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
------- |