished results of DOT contract with Freightliner Corporation, Contract No DOT-OS-20095 10 Unpublished results of DOT contract with White Motor Company, Contract No DOT-OS-20221 11 Unpublished results of DOT contract with International Harvester, Contract No. DOT-OS-20222. 12 Unpublished results of DOT contract with Donaldson Company, Inc, Contract No. DOT-TSC-532 13. Unpublished results of DOT contract with Stemco Manu- facturing Company, Contract No DOT-TSC-73-12. 14 Society of Automotive Engmecis, Inc., Recommended Practice J672a, Exterior Loudness Evaluation of Heavy Trucks and Buses, SAE 1971, New York, NY. 15 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Recommended Practice J366a, Exterior Sound Level for Heavy Trucks and Buses, SAE, 1971, New York, NY. 16 Rubber Manufacturers Association, Thmway Truck Noise Test, October 1964. 17. Ehrlich, J R. et al, "A Truck and Bus Tire Use Pattern Study," Stevens Institute Report No. SIT-DL-71-1573, December 1971 18. Private communications with Larry Strawhom, American Trucking Associations. 19 Western Highway Institute, "Tire Wear Characteristics of Trucks and Truck Combinations," July 1, 1971. 20. Tetlow, Derek, "Truck Tire Noise," Sound and Vibration, Vol 5, No. 8, August 1971, pages 17-23 21. Serendipity, Inc., "A Study of the Magnitude of Trans- portation Noise Generation and Potential Abatement— Vol. 5—Tram/Railway Systems," Report No. OST-ONA- 71-1, Nov. 1970. 22. Environmental Protection Agency, "Transportation Noise and Noise from Equipment Powered by Internal Combus- tion Engines," NTID300.73, December 1971. 23 Association of American Railroads comments on Environ- mental Protection Agency Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making—Railroad Noise Emission Standards, Docket ONAC 7201001. 24 Rickley, E, et al, "Railroad, Freight Yard and Wayside Passenger Line Haul for Noise Level Measurements," to be published 25. Kurze, Ulnch J., et al, "An Investigation of Potential Measures for the Control of Car Retarder Screech Noise," Bolt, Beranek, & Newman, Inc., Report No. 2143, Apnl 1971. 26. Anon., "Community Noise Profiles for Typical Railroad Operations," Preliminary Data From Wyle Laboratories Research Project No. 59141, May 15, 1973. Sound and Vibration • October 1973 ------- Reprinted by Permission of Commercial Car Journal Everyone knows that aa trucks gat old, thay become tired and noiay. Yet, federal lawa that take effect thia fall threaten to take many In-service trucka off the road unlaaa thay can ba mada qulat Recent taatlng at Schwltxar confirms that turbochargara halp muffle exhaust nolaa and add pap to oldar engines aa wall. It'a Ilka having your caka and eating It too. PUTTING ft ON TRUCK • FOR YEARS, engine manufacturers and fleet op- erators have employed turbocharging to boost diesel engine efficiency and power output at rela- tively low cost Essentially an exhaust-driven cen- trifugal compressor, the turbocharger delivers more air to the engine's cylinders than is possible with natural aspiration The increased air/fuel ra- tio results in more thorough and gradual com- bustion, producing greater horsepower and less smoke In addition, improvements of 5 to 10% in specific fuel consumption are also possible Now another feature of the turbocharger is likely to become important to the trucking in- dustry—its ability to reduce exhaust noise. Recent testing at Schwitzer Division of Wallace Murray Corp indicates retrofit of turbocharger kits on naturally aspirated diesel engines can significantly reduce truck noise levels This is particularly noteworthy in light of U S Environmental Protec- tion Agency noise emission regulations for in- service heavy-duty diesel trucks which take effect October 15 of this year. The new federal truck noise maximums are • 86 db(A) at 50 ft at speeds up to 35 mph • 90 db(A) at 50 ft at speeds greater than 35 mph • 88 db(A) at 50 ft for stationary tests The test program, conducted by Schwitzer's Advanced Technology Group, involved an in- service 1968 White-Freightliner tandem axle trac- tor powered by a Cummins NHC-250 engine In- itial checks of the truck in its received condition registered a respectable 87 6 db(A) noise level, in- dicating it had been well maintained By installing a Schwitzer model 4LF turbochar- ger plus a standard "quiet" muffler, the group's engineers were able to reduce exhaust noise to the neighborhood of 83 db(A)—well below the feder- al maxim urns Drive-by tMte Tests were run on five different configurations as shown in figure 1 For each configuration, two Test Configuration Turbocharger Exhaust' 1 (received condition) no 2 no 3 no 4 yes 5 yes conventional muffler straight pipe (no muffler) "quiet" muffler straight pipe "quiet" muffler 'Note ground-to-exhaust distance was maintained throughout the test, however, exhaust pipe diameter was increased from 4-m to 5-in after turbocharger installation Figure 1 ^^^_ types of exterior noise tests were conducted the SAE J-366b acceleration drive-by test, and a sta- tionary engine acceleration test Results of the SAE drive-by tests are shown in figure 2. As the graph illustrates, the turbocharger alone (con- figuration 4) cut 86 decibels from the truck's un- muffled exhaust noise level of 98 5 db(A) Figure 2 also shows that retrofit of a muffler specifically recommended for the Cummins NHC-250 reduced the truck's noise 2.7 decibels from its original in-service level of 876 db(A) The choice of muffler was based on information obtained from a 1973 U S Department of Trans- portation compilation of muffler manufacturers' data and muffler recommendations for given en- gine models Although retrofit of the "quiet" muffler alone reduced the vehicle's noise below the proposed federal maximums, the lowest sound level pro- duced in the drive-by tests resulted from the com- bination of the turbo with the "quiet" muffler (configuration 5) A total reduction of 4 9 db(A) from the original truck configuration was ob- tained with this combination Stationary tests The stationary exterior noise test used by Schwitzer bears close relationship to the results obtained from the SAE drive-by test. The site set- up for the stationary test was identical to that Continued 1M COMMERCIAL CAR JOURNAL Feb 1975 ------- Top left: The turbocharger, an exhaust-powered centrifu- gal compressor bolts to a dlesel engine to improve power and fuel economy while reducing smoke ... and now, noise. Top right: Schwltzer model 4LF turbocharger as in- stalled on test vehicle. Engine is Cummins NHC-250. Above left: The test truck, a 1968 White-Freightliner. was exceptionally well maintained, registering an overall noise level of only 87.6 db(A) as received. Above right: Without muffler, test truck measured 98.5 db(A). This was reduced to 82.7 db(A) after installation of turbocharger and "quiet" muffler specifically recom- mended for an NHC-250. COMMERCIAL CAR JOURNAL Fob 1975 107 ------- TURBO" used for the SAE drive-by test, and DOT noise test specifications were used as a guide. The test was conducted with the vehicle parked in the cen- ter of the test path with its exhaust located oppo- dB(A) NATURALLY ASPIRATED CONVENTIONAL MUFFLER NATURAtlV AbPIHAffcD NO MUFFLtH 87.6 985 Figure 2 Comparison of Noise Levels. dB (A) As Measured by SAE J-366 b DRIVE-BY TEST dB(A) 60 70 80 NATURAllY ASPIRATED CONVENTIONAL MUFFLER NATURALLY ASPIRATED NO MUFFLER 989 NATURAUV ASPIRATED QUIET MUfFLER TUflBOCHARGED NO MUFFLER TURBOCHARGEO QUIET MUFFLER 902 Rgure 3 Comparison of Noise Levels, dB (A) As Measured by Stationary Engine Acceleration Test site the microphone. Engine noise was measured as the engine was abruptly accelerated from low idle to 2350 rpm, its governed maximum. Figure 3 shows the results. On the average, the stationary trials produced sound levels approxi- mately half a decibel lower than for the corre- sponding SAE drive-by test. Retrofit of both the "quiet" muffler and the turbocharger reduced the decibel level to 81.5 db(A), a 5.2 decibel drop from the original in-service configuration. And once again, turbocharging alone accounted for a substantial 8.7 decibel noise reduction from the no-muffler configuration. Commenting on the test results, Max E. Rum- baugh, Schwitzer's Advanced Technology Group Project Manager, told CCJ that because the test vehicle had been exceptionally well maintained from a noise standpoint, it would be "unrealistic" to assume "quiet" mufflers would reduce noise levels below the federal maximums for every in- service heavy-duty truck. The turbocharger, however, used in con- junction with today's state-of-the-art muffling techniques appears to provide the margin neces- sary to meet regulations that take effect this fall and, perhaps, progressively stricter noise laws like- ly to be enacted after that. D D D Fig.4 Figure 4. Diagram shows dimensions of standard SAE J- 366b drive-by noise test site. Same site was used for sta- tionary testing with vehicle parked in center of drive-by path. For a free single copy of this article, write on company letterhead to: Editor, Commercial Car Journal, Chilton Way, Radnor, Pa 19089 108 COMMERCIAL CAR JOURNAL Feb 1975 ------- 13. FEDERAL. STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES ------- I N D E X U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AMD DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGIONAL OFFICES U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY INVESTIGATORS WITHIN EACH REGION LIST OF STATE AND LOCAL NOISE PROGRAMS ------- U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGIONAL OFFICES ------- SECTION 13 FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES Region 1 States: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont USEPA DOT/BMCS Room 2113 4 Normanskill Blvd. JFK Federal Building Delmar, New York 12054 Boston, Mass. 02203 Region 2 States: New Jersey, New York USEPA DOT/BMCS Room 9076 4 Normanskill Blvd. 26 Federal Plaza Delmar, New York 12054 New York, N.Y. 10007 Region 3 States: Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, District of Columbia USEPA DOT/BMCS Room 225 Room 816-A Curtis Building Federal Building 6th and Walnut Streets 31 Hopkins Plaza Philadelphia, PA 19106 Baltimore, MD 21201 Region 4 States: Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky USEPA DOT/BMCS Room 109 Suite 200 1421 Peachtree Street 1720 Pcachtree Road, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30309 Atlanta, GA 30309 Region 5 States: Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin. Minnesota USEPA DOT/BMCS 203 South Dearborn Street 18209 South Dixie Highway Chicago, ILL 60604 Homewood, ILL 60430 13-1 ------- Region 6 States: Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico USEPA DOT/BMCS Room 1107 819 Taylor Street 1600 Patterson Street Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Dallas, Texas 75201 Region 7 States: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska USEPA DOT/BMCS 1735 Baltimore Street P.O. Box 7186 Kansas City, MO 64108 Country Club Station Kansas City, MO 64113 Region 8 States: Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota USEPA DOT/BMCS Suite 900 Room 151, Building 40 1860 Lincoln Street Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80203 Denver, Colorado 80225 Region 9 States: Arizona, California, Nevado, Hawaii USEPA DOT/BMCS 100 California Street 450 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, Calif. 94111 Box 36096 San Francisco, Calif. 94102 Region 10 States: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington USEPA DOT/BMCS Room lie Room 412, Mohawk Bldg. 1200 Sixth Ave. 222 S.W. Morrison St. Seattle, Wash. 98101 Portland, Oregon 97204 13-2 ------- U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY INVESTIGATORS WITHIN EACH REGION *Region 1 - Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont Russell G. Toth - DRMCSO Leo W. O'Brien Federal Bldg., Rm. 720 Albany, New York 12207 AC 518-472-7866 or 7866, Com. Same SAFETY INVESTIGA TORS James Bowler John F. Leary, Richard A. Gosselin 990 Wethersfield Avenue Hartford, Connecticut 06114 Tel. 203-244-2036, Com. Same Richard Basanko Federal Building & U.S. Post Office Room 614,40 Western Avenue Augusta, Maine 04330 Tel. 207-622-6262 Gerald M. O'Brien, Matthew Pratt P. Joseph Gibbons John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg., Rm. 612-B Boston, Massachusetts 02203 Tel. 617-223-7281 Robert B. Gallant 55 Pleasant Street Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Tel. 603-224-7720, Com. 603-224-3385 Edward A brams William P. Jensen 25 Scotch Road, 2nd Floor Trenton, New Jersey 08628 Tel. 609-599-3641, Com. 609-599-3511 ext. 41 *Conforms to Standard Federal Regions 1 and 2 Raymond Valentine - RHMS Ralph E. Johnson - RAIS Leo W. O'Brien Federal Bldg., Rm. 720 Albany, New York 12207 AC 518-472-7866 or 7509, Com. Same Frederick J. Grum, Jr. 614 Federal Office Bldg. 111 Huron Street Buffalo, New York 14202 Tel. 716-842-2136 John P. Goodwin, John Whalan William L. Taylor, Jack Takekjian John C. Goodwin, George R. Cowan Leo Smith U.S. Custom Court & Federal Office Bldg. 26 Federal Plaza, Rm. 1800 New York, New York 10007 Tel. 212-264-1070 or 1080 Roben C. Beardsley Midtown Plaza, Rm. 204 700 E. Water Street Syracuse, New York 13210 Tel. 315-473-2794 Philip R. Peterson Gardner Bldg., 40 Fountain Street Providence, Rhode Island 02903 Tel. 401-528^541,2 and 3 13-3 ------- John O'Connell P.O. Box 563 Montpeher, Vermont 05602 Tel. 802-223-8433, Com. 223-6754 George T. Janson Leo W. O'Brien Federal Bldg., 9th Floor Albany, New York 12207 Tel. 583-472-6483 Region 3 - Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia Alexander J. Stevens - DRMCSO Rm. 816-A, Federal Bldg. 31 Hopkins Plaza Baltimore, Maryland 21201 AC 301-962^571 or 2. Com. Same SAFETY INVESTIGA TORS William D. Herster Federal Highway Administration Motor Carrier Safety Office Federal Office Building, 2nd Floor 300 South New Street, P.O. Box 517 Dover, Delaware 19901 Tel. 302-571-5123 or 5153 James W. Hememann 1000 N. Glebe Road Arlington, Virginia 22201 Tel. 703-557-9098 Clyde L. Williams, Jr. 10-502 Federal Building 400 N. 8th Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Tel. 804-782-2386 Robert F. Mick 211 Campbell Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Tel. 703-343-6426 Com. 703-343-1581 Ext. 426 Paul L. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Highway Administration Office of Motor Carrier Safety U.S. Post Office Bldg., Rm. 310 Scranton, Pennsylvania 18503 Tel. 717-344-7325 Com. 717-344-7111 William C. Savage - RHMS Darwin D. Garvin - RAIS Joseph J. Fulnecky — S/I Ronald G. Ashby - S/I William B. Leysath - S/f Same address as RD Stevens James W. De/fenbaugh P.O.Box 1086 Federal Building Harrisburg. Pennsylvania 17108 Tel. 717-782-4443 Mark Samuels James G. Swope. Jr. Gateway Building, Rm. M-200 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 Tel. 215-597-1078 or 9, Com. Same Bernard F. Schilling Patrick Quigley Federal Highway Administration Office of Motor Carrier Safety Federal Office Building, Rm. 2202 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 Tel. 412-644-2935 or 2936 Robert J. Powley 2204 Federal Office Bldg. 500 Quarner Street Charleston, West Virginia 25301 Tel. 304-343-1211 George F. Neunz Old Post Office Building, Rm. 416 12th&Chaplme Streets Wheeling, West Virginia 26003 Tel. 304-343-1031 Com. 304-232-6430 13-4 ------- Region 4 — Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky Charles E. Anderson - DRMCSO Suite 200, 1720 Peachtree Rd., N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30309 AC 404-526-5049 or 5966 William L. Barrow, Jr. - RHMS Otis Magby - S/I Jimmie B. Sutton - RAIS Same Address as RD Anderson Tel. 404-526-5049 SA FETY IN VESTIGA TORS Frank R. Atkins Room 529 2121 Building Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Tel. 205-325-3783 Harold H. Rymer, Jr. P.O. Box 35084 400 W. Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Tel. 904-791-2498 William T. Moss Box 2014 Miami International Airport Miami, Florida 33159 Te. 305-526-2921 Jerry A. Glass Ackerman Building 223 W. College Ave. Box 1079 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Tel. 904-377-4224 or 4259, Ext. 52 Com. 904-224-8111, Ext. 52 Buddy C. Yount Ernest L. Mann Federal Building & U.S. Court House 330 W. Broadway P.O. Box 536 Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Tel. 502-582-5468 Com. 502-227-7321 Henry M. Laird Federal Highway Admin. Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety 666 North Street, Suite 105 Jackson, Mississippi 39202 Tel. 601-948-2292 Com. 601-696^219 Gary A. McCaskill N. Hugh Galbreath Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Mart Office Bldg., Rm. DD507 800 Briar Creek Road Charlotte, North Carolina 28205 Tel. 704-372-7457 Com. 372-0711, Ext. 457 Willard T. Hawkins P.O. Box 26806 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Tel. 919-755-4378 James S. Itamura 2001 Assembly St. Suite 203 Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Tel. 803-765-5414 Robert L. Kener Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety 2918 E. Magnolia Avenue Knoxville, Tennessee 37914 Tel. 615-524-4240 Com. 637-9300, Ext. 4240 13-5 ------- Barry Brunstein Charles Ramsey Room 1002 Federal Office Bldg. 167 N. Main St. Memphis, Tennessee 38103 Tel. 901-534-3439 Claude C. Gatlin, Jr. 4004 Hillsboro Road Suite 236 Nashville, Tennessee 37215 Tel. 615-749-5951 Region 5 — Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota Wesley A. Bndwell - DRMCSO 18209 South Dixie Highway Homewood, Illinois 60430 AC 312-799-6300, Ext. 65 SAFETY INVESTIGATORS Robert K. Seed Robert A. Nelson P.O. Box 3307 3085 E. Stevenson Drive Springfield, Illinois 62708 Tel. 217-525^050, Ext. 37 Com. 217-529-6781 May land B. Nelms, Jr. Kenneth N. Bostick Room 707, ISTA Center 150 Market Street Indianapolis, Indiana 40204 Tel. 317-633-7182 or 83 Gerald Clay James R. Jeglum Suite 490, Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Tel. 612-725-7006 or 09 Dennis Martini - RAIS Gene H. Albers - RHMS Norbert L. Kuksta - SJI Clarence L. Hargis - S/I Vacancy - S/I Same Address and Telephone number as RD Bridwell H. David Howard Room 4020 C, Federal Building 550 Main Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Tel. 513-684-2988 Ralph P. Long Room 2073, Federal Office Building 1240 E. 9th Street Cleveland, Ohio 44199 Tel. 216-522-1890 Heber Dixon CarlD. Wolfinger Bryson Building, Room 321 700 Bryden Road Columbus, Ohio 43215 Tel. 614-469-5657 or 7493 13-6 ------- Erwin E. Laube Harold J. Harkins Richard Boyle Federal Building, Room 211 Box 147 Lansing, Michigan 48901 Tel. 517-372-1654 Com. 517-372-1910, Ext. 655 William Vickery Vernon R. Thalacker P.O. Box 5428 4502 Vernon Boulevard Madison, Wisconsin 53705 Tel. 608-252-5215 or 16 Region 6 - Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico L. D. Friesen - DRMCSO 819 Taylor Street Fort Worth, Texas 76102 AC 817-3 34-3 225 or 3 221 SAFETY INVESTIGA TORS William E. Anderson 3128 Federal Office Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Tel. 501-378-5625 George W. Wallace Room 239, Gederal Building 750 Florida Boulevard Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70801 Tel. 504-348-4244 Com. 504-348-0181, Ext. 244 Philip R. Cardwell 2409 North Broadway Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73103 Tel. 405-231-4625 and 26 James E. Martin, Jr. Jerry F. Smith Room 3D6, Federal Building 1100 Commerce Dallas, Texas 75202 Tel. 214-749-2771 Vacancy - RHMS Elwyn E. Baptiste - RAIS Joseph W. Shary (Trainee) Leon Feazell — S/l Same Address and Telephone number as RD Bezner Clyde C. Coggin, Jr. Lloyd Hopson 2320 LaBranch, Room 2-68 Houston, Texas 77004 Tel. 713-2264709 Peter W. Davis 619 U.S. Court House & Federal Bldg. 1205 Texas Avenue Lubbock, Texas 79401 Tel. 806-747-3664 Charles E, Wheeler Room 206 301 Broadway Building San Antonio, Texas 78205 Tel. 512-2254377 Com. 512-225-5511, Ext. 4377 Eugene Call FAA Building Albuquerque International Airport 2930 Yale Blvd., SE Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106 13-7 ------- Region 7 - Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska Bryan J. Schreier - DRMCSO P.O. Box 7186 Country Club Station Kansas City, Missouri 64113 AC 816-926-7095 William A. Crowder - RHMS Tel. 816-926-7897 NorrisJ. Freeman — RAIS Tel. 816-926-7896 James A. Twigg - S/I Bernard L. Watson - S/I Tel. 816-926-7898 Audrey M. Brent - (Trainee) Same Address as RD Schreier SAFETY INVESTIGA TORS William M. Burton P.O. Box 627 105 6th Street Ames, Iowa 50010 Tel. 515-232-0231 Com. 515-232-0250, Ext. 231 E. Ray Thompson Room 915, Federal Building 210 Walnut Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Tel. 515-284-4417 Robert C. Thompson P.O. Box 1341 Sioux City, Iowa 51102 Tel. 712-252-0270 Com. 712-252-4161, Ext. 270 Walter Johnson \263 Topeka Avenue Topeka, Kansas 66612 Tel. 913-234-8385 Com. 913-234-8661, Ext. 385 Joseph L. Muscaro P.O. Box 148 209 Adams Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 Tel. 314^42-5541 or 5542 Com. 314-636-7104 Wayne Cole Charles L. Drummond U.S. Courthouse and Custom House Room 650A 1114 Market Street St. Louis, Missouri 63101 Tel. 314-622-4109 Robert E. Kitzmiller Dale L. Meiner Bilhe C. Wilson 1701 S. 17th Street Lincoln, Nebraska 68502 Tel. 402-471-5 523 13-8 ------- Region 8 - Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota Luther H. Oldham, Jr. - DRMCSO Room 151, Building 40 Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 AC 303-234-2339 Ralph D. Graham - RHMS Harold E. Farsdale - RAIS Orris H. Gram - S/I Alexander Buzzell - S/J Same Address as RD Olkham Tel. 303-234-2339 SAFETY INVESTIGA TORS James S. Brunton 11 th and Fee Street Helena, Montana 59801 Tel. 406-442-3224 Com. 406-442-9040, Ext. 3224 Ronald Evenson P.O.Box 1755 New Federal Office Building Bismark, North Dakota 58501 Tel. 701-255-4346 Com. 701-255^011, Ext. 346 William y. Martin Box 700 Federal Office Building Pierre, South Dakota 57501 Tel. 605-224-8241 Com. 605-224-7351 Region 9 - Arizona, California, Nevada Michael D. Sullivan - DRMCSO 450 Golden Gate Avenue Box 36096 San Francisco, California 94102 AC 415-5 56-3553 or 4 Wayne Goudie Alan Brown 2420 Federal Building Box 11563 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Tel. 801-524-5154 John A. Quigley O'Mahoney Federal Center 2120 Capitol P.O.Box 1127 Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001 Tel. 307-778-2305 Com. 307-778-2220 Eugene A. Graham - RAIS Daniel Mulcahy - S// Byron Stone - S/I Ralland S. Stevens - Sfl Same Address and Telephone number as RD Sullivan 13-9 ------- SAFETY INVESTIGA TORS George H. Dobbins 3500 N. Central Avenue Suite 201 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Tel. 602-261-3751 Rudy Black - RHMS Harold E. Whitaker John W. Spivey Steven J. Polyi Federal Building, Room 3062 300 North Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, California 90012 Tel. 213-688^842, 3 or 4 Region 10 - Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington Vacancy - DRMCSO Room 412, Mohawk Building 222 S.W. Momson Street Portland, Oregon 97204 AC 503-221-2093 or 2094 William E. Murphy 106 E.Adams Street Carson City, Nevada 89701 Tel. 702-885-5335 Walter J. Hannigan Federal Highway Administration Federal Building, 2nd Floor 801-1 Street Sacramento, California 95814 AC 916-449-3 511 Judge R. Shelton - RHMS Ben P. Quillin-RAlS Linda Taylor - Trainee Albert C. Williams - S/f Robert M. Hagan - S/l Same Address and Telephone number as RD West SAFETY INVEST/GA TORS George D. Arnot 1515 13th Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Tel. 907-279-5213 Frank A. York 301 OState Street P.O. Box 7527 Boise, Idaho 83701 Tel. 208-342-2843 Com. 208-342-2711, 2536, or 2537 Bruce M. Fleming 9021 Federal Office Building Seattle, Washington 98104 Tel. 206^42-4388 William I. DeLapp 402 U.S. Post Office Building West 914 Riverside Avenue Spokane, Washington 99201 Tel. 509^56-2545 13-10 ------- STATE AND LOCAL NOISE PROGRAMS ------- •ALARAMA L • 1. LINN, JR . RADIATION PHYSICIST FNVIRONMFNTAL HEALTH AOMINISTHATION LAB STATE OFFICE RLDG. MONTfifJMERY, AL 3610* PHOMF: ?«.M- » 'i CHARLES H. YOUNGER CITY ATTORNEY PO BOX 30R HUNTSVILLE* AL 35flpV PHONF: FTS: ?05 S39-QM2 JOHN HUDSON PO ROX 1827 AL PHONF: FTS: J. ARONSTEIMi JR.. DIRECTOR DEPT. OF PLANNING • DEVELOPMENT PO ROX 111* MONTGOMERYt AL 361r? PHONE: FTS: 70S ?------- ?5I W. PHOFNIX, A7 85003 JAMfS A. HETTS PHONF: f>n? 7'»|-*171 ftSST. DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION rTS: PO BOX 5547 TUCSONt AZ 4ST03 ••••••••••ARKANSAS OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR FTS: LITTLE ROCK. AR vj ••••••••••CALIFORNIA ui vn A.E. LOWE, CHIEF PHONES *J5 8*3-7900 OFFICE OF NOISE CONTROL FTSt STATf DEPTt OF HEALTH 3151 BERKELEY WAY BERKELEY, C LT. J.D. DE LUCA PHONE I lib **S-63»5 S611 - ZATH STREET FTS( SACRAMENTOt CA 95016 M. HEATH PHO^F: Q|6 **5-l*bS CALIFORNIA HIGHMAY PATROL FTS; ?6|1 96TH STREET SACPAWENTO, CA ------- W.R. GRFEN DESIGN AND ENGINEERING CALIF. DF.PT OF TRAMSPORT4TTON 1120 » STREET SACRAMENTO- C» 95fll» PHONF: **"- • «no J.L. REATON TECHNICAL AN0 RESEARCH CALIF. OFPT OF TRANSPORTATION 5900 FOLSOM RLVD SACoAMENTOi CA 95B19. PMONFI GREGORY HARDING LOCAL ASSISTANCE OFFICER OFFICF OF PLANNING • RESEARCH MOO - 10™ STREET SACOAMENTOt CA 95fl]4 PHONE: FTSS 9)6 4*5-111* ROPFRT J. KELLEVt ASSISTANT PLANNER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OEPT. PO BOX 3222 ANAHEIM. CA 92803 PHONF! FTS: 71* 533-5711 HM. J. WATTERSON BUILDING OEPT. SUPT. 275 E. OLIVE AVE. BURRANK. CA 91502 PHONE: FTSJ 213 P46-2141 CHARLES W. THOMPSON CITY MANAGER CITY HALL 8*?5 SECOND ST DOWNEYi CA 90241 PHONF: FTS: 213 HM-0361 ------- HtLLI»M F. CORNETT CITY ADMINISTRATOR 303 W. COMMONWEALTH FULl F.RTON. CA 9263? | 7 | BRUCE P. ALBREDt PLANNING DIRECTOR CITY OF HAYHftHO 22300 FOOTNILL BLVp. HAVWARO, CA 945*1 PHONF: FTS! CHARLES CHIVETTAi DIRECTOR COMMUMTV OEVELOPKENT OfPT. CITY OF LAKEWOOD PO no* isa LAKFWOOD* CA 90714 PHONF: FTSl 213 R66-9T7I DON ORIGGSi CITY MANAGER CITY GOVERNMENT BLDG. FREMONT• CA 9*536 PHO>lF: FTSl 415 796-3*36 DOUR LA BELLE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DIRECTOR ACACU PARKMAY GROVEt CA 9fl2*0 PHONF: FTS! 7|4 63B-6851 P. PATRICK MANN ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS SUPERVISOR CITY OF INGLE«OOD i MANCHESTER HLVD. INflLEUOODi CA 90301 PHONF: 213 FTS: ------- JACK GREENi GENERAL MANAfiFH DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL Oil/it f RM. 5«jO CITY HALL EAST LOS AfcGfLfS, CA ALRFRT W. OPTICIAN, NOISE POLLUTION SPEC H£40 OF ACOUSTICS DIVISION DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BM. S50« CITY HALL EAST LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 PHOMF: FTS; CECIL RILEY, CITY MANAGER CITY »«ALL OAKLAND* CA 94612 PHONE: FTSi »IS 2T3-3301 JOHN R. PKl(.P. MO, MEfttT*- OFFICE" COUNTY OF ORANGE 6*5 NORTH ROSS ST. SANTA ANA, CA 9270? PHONE: FTSt 7|4 834-3131 JERRCH.D R. CITY ADMINISTAATOR CITY MALL POMONA, CA 91769 FTSs R.J. MILLIAMS SUPERINTENDENT OF BUILDING RM 411, CITY HALL LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 PHONFl FTS: ------- JOHN L*NFt ADMINISTRATOR ADVANCED PLANNING 300 f. CHAPMAN AVE. ORANGE• fA MURRAY COOPER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIRECTOR CITY HALL 100 N. GARFIELD PASADENA. CA 91109 PHfiNF: rTS: MERLE G. GARDNER PLANNING DIRECTOR clTr HALL RIVERSIDE* CA 92501 PHONF: FTS: 714 7BT-T171 R.H. PARKER CITY ENGINEER ROOM ?07 CITY HALL SACRAMENTO. CA 9581* PHONF: JAMfs E. DUKES NOISE ABATEMENT « CONTROL ADMINISTRATOR FNVFCOMMENTAL QUALITY DEPT. CITY ADMINISTRATION BLDG.. 20? C ST. SAN niEGO. CA 92101 PHONE: FTS; 71* 236-60B0 JACK HATTt BUILDlNR OFFICIAL HOUSING ADVISORY » APPEAL BOARD 330 *• 20™ AVE. SAN MATEOt CA 94*03 PMO'jF: FTS: *15 57*-6750 GLEN K. GODFREY 3?8-S310 ------- SUPFRVISOB-ENVIHONMENTAL DUALITY HIV. 3031 TORRANCE HLVO. TORPAKCF. CA 90503 FTS: SALVATORE f. CATALANO« SECY. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIFU COMMITTEE 300 NORTH 0 ST. SAN RERNARDlNOt CA ------- JOHN aRNFYi DIRECTOR DEPT OF PLANNING • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT UT» EHPORlA ST. AURORAi CO ftOOlO to.) »* I - • on THOMAS I. PEABODV. P.E. CHIEF' PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICE DEPT. OF HEALTH • HOSPITALS* UNIT «t H ftTM AVE • CO 80?0» PHOMFt FTSI 303 DONALD v. SHANFELT CNVIRONMF.NTAL CONTROL OFFICER REPT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1580 YARROH ST. LAKFVOODt CO 80Z1S FTS, 303 Z3Z-2209 THOMAS A. MARTIN NOISE ABATEMENT OFFICER SAFETY DEPARTMENT PO ROX isTS COLORADO SPRINGSt co PHONE I DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF LAKEWQOD COLORADO FTSi ••••••••••CONNECTICUT WARREN THURNAUER MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY COORDINATOR CONN. ST4T£ MOTOR VEHICLE DEPT 60 tTATE STREET WETNERSFIELD' CT 06109 PHONFl FTS: ?03 566-7390 ------- RORFRT fi JIB ALA ENVTRONMFNTAL SECTION CONw. STaTE OFPT OF TfaNSPOHTATION ?* UOI.COTT HILL "040 WETHfBSFIFLD. CT PAUL NORTON AIR POLL CONTROL ENG. CONN ST. OEPT OF ENVIRONMFNTAL PROT AIR COMPLIANCE UNIT IbS CAPITOL AVE. HARTFORD. CT 061 IS ?03 JOSFPH R. TEOF.SCO AIR POLL INSPECTOR BRIDGEPORT AIR POLLUTION OEPT OEPT OF HUMANE AFFAIRS 835 WASHINGTON AVE. RRIDGEPORT. CT FTSs STANLEY J. PAC OFFICE OF THE MAYOR PHQ'iF I FTSi NEM CT FRAMCIS J. KALAMANt M.D. 137-139 EAST AVE CT PHOME i FTS, 203 838-7531 H.A. BOURNE DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HEALTH DEPT. 550 MAIN ST HARTFORD. CT 06103 PHONF! FTS: ------- ORLANDO SILVESTRI. DIRECTOR BUILDING OEPT HALL or RECORDS. »•« 50? ?00 ORANGE ST. NEW HAVEN. CT 06*10 PHONF: JESSE 0. RORTNMICK NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM MANAGER 254S2 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLEt EAST TALLAHASSEEt FL 3?301 PHONF! FTSI 904 4RB-4778 WILLIAM BENNETT CHIEF CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER CITY OF FORT LAUOEPOALE P.O. DRAWER 1181 FORT LAUOEROALEi FL 33302 PHONE I FTS: 305 527-2121 WALTER W. HONOUR* DIVISION CHIEF BIO'FNVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 01V. SIS WEST SIXTH ST. JACKSONVILLE, FL 33206 PHONF: FTSl 904 633-3*79 R. E. FERENCIKt DIRECTOR BUILDING DEPT. BOX NO. 708 MIAMI, FL PHONF: FT«il 305 4*5-4711 JAMES FOWLER ASST. CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF ORLANDO 400 SOUTH ORANGE AVE. ORLANDO. FL 32801 PHONE: FTSt 30S FU9-2129 ------- ROBERT M. JONES. DIR NOISE PROGRAMS COUNTY ENV PROTECT TON COMM STOVALL PROFESSIONAL BLOG. 305 N. MORGAN ST. SIXTH FLOOR TAMPAi FL 33602 B13 2?3-\ 111 FTS! EMIL n. HICKS. JR. DIRECTOR. DEPT OF POLLUTION CONTROL PHONFl FTSt R13 2P3-13II P.O. BOX 2842 ST. PETERSBUHG. FL 33731 ••••••••••GEORGIA CHARLES A. HEAD. Ill CHIEF. SPECIAL OPERATIONS UNIT GEORGIA DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 47 TRINITY AVE.» S.M. ATLANTAt GA 30334 PHONF : FTS! 40* 656-4871 H.A. HEHES ASST BUILDING OFFICIAL OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BLOGS. BOO CITY HALL ATLANTA. G* 30303 PHONE I FTSi JOHN talLBANKS C<>UWTY PHOMEt FTS: 41? 746-9656 PO BOX 247 RH 305 CITY HALL HACON, GA 3120? ARTHUR A. HENOONSA CITY MANAGER CITY OF SAVANNAH P.O. BOX 1027 PHONE: FTSl 412 233-4321 ------- SAVANKAH, GA CURTISS E. MCCLUNG CHIEF OF POLICE P.O. BOX 1340 COLllMPUS* G». 31902 FTS: SflOAMOTO IHASHITA CHIFF, NOISE * RADIATION BRANCH 5TATF DEPT. OF MEAI TH P.O. POX 3378 HONOLULU. HI 96801 PHONE: FTS: BOH 549-3075 HERREPT MURAOKA CITY • COUNTY OF HONOLULU PHONE: FTSl BOB 546-7651 HONOLULU HALE. HONOLULU. Hi 96811 ••••••••••IDAHO VAUfiHK ANDERSON niRFCTOR-CATEGORICAL PROnRAMS STATE^OUSE BOISE. ID B37ZO PHONF: FTS! 208 3R4-23QO JAMES L. MORRIS. CITY ENGINEER OEPT. "F PUBLIC KOP«S CITY HALLt P.O. BOX 500 in 83701 206 342-4621 FTSl ------- JOHN S. MOORE MGR., DIV. OF NOISF POLL CONTROL 2200 CHURCHILL RO. SPRINGFIELD, IL 6270* PHOMF! FTS! H.W. POSTONi COMMISSIONER OEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 320 N. CLARK ST. RH *02 CHICAGO, IL 60610 PHOuFl FTSi 112 T44-4080 FRANK OSINSKI dTV-COUNTV HEALTH OEPT WINNEREGA CO. COURTHOUSE ROCKFORD. IL PHOMF. I FTSI BIS 9fl7-?575 RALPH C. PICKARO INDIANA STATE BOARD OF HEALTH 1330 bEST MICHIGAN ST. INOlAMAPOLlSi IN 46206 PHONE! FTSI 317 633.4*20 JESSE C. CROOKS* DIRECTOR ENvIRONMfNTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RM ?07, ADMINISTRATION BLDG. CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX EVANSVILLE. IN 47708 PHONF: «12 *2*-5595 JOEL JOHNSONi DIRECTOR 3600 M. 3RD AVE 944-679S FTS. ------- GABY. IN 46406 RONALD L. NOVAK. CHIEF HAMMOND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL 5925 CALUMET AVE. HAMMOND, IN 46320 PHONE1: FTS: HAROLD J. EOENES DIRECTOR* DEPT or METROPOLITAN OEV. I8C.O CITY-COUNTY flLDG. IM 46204 PHONF: 117 633-3198 CAPT. JAMES R. SMEITZER 701 U. SAMPLE SOUTH BEND* IN 46621 PHONE I FTSI 219 28*-------- MELVILLE W. GRAY, DIRECTOR o'v's'ON OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH KANSAS STATE OEPT OF HEALTH 535 KANSAS AVE TOPFKA, KS 66603 PHONF: FTS: ••••••••••KENTUCKY FHEO HATERS ENVIRONMENTAL SUPERVISOR OEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES • E.P. DIVISION OF SPECIAL PROGRAMS CAPITAL PLAZA BLOC. ' FRANKFORT* KV 40601 PHONF! FTSt 502 564-7274 • •••••••••LOUSI ANA VERNON C. PARKERi HEAD OIV AIR CONTRL « OCCUPATIONAL HLTH RM »U-325 LOYOLA AVE* P.O. BOX 60630 NEW ORLEANS. LA 70160 PHONE: FTS! 50* 527.5115 c. CURTIS MANN, CHF MECHANICAL INSP RM. 7E04. CITY HALL 13UO PERDIOO ST. NEW ORLEANS, LA 70112 PHONE: FTSi 504 586-4*55 L. TALHOUNi JR. MAYOR. CITY OF SHREVEPORT 1Z3* TEXAS AVE. SHREVEPORT. LA PHONFI FTSI 504 424-4171 ••••••••••MAINE DONALD C. HOXIE PHONF: 207 2H9-3126 ------- DIRECTOR. HEALTH ENGINEERING MAINE DEPT OF HEALTH • WELFARE AUGUSTA. ME FTS! ••••••••••MARYLAND THOMAS A. TOWERS. SANITARIAN OF AIR QUALITY CONTROL 610 NORTH HOWARD ST BALTIMORE' HO 21201 FTS! DAVID T. LEWIS. DIRECTOR RURFAU OF ENV NOISE CONTROL 60? AMERICAN RLOG. BALTIMORE • SOUTH STREETS BALTIMORE! MO 31202 PHONE: FTSl 301 346-4428 ••••••••••MASSACHUSETTS MR. GILBERT T. JOLYt DIRECTOR MASS. DEPT PUBLIC HEALTH BUREAU OF AIR QUALITY CONTROL SPRINGFIELD* MA PHONFi FTS« PCNtLP C. SQUIRES 31 sriTE ST. *TM TSVN. "A OZ10» CONTROL 617 2?7-4890 FTS: LlSS D1R. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OFFICE LYNN CITY HALL LVNN, MA 01904 FTS: ------- JOSFPH A. PELLET IER POLICE CHIEF SPRING STREET NEU BEDFORD, MA 027*0 PMONFS FTS! JAMES BARHETTt DEPUTY CHIEF BUREAU OF INDUSTRIAL HEALTH MICHIGAN DEPT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 3500 *• LOGAN ST. LAKlSINGt MI PHONF J FTSl 51? 373-1*10 s WAYNE COUNTY HEALTH DEPT HERRICAN RO ELOISE, Ml 48132 PHONE: FTS; 313 27*-2Boo JAHES A. 8IENER. DIRECTOR PHONE: FTSI 616 456-3Z06 500 WEALTHY, S.M. GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49503 BRUCE C. BROWN DIRECTOR OF CITY PLANNING 241 W. SOUTH ST. KALAMAZOOt MI 49Q06 PHONE: FTS« 616 301-5500 FRANK A. KERBY CHIEF INSPECTOR 15200 FARMINGTON ROAD 313 421-2000 FTSs ------- LIVONIA. HI 4B1S4 ROSF.RT M. GERDS? ADMINISTRATOR PMONFI INSPECTION SERVICES DIV. FTS: CITT OF PONT I AC PONTIAC, HI ROGER BALTMAi FED PROJECTS ENGINEER PHONF: 517 753-5*11 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Oly. FTSl CITV MALL SAGINAW. MI 40601 GEORGE BRUGGERMAN( DIRECTOR PHONEJ 313 573-9500 DIV. OF RUILOINGS • SAFTV ENOINEERNG FTS> 29500 VAN OYKE WARpENt MI *8093 ••••••••••MINNESOTA RORERT L. LINES• SUPERVISOR PHONE I 612 348-2637 POLLUTION CONTROL DIV. FTSl 220 GROIN EXCHANGE MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 KEN OZUGANt DIRECTOR PHONEt 612 24H-5521 CITY OF ST. PAUL FTS« POLlUTION CONTROL SERVICE 100 EAST 10TH ST. ST PAULt MN 55101 ••••••••••MISSISSIPPI ------- VCLNEY J. CISSNA. JR. »IP ftSST. PLANNING DIRECTOR 210 SOUTH PRESIDENT P.O. HO* ??56« JACKSON, MS 39205 PHONF: •MISSOURI GLEN J. HOPKINS SPECIAL ftSST. TO CITY MANAGER 29TH FLOOR' CITY M«LL KANSAS CITY, MQ 64IO& PHOMC! FTSl B16 JOE ALLEN. CHIEF AID POLL^TION CONTROL AUTHOR|TY CITY HALL-BOO BOONVILLE ftVE SPRINGFIELD. MO PHONF: *17 865-1611 LARRY L. LLOYDi CHIEF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH BUREAU OEPT OF HEALTH • ENV SCIENCES COGSWELL BLOC. HELENA. MT 59621 FTSl ••••••••••NERPASKA J.L. WIGGINS, DIRECTOR P.O. BOX 9*653. ST HOUSE STATION LINCOLN, MB 68509 PHONE: FTS» *02 471-2186 GARY L. WALSH. CHIFF PHONFi 403 475-6??l ------- AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SECTION 2200 ST. MARYS AVE. LINCOLN. NB 69502 ••NEVADA LT. COL. BERNARD DFHL PHONFt 702 8R2-T351 ASST CHIEF NEVADA HGHWY PATROL FTS« 555 WRIGHT WAY CARSON CITY, NV 89701 RORFRT C. CLEANER PHOWF! 702 3B6-6011 SUPF»V1SOR Op ZONING FTSl 400 E STEWART AVE. VEGAS. NV 091QI 3 BRIAN WRIGHTt ACTING DIRECTOR PHONF.: ?02 785-4246 01V OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FTSl 10 KIRHAN AyE. RENO* NV B9502 ••••••••••NEW JERSEY EDWARD J. 01 POLVERE PMONFl 609 292-7695 SUPFRVISOR OF NOISF CONTROL OFFICE FTSl BOX 2807 TRENTON, NJ 08625 STUART B. PALFREYMAN. H.O. PHONEt HEALTH OFFICER FTSl CLIFTON HEALTH CLIFTON, N.J. 07011 ------- BUFORD. DIRECTOR OEPT OF HEALTH » WfLFARE CITt MALL-RM 210 N.J. 0710? FTS: MFMCO AARON BONO, DIRECTOR ENVIRONMFNTAL IMPROVEMENT AGENCY ST«TE OF NEW MEXICO P.O. POX ?3»8 SANTA FE. N.M. 8TS01 PMONF: FTSJ SOS 8?7-2*73 ••••NEK YORK OR. FRED 6. HAAG. DIRECTOR NOISE BUREAU 50 WOLF ROAD ALPANV, N.V. 12201 PHONE: FTS5 518 457-1005 SGT. FREDERIC J. WELSH #5 90 BEAUFORT PL. NEW ROCHELLE. N.Y. 10801 PHONE I 632-2021 RAYHO*D E. GERSON DIRECTOR BUREAU NOISE ABATEMENT 120 HALL ST. NEW YORK, N.Y. 10005 PHONF: FTS, JOHN f. MATTHEWS PHONF: 518 393-6661 ------- SCHENECTADY COUNTY PLANNING OEPT FTS: 620 STATE ST. SCHFNECTAOV, N.V. 12307 PETFR MANCUSO* DIRECTOR DIVISION OF NOISE FNFORCEMENT PHONFt FTS, 120 MALL ST. NEW TfflRK, N.t. 10005 ••••••••••NORTH CAROLINA ROY PAUL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING 116 WEST JONES STRFET RALFIGH, NC ZT603 PMOK)F| FTSl w DALE *. LONG CHIEF ZONING INSPECTOR INSPECTION OEPT CITY OF CHARLOTTE CITY HALL* 600 EAST TRADE ST. CHARLOTTE* NC 28202 PMOMEl FTS. 70* 3T4-22M r.L. KCPMEHSON ADMIN. ASST.t CITY HALL CITY OF DURHAM DURHAM. NC PHONE: FTS: ROBERT GOODWIN CHIEF OF POLICE P.O. ROX 590 RALEIGH. NC 2T602 PHONF: FTS, 919 755-6370 ------- ORvlLLE u. POuELL CITY MANAGER* CITY OF WINSTON PHONF: FTS: WINSTON S»LEM, NC 27102 ••••••••••OHIO OR. IRA L. WHITMAN OHIO FPA BOX 1049 451 F TOWN ST. COLUMBUS, OH 43?|ft PHONF: FTS: 614 469-3543 JOHN 0. MORLEVt M.n. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH DEPT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 177 S. BROADWAY AKRDNt OH 4431)8 PHONE! FTS« CHARLES H. LENZER ACTING ASST CO"*M. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL CONSUMER PROT CINCINNATI HEALTH nEPT. 3101 BUHNET AVE. CINCINNATI, OH 45?29 PHONE: FTS! 513 352-3158 BOYD T. MARSH DEPUTY HEALTH COMMISSIONER FOR FNVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 14?5 ST. CLAIR AVE. CLEVELAND OH 44114 PHDNF! FTSl 216 694-230* GEORGE K. HODGE SUPFRINTENDENT 181 S WASHINGTON SLVD COL"MRUs, OH 43215 PHONE: FTS: (.14 461-7433 ------- FRANCIS fi. CASH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF DAYTON 101 H. THIRD ST. DAYTONi OH 45*02 PMONr: FTS: S|3 EVOp S. KERRt JR. OIRFCTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY 6611 RIDGE ROAD PARMA, OH 4*129 PHONE: FTS: 216 6*6-2323 PAUL 0. FINOLAY. DIRECTOR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 26 MAIN STREET TOLEDO. OH 43605 PHONE: 419 255-1500 FRED P. VICAREL CHIEF OF SANITARY POLICE CITY HALL« HEALTH DEPT. YOUNGSTOMN. OH 44503 PHONE t FTS! 216 744-8989 ••••••••••OKLAHOMA DALE HCHARO. CHIEF OCCUPATIONAL RAD H|_TH SERVICES STaTE OEPT OF HEALTH NORTHEAST loTH • STONEWALL OKLAHOMA CITY. OK 73105 PHONE I FTS: 405 271-5221 IVAN B. SMITH. CHIEF OCCUPATIONAL RAD HuTH SECTION 921 N.E. 23 BOX 53445 OKLAHOMA CITY. OK 73105 405 427-8651 FTS: ------- GEORGA H. PROTHRO. M.D. FTS: TULSA CITY-COUNTY HLTH DEPT. P.O. BOX 4650 TULSA, OK 7*104 ••••••••••OREfiOfc JOHN HECTOR, CHIEF NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL SECTION PHONE: FTS: 503 229-5284 1234 S.w, PORTLAND. MORRISON ST. OR 97205 DR. PAUL HERMAN ACOUSTICAL PROJECT MANAGER RUREAU OF NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENT ?D4o S.E. POMELL BLVD. PORTLAND. OR 9720? PHOME I FTSt 503 248-4*65 ••••••••••PENNSYLVANIA CLARK L. GAULDING, DIRECTOR BUREAU AIR QUALITY * NOISE CONTROL PHONE: FTSI TIT 7B7-9702 HARRISRURGi PA GEORGE s. SMITH, MD MEDICAL DIRECTOR BI-CITY HEALTH RURFAU 415 HAMILTON ST. ALLENTOUN, PA \B\ol PHONE: FTS: 215 437-7T59 ------- RICHARD J. GOFF NOISE CONTROL SPECIALIST 649 CITY-COUNTY SLOG. PITTSBURGH* P» PHONF: FTS: «12 35S-4030 RICHARD L. HUflERi NO DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH SCRANTON. PA PHONE I FTSs ••••••••••RHODE ISLAND EUGENE J. JEFFERSt P.E. CITY ENGINEER 137 ROOSEVELT AVE. PA«TUCKETt RI 028*0 PHONE I FTS« 401 728-0500 VINCENT 01 MASEt P.E. DIRECTOR DEPT OF RLOG. INSPECTION 112 UMON ST. PROVIDENCE* RI 02903 PHONF. I FTSI . COSTELLO* BUILDING INSPECTOR PHONFt FTSl 401 T3T-221I CITY MALL WARWICK, RI 02886 ••••••••••SOUTH CAROLINA JOHNNIE W. SMITH, niRECTOR DIVISION OF NOISE CONTROL PHONFi FTS: 803 758-8950 2600 BULL ST. COLUMBIA. S.C 29201 ------- JAMES H. NORTON POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICIAL P.O. POX 1*7 COLUMBIA. S.C. PHONF: R03 7hS-lO*l JOEL HARNETT ENGINEER IN CHARGE NOISE CONTROL ACTIVITIES C2-?12 COROELL HULL BLOG. NASHVILLE. TN PHONE I FTS: 615 7*1-3651 ••••••••••TEXAS STUART HENRTt DIRECTOR P.O. iox lose AUSTIN, TX 7B767 PHONE I FTS! 512 '72-6981 H.R. METZZER, M.O. M.P.H. DIRECTOR. CORPUS-CHRISTI-NUECES CO. OEPT OF PUBLIC HEAI.TM » WELFARE P.O. BOX 49 CORPUS CHRISTI. TX 78403 PHONFt FTS! LARRY J. FREEMAN. DEPUTY DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DIV. 193A AHELI* COURT DALLAS. TX 75235 PHQMF. : FTS: 21* 638-7670 ------- JOHN V. COHB1. ACTING DIRECTOR OCCUPATIONAL HLTH » RADIATION CONTRL NOISE INVESTIGATION 1115 N. MACGREGOR HOUSTON, TX 7T025 713 FTS! EARL M. AYLES. DIRECTOR 635 W. IRVING BLVD. IRVING, TX 75060 PHONF: 21* 259-3771 E.J. ASST. CITY ATTORNEY P.O. BOX 672 1211 E. 50UTHMORE PASADENA* TX TTS01 T13 477-1511 ••••••••••VIRGINIA BRYCE P. SCHOFIEUD, DIRECTOR BUREAU OF INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE 109 GOVERNOR ST. RICHMOND, VA Z321Q PHONE: FTSS 80* 770-6285 P.C. MINETTI CHIEF OF POLICE CITY HALL HAMPTON, VA 73369 PHONE I ftO* 7?2-2535 DONALD u. MATHIAS ENVIRONMENTAL MONITOR RM. HO* CITY HALL NORFOLK. VA 23501 PHONE: FTS: BO* **1-?«21 ------- •WASHINGTON RUSSELL C. HUEHLER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING RM 335 COUNTY-CITY BLDG. <>30 TACOMA AVE. SOUTH TACOMA. WA 98*03 PHONF: rTS: 593-4170 ••••••••••WEST VIRGINIA HARVEY J. ROBERTS. DIRECTOR RURFAU OF INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE W. VA DEPT. OF HEALTH 7Boo E WASHINGTON ST. CHARLESTONt WV ?5305 PHONE: FTS: 304 348-3526 ••••••••••WISCONSIN BROOKS BECKER. DIRECTOR BUREAU OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OEPT NATURAL RESOURCES BOX 450 MADISON. WI 53TQ1 PHONE! FTSS 0. FRED NELSON. GEN. MANAGER KENOSHA WATER UTILITY KENOSHA MUNICIPAL RLDG. 625-52ND ST KENOSHA. WI 531*0 PHONE» FTSl *1* 658-1374 DAVID c. COUPER CHIEF OF POLICE 311 S CARROLL ST P.O. ROX lisa MADISON, MI 53703 PHONE! FTS. 608 266-*275 ------- GEORGE A. KUPFER. SUPERINTENDENT PHOnjP r 4]* 27(1-167*. BUREAU OF CONSUMER PROTECTION FTS! • FNWI»ONMENT»L HEALTH RM 105 i MUNICIPAL RL06 841 M HROAI)UT MILWAUKEE* HI 53203 OR FERRAZDANO PHONE: 414 636-920* RACINE HEALTH DEPT. FTS: RACINE. Wl 53203 ••••••••••DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DAVID-N. STAPLESt CHIEF PHONFI ?02 629-Z12B INOIISTRIaL HYGIENE DIV. FTS: DEPT OF ENV SERVICFS 801 NORTH CAPITOL ST RM 773 WASHINGTON' O.C. 20002 RICO SANTOS ROHENAt JR. PHONF! ASSOC. DIRECTOR SOLID HASTE FTS: C/0 OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR COMMOMHEALTH OF PUERTO RICO ••••••••••VIRGIN ISLANDS DONALD C. FRANCOIS PHONE: B09 774-3411 ASST. DIRECTOR TTS: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH P.O. BOX 1442 ST. THOMAS* vi oonoi ------- 14. TRADE ASSOCIATIONS. PUBLICATIONS. AND RADIO STATIONS ------- SECTION 14 TRADE ASSOCIATIONS PUBLICATIONS AND RADIO STATIONS ------- INDEX 1. National Trucking Associations 2. State Trucking Associations 3. Independent Trucking Associations 4. Trade Journals 5. Truckers' Radio Stations ------- 1. NATIONAL TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS ------- NATIONAL TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS American Association of Motor Vehicle Administration 1828 L Street, N.W. Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20036 Louis Spitz - Exec. Director 296-1955 American Trucking Association 1616 P Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Bill Gibson - Engr. 769-5335 National Association of Motor Bus Owners (NAMBO) 1025 Connecticut venue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Stan Hamilton - Govt. Liaison 293-5890 National Association of Truck Stop Operators (NATSO) 501 Slaters Lane, Suite 5 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 549-2100 Private Truck Council of America, Inc, 1101 14th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 John White - Exec. Vice President 785-4900 ------- AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSN. CONFERENCES AMERICAN MOVERS CONFERENCE Charles C. (Chuck) Coon, President American Movers Conference 1117 North 19th Street - Suite 806 Arlington, Virginia 22209 Office Phone: (703) 524-5440 COMMON CARRIER CONFERENCE-IRREGULAR ROUTE Henry A.S. van Daalen, Executive Director Common Carrier Conference-Irregular Route 1616 P Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Office Phone: (202) 797-5286 "Hot Line": (202) 797-5289 CONTRACT CARRIER CONFERENCE James W. (Jim) Boyer, Managing Director Contract Carrier Conference 1616 P Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Office Phone: (202) 797-5401 "Hot Line": (202) 797-5402 FILM, AIR & PACKAGE CARRIERS CONFERENCE George H. Mundell, Secy. & Exec. Director Film, Air & Package Carriers Conference 1616 P Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20036 Office Phone: (202) 797-5365 HE A VY-SPECIALIZED CARRIERS CONFERENCE Allan M. (AJ) Shirley, Managing Director Heavy-Specialized Carriers Conference 1155 - 16th St., N.W., Suite 711 Washington, D. C. 20036 Office Phone: (202) 797-5407 "Hot Line": (202 797-5443 ------- LOCAL AND SHORT HAUL CARRIERS NATIONAL CONFERENCE Fred G. Favor, Executive Director Local & Short Haul Carriers National Conference 1621 O Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Office Phone: (202) 797-5414 MUNITIONS CARRIERS CONFERENCE William J. (Bill) Welsh, Managing Director Munitions Carriers Conference 1616 P Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Office Phone: (202) 797-5419 NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE TRANSPORTERS ASSOCIATION Douglas W. (Doug) McGiveron, General Manager National Automobile Transporters Association Suite 388 - Mt. Vernon Quadrangle 23777 Greenfield Road Southfield, Michigan 48075 Office Phone: (313) 557-8855 NATIONAL TANK TRUCK CARRIERS, INC. Clifford J. (Cliff) Harvison, Managing Director National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. 1616 P Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Office Phone: (202) 797-5425 OIL FIELD HA ULERS CONFERENCE James R. (Jimrnje) Boyd, Secretary Oil Field Haulers Conference P.O. Box 488, 406 East 11 th Street Austin, Texas 78767 Office Phone: (512) 476-5326 PRIVATE CARRIER CONFERENCE Vincent L. (Vince) O'Donnell, Managing Director Private Carrier Conference, Inc. 1616 P Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Office Phone: (202) 797-5404 or 797-5405 ------- REGULAR COMMON CARRIER CONFERENCE R. Edwin (Ed) Brady, Executive Director Regular Common Carrier Conference 1616 P Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Office Phone: (202) 797-5268 STEEL CARRIERS CONFERENCE OF ATA H. Scott (Bob) Byerly, Managing Director Steel Carriers Conference of ATA 1616 P Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Office Phone- (202) 797-5406 CANADIAN ASSOCIATIONS NA TIONA L ASSOCIA TION A. K. (Ken) Maclaren, Executive Director Canadian Trucking Association 130 Albert Street, Suite 300 Ottawa, Canada KIP 5G4 Office Phone. (613)236-9426 PROVINCIAL ASSOCIATIONS ALBERTA R. J. (Bob) Drinnan, Executive Secretary Alberta Motor Transport Association 5112-3 St., S.E., P.O. Box 5520, Stn. "A" Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2H 1J6 Office Phone: 253-8401, 8402 or 8403 ATLANTIC PROVINCES (New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island) Charles R. Allen, Secretary-Manager Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association Box 480 Hartland, New Brunswick, Canada Office Phone: (506) 375-6924 BRITISH COLUMBIA Ray E. Hunt, Secy-Manager Automotive Transport Association of B.C. 4090 Gravely Street Burnaby V5C 3T6 B.C., Canada Office Phone: (604) 299-7407 ------- MANITOBA John (Jack) Veitch, General Manager Manitoba Trucking Association 66 E Polo Park Shopping Centre Winnipeg, Manitoba R3G OW4 Office Phone (204) 744-5780 "Hot Line": (204) 775-1550 ONTARIO J O. (Joe) Goodman, General Manager Ontario Trucking Associations 555 Dixon Road Rexdale, Ontario M9W 1HB Canada Office Phone: (416) 247-7131 "Hot Line". (416) 247-791 I QUEBEC Cainille Archambault, Exec. Vice Pros. Trucking Association of Quebec, Inc. 8575 Boulevard-Pascal-Gagnon Montreal 458, Quebec, Canada Office Phone' (514)322-8120 SASKATCHEWAN T. D. (Tom) Durbin, General Manager Saskatchewan Trucking Association 1324 Wallace Street Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada Office Phone: 569-9696 WESTERN HIGHWAY INSTITUTE Jess N. Rosenberg, Executive Director Western Highway Institute 333 Pine Street San Francisco, California 94104 Office Phone: (415)986-4069 "Hot Line": (415)986-0557 ------- 2. STATE TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS ------- STATE TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS Mr. James I. Ritchie Exec. Vice President Alabama Trucking Assn., Inc. 247 Associations Bldg. Montgomery, Ala. 36104 Mr. Edward R. Sanders Managing Director Alaska Carriers Assn., Inc. 3443 Minnesota Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Mr. Terry Smalley Managing Director Ariz. Motor Transp. Assn. 2111 W. McDowell Road Phoenix, Ariz. 85009 Mr. Stewart K. Frosser General Manager Arkansas Bus & Truck Assn. P. 0. Box 2793 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Thomas Schumacher Managing Director California Trucking Assn. 1240 Bayshore Highway Burlingame, California 94010 Mr. Earl Wennergren Managing Director Colorado Motor Carriers Association 4060 Elati Street Denver, Colo. 80216 Mr. John E. Blasko Exec. Vice President Motor Transp. Assn- of Connecticut, Inc. 508 Tolland Street E. Hartford, Conn. 06108 Mr. William H. McFadden General Manager Delaware Motor Transport Association P. 0. Box 343 Dover, Delaware 19901 ------- STATE TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS Mr. Andrew W. Johnson Exec. Vice President Washington, D.C. Area Trucking Assn., Inc. 1616 P Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 Mr. C. A. Gertner Managing Director Florida Trucking Assn., Inc. P. 0. Box 238 Jacksonville, Florida 32204 Mr. Charles L. Skinner Managing Director Georgia Motor Truck Assn. 500 Piedmont Avenue, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Mr. John Farnell Exec. Vice President Hawaii Trucking Assn., Inc. P. 0. Box 3106 Honolulu, Hawaii 96802 Mr. Claude E. Abel Director Idaho Motor Transp. Assn. P. 0. Box 550 Boise, Idaho 83701 Mr. Keith Cecil Exec. Vice President Central Motor Freight Assn. of Illinois 15 Spinning Wheel Road Hinsdale, 111. 80521 Mr. George C. Cline General Manager Indiana Motor Truck Assn. 2165 South High School Road Indianapolis, Ind. 46241 Mr. Richard G. Hileman Executive Secretary Iowa Motor Truck Assn. 1533 Linden Des Moines, Iowa 50309 ------- STATE TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS Ms. Mary Turkington Managing Director Kansas Motor Carriers Assn. P. 0. Box 1673 Topeka, Kansas 66601 Mr. Paul K. Young Managing Director Kentucky Motor Transport Assn., Inc. 5th and Walnut Streets Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Mr. Edmond P. Bacon Executive Director Louisiana Motor Transport Assn., Inc. P. 0. Box 1326 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 Mr. Eugene L. Coffen General Manager Maine Truck Owners Assn. 615 Congress Street Portland, Maine 04101 Mr. Albert J. Mascaro General Manager Maryland Motor Truck Assn. 3000 Washington Boulevard Baltimore, Maryland 21230 John M. Breanahan, Sc. D. Executive Vice President Massachusetts Motor Truck Assn., Inc. 262 Washington Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Mr. Jack L. McNamara Manager Director Michigan Trucking Assn., Inc 501 South Capitol Ave. Lansing, Michigan 48933 Mr. James N. Denn General Manager Minnesota Motor Transport Assn, 1821 University Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55104 ------- STATE TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS Mr. James N. Denn General Manager Minnesota Motor Transport Assn. 1821 University Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55104 Mr. Robert L. Wheeler General Manager Mississippi Trucking Assn. P. O. Box 3728 Jackson, Miss. 39205 Mr. George W. Burruss Exec. Vice President Missouri Bus & Truck Assn. 201 E. Capital Avenue Jefferson City, Mo. Mr. Leonard W. Eckel Managing Director Montana Motor Transp. Assn. First Security Bank Bldg. 1727 llth Avenue Helena, Montana 59601 Mr. James N. Preston Managing Director Nebraska Motor Carriers Assn., Inc. 521 S. 14th Street Lincoln, Neb. 68508 Mr. Robert F. Guinn Managing Director Nevada Motor Transp. Assn. P. 0. Box 7415 Reno, Nevada 89502 Mr. A. J. Lagasse Executive Director Motor Transport Assn. of New Hampshire P. 0. Box 665 Manchester, N. H. 03105 Mr. Thomas F. X. Foley Executive Director New Jersey Motor Truck Assn. P. 0. Box 160 E. Brunswick, N. J. 08816 ------- STATE TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS Mr. J. 0. Larson Managing Director New Mexico Motor Carriers Assn., Inc. P. 0. Box 25266 Albuquerque, N.M. 87125 Mr. Frank Scotto Executive Director New York Motor Truck Assn. Ill Forth Avenue New York, N.Y. 10003 Mr. J. T. Outlaw Exec. Vice President North Carolina Motor Carriers Assn., Inc. P. 0. Box 2977 Raleigh, N.C. 27602 Mr. Joel Melarvie Managing Director north Dakota Motor Carriers Assn., Inc. 110 Third Street Bismarck, N.D. 58501 Mr. Donald B. Smith Managing Director Ohio Trucking Association Neil House Hotel Columbus, Ohio 43215 Mr. Vince Robinson Exec. Vice President Associated Motor Carriers of Oklahoma, Inc. P. 0. Box 14607 Oklahoma City, OK 73114 Mr. Robert R. Knipe Managing Director Oregon Trucking Assn., Inc. 720 Northeast 12th Avenue Portland, OR 97232 Mr. William F. Richardson Executive Vice President Pennsylvania Motor Truck Assn. 711 Telegraph Road Harrisburg, PA 17101 ------- STATE TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS Mrs. L. M. Daly Secretary-Manager Rhode Island Truck Owners Association, Inc. 49 Weybosset Street Providence, RI 02903 Mr. Samuel L. Boylston General Manager Motor Transportation Assn. of S. C., Inc. 2425 Devine Street Columbia, SC 29205 Mr. CharJes Ingersoil General Manager Assoc. Motor Carriers, Inc. of South Dakota 100 North Phillips Avenue Sioux Falls, SD 57101 Mr. Robert Pitts Manager Tennessee Motor Transport Assn. 212 Capital Boulevard Nashville, Tenn. 37219 Mr. Terry Townsend Executive Director Texas Motor Transportation Assn., Inc. P. 0. Box 1669 Austin, Texas 78767 Mr. Otis Winn Managing Director Utah Motor Transport Assn. P. 0. Box 686 Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 Mr. James Finneran Executive Manager Vermont Truck & Bus Assn. P. 0. Box 97 Montpelier, VT 05602 Mr. E. H. Williams, Jr. Executive Vice President Virginia Highway Users Association, Inc. P. 0. Box 1397 Richmond, VA 23211 ------- STATE TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS Mr. William E. Hicks Managing Director Washington Trucking Assns. 4101 Fourth Ave., South Seattle, Washington 98134 Mr. Harold Gainer Managing Director West Virginia Motor Truck Assn., Inc. P. O. Box 4416 Charleston, W. Va. 25304 Mr. John P. Varda General Manager Wisconsin Motor Carriers Association 125 W. Doty Street Madison, Wise. 53703 Mr. L. E. Meredith Managing Director Wyoming Trucking Assn., Inc. Box 1889 Casper, Wyoming 82601 Mr. Camille Archambault Executive Vice President Trucking Assn. of Quebec 8575 Pascal Gagnon Montreal, Quebec Canada HIP 1Y5 ------- 3. INDEPENDENT TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS ------- LIST OF INDEPENDENT TRUCKERS1 ORGANIZATIONS Alabama Independent Truckers Asso- ciatiqn. Inc J O Arnold Rt H, Box 430 Tuscumbia Alabama 35674 (205)381-1750 American Owner Operators Inter- national. Inc Ted Gordon 1301 Anthony Wayne Bank Building Fort Wayne. Indiana 46802 (219) 743-9777 Arkansas Independent Truckers Asso- ciation Chuck Honey Box 636 Prescott Arkansas 71857 (501)887.6661 Association of Independent Owner- Operators G Ralph Grago P 0 Box 2239 Sante Fe Springs, California 90670 (213)941-5781 California Dump Truck Owners Asso- ciation 301 E Pomo-12 3!vd PO Sot 2'5 Monterey Park, California 91754 (213)726-7806 (213)685-4153 Central Iowa Independent Truckers Dick Ross Oes Mcmes, Iowa 50311 (515) 285-8331 (515) 266-3202 Chicago Truck Drivers Union (Inae- pendents) Dan LaBotz Chicago, Illinois (312) 528-7357 Council ol Independent Truckers Charles Piazza/Les Salsgiver P O Box 58 Westfield Center. Ohio 44273 (216) 322-8553 Eastern Shore Independent Dump Truckers Association. Inc Bill Walter Maryland (302) 742-2580 Diesel Drivers International Prince David Fmlayson Baltimore, Maryland 21221 (301)686-8003 Florida Owner Operators Association Chet Wesbrook P.O. Box K 168 Land O'Lakes, Florida 33539 (813)996-2837 Fraternal Association of Steel Haulers Bill Hill Pittsburgh. Pa (412) 322-3608 Independent Truckers Association of Northeast Pa. Leonard Marchines P.O Box 39 Dunmore. PA. 18512 (717) 489-3254 Kentucky-Indiana Independent Truck- ers Doug Leatherbury P O. Box 27 Memphis. Indiana 47143 (812) 246-3641 Middletown Truckers Group Harold Kellis Ohio (513) 746-9582 Michigan Exempt Carriers Association Bob Gebhart Michigan (616) 873-4087 Midwest Truckers Association William Schulte 2715 No. DirKson Parkway Springfield. Illinois 62702 (217)525-0310 National Agricultural Transportation League Buck Buchanan P O Drawer 960 Umatilla. Florida 32784 (904) 669-4220 National Council of Independent Truckers Everett Henn Michigan (616)854-1173 National Federation of Milk Haulers Associations Rod Tyler Michigan (616)327-6203 National Women's Trucking Associ- ation Jean Sawyer 40 Pendleton St Charleston, South Carolina 29403 (803)577-3018 Natural Resource Transporters Charles Thompson—Lawyer Suite 933 Frank Nelson Building Birmingham. Alabama 35203 Of flee (205) 254-3216 Home (205) 822-9677 North American Owner Operators George Lavender P 0 Box 988 Fort Wayne, Indiana 46801 (219)422-2511 (219)749-5258 North Carolina Truck Drivers Associ- ation Dewey Dove Box 175 Bladenboro, North Carolina 28320 (919) 863-3396 Ohio Dump Truckers Association Bud Durst Ohio (614) 491-7872 (614) 491-0280 Owners and Drivers Club of Ohio George Rynn Ohio (216) 825-7895/96 Owner-Operators and Independent Drivers Association of America Al Hannah P.O. Box 88 Oak Grove. Missouri 64075 (816)229-6396 Southeastern Independent Truckers Association David L George Suite 520 79 Commerce St Montgomery, Alabama 36104 (205) 263-1046 Southwestern Michigan Independent Truckers James Woods (616) 349-8848 Tennessee Truck Drivers Association Darrel Lyons Box 146 Elizabethton. Tennessee 37643 (615)542-6210 Truckers for Justice Joe Hememann New Jersey (201)261-5348 United Independent Truckers Associ- ation of the Southern Tier John N Bump New York (607) 648-3692 ------- 4. TRADE JOURNALS ------- Thomas F. Dillon Transportation Editor Purchasing Magazine 199 Joy Cee Court Middleton, New Jersey 07748 Victor Riesel 30 E. 42nd Street, Suite 1906 New York, New York 10017 John Kushnerick Editor Motor Age Chilton Way Radnor, Pennsylvania 19089 Lee Stillwell Scripps-Howard, Room 1200 777 14th Street NW Washington, D.C. 20005 Omcr Henry Truck Topics Magazine 8830 Sudbury Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Editor Transportation Engineer 911 West Big Beaver Road Troy, Michigan 48084 John Shannahan Publisher Farm to Market Trucker News 903 Cornelia Sioux City, Iowa 51106 Dispatcher Dan Reports 1375 Old Mill Road Lake Forest, Illinois 60045 Truck Driver Magazine 6923 Chippewa Street St. Louis, Missouri 63109 Gary Macklin Editor Refrigerated Transporter Tunnell Publications 1602 Harold Street Houston, Texas 77006 Pacific Traffic 2230 Big Ranch Road Napa, California 94558 Paul G. Ingram Editor Bus & Truck Transport 481 University Avenue Toronto, Ontario Canada Viola V. Anderson Executive Director The Anderson Group, Inc. Box 508 Madison, New Jersey 07940 Mitchell Krause CBS News 524 West 57th Street New York, New York 10019 John McCullough Editor Distribution Worldwide Chilton Way Radnor, Pennsylvania 19089 Traffic World 815 Washington Building Washington, D.C. 20005 W. H. Hooker Editor American Motor Garner 104 Hemlock Dnve Marietta, Georgia 30060 ------- Joe Evancho Payload for Chevrolet Seco Publishing Co. 30400 Van Dyke Warren .Michigan 48093 Brenton C. Schultz Marketing Programs Manager Diesel & Gas Turbine Worldwide Progress P.O. Box 7406 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53213 Emil Stanley Editor Fleet Management News 300 W. Lake Street Chicago, Illinois 60606 G. R. Toedman Editor Mid-West Truckman 1101 Topcka Avenue Topeka, Kansas 66612 Commercial News 3181 Fernwood Avenue Lynwood, California 90262 Truck Tracks P.O. Box 1575 Lake Grove, Oregon 97034 Phil Moran Editor Transporte Modemo 10 River Street Stamford, Connecticut 06904 Cliff Gromer Automotive Information Council 666 5th Avenue New York, New York 10009 Bernie Swart Managing Editor Fleet Owner 1221 Ave. of the Americas New York, New York 10036 James Winsor Editor Commercial Car Journal Chilton Way Radnor, Pennsylvania 19089 Daniel G. Pennington Government Relations Rubber Manufacturers Association 1901 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 6th Floor Washington, D.C. 20006 W. H. Raiford Editor Southern Motor Cargo 1509 Madison Avenue Memphis, Tennessee 38104 Robert Finlay Editor Automotive News 965 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48207 James D. Moss Editor-Publisher Heavy Duty Fleet Distribution 2751 Lake Cook Road Deerfield, Illinois 60015 Sheldon Fitterer Stanley Publishing Co. 300 West Lake Street Chicago, Illinois 60606 ------- Chris Lackey Open Road Magazine 1015 Florence Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Kent Powell Editor Heavy Duty Trucking BoxW Newport Beach, California 92663 Martin Trepp Editor Northwest Motor 83 Columbia Street Seattle, Washington 98104 James E. Jones President Diesel Equipment Supt. 80 Lincoln Avenue Stamford, Connecticut 06904 Lowell E. Perrine Managing Editor Traffic Management 205 E. 42nd Street New York, New York 10017 Paul Townsend Editor Long Island Commercial Review 303 Sunnyside Blvd. Plainvicw, New York 11803 Jean V. Strickland Chilton Publications 1093 National Press Building Washington, D.C. 20004 C. R. Don Sutherland Modern Bulk Transporter 4801 Montgomery Lane Washington, D.C. 20014 John Spencer Executive Editor Handling & Shipping 614 Superior Ave., W Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Jack Walsh Automotive News 965 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48207 Jim Dunlap Editor Heavy Truck Transportation 1155Waukegan Road Glenview, Illinois 60025 Truck Trends 3950 N. Lake Shore Drive Chicago, Illinois 60613 Chns Lackey Editorial Director Open Road 1015 Florence Street Forth Worth, Texas 76102 Go Transport Times of the West 1240 Bayshore Highway Burlingame, California 94010 Editor Automotive Industries Chilton Way Radnor, Pennsylvania 19089 Editor Motor Magazine 723 New Center Building Detroit, Michigan 48202 Editor Motor 250 W. 55th Street New York, New York 10019 ------- Editor Auto News of Pacific Northwest 7525 SE Lake Road, Room 12 Milwaukie, Oregon 97222 Sidney S. Abelson Public Relations Chairman Greater New York Tire Dealers & Rctreaders Association 121-15 Liberty Ave. - Richmond Hill Queens, New York 11419 Roger Muehl Editor FWD News Clintonville, Wisconsin 54929 Greg Stark Editor Dana Corporation P.O. Box 1422 Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 Paul Schenck Editor Trailer-Body Builders 1602 Harold Street Houston, Texas 77006 William Toderan Manager Plant Communication Programs Rockwell International-Automotive Group 911 West Big Beaver Troy, Michigan 48017 Bruce Wadman Editor Diesel & Gas Turbine Progress P.O. Box 7406 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53213 David Allen Editorial Department Star Ledger Star Ledger Plaza Newark, New Jersey 07101 Francis O'Connell Transportation Writer Buffalo Courier Express 787 Main Street Buffalo, New York 14240 Helen Kahn Bureau Chief Automotive News 525 National Press Building Washington, D.C. 20004 Roy Covington Transportation Writer Charlotte Observer P.O. Box 2138 Charlotte, North Carolina 28233 Frank Bassett Mid Continent, Inc. P.O.Box 1370 West Memphis, Arizona 72301 Harold Gold Editor New York Journal of Commerce 99 Wall Street New York, New York 10005 Earl T. Monahan 64 Edmonds Street Rochester, New York 14607 Rebecca Sammartino USDA AHSTSB 14th and Independence, SW Washington, D.C. 20250 ------- Brian Moskal Chicago Regional Manager Industry Week 400 N. Michigan Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60611 Richard Witkin Transportation Editor New York Times 229 West 43rd Street New York, New York 10036 Claude M. Wolfe Editor and Publisher C.W. Publishing Company P.O. Box 184 Sharpsville, Pennsylvania 16150 August Gribbin Transportation Writer National Observer 11501 Columbia Pike Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Stanley Latham First National Bank of Chicago Trust Department, 16th Floor 1 First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60690 Ernest Finan Transportation Writer 165 E. Maujer Street Valley Stream, New York 11580 Ed Lincoln Director, Public Relations Pennsylvania Highway Information Association 800 North Third Street, Suite 501 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 Bradley Martin Baltimore Sun 501 N. Calvert Street Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Ralph Varnum Transportation Editor Kansas Citian 620 Tenmain Center Building Kansas City, Missouri 64105 ------- 5. TRUCKERS' RADIO STATIONS ------- TRUCKERS' RADIO STATIONS KWKH - 1130 kc P. 0. Box 1130 Shreveport, La. 71120 318/222-8711 KLAC - 570 Metromedia Radio 5828 Milshire Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90036 213/977-0110 ------- 15. GUIDELINES FOR MEDIA RELEASES ------- SECTION 15 GUIDELINES FOR MEDIA RELEASES Since most communications with the various media should be coordinated with the respective regional public affairs office, specific instructions may not be practical. However, there are some general guidelines that should be taken into consideration. Planning an effective multimedia campaign takes a great deal of time, effort, and money The media for such a campaign are: radio, television, and the press. PRESS The press is in the news business. The environment is news. Consider these approaches: Get to know the press Make an appointment to see the editor, managing editor, or city editor of your newspaper and the news director of your local television and radio sta- tions. If you have any community leaders or other well-known individuals in your member- ship ranks, try to have one or two of them accompany you on the visit. Tell the press about your organization's objectives, programs and members Explain how you might be able to help them from time to time by interpreting the technical and scientific jargon of pollution control into lay language, by evaluating the success or failure of pollution control plans, by alerting them when key environmental decisions are forth- coming, by giving them newsworthy tips, etc. Ask if there's particular editor or reporter you should contact when you have a poten- tial news story. Give them the name and telephone number of the person in your organization whom they can contact. Ask for editorial support as well as coverage in news columns. Leave them with a brief (preferably one-page typewritten) description of your organization and its programs and add them to the mailing list for your newsletter, magazine, etc. There's no substitute for this initial personal contact. It gives you and the press an opportunity to get to know each other. It gives you the opportunity to establish your credibility. Maintain your credibility. This is vital for continuing good relations with the press. Your group must be responsible, responsive and knowledgeable in dealing with the press at all times. Don't make statements or accusations you cannot support. Don't be evasive. If" you don't know the answer to a question, say so and offer to get it and call back. Then do so, with the answer or with a frank statement that you don't know or couldn't get the answer. Don't guess. Don't speculate. If you're telling the press something off the record, make it clear that you don't want to be quoted. But don't use the off-the-record cover to peddle false or inaccurate information. 15-1 ------- Learn press deadlines Don't call them at deadline time unless you've got a truly "hot" item. Time your press releases to meet their deadlines. In your press releases and conversations with the press, avoid the jargon of pollution control. Unless the reporter covers the environment full-time, chances are you know more about the subject than he does Be helpful by talking more about the subject than he does. Be helpful by talking and writing plainly. Don't issue press releases or hold news conferences unless you really have something to say If you hold a press conference, have a release and background material available and give the press a chance to go over it before the conference begins. Don't waste the press's time by simply rehashing the press release in your oral presentation. Allow plenty of time for questions. If you really have nothing to add to the release, or if the subject doesn't lend itself to questioning, you shouldn't hold a press conference. And don't schedule press con- ferences at deadline times or in competition with other local major news developments. Don't tell the press what to print or broadcast That is their business and their decision. And don't expect the press to print or broadcast every word in your press releases. Settle for a part of the story. When you issue a press release, deliver it personally if at all possible If you have to mail it, call and alert the press that a release is in the mail and brief them on the content. Don't try to read the release to them unless they ask you to. Whenever possible, get the release to the press at least one or two days before the release data. (This will not be possible under certain circumstances, of course - such a statement from your group in response to a control agency action, a polluter's action, a legislative action, etc.) If an officer of your organization is making a speech somewhere, send a copy to the press at least a day or two before, with a press release or cover note. Mark the release and the speech for release at the time and date it will be given. Don't argue with the press If you think you have a grievance, discuss it with them privately and rationally. Don't attack the press. If you have an honest disagreement on a public policy, or an editorial opinion they've expressed, present your views in a letter to the newspaper editor. If it's a radio or television station, ask for an opportunity to reply through a taped editorial comment, broadcasting's version of the letter to the editor. Be sure of your facts. If you mislead the press, you can destroy your credibility and public acceptance. And consequently, your public ability to influence public opinion, government and industry Be resourceful Look for opportunities for your organization and its programs to become part of local news events, not necessarily centered on the environment and thereby receive valuable visibility. GETTING ON THE AIR The powerful forces of public information present opportunities for spreading the environmental message such as through a good local feature story. Under the "fairness doctrine," the Federal Communications Commission requires radio and television stations to air both sides of controversial public issues. Environmental advo- cates should keep this in mind, for they may be able to obtain broadcast time to rebut a 15-2 ------- program or commercial that doesn't present both sides of an environmental issue. (For further information on the fairness doctrine, write the Citizens Communications Center, 1812 N St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.) Many cities have at least one all-news radio station. Using news service material and their own staffs of reporters and editors, these stations broadcast only news (and commercials, of course). News items are often repeated fairly frequently, depending on each station's own newsgathering resources. These stations should not be overlooked, for their heavy demand for news makes them likely to want to know what newsworthy groups are doing. They may be interested in feature items. If there's an all-news station in your community, contact the program director. Offer to help keep him up to date on the environmental scene. Suggest features, such as periodic reports on the community's environmental quality what major sources of pollution are doing to clean up, what control agencies are doing, and what special groups such as youngsters are doing. Another possible approach to use is public service time. The FCC requires commercial radio and television stations to make available a certain amount of free time to community organizations and causes. This can range from airing short spots at commercial breaks extol- ling worthwhile objectives, such as "support clean air week" or "don't be a litterbug," to programs devoted to community problems and community organizations. Contact local broadcasters and find out if and how you can get public service time. Public (or educational) radio and television stations should also be contacted They devote considerable time to community problems and programs. They seek to explore com- munity problems and to provide a forum for community organizations. The state of your community's environmental health and what's being done to improve it might be the kind of subject they would like to cover, occasionally or perhaps even as a monthly public report, or even as a daily "progress" report. Still another broadcast resource that should be tapped is the college and university radio station. Student broadcasters are often quite sympathetic to environmental improve- ment and should be involved in your projects. But how do you get on radio or television? Try the direct approach. With a few definite program ideas in mind, visit the station manager or program director at the com- mercial, public and college radio and television stations in your community. Discuss your ideas. Ask about public service time Arrange to be invited to a talk show, where you would have an opportunity to discuss the noise pollution problem in depth. If the answer is yes, what do you do then? How do you go about putting together a suitable show? The radio or television station may provide assistance. But your group should keep these ideas in the event you find yourself with a block of public service time to fill. 1. The public already knows there are environmental problems. Simply "viewing with alarm" is no longer newsworthy or informative or educational The public is interested in action. So is your group; that's why you exist. So zero in on specifics. Here are some examples: Have noise deadlines been set for the major pollution sources in your community? If yes, are the deadlines being met? If not, why not? What are the prospects for a quieter environment in your com- munity? What are the obstacles? What can and should be done about them? What can the public do to help? 15-3 ------- 2. The program should be a balanced presentation of whatever environmental problem or problems you're discussing. Your organization might host the broadcast. But you should include spokesmen for the control agency and the polluters. This will help expose the audience to all points of view - and will help you to establish yourselves as a responsible, respected organization. 3. The program should give the audience a chance to participate Provide time for questions from the audience (if the program is live), or for people to call in and ask questions, or both. 4. The program should be as concise and as entertaining as possible. Avoid long speeches, monologues, "lectures" and formal debates if you want to avoid losing your audience 5. Consider the audience of the station. For example, in Fort Wayne, Indiana, there are lots of people in the trucking industry; or in an area where a new interstate highway is being constructed interest will be high. The size of the station is also important Suggest noise pollution features to small stations. 6 Explain the importance of subject matter simply in non-technical language. 7. The program should attempt to suggest specific things that people can do to help the cause of better local environment. For example' give them a tele- phone number to call (your group's or the control agency's) if they see a sus- pected violation of an environmental law. Give them the time and place of important public hearings. Give them names and addresses of public officials to write to on pending environmental desisions, bills, appropriations, etc. If you're discussing noise pollution, have a physician to explain what health pre- cautions people should take in the event of a noise pollution episode. 8. While you might consider the program your show, the station is responsible for what is aired Make suggestions, of course. But respect the management's rights and professional experience. 9. If it's a television program, try to provide visual material - films and still photographs - or help the station find suitable locations if it prefers to shoot its own film Try to reach the viewer through both sight and sound. 10. The program should relate environmental noise pollution problems to people. Without scaring them into a sense of futility and hopelessness, try to dramatize the effects of noise pollution on health, on recreation, on the economy, on the quality of life, etc. And try to give a feeling that things can be done. Others have succeeded, why not here? 11. The program should be credible. Participants should know what they're talk- ing about. If someone doesn't know the answer to a question, there should be no fudging. These few guidelines only skim the surface. The possibilities of using radio and television are limited only by the imagination of those who plan and put on the program. As many organizations do, your group should seek all possible assistance from members, or sympathetic outsiders, who are professional communicators. 15-4 ------- 16. EPA-DOT NEWS RELEASES AND PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT ------- SECTION 16 ERA-DOT NEWS RELEASES AND PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS ------- 1. EPA PRESS RELEASE ON PROMULGATION OF NOISE EMISSION REGULATIONS FOR INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIERS NOV. 1974 ------- INDEX 1. EPA Press Release on Promulgation of Noise Emission Regulations for Interstate Motor Carriers Nov. 1974 2. Public Service Announcements for Use by Radio Stations on the Noise Emission Regulations June 1975 3. Public Service Announcement for Use by Television Stations on the Noise Emission Regulations June 1975 4. Potential Questions and Answers Regarding the Noise Emission Regulations April 1975 ------- FINAL NOISE EMISSION REGULATIONS FOR INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIERS The Environmental Protection Agency has announced the issuance of regulations for the control of noise emissions froii; vehicles operated by interstate motor carriers. The proposed regulations were published in the Federal Register on July 27, 1973, as required under Section 18 of the Noise Control /»ct of 1972. Final regulations will be published in the Federal Register within the next few days. This is the first final standard-setting action by the Agency under authority of the Act. The new standards, which apply to all vehicles over 10,000 Ib. gross vehicle-weight rating or gross combination weight rating by interstate motor carriers, take into account the best available noise reduction technology and the cost of compliance within the one-year time period for conformance wits'' the standard by interstate carriers. Tr.ir, regulation is the first significant Federal step in a series of actions to reduce highway noise. This standard, applicable to ir-use vehicles operated by interstate carriers, will have an impact within one year on reducing highway traffic noise. In conjunction with the more stringent new medium and heavy-duty truck noise control regulations just proposed by the Agency (see fact sheet on Noise Emission Standards Proposed for New Trucks), further traffic noise reduction will be accomplished in a systematic time phased mariner to permit application of available technology while keeping the costs to meet the standards as low as reasonably possible. The standards are expressed in A-weighted decibels. A decibel is a numerical expression of the relative magnitude of sound. "A-weighting" is a method of numerical adjustment to reflect impact of noise on the range of human hearing. As new control retrofit technology is developed and can be applied at reasonable cost, the interstate motor carrier regulations will be revised accordingly. Further revision of ------- -2- the interstate motor carrier regulations will be made to assure that new trucks manufactured in accordance with the more stringent new product noise control standards (see fact sheet on Noise Emission Standards Proposed for New Trucks) will not be degraded acoustically during inservice operation by interstate carriers. THE STANDARDS Under the new standards, noise emissions from the vehicles subject to the regulations may not exceed: * 90 dB(A) at 50 feet in zones with speed limits above 35 miles per hour; * 86 dB(A) at 50 feet in zones with speed limits at or less than 35 miles per hour; * 88 dB(A) at 50 feet under a stationary engine runup test. The standards also provide for a visual inspection of exhaust systems and tires. Tires containing pockets which trap air while in contact with the road surface are restricted under the new regulations unless a carrier can demonstrate compliance with the 90 dB(A) standard using such tires. Vehicles must have effective, continuously operating muffler and exhaust systems. ECONOMIC IMPACT It is anticipated that 7 percent (70,000) of the one million motor vehicles presently operated by motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce to which the regulations are applicable, will require some degree of retrofit to comply with the regulations, according to EPA Administrator Russell E. Train. Usually, a muffler or different tires will suffice. In some cases, the cooling fan will require modification. The average expected cost per vehicle needing retrofit treatment is $135; total costs to the industry are not expected to exceed$10 million. PREEMPTION Section 2 of the Noise Control Act says that State and local governments have the primary responsibility for noise abatement and control. However, it was recognized that Federal action is needed to deal effectively with major noise sources engaged in interstate commerce and which, therefore, require uniform national treatment to facilitate such commerce. ------- -3- State and local jurisdictions may not adopt or enforce noise control regulations of the noise sources covered by this interstate motor carrier regulation unless such State or local regulations are identical to the Federal regulations. Federal preemption for interstate motor carrier noise control regulations (Section 18 of the NCA, 1972) is significantly different from the preemptive Federal authority for newly manufactured trucks (Section 6 of the NCA, 1972) which leaves to State and local jurisdictions the authority to establish and enforce controls on levels of noise emissions resulting from the operations of such new trucks. However, States and localities are strongly urged to adopt regulations applicable to interstate motor carriers which are identical to the Federal standards and to participate, through their enforcement capa- bilities, in achieving an effective nationwide enforcement program. It is recognized, however, that in some areas standards or controls on levels of environmental noise, or control, license, regulation, or restriction of the use, operation or movement of any motor vehicle to which these regulations are applicable may be necessary or desirable based on special local conditions, as long as such action is determined not to be in conflict with the Federal regulations. In these cases, appli- cation shall be made to the Administrator for such determination. The procedures for applying for such determination will be published in the Federal Register within the next four months. ENFORCEMENT Under the law, the Secretary of Transportation, after consulting with the Administrator of EPA, is responsible for assuring compliance with these standards. State and local jurisdictions employing identical standards, are encouraged to act as independent enforcement agencies. NOVEMBER 1974 ------- 2. PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR USE BY RADIO STATIONS ON THE NOISE EMISSION REGULATIONS JUNE 1975 ------- Public Service Announcement NOISE PROGRAM 30 Second Radio Spot TRUCK NOISE Here's a special message from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for interstate motor carriers and particularly owner-operators. Enforcement of a new Federal EPA exterior noise control law will begin soon. That law will help you by giving truckers just one set of standards for noise control that will apply throughout the 50 states. But your rig must comply with this law by October 15. The noise level oi your rig can be measured in many shops at a low cost or even for free. Do it now while you still have time to shop around for ti -. . jst deal in case you need work to quiet that muffler, fan, engine or tires. ------- Public Service Announcement NOISE PROGRAK 60 Second Radio Spot TRUCK NOISE Enforcement of a new Federal lav; important to interstate motor carriers takes effect soon. Under that law there will be just one set of national standards for your rig to meet all exterior noise control laws. There'll be one noise law and one set of standards for testing noise. That way you won't have a whole new set of /•_«• • to worry about every time you cross a state line. But you have to be ready for it. You can have your ric tested for noise now...a lot of shops will do it for a very low cost, or even for free. That might not be the case after the law takes effect October 15, 1975. And if you do it now you'll have time to snop around for the best deal in case you need work done to quiet your engine, fan, exhaust or tires. If you want more information to help you meet this new law you can get it by writing: Truck Noise, EPA, Washington, D.C. 20460, or ask any BMCS man. ------- Public Service Announcement NOISE PROGRAK 60 Second Radio Spot TRUCK NOISE Enforcement of a new Federal EPA law begins October 15, 1975 It sets one national standard for controlling tne exterior noise of interstate motor carriers. Truckers and other owner operators will need to be ready for it by checking noise levels of engines, fan, tires, muffler. A test with sound level meter will do the job—it's a test you can get at low cost in hundreds of shops. But -ou can do part of the test right now; in facr part of what the BMCS will do come October. It's not noise measurement or metering or listening for noise. You look for it. _he muffler has a hole in it, or tailpipe is rusted out, or if you have pocket retreads, that'll mean noise. This law is not complicated. Matter of fact it simplifies things with one Federal standard instead of different noise control laws in every state. So, speaking of making things easy...make it easy on yourself and get your rig checked soon. If you want more information to help you meet this law you can get it by writing: Truck Noise, EPA, Washington, D.C. 20460. ------- Public Service Announcement NOISE PROGRAM 30 Second Radio Snot TRUCK NOISE Here's a special message from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for truckers and other interstate motor carriers particularly you owner-operators. Enforcement of a new Federal EPA exterior noise control law begins on October 15, 1975. It sets uniform standards r % - * ._•' . for noise «*"!«• rrrt on rolling or stationary &ryvtri~ in all 50 states. To get information on what you need to do to comply and how to go about ;: write: Truck Noise EPA Washington, D.C. 20460 or ask any BMCS man. ------- 3. PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR USE BY TELEVISION STATIONS ON THE NOISE EMISSION REGULATIONS JUNE 1975 ------- IV I'UULIC SERVICE AFJNuu.;CEMEIJl ; 30 SECONDS: LOCAL NuJ LAl.'L; OflAC LU.il HL. VIDEO & EF>' AUDIO LONG SHOT OF WASHINGTON ANNCR: MONUMENT. SLOW ZOOM TO FLAGS AT BASE. MUSIC IN BACKGROUND-- PRETTY BUT PATRIOTIC. IT ALL BEGAN 200 YEARS AGO. THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, THE RIGHT TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT, TO PEACEFULLY ASSEMBLE. PAN UP MONUMENT TO SKY, AIRPLANE COMES INTO VIEW FROM NATIONAL AIRPORT THOSE RIGHTS HAVE ONE SIMPLE FOUNDATION. HOLD ON AIRPLANE, SFX UP SOFTLY MUSIC UNDER SFX LOUDER, AIRPLANE FLIES OVER. MUSIC BARELY AUDIBLE (RAISES VOICE LEVEL TO BE HEARD) AMERICANS MUST BE ABLE TO TALK TO EACH OTHER... (RAISES VOICE LEVEL AGAIN) SFX LOUD. WIPE TO TRUCK/SFX .. .BUT WE CAN'T TALK TO EACH OTHER... WIPE TO OACKHAMMER/SFX (RAISES VOICE AGAIN) ...IF WE CAN'T HEAR EACH OTHER SUDDENLY, ALL QUIET, CUT BACK TO MONUMENT, LONG SHOT FIND OUT WHAT'S BEING DONE ABOUT NOISE POLLUTION IN YOUR COMMUNITY. SUPER EPA ID ------- TV i-Ui'.LlC SEKViOL AI------- 4. POTENTIAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS REGARDING THE NOISE EMISSION REGULATIONS APRIL 1975 ------- motor carrier regulation How does the new FederaJ Interstate Motor Carrier Regulation on noise emissions affect me? If vou own a truck, bus or other motor vehicle having a GVWR/CCWR of more uun I 0.000 fbs. and arc engaged in intcr- SMI: commerce, vour vehicle must not cx- ewj the following maximum permissible evieriiv noise levels. • ^.S dBA (:jiiJ IT local -"i- T vch-cL ------- correcting noise problems If I hate a noise problem, what's the most likely cause? Exhaust systems and cooling fans are the most common high noise makers under sta- tionary and low speed conditions, at high- way speeds, tires frequently make the most poise Other sources which can add to the total noise le\el are • engine (mechanical) • air intake system • transmission • auxiliary ep.r.r.e equipment • brakes • aerodynamic r'o* Isn't im stock muffler quiel enough? Not necessarily Heavy-duty motor \ehicle manuracturers ha'.e not had to buiid to scc-'iric noise ..•r'ission standards. Muf- rjrs have often :<.^n s^ivCi.u for ineir lc>« cost, appcjr.p.e sue. and hack pres- sure rather than •• r noise uuictiPv: anility Chock muffler manufacturers or ois;nou- tors. they can an-e you mrormation about the noise reduction capabilities and other operational features ot various models wnen fined to specific engines You may also want to investigate the addition of a turbocharger to your vehicle Recent in- dustry test result1; show impressive noise reduction in addition to fuel savings and improved engine penormance. I understand cooling fans can cause high noise. How can I tell if this is m> proWem, and what can I do about it? Coo"1"!! fans CJP cause lush noi>e How- j1..r niaimen.'.-.je M-.ops w:;h -!m>c testing :awi!-..j> >houlj ?i ib-e to tell it this is ;o-.r problem !' vr example you m- »'ai'cd jspecul'1 cuici mufriers lor >our p-.-t'cuijr jjvjn. ,L-'j the triuA is si;ll too '-. ".v ii -, hW '. • -i" i in m.i1 nenl shroud ."•"ir .lOiaitiPir' 'or fan ' T cL'.ir.'nce. -i .'. -.-p,!;- • • ' - . ,..-vi: r ~i >^'r>!-. a di".'r."ii hi.njj ..--'.": k.mirmer rnncnri- cations to cooling system-* should not be done without expert advict- You may want to consider a temperature controlled fan; resultant fuel and cost savmus are as im- pressive as their noise reduction. If my tires cause a noise problem at highway speeds, what type tire should I replace them with? This is a matter of judgment based on your operational requirements. Generally. tread patterns with non-vented cavities (suction cups) produce unu-ually high noise levels. This condition exists in pocket re- treads and can rxxur in otlvr Te'id designs with tire wear. Tebis show ih.it rib tires are quieter than many otner popular designs. Tire manufacturers and dealers can give you guidance in selecting: quiet tires that meet your specific requirements. advantages of early compliance Are there an> advantages if I comply with the Federal noi.se standard before October 15,1975? Yes You can benefit in a number of wajs if \ou comply early For example: 1 You can reduce the possibility of a fine for violation of motor vehicle noise ' regulations in the numerous States and local jurisdictions that have current laws. (State and local authorities are not required to wait until October 15 to enforce their noise standards) 2. You can take advantage of courtesy noise measurements now offered by many component manufacturers and various Fed- eral, State and locul authorities. An un- hurried thorough involution of your principal noise prcolcm cmild save >ou dollars 3 You will have time to "shop around" for the best. Kw-co't ;o!ii:vn to your problem -} YOJ c.\i\ reduce youi c.Ms of com- r'un.e ^>. ei-eJi!1 .17 -••>i:i ni. is'ircm.vMN and j.'Tective 'viirx.. ir neeJed. Ju-irv.; ------- norrr:il maintenance periods instead of ru.sh:n.i to meet a deadline 5. You may sjve in fuel consumption and cost and realize an increase in avail- able po*er where noise reduction steps are taken that improve engine breathing and cooling fan efficiency 6 You can improve the public image of trucxers and of the trucking industry. 7 You can enjoy greater driving com- fon, productivity and safety. enforcement Who will enforce the regulations? The Department of Transportation's Bu- reau of Motor Carrier Safety will handle enforcement at the Federal level State and loc.il jurisdictions '.MII also have enforce- ment responsibility. The new law requires that all noise regulations applied 10 motor vehicles involved in interstate commerce be identical to the Federal regulation information & assisiance Where can I get more information about the regulation? Contact any office of the U. S. Environ- mental Protection Agency or DOT/Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Office listed below by Regions served. Also your local main- tenance shop, motor vehicle component manufacturers and either State or local hr^h'v.iy/ vehicle divisions should be able to assist you. Region 1 States: Connecticut. Maine. Massachu- setts. NCA' Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont bSR?\ DOT-BMCS R.'om 21 '3 4 NoTUPikill Boulevjrd JF:< Fstl-Ml Bu'M:"j Deim.ir, NY 12054 Bailor M -» U2203 Region 2 States: New jerse). N'ew York L'SEPA DOT HMCS Room 9Ts 4 N,.rrrvf" i M^u.tf'.-r 1 2h Federal P1 iza Co! mar SV 12054 New Yorv. M 100<)7 Region 3 States: Delaware. Mjr>i.r J. PcnnsM- vama. \ irgima. West Virginia. Disinci 01 Columbia L'SEPA DOT B\ICS Room 225 Roon SI 6-A Curtis BmMirg Federal Hi 'IJ.r.g 6th and Wjinti: Sireeis 31 Hoc-, r^ i"aia Philadelphia. PA 19106 Bal.imor;. MD :i:oi Region 4 States: Alabama. Co-, r.ia. FloiJa. Mississippi. North Carolina South Carolina. Tennessee. Kentuck\ USEPA Room Ifi9 1421 Peachtres Street Aclania. O \. 3n3o9 DOT BMCS Su.ie 200 !7:OPea;htr:e RoaJ N \\ Atlanta. C-\ ;\''<») Region 5 States: Illinois. Indiaru. Ohio. Michi- gan. Wisconsin Minnesota L'SEPA DOT BMCS 203 South Dearborn Street IS209 Souih Dix.e Hiahway Chicago, it 6U604 HomeuooJ. IL 61)430 Region 6 States: Arkan»n>. Louisiana. Okla- homa. Texas. New Mexico DOT BMCS <19 T.n'or S.-ist Fort 'Ajrih TX 76102 USEPA Room 1107 1600 Patterson Sireet Dallas TX 75201 Region 7 States: Iowa, Kansa-,. Missouri. Ne- braska USEPA DOT BMCS P35 Bait.mor; Street P O Bo\ 7IS6 Kansas Cny. MO 64108 Counfv C'u? Station Kansas Cuy. MO 64113 Region 8 States: Colorado, Utah. Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota USEPA DOT'BMCS Suite 900 Room 151. BuilJing 40 1S60 Linccnn Sireet Denver FiJeral Center Denver. CO 80203 Denser, CO 80225 Region 9 States: Arizona, California, Nevada. Hawaii LSEPA DOT BVCS 100 C.il-:orn-a S'rset J5« G-".1:-. G le A^i; San Franciico. C A ^-11! Box. 3n- "^ Sap. Franvi-vo CA 94102 Region 10 States: -\laska. Idaho Oregon. NXa^h- mgton LSEP.A Df.T 13MC^> Room l!c R. .-.-1-,: M - -a\.% B'JJ 12(Mi M\tn \\si.ie 222>v> \i •- i. -r 5,;.n Sc.ill'.e \*A -.-U'l iV.- Tl, <*A '"M4 ------- Oilier nf iSnisr Al) ilcinrnl and I'S I iniimiimiil tl I'roirclinn A \\.isliinrf-Mi. IM . 211 IOC (Illnl it HII-IIM-S l-riinlli hit I'lliiitr UIL tllKI Control /UV-571 POSTAOE AfJD r-rrs fviu ENVIRONMENTAL PI1OTECMOM M".n\r.f cr/^ • ••; THIRD CLASS HULK C-MI' ------- 17. MISCELLANEOUS ------- SECTION 1 7 MISCELLANEOUS ------- NOISE TEAM ENFORCKMENT SUMMARY Heavy Trucks (6,000 GVW or More) SEMIANNUAL 1974 Speed Zones Over 35 35 or less Total Vehicles Vehicles Measured in Violation 127,093 1,360 14,821 207 141,914 1,567 Vehicles Receiving Enforce- ment Action 891 148 1,039 Vehicles in Violation as of % Modified of Vehicles Exhaust Measured 1.07% 34 1.40% 12 1.10% 46 Cause of Violations Defective Exhaust 179 42 221 Inadequate Exhaust 655 92 747 Other 23 2 25 Passenger Vehicles Speed Zones Over 35 35 or less Total Vehicles Vehicles Measured in Violation 296,718 5,756 113,414 1,900 410,132 7,656 Vehicles Receiving Enforce- ment Action 4,212 1,316 5,528 Vehicles in Violation as of % Modified of Vehicles Exhaust Measured 1.93% 3,444 1.67% 872 l'.86% 4,316 Cause of Defective Exhaust 695 399 1,094 Violations Inadequate Exhaust 67 40 107 Other 6 5 11 Motorcycles Speed Zones Over 35 35 or less Total Vehicles Vehicles Measured in Violation 2,533 516 1,169 162 3,702 678 Vehicles Receiving Enforce- ment Action 351 129 480 Vehicles in Violation as of % Modified of Vehicles Exhaust Measured 20.37% 299 13.85% 88 18.31% 387 Cause of Defective Exhaust 31 19 50 Violations Inadequate Exhaust 21 20 41 Other 2 2 ------- 1973-1974 SEMIANNUAL NOISE SUMMARY COMPARISONS Heavy Trucks (6,000 GVW or More) Vehicles Measured Violations Vehicles in Violation as a Percent of Vehicles Measured Percent Percent Speed 1973 1974 of 1973 1974 of Zones Jan-June Jan-June Change Jan-June Jan-June Change Percent 1973 1974 of Jan-June Jan-June Change Over 35 94,144 127,093 + 35% 774 1,360 +76% 35 of less 16,300 14,821 - 9% 158 207 +31% Total 110,444 141,914 + 28.5% 932 1,567 +68% .90 .80 .80 1.07 +]8.97o 1.40 +75% 1.10 +37.5% Passenger Vehicles Vehicles Measured Speed Zones Over 35 35 or less Total 1973 Jan-June 188,827 153,371 342,198 1974 Jan-June 296,718 113,414 410,132 Percent of Change + 57% - 26% + 20% Violations 1973 Jan-June 2,956 2,262 5,218 1974 Jan-June 4,212 1,316 5,528 Percent of Change +42% -42% + 6% Vehicles in Violation as a Pej-cent of Vehicles Measured 1973 Jan-June 1.56 1.47 1.52 1974 Jan-June 1.93 1.67 1.86 Percent of Change +24% + 14% +22% Motorcycles Vehicles Measured Violations Vehicles in Violation as a Percent of Vehicles Measured Speed 1973 1974 Zones Jan-June Jan-June Over 35 35 or less Total 1,217 1,561 2,778 2,533 1,169 3,702 Percent ~~ of 1973 1974 Change Jan-June Jan-June +108% - 25% + 33% 318 183 501 351 129 480 Percent of Change + 10% -3056 - 4% 1973 Jan -June 26.1 11.7 18.0 Percen t 1974 of Jan-June Chance 20.3 13.9 18.3 -22% +18.8% +16% ------- NOISE TEAM ENFORCEMENT SUMMARY JANUARY 1974 1 HKAVY TRUCKS (vehicle*: with a Gross tfcicht Year anil Speed /omj-» V )9G9-9moR. Iil70-12nu>s. 197l-12mos. 1972-l2mos 1973-12mus. 35 and under Over 35 Total Vehicles Measured 159,000 276,280 371 ,074 393,129 29,056 203,040 232,096 Vehicles in Violation 1,771 4,047 5,395 4,326 296 1,737 2,033 /chicles deceiving Enforcement \ction _._ . . 240 1,196 1,436 J^tjnc of C Vehicles in Violation as a % of Vehicles Measured 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.1 1.0 .8 .9 .OQQJPUIICIS and Moro) Cause of Violations Modified Exhaust ___ 30 52 224 5 68 73 Defective Exhaust 1.046 1 ,617 996 117 491 608 Inadequate Exhaust 1,771 113 595 708 Other 55 5 6 11 Year and Speed Zones 1969-9mos. 1970-12mub. 1971-12mos. 1972-12mos. 1973-12mos. 35 and under Over 35 Total Vehicles Measured 2,130 3,623 5,990 6,643 3,254 4,884 8,138 Vehicles in Violatior 41 76 615 1.238 327 750 1,077 Vehicles Receiving Enforcement fiction _._ ... 272 581 853 Vehicles in Violation as a % of Vehicles Measured 1.9 2.1 10.3 18.6 10.0 15.3 13.4 Cause of Violations Modified Exhaust 342 790 193 480 673 Defective Exhaust 67 112 44 69 113 Inadequate Exhaust ... 97 30 32 62 Other 8 5 5 3. PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS (G.Y.W. Less than 6,000 Pounds) Year and Speed Zones 1969-9mos. 1970-12mos. 1971-12mo<:. 1972-12mob. 1973-12mos. 35 and under Over 35 Total Vehicles Measured 304,434 502.761 677,490 800,250 254,228 402,177 656,405 Vehicles in Violation 330 24b 3,925 9,466 3,608 6,335 9,943 Vehicles Receiving Enforcement Action ... 2,830 5,266 8,096 Vehicles in Violation as a % of Vehicles Measured 0.10 0.05 0.58 1.20 1.41 • 1.57 1.51 Cause of Violations Modified Exhaust ... 63 1,983 5,137 1,871 4,246 6,117 Defective Exhaust 47 1,202 1 ,578 843 878 1,721 Inadequate Exhaust 204 104 102 206 Other ... 30 12 40 • 52 ------- sium By JIM WINSOR Reprinted from COMMERCIAL CAR JOURNAL ------- Big trucks 25% quieter than last year's versions can be manufactured in volume. Fast- changing technology has brought this about at moderate cost increases. But there is a crisis in the years ahead if the industry is to meet some of the state and local laws al- ready on the books for 1978. Special noise treatment kits could add $500 to a road trac- tor in 1975 and double that in 1978! A Special Report. • TKANSCON'S new gleaming Freightliners pic- tured here and on ttir cover look and drive like an\ other Freightliner. But inside and underneath there are advanced engineering innovations which make these road units 25 per cent quieter than any highwa\ or line-haul tractor plowing the highways today. Rapidly changing technology, coupled with changing industry attitudes, lias produced an as- sembly-line truck which nearly equals California s 1975 noise limitation of 83 db(.\) . . . today, . . . in I973. That state standard calls for 83 decibels on the "A scale. The Freightliners have been •clocked' at 83.5 dh(A). This Transcon-Freightliner endeavor is a major example of what officials ot an image-minded car- rier and manufacturer can accomplish when the\ set their minds and skills to it. True, it is only one specific example, using one engine model, one make of cab and one type chassis. True, it is not representative ot tin1 in- dustry \s universal state-of-the-art existing in trucking today. Still, it is dramatic proof of what can be done. Figuring, measuring, reducing truck noise is trick\. Despite everything that has been written THE NOISE THERMOMETER (OUTDOOR NOISEI Noise is defined as un- wanted sound It is meas- ured in Decibels (db) on the "A" scale, which most approximates human hearing. The 'thermome- ter' shows where truck noise fits into the overall spectrum. Note that to- days heavy-duty tractor- trailer will have to make less noise than a food blender (88 db(A)). That 1978 regulations call for a truck to be in the same ranges as a garbage dis- posal (80 db(A)). By 1988 trucks are meant to be as quiet as normal conver- sation (70 db(A))1 rtihtary Itl with • fterburrttr. tafcp oH from Krcrlft earner II SO ft 11 30 dBA) EUMing 707 or DC 8 II 6000 t««t before landing 1106 dBA PRESENT HEAVY DUTY TRUCK. 35 mph it 50 ft I8B oBA) HEAVY DUTY TRUCK. 36 mph it 50 ft 11975 R.gulttion) (83 dBA) (INDOOR NOISEI ThrMhold ot pain luu check m Riveting machme MlOdBA Rock 'nroll band (106114 dBA) •9U Juil Audible -- ^_ ' ' 60 dBA SO dBA 40 dBA 30 dBA 20 dBA 10 dBA ------- MAJOR SOURCES OF TRUCK NOISE Noise Range db(A) at 50' 70 75 80 85 The level of noise generated by each source varies with vehicle speed and with different makes and models of en- gines. This graph is a composite of today s diesel-pow- ered trucks. At speeds above 50 mph. tire noise can ex- ceed all other vehicle noises—depending on tire tread. road surface, speed and load. Solving tire noise without sacrificing tire life is considered to be the most serious long-range problem. It's important to know that the noise-decibel relationship is logarithmic, not arithmetic. This graph makes it easy to understand. For instance, a 2 db(A) reduction from 88 db(A) on the decibel scale is actually a 20% reduction in noise. A six decibel reduction equals a 50% drop in noise. A truck measured at 83 db(A) is nearly 50% quieter than the typical rig on the road today—quite an accom- plishment. Rtt-AThONSHIPBI about it, most fleetmen much less lawmakers \\lin legislate against truck noise, still don t reali/c that a trivia] item on a highly complicated and costly road tractor can raise the noise output trotn an ac- ceptable level to one that is down right obnoxious. A pin-holt' leak, lor example, in the exhaust sys- tem of a big. powerful, naturally-aspirated diesel engine can mean an increase oj three db iA) s. At speeds above 50 rnph. tire tread design and road surfaces can mean a 5 ilb(A) increase, drowning out engine noise completely in some cases. A gutted muffler or straight pipe \\ill put any big truck—gas or diesel—over the S8 or 90 db(A) limit, the most common in existence today. ('hanging from a single to a dual exhaust system can do the same thing. Some diesels. by the very nature of their design, are noisier than others. Naturally-aspirated Y-S diesels are significantly louder than turbocharged in-line Sixes. And fan speed, blade pitch, radiator shutters—just to name a lew components—all sig- nificantly affect total noise levels. Important too. is that any combination of these- components will also generate entirely different noise levels. The proot lies in the prohibition of certain op- tional items now allowed in California when- new No less than 12 states and cities have restrictive noise laws on their books. Many were passed without regard for economic consequences or technical feasibility. Chart be- low shows only the more restrictive noise laws, with Cali- fornia leading the field. Congress late last year passed legislation authorizing the Environmental Protection Agency to set federal noise limits —something the in- dustry strongly favors since some state and local laws are totally unreasonable. Industry sources tell CCJ that a fed- eral limit of 83 db(A) below 35 mph and 88 db(A) above is the likely limit for 1974 with more restrictive limits coming later. Exurior Truck NO.H; Limit! litwni*. CoKxxio CtnufD. New Yorh. Propowd •> Nn ^•CcHfwtMi. Colmado. Chio*t° ------- TRUCK NOISE tmeks must l>e ciTtilicil lor u maximum ol Sd dl>(A) On oiu1 Mjtk truck enir.me .ilinu—till1 \-IS M.iMilxne.—niiisc1 lalm.ns max xaix Irinii a lox\ <>l «2 tlli(A) tu .1 limli <»l Sd dl>(A) ilepeuilmj: upon equipment It s .ill a matter "I eomponent enmhmalinn aeemdmji tu \l l-'isliiM. Mack s nuisr .mil emis- sions expert A truck designed l"r diimpei-im\er seixue lias dilleieiit f(iiillnt; ii>(|inii niriils tli.ni an mri- the-rnad luitiii \nil i-nuinc Liinip.irliiu-nt si/c anil shape can ailed noise Inn I isliei sa\s One u-alU si-iiinis pnihlcin laeinj! tiutkeis is tliat li-fiallx aii.eptal>le nijs nl luii \i-ais a«o an- todax In-iiif! uli'il loi noise violations at an alann- mil latr in l>m trmk iilu-s like (.hieauo and the Inquest tmek slate nl all (..ililnrnia Heiouls sliox\ that Ixitli (.luiMiio .mil Calilnima luxe the loiiuli- est muse staiiiLnds anxxxlieie in the uiinitix Bui si^inlieanlK nthei titles and stales aie e.ili linn; up last (.lni-.it!!> s nepailinenl "I I1 nv iionnieiilal C.on- Inil li-lls (.(.J lli.it 1.500 illations ha\e Iwrn issiii'd to duikers smie thai ut\ s .inti-nnise lax\ «as en.ii ted in 1471 \ud tin- KMIX K-linii i.ile is an 1111- pressixe hi pereent The liijinesl nllenders ( liiiajin sa\s are I%S- thniiii:li-lc)7() iniidel truiks \iiil liueks 10 \i-.irs or tilder an- licint! iileil 23 peiient nl tile tune in- difatini! the neeil Ini inoie mid liettei ntiise inaiiitenaiiee prutjiaiiis Meanulnle Ili-etinen an- crxnit! Innl x\itli a de.uu-e ol jnsliliLation \\lix J lliex ask slinnlil x\i' spend lame sums loi lelnilitlini: liueks to i lit out tun deiilx-ls ulien dillerent reiiulatiouv aie on the hooks or xiill l>e elsexv lu-u-J I Ins tail is tin' most lompellini! ait^iiineiit loi enaitilieiit nl ,i u.ilion-\\ ule noise stand.ud soinc- tliniU (.onuiess lias aiitlion/ed (he I1 S 1 iixnon- ini'iital I'loteelion \ueni\ In estaMisli hut until it happens the mil\ sine pioleition Meet operators IMXI- is to spec neu I'liinpnient to meet standards adopted In tliose stall's and loial iiiinneipalities in uhiih the equipment opeiates I'or lleet-> with nldei xcliules the tiuik inannl.ii- Imi'i ent;iiie-inakei 01 .1 noise snppii-ssion spc- I'l.ilisl slioulil In- lonsulted to Inid out the luM anil most eionniniial \\a\ to meet loeal and sl.ile anti-noisr |.ix\s In main i.ises .1 mnlllei ihan>;i' \\ill solxe tile piohlem ,i Donalilsoii (.onipanx aioiistie.il e\- To reach a given decibel level engineers must cut the noise output from a number ol components Note thai two 80 db(A| noise sources combine to make an 86 Conversely cutting 2 db s trom a noise source does not cu! overall noise by the same amount To reach California s 1973 86 db(A) law truck engineers have cut an average ol 2 dbs from four noise sources For 75 they II have to cut five more decibels In addition they II have to silence at least thiee additional noise sources m order to leach the 83 db(A) level This equals a 55% reduction in noisei Two manutacturers toll CCJ this will cost S500 per heavy-duty road tractor in 751 For 1978-model vehicles with an 80 db(A) requirement it will take further noise reductions from the seven areas listed here plus new components—power steering pumps PTO s alternators axles etc Engine components will have to be brought down to 68 dbs—an 82% reduction over todays vehicles Technology does not yet exist to reach ihese new levels COMBINING NOISE SOURCES Combination of Four Predominant Sources Combination ol Seven Predominant Sources Current Vehicles For 1973. Vehicles Engine ' «2 T ' "° H Engmi! UBS-, U83-, Fan -82-1 ' "° J Fan - 88 dBIAI 86 dBIAI Exhaust -82-, -80-1 E»haust U 85 — 1 1-83-1 Intake - 82 J - 80 J lnuk' Transmission Accessories Tires For 1975 Vehicles -75-. In-. -75-1 -81 — -76-, 1-78 -I -75-1 83 dBIAI -75 1 - 74 -. ^79 — 1 J -74 J ------- Underlying cause for restrictive noise laws are the "rattle traps" and unmuffled or improperly muffled rigs on the road today. Engineers from Jacobs Mfg. Co. took this photo of a muffler installed upside down so the exhaust passed through it backwards. Truck had been cited for excessive noise The owner blamed the Jake Brake and also complained of no power." Turning the muffler right- side up solved the problem. The Jake Brake has been charged as a bad noise maker in some cases. A truck properly muffled under power will be properly muffled while the brake is on. too. Jacobs engineers say Oper- ators with turbocharged diesels who try to get by with no muffler (thinking the turbo will quiet the engine suf- ficiently) are often the culprit. Most all of the heavy-duty muffler manufacturers have models which will make each engine comply with current lavs—with or without Jake Brakes. Lett: California s 1973 86 db(A) noise limit is forcing a number of manufacturers to add noise reduction shields and panels to engines and engine compartments. On the left is a rocker cover noise shield (a rubber noise absorbant bonded to the cover) on an 1100 series Caterpillar V-8 diesel in a Ford C-senes chassis. Other noise suppressants include molded fiber- glass acoustical material bonded to thin steel panels and fastened by clips to the engine block. These cut radiated noise from the engine by 30%. says Cat. It also increases engine temperatures making cooling—another noise source—more difficult. Right Fan size, speed, blade pitch, shrouding and shutters are the biggest challenge engineers face in engine noise reduction As part of its experimental program. Ford is trying various blade tip configurations and speeds in con- lunction with close-fitting sound-deadening fiberglass shrouds. Closer the shroud, better the air flow and less noise. But when blade tip—shroud clearance is less than '4 in., more rigid engine mounts or engine-mounted shroud may be re- quired. Fan speeds under 2000 rpm cut noise dramatically. Manufacturers are also experimenting with lightweight flexible blade fans. Some are made of fiberglass, others of stainless steel. As engine speed increases, the blades flatten out reduc- ing noise and horsepower needs. An engine s maximum cooling needs are at peak torque, not peak hp. Other approaches include the viscous-drive fan and an air clutch actuated fan which engages only when cooling is required. ------- TRUCK NOISE Lett: Super-size mufflers may be required in the future if exhaust noise is to be cut to the high-30 decibel level. This level would be required to get an overall vehicle noise level of 70 db(A). Right: These special test mufflers were made by Don- aldson for CMC. They re over 6 ft tall, have an 8-in. outlet. Price, weight and space requirements will be astronomical. pi-rt says. "For others, it may mean an air cleaner or tan problem, according to Donaldson's Doug Rowley. Most truck and engine manufacturers, plus prin- cipal muffler and air cleaner suppliers, have told CCJ they favor "reasonable federal noise stand- ards. Standards, they say. that are technically fea- sible, but not economical!) prohibitive. But, thev ask. vv hat is a reasonable level? Manufacturers are reluctant to speak for the record. But from eight recent interviews. CCJ concludes the industry could live with a federal new vehicle noise limit of 83 db(A) by 1975 or 76. But these same sources warn that reaching this level will add considerable cost to big trucks since special noise treatment packages will be re- quired for many different engine models. One major manufacturer estimates it will add at least$475 to a diesel-powered straight truck in the 23.000-to-26.(MX) Ib (AAV range' Major areas requiring noise treatment are: • A noise suppression kit for the basic engine $185. • L'nder-hood engine enclosure$175. • Modification to air intake system and certain accessories $15. • A redesigned exhaust system$50. • Cooling system changes $50. For a diesel-powered tractor, the cost of meet- ing 83 db(A) can vary considerably, depending on engine model. In-line, turbocharged diesels are inherently quieter, and, in most cases, a pre-com- bustion chamber type engine is quieter than di- rect injection. Naturally-aspirated V-8s, both two and four cycle, are said to present the biggest challenge. The estimated cost of quieting road diesels starts at$275. One manufacturer told CCJ: "We think we can reach 83 db's using a new type stainless steel fan, doing away with radiator shut- ters, designing better shrouding, adding some bas- ic under-hood noise insulation and an improved muffler. Our test engines come out at 78 db(A) with this equipment. Still another manufacturer told CCJ it would cost $400 to treat their most popular COE models, slightly less for conventional. "Right now, were not sure about two \'-8s. We may have to limit them to certain models and then only with com- pulsory options. So it goes. But the key questions go unan- swered because thev are basic-ally political: ------- • Will the public be convinced that 83 db's is quiet enough? That's considerably quieter than a food blender and almost as quiet as a garbage dis- posal in a kitchen sink. • Is the additional S275-to-$5(K) cost justified in terms of benefits, especially when there will be substantial increases for new exhaust emission controls atul anti-skid brake systems? When taken together, one major original equip- ment manufacturer calculates a $2000 higher price tag to meet all of the 1975 federal!) regu- lated safety and environmental standards! The technology to reach 83 db(A) tor most ve- hicles by 1975 exists now. But what about the still lower limits already legislated lor 1988 in Califor- nia? A 70 db(A) level tor big trucks equals normal conversation. The technology to reach that goal simply doesn t exist today. (Jalc Beardsley. h'ord's top truck engineer, says, "To reach 70 ilb(A), \\e would be forced to design noise controls for 128 different noise sources. Kaeh of these individual sources would have to be limited to a maximum of-49 db(A). The- net atlect would be a heavy-duty diesel tractor running at maximum power with lull gross load and wide- open throttle, generating a noise level normally experienced in a public restaurant! "It's taken 8000 tests just to certify our '7.3 model trucks. Today, over halt ot Kortl s total truck engineering budget is devoted to noise abatement and emission control. Mack Trucks Senior Kxecutive Vice President tor Kngineering and Product, Walter May, says: "We're confident we- can be rcadv tor the 83 db(A) limit without too much trouble. But to reach even 77 db(.A) will be a major accom- plishment. We might be able to do it in another live years, but it s too early to say just vet. "At that noise level, even the gear tooth design in the transmission is affected. So will alternators and power steering pumps. It means virtually a total redesign ot the vehicle. International-Harvester's chief San Leandro, Calif, engineer, Jim Cowan, says: "We are partic- ularly conscious of noise and emission problems because of California s laws. I personally think the biggest challenge in the West is cooling. "With high horsepower, low emissions and noise, we've got to quiet the cooling system at a time when more cooling is required. I think you'll find most manufacturers looking at ways to elimi- nate shutters and slow clown tan speeds it we ever expect to significantly lower cooling system noises." "(jetting both exhaust and air intake noise lev- Top: As part of their basic noise research, diesel engine manu- facturers completely 'cocoon' an engine in lead-backed foam, then expose individual components by opening windows in the shielding and measuring the noise while the engine is run- ning under load. Here Cummins is identifying the predominant noises emitted from its V-903. Above: For precise noise meas- urement under known acoustical conditions which don't vary. manufacturers are using a semi-anechoic test cell. This is Cater- pillar's 18 by 16 by 15-ft cell with walls and ceiling covered with polyurethane foam sound-absorbing wedges It's barely pos- sible to hear a cocooned engine idling in this room. Right: To isolate noise generated by a particular system on a vehicle, en- gineers literally wrap-up a truck so they can measure individual noise sources on drive-by tests. In this Ford-Cummins proiect. the engine is wrapped as well as the entire exhaust system and air intake. Systems are extended 20-ft above ground to keep these noise sources out ot microphone range. Even the fan is disconnected. ------- els down to 68 db(A) will be required before any truck manufacturer ean produce an 80 db(A) truck, according to Donaldson s Manager of Acoustical Engineering Systems. Doug Rowley. We are asking ourselves and our engine and truck OFM customers some pretty hairy ques- tions. Are we ready for 12-in. diameter mufflers with wrapped shells to hold down noise radiation? Can we make room tor it on today's trucks? And can we install an H-in. induction system with a si- lencing ring to muttle the pulsations of tomor- row's bigger engines and air cleaners? Most sys- tems today arc 8 in. Clan we modify or redesign engines to accept higher exhaust back pressures? This is an impor- tant way to hold down muffler size and cost tor the future.' Is a 70 db(A) truck feasible? Stun Jenkins, noise control director tor Cum- rnins Kngine Co.. says this: In our testing. \\e have gotten as low as 72 db(A) with the engine wrapped in lead-backed foam, asbestos sheeting over the manifold, no fan. a wrapped transmission and rear axle and stuffed rear wheels. " It s eerie to hear a truck like this coast by with the engine recording 70 tlb(A). Hut eliminating noise this way simply isn't practical. You can't service the vehicle, much less operate it ef- ficiently. Noise levels in the mid-70 db(A) range may be feasible, however, with the introduction ot \ turbine power. In discussions with Detroit Diesel Allison and Freightliner engineers. CCJ learned that a CT-404 turbine in a Freightliner chassis without a special anti- noise package recorded 77 db(A) in a series ol recent noise tests. And. according to a Kreightliner official, "with a little effort. I think this can be improved upon. Based on all available evidence, it seems reasonable to conclude that any noise stand- ard lower than 8-3 db(A). at least for the fore- seeable future1, is unrealistic. Anything less than 77 ilb(A) is both technically and financially impossible with diesel power. To find out what is technically feasible at practical costs, the L'.S. Department of Transportation s Office ot Noise Abate- ment has funded four special projects— three for over-the-road tractors and one TRUCK NOISE for buses. The 28-month.$1 million project includes oper- ating so-called "quiet" trucks in fleet service for one year in order to develop in-service operating and maintenance costs for comparison. The road tractors are: • Freightliner twin-screw COK sleeper, pow- ered by the Cummins NTC-350 turbocharged 350 horsepower diesel This unit is expected to be ready tor fleet testing by early spring and tenta- tively is scheduled for service with Mid-American Lines. • An International CO-4000 cab-over tractor without sleeper, powered by a 318-horsepower 8Y-7IN Detroit Diesel. This is primarily to devel- op data on the two-cycle engine. • White Motor Corporation's Advanced Prod- ucts Divisions short cab-over, powered with the Cummins Power Torque 270. a turbocbarged. high torque-rise diesel and representative of this type ot vehicle normally used with a live or six- speed transmission. • Flxible division of Rohr Industries 53-pas- seuger transit coach with Detroit Diesel power and the usual automatic transmission. Donaldson Company is a sub-contractor tor all project vehicles in developing air intake and ex- haust systems. In a companion project, Stcmco Manufacturing Co. is researching the current level ot diesel exhaust noise- on trucks already in use. Industry sources say the quiet trucks arc expected to perform in the 7."5 db(A) range And information gleaned from the DOT project will be shared among all truck manu- facturers. Noise tests, unless otherwise specified, are conducted at 35 inph with the pickup 'mike 50-fcet from the vehicle. At these speeds, tire noise has not proved to be a problem But at higher speeds—especially 50 mph or more— tire noise often surpasses all other vehicle noises. The challenge, of course, is to reduce tire noise without sacrificing traction and or wear. L'ntil reccntlv. not much ------- I, Significant contributor to noise reduction in Transcon's super-quiet tractors is this Schwitzer viscous drive fan which runs at full speed only when maximum engine cool- ing calls for it. Above: Evaluating the drive-by noise tests results are (left to right) Lee Sollenbarger, President of Transcon; Bernie Bolstad, Chief Engineer of Transcon; and Ken Self, Pres- ident of Freightliner Corp. The new Freightliners (270 of them) are believed to be the first production run of road tractors with noise level readings of 83.5 db(A)—nearly five decibels lower than the average diesel tractor in use. Right: Also aiding noise reduction is this Farr Mark II in- tegrally-mounted air cleaner combined with Freightliner's Frontal-air induction system. TRANSCON'S SUPER-QUIET TRACTORS Transcon Lines new road fleet of 270 White- Freightliners are believed to be the quietest over- the-road production trucks yet designed. With an 83.5 db(A) rating during standard drive-by tests. the tractors are some five decibels less than the av- erage diesel in current use—equivalent to a 25% reduction in perceptible noise. The super-quiet tractors have many engineering innovations overall. (CCJ will have a separate ar- ticle on them next month.) Noise reduction was a high priority item with Transcon President Lee Sol- lenbarger and was a design criteria for the new tractors. The new power units were jointly engi- neered by Transcon and Freightliner and were eight months in the design and prototype testing stages. Powerplant is the Cummins NTC-290—a turbo- charged diesel and one of the quieter engines cur- rently on the market. To further quiet it, Transcon derated it, then tackled the fan and cooling system which traditionally make as much noise as the ex- haust does. After extensive testing, Freightliner and Transcon engineers found that a shutterless radiator and vis- cous drive fan turning at engine speed (1:1 ratio rather than the 1.2 to 1 which is more common) would be satisfactory. The viscous drive fan is sim- ilar to units used in air conditioned cars. It "slips"- turning slowly—until coolant temperatures reach a preset level before turning at faster speeds. This not only holds fan noise down but also saves fuel. It also gives Transcon 20 more road horsepower! During prototype testing, Transcon's Chief Engi- neer Bernie Bolstad said that the fan engaged full speed only once in a 2000-mile run—and then only because the rig was held up for 15 minutes at a road construction site. The 83.5 db(A) noise reading was taken with the fan fully engaged. In actual operation, the level is about one-half db(A) less when the fan is dis- ------- TRUCK NOISE was even known about lio\\ tire noise is produced let .done how to make .1 (jinel tin- Rut reecnt StlldlCS Iodised conliil)iites little to lire noise Tread patterns. tre.ul weai and road irregularities ean be ampli- fied l>\ carcass resonance This is the natural tcndcucv ot a tire to ring like a hell when vi- hi.iled at certain lrc(|iiencics \Vlule tins lorm ol vihr.ilion IMI I niled out as a noise SOIIKC, it adds little to the overall problem I he leal (iilput is a phenomenon called air pumping—the air so/iec/ing Irom between head grooves and the road smhiie Xciordmg to Robert engaged Other engineering features contributing to the low noise level include • An engine-mounted Farr dry-type air cleaner combined with Freightlmer's Frontal-air intake sys- tem • The new,est type Donaldson "Class A" muffler vertically mounted but bracketed to the frame rath- er than the cab This eliminated noise transfer through the cab sheet metal as well as slip-fit ex- haust connections for tilting the cab The muffler is of sonic choke design for better sound control It also has stainless steel "guts" for maximum life • Heavy cab undercoatmg and special insulation around the luggage compartment This helps to re- duce noise transfer from both the road and drive- line to the cab interior • A perforated roof liner inside the cab This is a 1-m open cell polyurethane foam insulation which acts like an acoustical ceiling to absorb noise as well as give superior insulation from heat and cold • Insulated rubber floor mats and engine dog house The total package has not only dropped exterior noise the public hears by 25%, it also has dropped interior noise levels to 85 5 db(A) at the driver's ear with the window open This is a 5 db(A) reduction from most road tractors and 7 db(A) less than some of the worst The Transcon tractors are within 1'/? db(A) read- ings of two specially-engineered, specially built road tractors built by International Harvester just a year ago in a joint program with the California Highway Dept Miller senior research assoi late toi B K Coodnch Tire do. tire tread (.(impresses radiallv. traus- vcrselv and longitiidmallv lorcmi: uir out ol the tread voids as the\ come into (onlact with the road When (he tread tolls out ol contact, the compulsion is relieved and .111 llo\\s hack into the expanding voids The amount ol noise gcueiatcd hv this action depends on such lac tors as tread depth uroove 01 void uicllli circumlerential tread spacing the number ol grooves across the width ol the hie .UK! vehicle speed Tread dcsiun and vehicle speed does elleet the level ol noise produced A smooth tread is <|iuet- esl ol all It presents the smoothest piotile as it moves through the air and its non-pattern head unmmi/es carcass vibration With no voids to worn about verv little air pumping, it anv takes place The straight lib tire !•• almost as (|inet as a 'slick On a smooth load it can give use to some air pumping But on a slightlv lough surface it can actnalK run quieter than I lie slick I ires with sawtooth ribs enntiibnte more to air hiiluilencc carcass vibration and especiallv air pumping but still are not the noisiest The loud- est cnlput ol all is the cross-hit; lire which pro- duces the greatest air pumping Unlorhinalelv as the trucking mdnslrv well knows, cross-lug tires give the best hactiou and longest mileage—an unbeatable combination Speed also plavs an important lole in tire noise I-or each 10 mpli increase bel\\een 10 and 70 inph there is a corresponding llnee-to-si\ decibel increase m tire noise levels I'inallv other agents contribute m some degiee to the problem such as tvpe ol road surface load, inflation pressures and tread wear Increases m tire noise levels due to load and pressure changes are most noticeable with cross- lug tires Increasing the load on a tire adds to tread tlcuiig and also increases noise levels caused hv air pumping Decreasing inflation prcs- sme has the same elleet As a general rule ol thumb, the level ol tire noise increases as the tread wears Irom new to hall-worn At tins point, it decreases again until the tread becomes smooth ^ct to In: measured is the elleet ol irregular wear, although it is believed to he a contributing laetor At the same time small changes m tire si/e have little impact on noise levels—there s a one decihle diflureiiLC between an S 25 \ 20 and a 10 00 \ 20 tire ot the same tread pattern on the same vehicle, lor example Tube-t\pe and tuneless tires both generate sun- ------- Right: Varying tread pitch breaks up objectionable tire droning. Paper tape shows shorter tread segments to- wards bottom. Practice is most effective on car tires. 100 * 80 bO POCKET TREAD HALF WORN RIB .' 30 40 50 60 VEHICLE SPEED - mph Above: Graph shows typical noise increase for various types of truck tires between 30 and 70 mph. EDITOR'S NOTE The following manufacturers, associations, gov- ernment agencies and fleets furnished data and/or were interviewed in preparation of this article. The editors wish to thank all of them for their coopera- tion. Caterpillar Tractor Co Cummins Engine Co. Detroit Diesel Allison D Ford Truck Div. Freightlmer Corp. International Harvester Mack Trucks. Inc. While Motor Corp. Donaldson Co.. Inc Farr Co Riker Mfq Co Stemco Mfg Co Flex-a-lite Corp Morton Industries Schwitzer Corp Jacobs Mfg. Co. Pacific Intermountain Express Western Gillette. Inc. Transcon Lines The Ryder System Firestone Tire & Rubber Co B. F. Goodrich Tire Co Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Rubber Mfgrs Assn. Engineering Dept.. American Trucking Assns. Western Highway Institute Engineermq Section. Calif. Highway Patrol Chicago Dept of Environmental Control Environmental Protection Agency Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety. DOT Office of Noise Abatement. DOT ilar levels of noise for similar tread patterns Radi- al tires have been knouii to produce slightly low- er noise levels than bias-ply types. Surprising. doubling the aetuul number of tires on a \ehicle increases the sound level by only about 2 db(.\). Clearly, tire noise i.v a problem today. And it is likely to get worse as noise restrictions become more stringent. Lug-types commonly used on drive axles are the biggest offenders, producing anywhere from SO to nearly 100 db(.U Yet, they are the very tires that give the best traction and wear. A 1971 Rubber Manufacturers Association re- port to DOT's Office of Noise Abatement, states that lug tires give significantly better lateral trac- tion and driving torque than their rib-type counterparts. And up to 100 percent better trac- ------- TRUCK NOISE II your new lug tread tires (left) are wearing to form pock- ets (center), or if you're running retreads like this type (right), then your trucks are probably among the noisiest on the highway 13979 TIME AFTER PASS-BY (SECONDS) Noise from pocket tread lire persists, and even grows louder, long after vehicle has passed by Phenomenon is due to directionality of noise emitted by tires tinn on siiou and icr Heiause the luii tires rmul Irc.ul elements cnii he molded some d() percent d(T[XT. mileage is increased l>v l?0 peiienl over DtlltT i\ |)CS Sniff llii.1 RMA report slates lliere .in- no known techniques lor reducing soiiiid levels <>\ lug tire.s to those ol rib tires Milhoiil senonslv impair- ing trdL-tion and tread wear, the nvcriidiiig i|ncs- tion still remains unanswered as to whether or tint llii- induslr\ will he lori-ed 25 vears backward to satislv luliire lire noise limits Cab noise is still another major concern he- cause ol its potential ellect on driver fatigue, sale- l\ and heal ill An\ tiling manutaclurcis do to re- duce exterior muse alleets interior cal> noise as uell \\'rapped innfllers. bracket-mounted nil the liamc (instead ol attached to the cab), lor e\- ample rediHe noise transfer drashcallv—as much .is fi decibels in extreme uses \lso. the simple ait ol plugging np holes in the lire uall or cab lloor can result in a significant re- dnetion in mtenoi noise l?nth DOT s Uiirean ol Motoi (.arner Salet\ and the I' S Labor Department, charged uith eu- lorcinn the \\alsh-lleaK Vet and Occupational Salelv and Health Vet. ate keenlv interested in dmer welfare llarr\ (.'lose elncl ol (he n-seareh division ol the olhee v DOT and the \inerican liuckmt; \sMiti.ilions and repoiled in (,CJ in Deeemhei 1971 l)0 dh( \) \\as lomul to he the median in-c'ali noise. 95 I he maximum \\illi \\iudin\s open and ------- A New Concern for the Trucking Industry Engine Intake System Noise Control By B. M. SULLIVAN1 THE noise level of your vehicle was measured at 89 db. You've broken the law and I'm afraid I'll have to give you a citation." These words will he repeated to truck drivers over and over again in the coming years as the various states continue to legislate greater degrees of "quiet" into our so- ciety. Trucks are a prime target for legislation he- cause they are one of the more ohvious sources of annoyance, and pending noise laws have met little or no opposition. In January, 1973, 86 db(A) will he the maximum noise level for trucks in Califor- nia, Colorado, Nevada, the city of Chicago and several other states and municipalities. In Califor- nia these levels will be reduced progressively to 83 db(A) in 1975, and 80 db(A) in 1978. These steps do not seem like impressive reductions— until one understands that a reduction of 8 db, from the existing level of 88 db(A) to 80 db(A) in 1978. represents a decrease in total truck trans- mitted noise energy of 80%. Removing this sound energy will require increased engineering effort and improved components. Ultimately, it will be the consumer who picks up the increased cost of providing quieter trucks. Lowering noise can be compared to trimming a hedge. The longer branches must be cut to trim the hedge. Cutting the shorter branches will not affect the height of the hedge very much. Simi- larly, combating truck noise means defining those sources which are the loudest and working on them first. For example, if total truck noise is 86 db(A), quieting one noise source from 75 to 70 db(A) will have no measurable effect on the total level. However, if an 83 db(A) noise source can be found and lowered to 78 db(A), total truck noise will be reduced by 2 db(A) or to 84 db(A). 'Product Engineering, Donaldson Co., Inc., Minneapolis, Minn. This Kenworth tractor, fitted with a Cummins NTC-350 turbocharged engine, registered 82 dbA in tests on Donaldson's test track. Proper selection of intake and exhaust equipment contributed to the noise reduc- tion. Also fitted is a Morton fan clutch which disconnects the fan when airflow through the radiator is other- wise sufficient to meet cooling requirements. Setup for intake noise tests performed to predict the performance of air intake system when installed in a tractor. The engine is located behind the well. The setup measures "insertion loss" by permitting measurement of noise levels of the open intake pipe and then with the air cleaner installed. On the control panel is an XY recorder which plots decibel output against engine rpm, and a Spectral Dynamics tracking filter and analyzer. Tests are also run on trucks with this system prior to running them on the test track. As has been documented by test, there are five major noise sources on a truck. They include: Fan Noise—This is noise generated by the cooling fan. This noise problem will become increasingly severe as larger engines, which require increased cooling, appear on trucks. Intake and Exhaust Noise—These are noises gen- erated by the engine and carried in the intake and exhaust systems. The noise is transmitted to the atmosphere from the walls of the piping as well as from the pipe end. Engine Mechanical Noise—All internally gener- ated engine noise, except intake and exhaust noises, falls in this group. Included are valve noise. gear noise, combustion noise and others that are transmitted through the walls of the engine. Other Mechanical Noises—This group includes all mechanical noise sources except the engine. Items such as transmission noise, chassis noise, and others fall in this group. Tire Noise—Tire noise is difficult to reduce. It is the predominant noise source at freeway speeds, hut below 35 mph, where most legislation is writ- ten, it is not a predominant noise source. Several years ago, as demands for better mufflers to reduce truck noise were received, Donaldson Company originated its work in the area of truck Reprinted from January 1973 North American Edition of DIESEL & GAS TURBINE PROGRESS ------- Mechanical Noises 80— Engine Noise" 80 'Fan Noise > Figure 1. Two noise sources of equal magnitude will produce a noise 3 db louder than either noise source alone. Based on the above chart, this prin- FNGINE TYPE OPEN FWA. FHG, EBA INTAKE -• 0 EBB { ^ - «Q ~ tT) IlHHOCHARCfD 61-72 62-72 61-71 6-7, NATURALLY 67-76 67-76 65-75 67-76 MECHANICALLY 63-73 63-73 62-72 66-76 Figure 2. Intake noise levels as measured with newer-design air cleaners on some engine types. Figure 3. The chart shows how noise reduction is affected by ratio of air cleaner body diameter to duct tube diameter; as ratio increases, sound atten- uation goes up. noise source isolation. The reason was the ina- bility to reduce overall truck noise in some cases. despite the application of improved mufflers. One of the serious problems discovered was that of engine intake noise; levels as high as 95 db(A) have been measured during extensive engine test- ing. If the goal is an 86 db(A) truck, these intake noise levels must obviously be reduced. In fact, to provide an 86 db(A) truck, intake noise may have to be suppressed to a maximum of 76 db(A). This is shown in Figure 1. Intake noise is a result of several factors. On a naturally-aspirated engine, it results from pulsa- tions caused by the opening and closing of the intake valves. On a mechanically-supercharged engine, it includes the noise generated by the supercharger. On a turbocharged engine, it in- cludes noise generated by the turbocharger. Intake noise generally increases as engine speed increases. 86 Total Truck Noise ciple shows how a maximum 76 db(A) intake noise may be required for an 86 db(A) truck. Many other combinations are possible, however. Inside Pipe Diameter Airflow Range (cfm) 4" 100-400 4VS" 225-500 S" 350-600 5V4" 400-750 6" 450-900 7" 750-1300 8" 1000-1700 Figure 4. Recommended pipe size for common en- gine intake airflows. An excellent way of reducing intake noise levels is through turbocharging. Engines which are turbo- charged can provide noise levels 3 to 5 db(A) low- er than the same engine without a turbocharger. Side benefits of turbocharging include lower ex- haust noise and engine noise levels, lower smoke levels, and lower exhaust emission levels. Peter Shutz, of Cummins Engine Co., has said, "The biggest single technological accomplishment in the truck diesel over the last five years has been the perfection of the turbocharged engine." The benefits piove his statement. Additional noise attenuation can be provided through the use of intake silencers. Such silencers. installed in the intake system can provide an ad- ditional 3 to 4 decibels attenuation, an amount which may be significant when lower intake noise is required for a "legal truck." The key, however, to good intake system noise control is the air cleaner. A properly designed air cleaner can mean the difference between provid- ing a "legal truck" and an illegal one. Proper air cleaner system design lies in properly matching the duct sizes to the cleaner size, proper inlet de- sign and location, and proper design and location of interior components such as the filter elements, baffles, and finned or vaned centrifugal separators. The difference between intake noise with a well- designed unit and one which is not can be 15 db or more. Keeping in mind 1973 requirements which may dictate a maximum intake level of 76 db(A), Figure 2 shows the sound levels of newer truck air cleaners on some of today's en- gines. These cleaners may have to be upgraded or replaced to meet future requirements. Increasingly high engine airflows also present dif- .ficult problems to the induction system designer. Familiar truck diesel engines such as the NHC- 250, NTC-290, and 6-71 which require 400 to 700 cfm will be replaced by engines requiring 1200 cfm to as much as 1700 cfm. The problems of providing filtration and better noise control at in- creasing airflows, dictate larger systems. Eight- inch diameter ducting as well as air cleaners twice the volume of today's units will have to be considered. The need to mount an increasing num- ber of accessories while trying to minimize over- all truck size and weight, will place great demands on all component engineers including the intake system designer. Proper matching of duct size to cleaner diameter must take several factors into consideration in- cluding pressure drop, cost, installation space, and sound attenuation. Figure 3 shows the effect on sound attenuation created by increased duct size. As the body diameter to tube diameter ratio in- creases (i.e smaller diameter ducting), the sound attenuation goes up. However, the reduction of pipe diameter results in increased pressure drop in the intake airflow. Figure 4 shows recom- mended pipe sizes for the common range of intake airflows found on today's trucks. Use of smaller pipes than those recommended can result in an additional 3" to 5" of water pressure drop, re- ducing net horsepower and increasing fuel con- sumption, penalties which the truck industry can- not economically accept. The answer to the prob- lem, then, lies in properly matching duct size to engine airflow, and designing the air cleaner to provide most of the attenuation. Proper inlet design and location are very import- ant in providing needed sound attenuation. In gen- eral, open inlet air cleaners should be avoided unless acoustically treated in some manner. Tubu- lar inlet cleaners provide the best sound attenu- ation and. in many cases, the inlet can be located in a "cleaner" area, thus extending filter life. In- lets should not point directly at a spectator. Direc- tion of sound can be as important as loudness. As an example, trucks with loud fans may be noisier as the truck approaches than as it goes away from the spectator. Why not locate the inlet such that the sound radiates backward and does not add to the fan noise? This could mean the difference between a legal or illegal truck. By 1975, additional demands for increased filter life and lower restriction will also dictate new designs. Higher engine airflows combined with less space will further complicate the picture. Another noise problem receiving serious attention is that of driver exposure to excessive noise. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has placed the maximum exposure level for a worker at 90 db(A) during an eight-hour day. In-cab noise levels of today's trucks often exceed that level. As in the case of exterior noise, the problems must be attacked through noise source identification. It cannot be assumed that quieting sources which affect exterior noise will also reduce in-cab noise. The sources might be completely different. The fan is frequently the prime source of in-cab noise on COE tractors, while the exhaust system shell noise is a prime offender on conven- tional trucks. Not without fault, however, is intake noise which under certain circumstances can seriously affect in-cab noise levels. Some examples of these circumstances might be: underhood inletsr intake piping inside the cab, and air intake im- mediately outside a window. ------- donaldson product engineering ACOUSTIC TECHNICAL BULLETIN Subject: SOURCES OF TRUCK NOISE Issue Date: Sheet: Project: ATB No. 12- 21'- 70 1 of 4 891 8C 20 With many States now demanding strict control of truck noise, the truck manufacturer, in order to most economically comply, must have a thorough understanding of the major causes of vehicle noise. Manufacturers are already experiencing difficulties in meeting the present level (88 db"A") with certain chassis-engine combinations. Yet it will become increasingly more difficult to comply with future levels (i.e., California 86 db"A" in 1973), and will be a most formidable task if requirements should be made even more stringent. This Bulletin was prepared in an effort to assist the design engineer in understanding and then coping with the various noise sources of over-highway trucks. The magnitude of the truck noise problem is usually underestimated. The general public, legislators, and even their technical consul- tants and enforcement officials, may still refer to truck noise as "exhaust noise," and hence, in their eyes the solution to the prob- lem is simply a better muffler. While it is true that with an inadequate muffler, exhaust noise is the major culprit; this may not be true when overall truck noise levels reach 88 db"A" or less. At these levels other sources than exhaust are significant contributors, and be even more significant at 86 db"A". wi Under these conditions and because of the nature of sound, oftentimes it doesn't help much to treat one source without also treating one or more of the others. In order to control truck noise, one must first identify what must be controlled. The engineer must determine the characteristics of the individual sources, and must also determine the relative magnitude and importance of each as a contributor to the whole. Then, the degree and method of noise control can be considered. The total noise radiated by a vehicle is made up of four principal components - each component consists of a source and a sound transmission path. The components are exhaust, mechanical, fan and intake. (For simplicity, the noise created by combustion, gear and valve, pump, transmission, etc., have been lumped into one source as mechanical noise. Tire noise was not included because it is generally not significant at less than 35 mph). The properties of these components for four different trucks are presented in the Table. The trucks are not necessarily current production. The data shown was gathered by measuring each individual component while operating the truck per SAE J366. The truck was maintained in the original production condition for that particular com- ponent being evaluated while essentially completely silencing the other three. ------- ACOUSTIC TECHNICAL BULLETIN Issue Date: 12-22-70 Sheet: Project: Subject: SOURCES OF TRUCK NOISE ATB No. 20. The individual noise levels shown can vary with the properties of the source, with the overall noise objectives of the engineer, and of course, with the noise control means at his command. The latter is twofold - the actual source and then the sound transmission path to the measuring microphone. The source is defined as that which creates the original noise, and the path as being between the source and the microphone. As an example, the exhaust noise is created by the engine, the source, while the path is the exhaust system and the distance between the system and the microphone position. Both source and path are roughly of equal importance in controlling noise NOISE LEVELS OF SOME TYPICAL OVER-HIGHWAY TRUCKS, 50 FT. DB"A" Exhaust Mech. Fan Intake Total Truck Noise Noise Noise Noise Truck Noise 86 83 81 80 89 82 85 83 80 89 83 83 78.5 72 87 77 81 82 70 85.5 Since the levels in the Table include the effect of the sound path, the values could vary widely depending on truck type (COE or Conventional) and manufacturer. These are discussed individually below: Exhaust: Depends on exhaust noise properties of engine. Will vary with muffler; tail pipe length and location; flex pipe; and exhaust pipe length, construction and thickness. The exhaust noise includes both gas-borne noise as well as exhaust "pipe" and muffler "shell" noise- Mechanical: Depends primarily on mechanical noise properties of engine, but also includes driveline noise. Will vary with engine compartment (hood, side, and under panels) and cab (back or tunnel panel) sheet metal - how treated, how well enclosed, how well damped, and reduction in "line of sight" sound transmission. Fan: Varies with power input and fan design, efficiency, tip speed, radiator and shutter type, shrouding, and proximity of nearby obstacles. Intake: Depends on intake noise properties of engine. Will vary with air cleaner style, air cleaner location in induction system, system piping size, air inlet location, and with added silencer if used. The information in the Table may be used to select areas for control and then to predict the effect on the total level. As an example, suppose it is desired to reduce the noise of Truck One to 86 db"A" from the 89. Obviously the most benefit would be derived by installing a better muffler, but even if exhaust noise were completely removed, the mechanical, 83, ------- ACOUSTIC TECHNICAL BULLETIN Subject: SOURCES OF TRUCK NOISE Issue Date: Sheet: Project: ATB No. 12-22-70 3 of 4 891 8C 20 the fan, 81, and the intake, 80, would combine to yield a level of 86.5 db"A". Hence, to reach the goal, let's arbitrarily say the exhaust contribution should be no more than 81 - which would allow for a reasonable size muffler but may require a double wrapped body and a heavy walled or laminated exhaust pipe. Then reduce the intake to 79 and the mechanical and fan noise to 80. The latter two will respond to under-cab acoustical packing and engine enclosure paneling (enclosing engine may in turn require revising engine cooling package). The combination of the resulting mechanical and fan, both 80, with the 79 of the intake, would then be 84.5, and along with the exhaust of 81 would just meet the desired 86 db"A". With Truck Two the overall noise level could be reduced most by decreasing mechanical noise rather than exhaust. From the Table many other situations can be described which will indicate the difficulty of reducing truck noise. Since the data used is for average trucks, many trucks and their individual components may be less or greater than shown. For example, some existing trucks cannot meet the 88 db"A" level even with the exhaust noise completely silenced. The individual sound levels shown could change as much as 10 db"A" depending on truck design per the above variables. In order to assist in the noise control technique, octave band levels should be taken for each component. Further to aid the engineer in designing required attenuation into the noise paths, it is expected that in the future source noise data will be made available by the manufacturers of the engines, transmissions, fans, tires, etc. m a 90 80 Cu 70 LJ cn o mechanical truck p^n = _». . start point T-» l\ • acceleration end point lane mike EFFECT OF NOISE SOURCE LOCATION AND RADIATION PATTERN ON MAX. TRUCK NOISE ------- ACOUSTIC TECHNICAL BULLETIN Issue Date: 12-22-70 Sheet: 4 of Project: 8918C Subject: SOURCES OF TRUCK NOISE ATB No. 20 For the analysis, the levels of each component were shown at the instant of maximum total read- ing of the Sound Level Meter. That is, some of the contributors could be actually louder than shown but occur at a slightly different point of the "pass-by. " For instance, the fan noise with shutters open has two peaks - one as truck approaches mike (noise through radiator) and another after truck has passed mike line (noise emanating through cab rear tunnel). This is estimated in the curve. The separation of component effect can be cultivated to advantage since the truck is not penalized for duration of noise, but only for peak reading. Hence, by spreading out noise, total acoustic power output is the same, but meter peak reading would be less. One means of taking advantage of this would be to position intake snorkel on cab rear left side with muffler on right side in an effort to decrease the intake's contribution to peak noise. SUMMARY Because of the many factors and combinations involved, decreasing truck noise is not just "getting a better exhaust system-" It is a complicated and expensive engineering problem with potentially costly solutions. The total truck must be considered, and the more one understands and knows about the noise sources and paths, the more economically he will be able to meet the required noise limits. The problem will expand if/as noise limits are tightened while at the same time engines are getting bigger and more powerful, with the inherent increase in noise output. DONALDSON COMPANY INC. Product Engineering Department MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA Acoustic Systems Engineering DWR/js ------- Reprinted with Permission, Copyright © Society of Automotive Engineers Incorporated, 1972, All Rights Reserved. Paper 720924 from SAE SP 373. 720S2' ABSTRACT A LGi'crptual fr..niework has been developed for in\e«t!jat- ir.g ti..- bJfifrj'iior. uf sound by lircs. Recent measurements l>2\c quantified seme of ll.c chsrattenslKi of Iruck lire sou--!» The chaucierijtics tliai have bc.-n measured includi ilii f.:k 4-\veighi:d io.ud level and it* dependence on the trc.iu '.'stiern, sp:.'d. ./id deflection of ilic tire, ihc cflccl of Ihe iojd surface on ere io»nd levels; anJ Iho spectral dislnbu- tio:: of '.ire soundi. llnse characters:.:* are discussed in lernis of the rnechznis.ns of tire sound generation. Eli *> , ,:• .** ~ r"'- : •'• ' *"? O f v , Vt .•.> %» K il Wl « k B V.» . t t **» *•-•' 8 P ^**^ r B B •-•«'•. I (• r: *>•.-.. r:"*? .?"•?"' di. ?. ._< ^IVi^i. k*«rC Ui U.L >_ 1 I. T. R. Wik and R. F. Miller Research Center, B. F. Goodrich T«rc Co. Ti-!L PURPOSE of this paper is to invest -j-ate how the inler.'i- l-.oii (..f.tr.c surfaces wiili the surroundii'g air produce^ sound. Tli.* ri.ecrwifm? b> nuans of which a ro'lmg tire can displs.e sir ?rc considered or.e ui a time. The measured ch.iraci:risucs of lir: sounds are then di->:ussed in loinis of ihe c\p:clc J Cii.i- Inb'.iMOn of each injcran^ni. O. ';. ..-il-oii'L- MJ-JI: Ji ;;Li cuteii .-I li1-.- I:!'.1 surfaces jnii .11 tl.i ." icrfj.'C b2tv.ce'i lire and road surfaces arc considered. The >>-.jr!(Jsgener.:'':(l b> \ibrationscflhe \chicle or of ihe rGad'.oy'as a result of nbrsuons transrcrrcJ b> the tiros .ire rot co:n!ui.-red. The su'inds generated b\ \c!ncubi and roaj- \va\ vibrations 3ic a function of the co-iiiruction of tKj vehi- cle .in i i he roadway .:s v.cli as of (he tires. MECHANISMS OF TIRE SOUND GENERATION As a lire rolls over a road surface, it dirphces macroscopic and n:i;rcs:op!c \o!un i.ieans of v.hich the rolliM^ lire can displace air. 1 Tr.Visblicn of the \vliule tire thiough the air 2. Acrudvnjmic effects. ? Carc^sN and lre:iJ xibrations. 4 MLLiuniCtf! p.'ir^-iu^ of an 1:1 ihc re»ion where the lire is the icad suiLice. TR \\SL\TION.\1. MOTION1 OF Till: HUE TllKCXGl! 1Mb AIR Tiji.sldtio-i of the IMC ibrcuch the .11- .'.lip'.'ccs large \i'l- u:ii-:s of air ?.l rcljti\cl> h"t.h lieu r-'.i-s ! !i? pi assure i!i-.i:!i bance as>ocistrd with this, r^crcscopic fli).v ofnir is not. h-,w- evci, v.'hat is poic?ived ::; ti.v sound ') Ins pressure distu.-bjiue varies too slov ly, both .is .1 funcuoM of tmi.- .'.ni! as a funclio". of sp3ti..! cciordmaies, ".i proJiice audiWe ioyid. Fui (>.<.:• muic, tlii? piessuie UistPrb^iuV is nonrccurrm,'. for an «.ibs?r\er aloup the ro:iJ\'.ay. Tlics? conclusions jie ba\:d on l!w ai.jl- Q£J bcUMiei1 ihe nonturbui.n1 cumpf":!!1. •.>.';!.; fiov. isf.-ir around the tin- and Ihc I"! 'v. Of air art-urd a y U:-MIC .i.rl 'il Fig 1 giici a plot of II c pross'.rc varutions p.jJv'.ccd b\ ? .vjb- some I'lrfoil as a function c/ Jistancc r>'o;ig a s'.r-iuht iiue parall-1 to the direction of r*.o'.:on (1 ) " Fig 1 A »hows ihc velocities .pducetl in ,,u. ir-:i.i!l> .il rest, by Ihe p.-«s.:«:e of a two u!-n:i.>;o:ial. sv pMieiiii: airfoil. The vcctois Indicate the nia>!nm..!c .T.I! iln^c'ion cf iJw air \e!oc- itics.it c^ch point. Fig. IB S!"-OAS the puNMi.-e rJi^iribiitiuii along the lm« paiallcl to thi direction cf ii.otiun of the ?'.r- foil. A plot of the prc-.su:.' -.ariancn as j function of Inve for a slaiioiiar) observer \M!! b.¥ identic.il lo ll'o plot of the pros- sure as :i function of diiUn<.c. The time intei\:l icpl.icinj a given distance interval d:p?nds on t.ie velo-jii) of ihe airfoil. t = d/v where: t = tune d = distance v = velocity of lire EFFECTS All sources oi strbornc sound d<.p?:ul on il'O dynamic piop rtlCS of ll'C :'lr. I" till* V.^:INJ, .'II «Oi:n.cS di MViild .'1C 2t •••• -'Nurr.b.-ii r.1 paper r'esisnsic Rcfcrr noes at end of ------- AIRFffl v B Fig. I - Velocity and pre formations lint occur once per lire revolution when a particu- lar portion rf ihi- tire enters or leaves contact v\it!i the road surface. The deformations of tread voids in HIV. near the con- tact patch, for example, arc not considered to be tioad vibra- tions. Three causes of carcass and trend vibrations that may produce ;m Jible sound are: I. Tread pattern can produce load modulations that excite vibratory deformations in tits carcass and treaJ. Th; atiTi-ii- tudes of ilie carcass and ue.id vibrations introiiukeJ by the ------- tread pattern depend on the size and configuration of its ele- ments 1. Road asperities can introduce carcass and tread vibrations in a manner exactly analogous to the vibrations produced by the tread pattern. Asperities in the ro.td surface can produce vibratory deformations due to load modulations. The ampli- tudes of ths vibrations introduced by the road surface depend on the size and the placement of the asperities in the road sur- face. 3. Tire nonunifonr.ities can also excile carcass and tread vi- brations. The amplitudes of the vibrations introduced by non- uniformities depend on the severity of the nonuniformlies. Carcass resonances modify the pattern of surface deforma- tions by emphasizing those frequencies (hat correspond to natural modes of vibration in the carcass. These resonances modify the deformations resulting from all three inputs-tread pattern, road asperities, and nonuniformittes. Accurate measurement or calculation of the vibrational de- formations of (h: carcass and tread is very difficult. Further- more, zn exact calculation of the sound pressure levels gener- ated by the deformations is difficult. Consequently, this method has not ban used to determine the contribution of carcass and tread vibrations to the overall sound level ex- hibited by the tire Ha\ e'en f2) es!in:?.:ed this contribution, using an en-.pincal technique. He measured the sound power-level spectra for various input acceleration; applied normal to the trend These measurements perni'l the prediction of sound levels bai.'d cui vertical accelerations rrcasured at the tread. Since it is not possible io measure the vertical acceptations at the tread, Hay- den calculated the input accelerations at the tread from (he ac- celerations measured ai the axle Ths sound levels predated for ca.'cass vibrations \vere not significant relative to th; total sound level exhibited by a typical patterned tire Havden con- cluded that the accelerations measured at the axle would have to be 20 dB higher than those he measured, to make carcass vi- brations a significant factor. This result is only approximate. It is based on assumptions regarding the relationships between axle motions and the vi- brations of the tread. Moreover, the amplitudes of tread and carcass vibrations are dependent on the tread pattern and the roughness of the rosd surface. Consequently, tread and car- cass vibrations are not ruled out as a significant source of sound in all cases. B'j1 this result indicates that there may be son:.- czxs at least where tread and carcass vibration are not significant. AIR PUMPING Another source of air displacements may give rise to audible sound Ths source t> zssi-.ciatcd with deformations of tha trc.id which c^mot K1 cl issified properly ;is tiejd or carcass vibrations. When a portion of the tread rolls into contact with the road surface, it is compressed radially, transversely, and longitudinally. This compression forces air out of \}\t trc?d voiJs as ilw volume ol the voids is reduced When Hit iw.'d rolls out of contact, the compression is relieved and air f!cvv» back into ths expanding voids. This action of forcing a:i out of and into tread voids is called "air pumping." The sound prcssuie luel generated by Ihii time-varyin; rate of airflow can be appioxjrnated by a monopcle acoustic source. The acoustic pressure generated by a simple inonopole source is given by the expression p(r.O bi 0) where. p(r, t) = acoustic pressure at a distance "r" from source at time "t" p - density of the air (dQ/dt) (t - (r/c)) = time r:te of change of total airflow » source c - velocity of sound This expression shows that the acoustic pressure is a funciion of the rate of change of the airflow at the source at a tiire interval r/c earlier. This expression assumes a free field around the source. Simple monopole acoustic sources zre omniu'.rectioni! Tus is apparent fro:n Eq. 1 Air pumping does not necessarily give ris.' to an omnidirectional ound fi;ld. ihts is simply a copse- quenfj of tins approximation. Presumably, if j.xact ir.fcrmi- tior, were available 0:1 the deformation of the tread voids, i superposition of simple nionopole so.jr:es could be used :o ob- tain a bitter cpproxhmiion. which woi.ld include the dirjc- tioi.ility of the sound procjced by rssns of tiJs mechnr :»m. Tne expression for a simple monopoly source can be i-$;d to calculate the sound level produced by an purr.psng. The cd- cubtion is performed by fust wriUrgout ths e\pression for the mean value of the squire of the acoustic pressure for a simple nionopole source: (2) All t!int is needed now 15 an estimate for 3Q/ot in term.1! of the physical dimensions of the tread pattern and speed of tin- tire. Hav den (2) worked out such an estimate and obtained an ex- pression lor ths sound level in decibels. SPL(r) = 6S.5 + 20Io:------- r-3 Fig. 3 • Definition of tr:id parameters for tile calculation of the sound pressure levels resulting from air pumping in tread voids (sec Lq. 3) n = number of voids across tread f. c. = fractional change in void volume V = (forward) translalional velocity of tire See Fig. 3 for a schematic representation of these parameters (2) and also "s" (circumferential width of uead voids) and R (tire radius). Hayden also determined the sound pressure level to be ex- pected from the pumping of air in the voids in the surface of the road. This expiession is analogous to that for the tread voids: SPL(r) = 68.5 + 20 log(dr%vr/Sr) + JO log m + 201og(f. c.) + 401ogV- 20 log r (4) where: SPL (r) = sound pressure level, dB d = depth of road cavities wj. = width, of cavities Sf = spacing of cavities along path of lire m = number of cavities per width of tire These expressions indicate that the mean squ.ired acoustic pressure is directly proportional to the number of voids across the tread, the square of the void dimensions, the square of the fractional volume change during deformation, and the fourth power of the velocity. The mean squared acoustic pressure is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the source and the observer. This is the expected result for transmission in a free field. The predicted velocity depen- dence holds, provided the deformation of the tread elements does not charije with speed and provided the How of air for a given volume change is not altered by speed-dependent effects such as inertia. Nonunifornulies in the tire aho affect the air-pumping mechanism by changing the deformations in the tread. The first harmonic of the radial force vatiaiion. fur example, can give rise to a o:ice-per-revolution variation in the normal load. This would e.iiisi* the amount of deformation in the trend to vary as a fii'iction of position around the lire. 'Ihis. in turn. would give rife to a variation in the ir.-.ctional volume change of the trend voids around the tire. The result would bo a once- per-re volution vacation in the rms sound pressure level. This* phenomenon is called "flicker." by jn.ilogy with .1 similar phenomenon in the case of light. ^o 30 40 £0 CO V'VEHIClE SPEED (MILES/HOUSI 73 60 SO Tig. 4 - Predicted contribution of various source mechanisms to road- side noise RELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE MECHANISMS OF TIRE SOUND GENERATION Hayden found that the sound pressure levels calculated from Eqs. 3 and 4 are in good agreement with the measured values for both rib rind cross-rib tires. Fig. 4 shows Hayden's calcula- ted sound piessine levels as a function of speed for ouch mech- anism of sound generation (2). Note that the con'.iiluuion of tire vibrations and of the aerodynamic sources ?re small rela- tive to the contribution of air pumping. The sound mecha- nisms identified in Fig. 4 by number are: 1. Truck cross-rib or auto-snow tires. 2. Motorcycle cross-rib tires. 3. Passenger rib tires, 4. Roadway noise, concrete. 5. Roadway noise, asphalt. 6. Aerodynamic? sources. 1. Vibration of passenger tire on concrete. The agreement between Hay den's calculated values and Tetlow's (3) measurements of truck tire sounds is very good. The speed dependence of the sound levels exhibited by tires in Tellow's sample is closely approximated by the 40 log V dependence. This 40 log V speed dependence is also demon- strated by other measurements. Fig. 5 shows the speed depen- dence exhibited by a sample of tires tested by DOT (4). Tills group of five tiies :ilso exhibits a speed dependence that is closely approximated by 40 lojj V. The sound lewis of cross- rib lires increase somewhat faster th:;n 40 U'g V, luit tins ns:iy be caused by the A-\veishting network. At lo\v >;veils, the major peaks in the sound spectrum of the cross-rib tires occui nt lower frequencies and arc attenuated moie by the A-u.e:;:!ii ins; lietwork. The close agreement between the experimentally determined speed dependence of tiie sound levels and the speed depen- dence predicted foi Ihc air-pumpi1.* mechanism is ftiiilui evi- dence that ;iii pumping is an impoiumt mechanism for numy ------- 8 •OT- IS 90- TaWc t - Relative IVik A-^Vci.-'nerf Sound Ixwi&of Various Yit-'k liu-i* 30 40 60 (0 VEHICLE SPEED (UPHI Fig. S - Peak A-woighted sound level as a function of speed measured at 50 ft (30 m). A and B, rib tires; C and D, cross-rib tires; E, pocket re- Iteid tires. The sound pressure levels contributed by each mecha- nism of tire sound generation depend, of course, on the phy- sical characteristics of the tire and of the road surface. Furthermore, the conditions under which the (ire is operating will affect the contribution of each mechanism. The effect of some of these factors will be considered next. EFFECT OF TREAD PATTERN ON' TIRE SOUN'D LEVELS The contribution of each mechanism of sound generation lo the total sound generated by the tire depends on a number of tire features- tiie tread pattern, the carcass construction, the construction materials, etc. It is instructive to consider the effects of major changes in the tread pattern. Consider first a tire with a smooth tread. The smooth tread should be the quietest, since there are no tread elements to excite carcass vibrations or to increase air turbulence and there are no tread voids to contribute to air pumping. This predic- tion is verified by measurements of the peak A-weighted sound level exhibited by a tire with a smooth tread. Measurements for different tread patterns are reported in Table 1. The data for radial and bias tires are not directly comparable because these tires have different tread patterns. Consider next a tread pattern consisting of straight circum- ferential grooves that run parallel to each other around the en- tire circumference of the tire. If each segment of a circum- ferential groove is deformed i;i the same way as it goes through the contact patch, the groove will always appear to be the same when viewed from a frame of reference moving with the tire. This is analogous to the case of carcass deformations that do not change. The pumping of air into and out of the groove will contribute only to a slowly varying pressure disturbance as a function of the space coordinates around ihe tire. This pressure distrui'unce does not contribute uuuibl-.- s;umd. Hut, if there is a variation in the groove deformation, air pumping associated with tlut variation will contribute audible sound. The circumfciential grooves may also contribute to slightly in- creased air turbulence. t; A-\Vcr.!il ;<" 1-ouiid Level, Tttc Type Concrete Smooth licaJ 65.9 Smooth Head drcumfcrc;Hi::!lr grooved 67.3 Bias-ply rib 68.4 Kndul-ply lib 699 Hiis-ply ctoislvr 75.8 Radial-ply crossbar 72.1 •Tireitafa: 10.0CN23, toad rj:i;'.: I". Tc>t cunditi--.r SAE Rccommrnu Jtl Practice fir iht Measurement o! Source: "Tiutk Tire Noise," Kubcor Manufacturer* November 1971 (3tf. S). 66.9 68:2 70.5 71.3- 79.9 75.7 : Cur-furm fa Tru.'k Tut Xoiv: >ei.tlit>ir. This analysis indicates that circumferential!}' ao.ived trcjds should exhibit slightly highes souud levels than r-wooth treads. This expect a lion is verified by the data reported in Table I. The circumferential grooves iv. \. however, h.v-e the effect of reducing the sound produced i-v the air displaced from load surface cavities. The circiKiiier-.-i:tia! grooves v.otild not allow the road cavil:;* so be sealed ;•.;> '•• '!! i;s they * «.'u!J be by the smooth tread. Cuubequjnily. t!.e relative sounJ lewis exhibi- ted by smooth and circumfcrontialiy grooved tieads depend i>n the road surface. Consider next the two types of trend patiorr.r- iu>!!n.i!ly u^e-d. on truck tires dcsigiied for highway use. The r:b-:re;:d pa tier n consists bssic.iliy of circ\i:ri!crer.i;ul ribs with iav iooth edges. Tins type of ticad pattern resen'.L'Ls that of a pa^oncet car tire except th::t Ihe sawtoo>h cdces are. longer Hid (he gioovos are larger. Tiie cross-rib (or cro>ib:sr or lug) tre;'d pattein lias lateral bars and lateral voids extending from the shoulder toward the ccn lei line of tiif tread. Both designs may incorporate varying amounts of Uerfing (siping or bladfnu) to improve v.et traction. One of the pri- mary functions of both types of tread patterns is la increase wet traction. The cross-rib tire is generally used 0:1 dtive axles because of its superior traction and wear in tlut application. The tread elements in these tread designs contribute to car- cass vibrations and to increased .n.ir turbulence. The tread voids contribute to air punuiine.. In general, hrger trend cle- ments produce brgsr carcass vibrations and ir.cre nil turbu- lence. Larger tread voids produce higher sound-picture levels due to nir pumping.. Conseqi'.eiuly. cross-rib tires wotsld be: ex- pected ii> exhibit l;irjicr sound levels than lib tiros because the cross-rib tires generally ha\e Lu^-r tread clemonis. This ex- pectation is verified by ihe sound levels reported for lib and crowbar tiros iiiTiblo I. LI I LCT OF C.l'L-.RAIING CONDITIONS ON TIRE SOUNDS SPEED - The sound level exh^iieil by a tin- increases with a speed. The simple monupole source anproxiniation predicts ------- lOiD P£R i'-.E.N Mn «:y: tiauqa, «ooo 6x0 LOiO F-R -'-• (ISO f\f. 6 • Peak A-wcidiied sound level as a function of loud on the drive axle mej- surcd -jl SO ft (30 in) with a vcliu-l; speed of 55 mr-h (88 km/h) Ilia! the contribution due to air pumping increases according to the 40 log V te::n. Hayden's calculated contribution of tlie aerodynamic sources increases at an even faster rate, but ex- hibits a lower leve! except at very 1115!) speeds, Based on llie accelerations measured at the axle, the contribution of tread and carcass vibrsiio.-is should increase more slowly with speed ti:2:i the consributu-ii of air pumping (see Fig. 4). Measure- ments of tire sour.d levels as a function of speed closely approximate th: 40 log V speed dependence. TIRE LOAD AND INFLATION PRESSURE - Chances in loud iiid inflation ;.-re?sure which increase the tread deforma- tions* and l\\: carets vibrations will increase the sound level generated by the lire (6). Increasing the load at constant in- flation, pressure. rVr instance, will increase the deformations in the tread and will increase the trend and carcass vibrations. This will increase the sound level. Fig. 6 shows the effect of load on the sound levels produced by a group of tires mea- sured by DOT (4). Tiie tires involved in this test were: 1. A and C, new rib tire. 1. F, new cross-rib tire. 3. C, half-worn cross-rib tire. 4. I, half-worn retread. 5. H, new retread. ROAD SURFACE -The road surface affects the way in which the tread elements are deformed in the contact patch and the abruptness with which they break contact with the surface when they roll out of contact. When a tread clement is released abruptly with a snapping action as it leaves the road surface, the bQ ci will be larger tlun if that clement is released slowly and uniformly. Since the acoustic pressure is proper- iir:ip.l to ?Q ii. i' .„* sound prcss.iu- level will be higher when the tread eleiv.i.;-.; is released abruptly . Furthermore, a snv.o'.h, uniform ro;;d surface peimits better sealing of the tread elements ;round the voids. Tiie release of well-sealed tread voids v.i'.l civv rise to larger values of 3Q/Ot. Conse- quently, smooth si.rl.jccs tend to increase the sound pressure level pcr.e rated by the Ui.iJ voids, especially if they promote abrupt releuie of tirj treed elements. The cavities in the itcd .surface generate sound by iuc.r;\w: air-pumping mechanism. b:;t the to^d cavities a!>o can reduce the sour.d generated by !l:e tread voics !»> reducing dQ'o;. The ei'u-ci ihat predominates will de;.;."d on ilia tread pa::-rn of i!v: lire. A smootli ro^c surface v.iii have the largest eiu-ci on cup- type treads, wlsui, -.cud to se.il very v-eli on &nior>:l> surfaces. Tlie sir-pumping mechnriism depends on the tread void*, li;* road surface cavities, auu the iniertciion between them-. The, ro2d surface asperities a! so affect ll.e ireud and carcass vibra- tions. This results in a very complex effect of the ro^d su.-fao: on the sound level gei;-?r.i;ed by the ;i:e. See Table 1 foi a compaVison of a concrete and an asr-'..:h suriace. BRAKING, TRACTIVE. AND CORNERING FORCES - Forces acting on the tire (such as broking, tractive, and cor- nering forces) also affect the deformations of ilia tread ele- ments. Tiie alteration of the (read cetbrnuiions probubiy h^s the greatest effect oil tl.e sound gcner.-.ted by .T.earts of t'r.e air-pumping mechanivm. Tliere is no definitive data avuilible on ihe effect of these fV-iceson tire sound levels, but the sound produced by the atr-pumping'mechKiiissn should be dependent on tlie fractional cluin;;;- of the tread-void volumes. Con<-- quer.ily. the application of forces ::i3! increase the frucii.-r.jl volume chiu.ce of lii; tread voids shw.ild increase the s-.>.!:-.u level exhibited by the lire. SPECTRAL DISTRIBUTION OF TIRE SOUNDS \Vhen the spectra of tire sounds sre measured by a sl2t:.T.::ry observer along the roadway, the spectra are complicate-.! by the relative motion of the sound source in relation to the ob- server. These complications arise as a lesuli of the Dopplir affect and the spaiinl dependence of the sourd spectiu::: ex- hibited by the tire. Furthermore, the changing i!iten>it> of the sound as the distance to the tire changes poses tfddition.il practical problems foi spectral measurements made by a stntiqnruy observer. Consequently, the investigation ol lire spectra is greatly simplified by considering the spectni:r. a: a fixed position relative to the tire. Additional simplified Ion* result from considering a tire running at constant speed. The acoustic pressure variation at any given position re5.i!.ive to the tire will have two components. One component ii periodic, with a period corresponding to one rotation 01 rhe tire. The other component is aperi.-dic. THE PERIODIC COMPONENT OF 1 HE ACOUSTIC PRESSURE VARIATION - The periodic corrpcik'iii is •': •: p.irl of the acoustic pressure vari.mon th.it repeals the >~:r.-' waveform- that is, lime dependence- with each rotation or n..- tire. The tread put torn ;:nd tire nonumforr.-.ities are the tire chur.vtcristijs t!::it contribute to ti.e poiio^c com;->'-:-.".i. Tlie trend pattcin at-.J tire nomniifjrmilies contribute ; - same acoustic pressure variation for each roiation ot i:.c :;:c. 'Ihe spectrum of the periodic component of'ihe aco.t-:ic pressiue variation is discrete. This component exhibr.-.- :•' i:>w ------- 10 energy only at the discrete frequencies fk, given by the equa- tion k k " f (5) where T is the period of rotation of the lire and '"k" is :-!iy positive integer. The amount of sound encray at each frequen- cy fj., k = 1,2,3 .... is determined by the spacing of the tread elements and nonuniforniities around the circumference of the lire. The amount of sound eneuy is usually large for value* of "k" that are close to mtegial multiples of i!ie number of tread elements. K. For a tire hiving 100 tread e'.e;-ints around its circumference, the sourd energy at fk for k * K = 100 v.oiild be large. Furthermore, the sound energy at fj.. where k * 2K = 200, k * 3K = 300..... would also tend to be large. If ihe tire in this example were traveling at a sp:ed correspond1.',: to 10 rps, the sound spectrum of the tire would exhibit peaks at 1000.2000,3000 Hz since '100 JOO O.ls = ^ •= 1000s' -1 The spectral p?ak at 1000 Hz in this ex.nrple is often called the fundamental of the tire sound. The peak at 2000 Hz is the second harmonic, and the peak at 3000 Hz is tl.e third har- monic, etc. Note that the frequency of each lurmonic is di- rectly proportional to the tire speed, since fj. is m\crse!> pro portiona! to the tire rotational penod. Large peak* in the sound spectrum of a lire are undesirable bccausi they cause the so-.:nd to be more ho-.ic.'able and p-o:e annoying. For this reason. the tread cleme;:1. *,\ijmgs are varied in such a way as to minimize the peaks il-.st norm:'ly occur at the fundamental frequency and at the higher har- monics of tlm fundament.!! frequency (7) THE APERIODIC COMPONENT OF THE ACOUSTIC PRESSURE VARIATION • The aperiodic component of the acoustic pressure variation exhibits a continuous spectrum This component is generated by the randoT. contributions of the road and of air turbulence. Although these contributions are random, they still nuy exhibit spectral peaks. The sp?emgs of cavities in the road surface, for instance, may be random and yet still exhibit a statistical distribution of >.\ici:igs about some mean value. If this dif.ribution is s'iarr-!> peaked, it would give use to a sharp pe,ik in that part of t! e sound spec- trum contributed by the c_\ities in the rocd >urf:ce. PERIODIC AND APERIODIC COMPONENT S OF LACII MECHANISM OF SOLND G!:NLRATION • Lic\ ir.«har,'>,i: of tire-sou:1.!] generation co: iiibutus to bo.ii t'.e periodic component aiiJ the ap^ioJ.c component ot ic.i PCOUSUC p:o»- sure variation. Air punipr'f and carcass vibrations renerau- periodic pressure van.iiiv.-i.- -< a result ofi:1^1.!^ MSH tl e t'.vd pattern an.; lire nomir.iioiiii.iu-k. These hieciui'.isim geiii.-i.uc aperiodic pressure variations as a result ot roail i;:puls. Aero- dynamic sources include random air turbulence and penoJic an tuibiiL-nce associated -Aall the ticad pitterii DlllL'Cl IONALITY - Hacli mechanuni of tire sounJ g. tion rsdn'.es sound in preferred directions dif.T.ding OP. 'i" design of the lire. This factor, together wtih ti'C interfer. •..• between sounds orignutir; at difteicnt pjrts •>( ti\o ti:o LIU! reflecliiij from surfaces around the tire, STV-.-S r-se to a spec- trum thai is a function of position arovind the lire. RELATIVE MOTION tiLTWLEN'THF.llKC ANDTIIE OBSEKN I'.R - The effeci> of relative inotisi, t.-tween tl:c ii. : and the observer are nov% apparent. For a stati-inary ob;;• .cr along the roadway, the s;»2ti.:l dependence of tiie ipecti j/i gives riie to a spectaiin th::t ch.ingis with time is the tire passes by The frequcncv of the Fcaks in tire co-jr.d specira associated with the tread pattern, lire noiiiinifu'iiiities, ?'.-1: road surface are directl> pioportional to the sp;:J of liie ;.'.--.'. The frequenc>' shift due to ihe Doppler efloc: is given b> n e equation (6) where: f = frequency measured by stationary observer f = ficquency in frame of reference of tire v - component of tire velocity toward or awcy from ob:?:»fi (minus sit-n for motion toward and plus s ^ i lor mo;:o:. avvjy from observer) c = speed of sound SUMMARY The ro'.h.ig tire displaces ,iii by means of lr.!.-.f the sound field around the me causes the spectrum 10 charge vvnh time n> ihe relative positions of the tire and ihe observer change. Ihe Doppler etfect contributes an arluiuo-v.l sh:l:::: frequencies, v. liich changes r^ the :eljtive po>;tu i' of (he t.re and the pbcrver clunge The situation is Minpi'feu by cor- sidennj; the spectrum in the fr.-.me ot relcieno? o.' ti:e lue. 1'. thib friinv oi'icfercnce. ihe Head pattern and tiro nonumform- ities are fou-.J to contnbuic .1 periodic acouxiic--:ir:s?iire \ ••'.-- nor The ii»'J surt'.'.ie c.'.\:iiib :'ivJ the rnndoi.' •. :^ib:''c .v.- coiitrihuie .in aperiodic iico|j>tic-pressurc v.'.ri.ition. The pcr:- oJic compv'. ^nt exhibits spccir.il pe.'ks at discrete freqi.cr.ci '>> and the jpen^dic component exhibits a cmiii.iuouk M*CI"'.: i The frequencies of spectral peaks proJiikCd by il>c irca-J •,&- ------- II lern, the ro..d s. (face caviti.-s. i. -,c! t!ie UK nn;uinforni!ties an: directly proj-oriionsl to the tire sused. REFERENCES 1. W. R. Ss-sis (cd.), "Theory nf High Speed Acrcdy- namics." I'rsi.cion, N. J.: Pni'.icioii Univeruiy Fuss, 1954. 2. R. E. H.IJ den. ''Roadside None from the Interaction of a Rolling Tire >.u!i the Road Sv.rfi.-e." Paper printed at tlie 81st Msetip.: of the Acoustical Society of AiiKuci, Washing- ton, D C.,------- Reprinted by Permission of Overdrive Magazine 97 Quieter Truck Can Mean More Profit A Modulated Fan Clutch Will Pay For Itself In Less Than A Year . method of saving truckers hundreds - no, thou- sands - of dollars a year has been known by trucking engineers for years, but has been ignored by many, due to the initial inconvenience of installing it Since fuel costs have doubled in the past two years and strict noise emission standards have been imposed on trucks, this money-saving device will help truckers fight both these problems The fan on the diesel engine doesn't look like a potential gold mine to the average independent truck- er, but it is. Most owner-operators feel that the fan must spin whenever the engine runs or else the engine manufacturer wouldn't have put the fan on his diesel engine in the first place. Right? Wrong. In reality, the fan on a modern diesel engine installed behind a large radiator isn't needed except for a few miles a day. The reason that the engine manufacturer puts the continu- ous drive fan on the engine is because it is cheaper But that same fan is robbing you of dollars and horse- power every day that it is allowed to run all the time. So a group of engineers decided that if the fan weren't needed all the time, why not invent a method of just having the fan cut through the air only when the water reached a certain temperature. The rest of the time it could just sit idle. It didn't take too long until various methods of disengaging the fan were perfected, but unfortunately, it cost more money to have the fan engage and disengage itself automatically. This cost penalty - around$500 - was always thought too great by all but the most cost-conscious truckers. Well, now that the price of fuel is consistent- ly above 40^ a gallon, truckers should ask what is this modulating fan and how does it save money9 The aggressive fans used by the new high horse- power engines dram up to 25 horsepower to keep the engine cool during the worst possible conditions. What a fan clutch does is to determine when the fan is really needed - which is, in reality, very little - and to turn it on or off By disengaging those big metal blades from cutting through the air, the trucker doesn't waste that 25 horsepower driving something that isn't necessary, and can apply it where it can do more good - such as at the rear wheels Also, that fan forcing air into the radiator makes a loud noise By switching the fan "into neutral," the trucker can quiet his truck on the inside of the cab as well as on the outside. But what really should interest a trucker is the fact that every reputable study that has been made in the past few years has shown that the installation of a fan clutch will save the owner thousands of dollars over the life of the diesel engine. There arc several manu- facturers of fan clutches for heavy-duty diesel trucks today. Rockford, Schwitzcr, Hoi ton. and Eaton, just to name a few. They can all produce scientific data to prove one fact You don't need to turn the fan continuously The fan should be engaged only when it is absolutely necessary If these facts are so well known to truck engineers, why in the world haven't you been told this in the past, and why aren't you driving a truck equipped with a fan clutch9 Here is what the federal govern- ment found out when it studied that very question The Environmental Protection Agency found that "Not only can fan clutches reduce noise but also re- sult in significant fuel savings A review of the past market acceptance of fan clutches puts the potential benefits of fan clutches in perspective Historically, most truck owners have not installed fan clutches or have not been able to take advantage of the fuel sav- ings if they were installed Fan clutches have had several technical and reliability problems that ham- pered their use, these problems arc now considered to be solved. Truck owners who have installed fan clutch- es have preferred to increase speed and payload rather than save fuel due to the lowered power requirements Currently, approximately 5% of heavy-duty trucks are fitted with fan clutches " All the talk in the world about modulating fan clutches won't cjusc an independent trucker to install one unless he is sure that it is vutually guaranteed to save him money or give more horsepower So let's look at the statistics presented by the Borg-Warncr Corporation when testifying February 20, 1975, before the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, DC They introduced evidence gained by two cross- OVERDRIVE APRIL 1975 ------- 98 PISTON HOUSING OIL COOLER PULLEY CLUTCH BODY PITOT TUBE BRACKET BELLEVILLE SPRING THRUST WASHER AIR FROM VEHICLE SUPPLY THERMAL AIR VALVE BEARING RETAINER BELLEVILLE SPRINGS FAN SHAFT HUB FAN MOUNTING HUB INTERNAL SPLINED PLATES BACK PLATE EXTERNAL TANGED PLATES AIR TO CLUTCH -PRESSURE PLATE country, heavy-duty diesel trucks taken at random from the Borg-Warner Transportation Services fleet of 51 trucks. These were not stripped down "fleet" trucks. The units utilized in the test were 1974 Peter- bilt three-axle tractors, with Cummins NTC-350 pow- er, a Fuller RTO-12513 transmission, and sporting a 4.1 1 rear axle ratio. These tractors equal the specifi- cations of most independent truckers running the high- way today. Trailers used in the test were 40-foot van- type with an overall height of 12' 6" and tandem rear axles. The tractors were tested in the following manner: For the first six months of operation (January through June, 1974), a fan clutch was not used. The solid fan drive, as installed by the engine builder, was used. Then, for the next six months of operation (July through December, 1974), a Rockford variable speed fan clutch system was operated on the Cummins 350. Over the year-long test, the cargo carried consisted of automotive parts, castings, and forgings with the pay- load averaging 34,376 pounds. Using a rough figure of 28,000 pounds for the tractor-trailer combination, the average gross cargo weight was 62,376 pounds. The total distance traveled in 1974 by the two trucks was 1 16,572 and 97,557, respectively. For about 10% of the miles, the tractor-trailer combination was running empty. Each truck was used in nationwide interstate commerce operations with fuel being purchased en route as required. Fuel prices varied from 34.2 cents per gallon in New Mexico to 56.5 cents per gallon in Mississippi, with the fuel cost for the year averaging 48.4 cents a gallon. The truck that logged 1 16,572 miles averaged 4.010 miles per gallon with the con- tinuously operating fan and 4.329 miles per gallon with the Rockford modulating fan. The other unit averaged 3.870 mpg with the fan engaged continu- ously and 4.174 miles per gallon after the Rockford fan clutch was installed. Looking at the chart, you can see that the differ- ence over a year's period of operation would amount to a savings of 2,142 gallons on one truck and 1,837 gallons on the other. Using a figure of 48.4 cents per gallon, this would amount to a savings of SI,036 per year on the first truck and $889 per year on the second truck. And these figures accept the fact that the oil companies and Congress have already been OVERDRIVE APRIL 1975 ------- 99 Truck Number 21PD26 1 . Gallons of fuel used per year without 29,070 Rockford Clutch fan drive (1 16,572 mi es @4. 010 miles per gal.) 2. Gallons of fuel used per year with 26,928 Rockford Clutch fan drive (116,572 mi es @ 4. 329 miles per gal.) 3. Gallons of fuel saved per year 2, 142 4. Price of fuel per gal Ion$ 0.484 5. Dollars Saved per year $1036.72 6. Approximate retrofitCost of Fan Drive (Includes Installation Costs)$ 540.00 7. Profit Increase Per Year First Year (Line 6 subtracted from Line 5) $496.72 Second Year (Line 5) 1036.72 Third Year (Line 5) 1036.72 Fourth Year (Line 5) 1036.72 Total Profit Increase Over Four Years$ 3606.88 8. Gallons of Fuel Saved Over Four Year Period 8,568 Truck Number 21PD32 25,209 (97, 557 miles (fr3. 870 miles per gal.) 23,372 (97,557 miles @4.174mies per gal.; 1,837 $0.484$ 889.11 $540.00$ 349.11 889.11 889.11 889.11 $3016.44 7,348 planning ways to get up the price even higher. Subtracting the cost of the fan clutch (estimated at$540 by Rockford) from the first year's savings, the fleet saved approximately S500 on the first truck and $350 on the second. And then, for every other year that the truck is run, a savings of from S889 to$ 1,036 is realized These figures submitted to the EPA don't estimate any maintenance costs on the fan clutch, but a trucker certainly would have a lot of profit from which to spend money to maintain this valuable piece of equipment. The Rockford fan drive clutch is a compact, spnng- loaded, oil cooled, multiplate clutch designed for continuous infinite fan-to-engine-pulley-speed ratios, assuring prescribed engine coolant temperatures and minimum engine horsepower losses, according to Borg- Wamcr What that says in trucker-talk is that it enga- ges itself and disengages itself as it is needed, and the working parts are lubricated by air-cooled oil. The fan knows when to work harder by signals sent to it by a sensor mounted in the engine cooling system. A thermal air valve senses when the engine is operating at normal temperatures and the fan is not needed. This valve directs air from the truck air supply to the fan clutch and disengages the fan clutch when not needed When the thermal air valve senses that the water temperature has reached a point where the fan is needed to cool the engine water, it cuts off the air supply and allows the fan to gradually engage again. Thus if the air valve of the fan clutch is faulty, the fan will operate like the continuous-drive fan supplied by the engine manufacturer. How much is the fan really needed during the oper- ation of your tractor-trailer combination' Well, it varies, depending on the size of your radiator and the outside air temperature, but most engineers feel that OVERDRIVE APRIL 1975 ------- 100 the fan is needed tor cooling less than 5% of the time Rockford told the EPA that "a fan clutch reduces the amount of time a Ian operates at speeds which cause it to contribute to overall truck noise less than 1 per- cent of the total hours of engine operations. In its own background document on noise regulations, the EPA states "Significant growth in the fan clutch market would appear likely, provided that historic resistance to fan clutches is overcome. Federal noise emission standards could very well provide the impe- tus to accelerate widespread fan clutch acceptance " One great impetus that the federal government is providing is contained in the Federal Register dated February 28, 1975, on the subject of noise emission standards In describing the truck noise measurement procedures that the federal government proposes, item seven would peimil trucks with fan clutches to under- go the lest while the fan clutch is disengaged The proposed rules even allow a trucker to run his engine up to 10 minutes to get the fan clutch to disengage. The reason that the government feels that fan clutch- es are valuable is contained in this same document in item seven. It states "It is apparent, therefore, that installation of radiator fan-drive clutches results in significant noise abatement benefits as well as other benefits. The noise reduction associated with installa- tion of fan clutches occurs between 97 and 99 per- cent of the time that the vehicle is operating " If you want to have a quieter truck, and also get improved fuel economy or additional power 94 to 99 percent of the time, look into buying that next truck with a fan clutch Or even better, get a fan clutch put on your present truck and get a return on your invest- ment in about six months That's a lot better than buying Savings Bonds STATE BY STATE LISTING OF THE HIGHEST AND LOWEST PRICES PAID PER GALLON OF DIESEL FUEL IN 1974 BY BORG-WARNER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FLEET State Cost/Gal. State Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi 55.5\$/49.9c 51.9/44.4 54.2/48.9 52.2/42.9 43.1/40.3 53.9/49.5 47.9/45.6 53.1/45.6 53.1/48.0 40.6/40.6 51.4/38.0 51.4/45.4 49.7/44.9 49.3/46.9 50.8/47.7 50.5/47.7 — 53.0/48.7 52.9/42.9 51.9/46.1 44.8/44.8 56.5/52.4 Cost/Gal. Missouri Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania South Carolina Texas Tennessee Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyomi ng 49.3/43.9 49.9/45.6 44.3/39.9 — 48.6/45.3 47.0/34.2 54.0/47.0 54.0/49.4 50.0/46.4 51.7/40.2 46.3/46.3 49.5/44.9 52.6/46.4 50.5/44.5 54.2/46.7 48.4/42.0 51.9/45.4 — 52.1/41.9 50.5/44.7 41.1/37.7 OVERDRIVE APRIL 1975 -------