ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 26,

1977

IN THE MATTER OF MOTOR

VEHICLE

NOISE REGULATIONS

)

R74—lO

OPINION OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Dumelle):

A proposed motor vehicle noise regulation was submitted

to the Board on September

16,

1974 by the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency and the Task Force on Noise.

The proposed

regulation and supporting material was contained in a document

entitled “Control Of Noise

from Motor Vehicles

—

Report of

the Task Force on Noise”

(IIEQ

74—42)

,

Exhibit

2 in this proceeding,

prepared under contract to the Illinois Institute

for Environ-

mental Quality

(Institute)

by the Task Force on Noise.

The

Board was requested to hold public hearings for consideration

of the proposal.

The proposed regulation, designated R74—lO,

was published

in Board Newsletter

#92.

Public hearings were held in the following locations:

December 10,

1974

Chicago

December ii,

1974

Chicago

December

13,

1974

Peoria

June 10,

1975

Chicago

Testimony and exhibits were received from citizens,

government

representatives,

industries,

and trade

associations.

The

proponent

of

the

proposal

was

the

Noise

Task

Force,

a

group

of

experts

in

the

fields

of

law,

engineering,

acoustics,

and

economics

established

in

1971 under the sponsorship of the

Institute.

Exhibits

1,

3,

6,

8,

9,

10,

11,

and

21

are

the

resumes

of

those

who

participated

in

the

development

of

the

Task Force motor vehicle noise proposal.

The Board acknowledges with appreciation

the excellent

work of Donna

0. Fancy,

Technical Assistant

to the Board,

in

this

proceeding.

The legal assistance of Earon S.

Davis

is

appreciated.

25

—

641

---

—2—

The record in this matter, through the comment period

following the fourth hearing, consists of 745 pages of testimony

and

43 exhibits from the hearings plus written comments submitted

directly to the Board.

Upon consideration of all of this record,

in accordance with Section 27 of the Act, the Board published a

proposed regulation in Environmental Register #109.

Subsequently,

in accordance with Section 6 of the Act,

as

amended by P.A.

79-790,

the Task Force prepared for the Institute an

economic impact study to measure the costs and benefits of the

proposed regulation.

The Institute submitted the report to the

Board on July 16,

1976.

The report is listed as Exhibit R74-l0-44

in the record.

Hearings were held by the Board to receive comments on the

economic impact study at the following locations:

September 14,

1976

Chicago

September 28,

1976

Peoria

These hearings on the economic impact study added to the record

another 261 pages

of testimony,

9 more exhibits and additional written

comments submitted to the Board during that time.

At the request

of the Illinois Motor Vehicle Laws Commission,

the Board held an

additional economic impact study hearing on December 20,

1976 in

Chicago and additional materials were obtained.

The Board carefully

reviewed the economic impact study as part of the record,

as well

as testimony,

exhibits, and comments submitted relative to the

study or in response to its findings.

Based on consideration of

the entire record pursuant to Section

27 of the Act,

the Board

adopts the Motor Vehicle Noise Regulations.

Need for Motor Vehicle Noise Regulations

The need for these regulations can be evaluated following

the consideration of two items:

1)

the effect of motor

vehicle noise on people and

2)

the number of people impacted

by motor vehicle noise.

The effect of noise on people has already been covered

in the Board’s consideration of the Property Line Source

Noise Regulations, and the Opinion of the Board in that

matter has been made a part of the record in this proceeding

(Exhibit

5 pp 12-19).

To a certain extent the effects of

noise from motor vehicles

is similar to that from other

floise sources,

in that it affects speech communication,

sleep, performance and behavior, annoyance,

and hearing.

25

—

642

---

—-3,-.

The effect of motor vehicle noise on people

is discussed

in detail

in Part V of the Task Force report,

identified

previously and designated Exhibit

2

in this proceeding, and

the accompanying 24 documents referred to in Part

V

which

are contained in

a public comment submitted to the Board by

the Task Force

(Comment 19).

The characteristics of sound

(noise) and the use of decibels

(dB)

as a unit of sound level have

been discussed previously by the Board in Exhibit

5 and will not

be repeated.

It is sufficient to know that the unit of sound

used in this regulation is the A-weighted sound

level in decibels

(dBA or dB (A)),

a unit that is weighted to compensate for the

sensitivity of the human ear to sounds of different frequencies.

A summary of the effects of motor vehicle noise on

people contained in Part V of Exhibit

2 follows:

(See

Heliweg

R.

20—3’3)

a)

Speech Interference:

Noise of sufficient intensity

will interfere with the understanding of speech;

the noise from continuous motor vehicle traffic

being more disruptive than a single passing vehicle.

For example,

a continuous

noise

level of 70 dBA

would allow speech at normal voice levels

for a

separation distance less than

2

feet,

and shouting

would be required at a separation of

14

feet.

This example is for young healthy adults, and

higher voice levels would be required for children,

old people, and those with hearing impairments.

b)

Sleep Interference:

Vehicle noise can cause

people to awaken, it can prevent them from falling

asleep,

and it can change the level of a persons

sleep.

For example,

in one experiment truck noise

of

70 dBA caused 35

of a group of human subjects to

awaken, while

25

changed their level of sleep.

This

sleep disturbance,

if it occurs on a regular, unre-

lenting basis,

“may constitute a hazard to one’s

physical and mental health”

(Exhibit

2

p.

V-27)

c)

Performance and Motor Behavior:

General conclusions

related to work situations are that even if communi-

cation is not important, noise can adversely

effect the accuracy of work performed,

and

that intermittent noise at levels below 90 dBA can

25

—

643

---

—

cause distractions. A study of children exposed to

freeway traffic noise in the range of 55 to

66 dBA

found that those children exposed to higher noise

levels had lower reading scores and auditory

discrimination deficits.

d)

Annoyance:

Annoyance results

from the unpleasant

nature of some sounds,

the disruption of activities,

and physiological

reaction.

Surveys have shown

that complaints are only

a partial indicator of

the degree of annoyance experienced. For example,

at a day—night sound level of 55 dB outdoors,

17

of the people will be highly annoyed but only

1

of them will complain.

The term “day-night sound

level” refers

to an energy averaged A-weighted sound

1eve~with a 10 dB adjustment during night time hours.

e)

Hearing Loss:

Motor vehicle noise of sufficient

duration and intensity can cause damage

to the ear

and

a permanent hearing loss.

Especially at risk

are drivers of motor vehicles and people living

near heavily travelled highways who are also

exposed to noise

at work.

The United States

Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA)

has established

75 dBA as

an average 8-hour maximum to protect health

and welfare,

in terms of

hearing

loss,

as

long as

there is negligible

noise

exposure during the other

16 hours.

The impact of motor vehicle noise on people

is evidenced

by the citizen complaints about motor vehicle noise contained

in this record.

Six citizens appeared in person at the

hearings to complain,

and a petition for the adoption of

motor vehicle noise regulations containing 148 signatures

was also introduced

(Exhibit 31).

Public comments were

received from

8 citizens

(Comments

lb,2,

and

4) complaining

about motor vehicle noise.

The testimony of Dr. McKendry is

especially pertinent

(R.208—2l9).

She

lives in

a subdivision

along Interstate

80

in New Lenox Township,

and is bothered

by high levels

of traffic noise

in the

subdivision.

Measurement

of traffic noise

in the subdivision were made in 1973

(Exhibit

16).

They revealed that during testing on one Friday afternoon

70 dBA was exceeded 22

to

60 percent of the time at

3 locations,

with peak noise levels recorded in the

82 to 87 dBA range.

The distances from the measuring locations to 1-80 were

between 180 and 470 feet,

the higher sound levels being

recorded at the nearer location.

These figures appear to be

consistent with the Task Force statement that

a truck noise

emission exceeding 90

dBA at

50 feet would result

in sound

levels exceeding 78 dBA at a home 200 feet from the highway

(R.31).

It should be recalled that the effects of motor

vehicle noise can occur at noise levels lower than this.

25

—

644

---

—

5,-

Progressing now to the numbers of people affected,

the

USEPA estimates that 93.4 million people in the United

States

are

exposed

to day—night noise levels equal

to or

greater than

55 dB

(Exhibit

4

p.

6-15).

According to the U.S.

EPA (Exhibit

4)

55

dB

is

the day—night.

level necessary to protect

public health and

welfare

in

terms

of outdoor activity interference

and annoyance.

Exhibit

4

also estimates that the number of “equivalent

noise impacted people” exposed nationwide

to freeway traffic

is 2.7 million and to urban street noise

is 34.6 million.

The

term “equivalent

noise

impacted people”

refers not only to the

numbers of people

exposed to

noise

in

excess of

55 dB, but

also

to

the

degree

of

excess.

IPor

example,

at noise levels

20

dB

above

the

criteria

level

cii

55

dB,

100

of

the

people

exposed

to

this

noise

are

impacted

adversely; while

at noise

levels

10

dB

above

the

criteria

level

only

50

of the people

exposed

are im~acted.

Thus

the

number

of

equivalent

noise

impacted

people

is

less

than

the

actual

number

of

people

exposed

to

levels

exceeding

the

criteria,

as

shown

by

the

previous numbers.

The estimate

for

Illinois

is

114,000 equivalent noise

impacted

people

near

freeways

and

1. 8 million

in urban areas

(R. 32)

.

With

prolected

~ncreases

n

the

miles

of urban

expressways

planned

and the number

of

vehIcles

registered,

the impact should

worsen.

The

problem with expressway noise

is especially serious

because of the proximity of residential areas.

Illinois

rules require new freeways

to be designed such that the

nearest lane

is at least 100

feet

from

the nearest private

property, while older freeways may he closer than 100 feet

from the nearest private property

(R.325).

In this

situation,

the noise levels

in

a residential area located immediately

next to an expressway could easily exceed 80 dBA.

Our conclusion from the above discussion

is that motor

vehicle noise

is

a serious problem in that many people are

exposed

to

1?XC(~

S

1

1 s

,

wh

I ch

(~III

I)~

hi qh

(‘lmOU(jh

to

C~1US(’

not Only annoyance

,

but:

a ilso

temporary

or

permanent damage

to

the

ear.

Relationship

between

Vehicle

Wei

ht and Noise Emissions

The Motor Vehicle Noise Regulations we have promulgated

relate allowable levels of emitted noise from trucks

to

vehicle weight.

This

is based on the empirically observed

relation between noise emission and weight.

The Task Force

presented

three exhibits on this subject which contained the

1974

Illinois Motor Vehicle Noise Survey

(Exhibit

12)

,

the

vehicle noise study

performed

in the State of Washington

in

1971 and 1972

(See

Exhibit

2)

,

a study of vehicle noise

in

25

—

645

---

—6—

~~onto,

Canada in 1970

(SQe Exhibit 2),

and the Background

Qocument for Interstate Motor Carrier Noise Emission 1~egulations

~Zxhibit 18).

The Agency performed a noise survey

in Illinois

in

1974, measuring noise emissions

from trucks and other vehicles

(Exhibit

12).

Noise levels were measured during high speeds

(35

mph) and low speed

(35

mph) cruise and during low

speed acceleration.

High speed operation was measured on

freeways and low speed operation was measured in cities.

The weights of trucks were determined from the weight coding

contained on the vehicle’s Illinois license plate, and the

drive—by noise levels were measured at several roadside

locations.

Figures 10,

11, and 14 of Exhibit 12 show the relationship

between registered truck weight and vehicle noise emissions

for high speed operation, while Figures

4,

5,

and

6 show the

noise emission for low speed operation.

It can be seen from

these figures that the noise levels,

both mean and extreme

values,

increase with increasing vehicle weight.

The following

table shows this trend using the data from Exhibit 12, which

is based on measurement of 1,454 trucks

in the

s

8,000 lb. category,

256 trucks

in the 8—14,000

lb. category,

403 trucks in the 14—

24,000

lb.

category,

and 4,287 trucks

in the 24,000

lb. or greater

category.

OPERATING CONDITION

TRUCK WEIGHT

(ib)

~8,000

8—14,000

14—24,000

24,000**

Low Speed——Cruise

66/70.8*

68.7/72.9

69.7/74.2

75.9/82.2

Low

Speed——Acceleration

67.5/74

70.6/78

72.5/79.7

79.7/86.4

High Speed——Cruise

76.1/82.2

79.1/84.4

81.3/87.2

87.2/92

Notes:

*

A/B

A

is mean

flOiSe

level

(dRA at

sO

ft.)

B is noise

level exceeded by

5

of vehicles

(dBA at 50

ft.)

**

24,000

lb or

3 or more axles

The vehicle noise study performed in Washington also

shows

a relationship between vehicle weight and level of

noise emission

(See pp 111—7 and Ill—il of Exhibit 2).

25

—

646

---

—7—

Specifically,

the typical high speed noise levels for the 9,000

lb.

and l8,00()

lb.

trucks are around 84

dBA

with

less than 5

of

the truces exceeding

87 and

89 dBA respectively.

The

36,000

lb.

and

2,000

lb.

trucks have typical noise levels between

87

dBA

a ~d

90

dBA.

It appears that the Washington data is

about

4

d3A

higher

than the Illinois data.

The

Toronto data further demonstrate upward trends

in

noise

emissions

with increasing vehicle weight.

(See pp 111-7 to

111-10 of Exhibit 2).

In this study,

the weights were based

partly

on the weight rating of the vehicle and partly on the

type of vehicle;

so that the actual vehicle weight was not

known

with

certainty.

Based on the data presented at low

speeds,

the trucks 15,000

lbs. or less have approximately

the same noises emissions

as the trucks between 15,000 and

30,000

ibs;

but

are noisier than the automobiles and quieter

than

heavier

trucks above

30,000

lbs.

such as dump trucks and

tractor trailers.

The Toronto data shows approximately

a

3 cIBA

increas~.

in

noise emission with a doubling

in vehicle weight.

International Harvester testified that noise emissions

are

independent

of

vehicle

weight,

because

one engine,

muffler,

drive-train

unit

will,

depending

on

the

type

of

suspension and axles,

be used on vehicles having a range of

gross

vehicle

weights

(See Exhibit

23).

This

is shown

in

Chart

I

of

Exhibit 23.

Examination of this information

revealed that the SAE J—366a test procedure used is a maximum

acceleration drive—by test at a speed less than 35 mph.

It

is representative of maximum truck noise excluding tire

noise

~R.432).

The vehicles tested in this procedure are

not loaded and consist of just the tractor portion of a

tractor trailer

(R.444).

Therefore, the test doesn’t represent

noise

levels

for complete or loaded vehicles in all cases or

for

speeds

greater

than

35

mph,

and

is

not

consistent

with

the

Agency’s 1974 Motor Vehicle Noise Survey.

The USEPA also testified at the hearings regarding

classification by vehicle weight.

Although they applauded

the

proposal

to

enforce

the

federal

interstate

vehicle

regulations

(Rule

315)

,

they

did

not

agree

with

all

Task

Force conclusions,

specifically the need for regulations

more

stringent

than

the

federal

standards

for

vehicles

heavier

than

10,000

lbs.

(R.488,491).

They

agree

that

the

noise

levels

do

increase

on

the

average

with

increasing

weight,

but

discount

the

State

of

Washington

and

Toronto

data

as

not

including

all

situations

of

grade

and

acceleration

~R.500)

25

—

647

---

Our concern sa r,r

...

..

.c

unusually noisy

veric

n

,

peak noise evEnta as

~‘La

~.

t

noise

generated

CU 0

:

-r

~.

increasing nos...° te’

~L

ti.

our concern

tta

a

-.,.

relating the n~..se

.1

y

.a

by

proper

ins*a...i.

t

i

‘rd n•

equipment and

rea,..~en’

d’s

account

diE

fenr’g

...o

£

-

,..i~d

r

.~

classes of vet

ic,4°0

he

Pa

L

O’-~

each class

car.

ne r”q”art I to

-

.1-

maintenance and cperati

practice for tnat c1-s’~ f ve’i’..

from the above d~~3L

si

•

a

numerical noise emis~~,..r tai

vehicle weight.

Discussion of the Motor

-

a.

The

followinj

regulations adoptel b:

Rule 101:

Deflniticns

These defir1it~.

is

~c

le.

are

additions

o those

z

iv

chapter 8:

Noise Poll- cio

,

a

-

terms and termino~ogy

.

ttn

~?.

t

Regulations.

Many

of

.Le

dafini.

95—1/2 of t’ie

t~l’no.

ievL~ea

new

Dealer has beer

rs’-..Ecd

it reflThto the selr

t

not

our intert

tha’

..w left

1

manufacturer of sen4cos

ix

directly ~o the

oubi-c

--

~

r’e smafl percentage

of

id

i

order to

minimize

-.

I

~

t te general level of

ese ob erved trends of

-

a

g~trnnforce

~

e~a.c1esby

i

se’ets

can

be attained

at

fl noise control

‘..

ds

Dv

taking into

ae-

r different weight

?.

“ge

: a le’ei of vehicle

o~i’tcntwith

good

The canclusion we draw

I

re is

•

1. r

ct’r vehicles based on

~o

f exñanatory.

c i~tingRule 101 of

sodcd to correspond to

‘.

e Z~otorVehicle Noise

£

are taken from chapter

utas

Several of these

~-cior and/r interpretation.

~s .Jea

1’

irdicate that

‘rz

puK1c use.

It is

r s

)uld ~n.L4to the

tn.- inn~tacturersells

Gross VehiC

rs~ij.

‘“~

‘s

‘le

~~‘e5

:-t

terms

of

either the regFt&e

--

:jTo

-.

~e

.a

~‘-eaght

specified

by the manufactutc...

~.

il

r

•

u .1w

tost other states,

second

division

.&

c..e

(t.r

ck’) are rcgtctered by weight,

with the license paata

s

itca~-~ng

the wagct of the vehicle,

for example the

-

ets

-

r

~ e license plate indicates the

weight range of

6 (~‘L

•‘

.00

lbs

(See Exhibit 2 pp.1—

13,1—14 for a de~crir

.

of t”is system). For other vehicles

not subject to

tt:c

r

art.~’

“n

ystcm, the manufacturer’s

loaded weight would

e

t ~e 7eL1.

C”’W.

It was pointed out

-

eeq~

d runion of the

p

t3

ci

25-845

---

that one vehicle model, including engine,

exhaust system and

drive

train,

could

be

manufactured

to

different weight

ratings depending on the axles and suspension

(R.429).

In

terms of the use of this parameter in the Motor Vehicle

Noise Regulations,

however,

it seems that these same model

vehicles having different weight ratings have different

noise outputs and should be regulated separately.

Vehicle is defined in terms

of use on a highway.

Thus

equipment

such

as

haulers

or

bulldozers

used

in

mining

and

operated on private property would not be included.

There

was concern expressed by the Illinois Coal Operators

(Comment

9)

that these regulations would be applied to them; but

exception

(7)

under

Rule

330(a) would cover this situation.

It should be no4ted, however, that vehicles used in mining

or other activities that are licensed to travel on highways,

such as trucks, would be subject to compliance with Part

3

of the Noise Regulations.

Rule 102:

Prohibition of Noise Pollution

This is an existing rule that has been modified to reference

the definition of property in Section 25 of the Act, which includes

both real and personal property.

Under this definition

there is

no need to explicitly mention motor vehicles

in Rule

102.

Rule

103:

Measurement Procedures

This existing rule is amended to include additional

procedures,

paragraph

(c), applicable to the measurement of

noise from motor vehicles.

Paragraphs

(a)

and

(b) are

a

reorganized version of the existing Rule 103 procedures, and

thus need no further discussion.

Although the numerical

standards are

to be applied at

a distance of 50

feet, paragraph

(c) allows the Agency to adopt correction factors for measurements

made at distances other than

50 feet but not exceeding 100 feet.

Draft measurement techniques

for

met or

veh

i

ci

e

no i se, prepared by

th~’Agency ~ind

~uI)m

I

I

I cci

as Ixh ii)

i L

,

c’on

I

i

I n

,

I

H

F’

I

~jur~’

5,

the

correction

Lo

be

applied

Lor rneasuru~j aL distances

other

than 50

feet.

For example,

at 100 feet

a

4 dBA correction

should be added to the reading to obtain the equivalent dBA

level at 50

feet,

Exhibit

39 also contains requirements

concerning instrumentation, measurement site location, data

acquisition, and restrictions and precautions.

There was a statement that the Agency had no authority

to

specify measurement procedures and a suggestion

that the public

25

—

649

---

participate

in the promulgation of measurement techniques

(R.376—378), but as pointed

out

by

the

Task

Force,

it

is

con-

sistent with the legislative intent of

the Act to delegate to

the Agency

the responsibility

for adoption of operational pro-

cedures for the measurement of sound

(Exhibit 27 pp.20-22).

Further-

more,

since

the

procedures are

to be consistent with those published

by established standards organizations,

and are filed with

the

Secretary

of

State’s

Office,

public

input

is

not

required.

The Agency submitted

as Comment 37,

the California Highway

Patrol document “Sound Measurement Procedures”.

It is apparently

a workable procedure that will be used by the Agency

as a guide

in drafting their own sound

measurement procedures.

Comment

37

also contains correction factors for measuring at distances other

than

50

feet.

Rule

301:

Exhaust System

This rule deals with the maintenance and modification

of vehicle exhaust systems.

Its importance

is evidenced by

the results of the California studies, which showed that of

the vehicles that violated the California motor vehicle

noise standards,

most had modified or defective exhaust

systems.

For

example,

of

9,900

car

and

light

truôk

violations

recorded

in

1973

in California,

7800 were the result of

modified

or

defective

exhaust

systems;

and

of

1,100

motorcycle

violations

recorded,

790 were the

result of modified or

defective exhaust systems.

(See Exhibit

2 Part III Appendix

A).

Enforcement of this rule should therefore have great

impact in reducing noise emissions,

especially from motorcycles,

light trucks,

and cars.

This rule generated much discussion at the hearings.

Proposed

Rule 301(a) requires vehicles

to be equipped with adequate,

maintained exhaust systems.

It is anticipated that this

rule would be enforced either at safety inspection stations

required for certain classes of vehicles,

or during inspections

of vehicles that exceed

the numerical noise sLandards.

Proposed

item

(3)

of

Rule

301(a)

was discussed

at

some

length

by

the

Specialty

Equipment

Manufacturers

Association

(SEMA)

.

Their

concern

was

for

automobiles,

used

both

on

the

highway

and

for racing, having a cutout which allows unmuffled operation

during racing but muffled operation on the street.

SEMA

re-

presentatives felt that the use of equipment should be

regulated

rather

than

the

equipment

itself

(B.

614).

The

Task Force response was that relatively few vehicles are

involved,

that these cutout devices lend themselves

to making

noise,

that

it

is

not

obvious that these vehicles should race

unmuff

led

(R.616—617),

and

that

since

these

vehicles

are

used

25

—

650

---

—11—

on

the

highways

they

are

not

covered

by

the

exemption cont~iñëd

in

Rule

3;20(a)(8).

Proposed Rules

30l(a)(3),

(b)

and

(c) have been:deleted~and:a

new Rule.301 has been written to prohibit operation~of~a~iehicl~on

a public right-of-way unless

its exhaust. is muffled so~.thatit~~dóes

not emit more noise than it would with the equipment originally in-

stalled.

The problems of exactly duplicating original~equipment, or

of vehicles~.getting

2 dB noisier with age have been cited by

SEMA

(R.647,652).

We have included language

in

the’ ruié~toir~dicaterthat

our concern is with installations or modifications that result~iri

noticeable increases in noise emissions.

In addition~,~ou•r

intent in

this rule.rela4tes specifically

to replacement equipment andit~:r~oise

emissions

in. comparison to original

equipment,

and not to thè~bv~ra1l

increases

in noise levels of used vehicles as a resultof agè~

Rules

301(b)

and

(c) were deleted in order to allow the sale and install-

ation of a cutout or bypass device on a vehicle for use elsewhere

(e.g. racing), but Rule

301

as now stated prohibits their Use when

opera~tinga vehicle on a public roadway.

Rule 302:

Tires

This rule prohibits tires having a tread pattern that

causes excessive noise.

As discussed in Exhibit

2 for

heavy

trucks at high~speeds,tire noise predominates

(See Figure

3. 3 of. ~xhibit 2).

The noise emissions for a given speed~in

turn depenciprimarily on the tread pattern; rib pattern

tires

being

the

quietest,

cross

bar pattern tires being~4to

10 dBA noisier,

and “pocket retreads” being the noisiest

(15—20

dBA

greater

than

rib

tires)

(Exhibit

2 p.111—38,

Fig.

3.10).

These

“pocket

retreads”

consist of pockets that

are

not

vented

either

circuinferentially

around

the

tire

or

to the side;

the pocket traps,

compresses and then releases

air, resulting in high noise emissions.

Our rule would not

allow these types of tires

to

he used.

25

—

651

---

—12—

The two major types used on trucks

are the rib tires

and the crossbar tires, with the rib type preferred on the

steering axle and the crossbar type preferred on the drive

axles.

The

crossbar

tires

typically

have

a

longer

tread

life while the rib tires have better lateral traction for

steering.

It is felt by some that crossbar tires have

better forward traction, primarily on loose surfaces.

(See

Exhibit

2 pp 111—35

to 111—38)

We have specified a

1 year compliance date for this

rule in order to allow the excessively noisy tires currently

in use to be phased out as they wear out

(R.165).

The

intent of this rule is

to prohibit new or newly retreaded

tires having this tread pattern rather than to those tires

that have this 4tread pattern because of wear.

There was

discussion

as

to

whether

this

rule

was

consistent

with

federal safety standards and the

1972

Noise

Control

Act.

The Task Force felt that it was

(R.635).

The Rubber Manufacturers Association objected to tread

design restrictions,

saying that tire noise should be regulated

by noise

levels, and that pocket retreads could be operated

under certain conditions

of load and speed to comply with

the 90 dBA limit

(See Comment 1).

The information contained

in Comment 1, however,

definitely

indicates

that

pocket

retreads

are

noisier

than

other

tire

types;

but

does

not

indicate

that

pocket

retreads

are

any

safer

or

have

better

traction properties than other tires.

There is no compelling

reason, therefore,

necessitating the further use of these

tires once the ones currently in use have worn out.

Rules

310

to

313

As discussed previously,

there is justification for

establishing

noise

emission

levels

for

trucks

based

on

vehicle weight.

In

addition

to

trucks,

the

regulations

cover

automobiles,

buses,

and

motorcycles.

For

ease

of

enforcement,

the weight. caLcyorics ~f

trucks are based on the Illinois license plate code 1etters~

that

identify

vehicles

by

their

registered

gross

vehicle

weights.

The categories used in this regulation are related

to the gross vehicle weights and license plate code letters

in the following table.

Our intention is that all gross

25

—

652

---

—13—

vehicle

weights

will

be

rounded

off

to

the nearest pound.

Truck Category

Registered Gross Vehicle Weight

(lbs.)

Code Letter

Light

Less

than

3,000

A

3,001

—

8,000

B

Medium

8,001

—

10,000

C

10,001

—

12,000

D

12,001

—

14,000

E

14,001

—

16,000

F

16,001

—

20,000

G

20,001

—

24,000

H

Heavy

24,001

—

28,000

J

28,001

—

32,000

K

32,001

—

36,000

L

36,001

—

41,000

N

41,001

—

45,000

p

45,001

—

50,000

R

50,001

—

59,000

S

59,001

—

64,000

T

64,001

—

73,280

V

Rule

310

This rule establishes noise emission limits for vehicles up to

and including 8,000 lbs.

gross

vehicle

weight,

excluding

motorcycles

and motor driven cycles.

The basic limits are 74 dBA for speeds of

35 mph or less and 82 dBA for speeds greater than 35 mph.

Exhibit

2 contains a discussion of the development of

the standards

(See pp 111—49 to 111-62).

For these vehicles,

the major noise source at most speeds is exhaust system

noise, with air intake and cooling fan noise of secondary

importance.

Tire noise usually does not predominate since

tires

used

on

autos

and

light

trucks

have

a

rib

tread

pattern,

the

qut(’test

Variety

as

di

scus~ed

previously.

One basic premise

in Exhibit

2 is that an automobile or

light truck, driven at speeds exceeding 35 mph will,

in almost

all cases,

comply with

82 dBA unless the exhaust system is

modified or defective.

Referring again

to the

1973 California

enforcement data

(Exhibit 2;

p.

111-59,

Ill—Al), described

above in Rule

301, over 400,000 vehicles were measured for

noise

at

speeds

exceeding

35

mph.

Of those,

about 6,000

were found in violation of the 82 dBA level,

and 5000 of

the violations were attributed to modified, defective, or

inadequate exhausts.

Only 1/4 of 1

(1000 in 400,000) had

violations which were not due to noise from the exhaust

systems.

This pattern is supported by data in Exhibit

29

25

—

653

---

—14—

(p.

5,

6)

which

indicates

that

of

those

vehicles

weighing

8,000

lb.

or

less

which

exceed

the

low

speed

noise

limit

of

74

dBA,

only

0.3

had

no

observable

defect

on

visual

inspection.

Combined data in Exhibit

2 at speeds exceeding

35 mph

shows

4.4

of autos and light trucks exceeding 82 dBA; while

the 1974 Illinois survey

(Exhibit

12)

shows

5

of the light

trucks and only 0.2

of the automobiles

in excess of

82 dBA

at speeds greater than

35 mph based on freeway data.

Proper

muffler maintenance

for that 4—5

of vehicles should enable

compliance with the

82 dBA limit for high speeds.

Regarding low speed operation, Exhibit

2 indicates that

for the typical vehicle,

driver behavior can play an important

role in noise emissions.

Data for automobiles during maximum

acceleration

shows

attainment

of

noise

levels

as

high

as

84

to

86 dBA whereas

combined pass—by data during typical vehicle operation

in California and Illinois shows only

3.8

of the vehicles

exceeding 74 dBA at speeds of

35 mph or less

(Exhibit

2 pp

111—53 to 111-55).

The 1974 Illinois Survey shows that at

speeds under

35 mph,

5

of the light trucks and 3.5

of the

automobiles exceeded

74 dBA while accelerating and only 0.4

of the light

trucks exceeded 74 dBA when not accelerating

(See Exhibit 12).

The California experience regarding

excessive noise was,

again,

that defective or modified

exhaust systems

were

responsible

in

almost

all

situations.

Higher emission limitations for low speed operation up a

grade

or

for

high

speed

operation

with

mud/snow

tires

were

suggested by the Task Force

in their April

1,

1975 submission

to

the

Board

(See

Exhibits

25

and

26)

and

discussed

at

the

June

10,

1975

hearing.

Exhibits

29

and

30

are

noise

surveys

conducted

on

motor

vehicles

accelerating

up

grades.

Exhibit

29,

entitled

“Motor

Vehicle

Noise

Emissions

While

Accelerating

Up

a

Grade”

compares

noise

emissions

during

acceleration

on

grades

of 4.3

to

9.6

with emissions during acceleration on

level

roads at speeds of

35 mph or less.

Comparisons were made of

the effect of grades on

average

noise

emission

and

on

compliance

with

a proposed sLaiidnrd.

The data from Table

II of Exhibit

29

show

that

for

operation

on

grades,

it

would

be

necessary

to

raise

the allowable noise limits by

2 dBA to achieve the same degree of

compliance as for operation on level

roads.

For example,

3.5

of

the

automobiles

exceed

the

low

speed

standard

of

74

dBA

on

level

ground,

7

exceed

74

dBA

on

grades,

but

only

5

exceed

74

dBA

plus

2

dBA

or

76

dBA

on

grades.

An allowance for a

2

dBA

increase

in

noise

emissions

while

operating on a grade greater than

3

has

been

included

in

the

25

—

654

---

—15—

operating

standards

for

vehicles subject to Rules

310 and 312.

Alternate methods have been considered for dealing with increased

emissions

~n a grade; for example, limiting monitoring to sites

with

less

than

3

grade

or

raising

the

entire

low

speed

standard

by

2

dBA.

However,

the use of two standards based on grade

provides

onsistent

control

requirements,

because

the

noise

levels are set so that the violation rate for the standard

on a graie

is equal to

that

for

vehicles

on

level

roadway.

They also enable enforcement in any roadside location, which

is not possible when monitoring sites are restricted

(Comments

88,89).

A similar increase

for trucks, which had previously been

included in Rule

311, has been removed,

as discussed below under

that rule.

The

2 dBA ‘allowance for mud/snow tires for light vehicles

is

based

on

the

1971

California

study which showed that cars

equipped

with

snow

tires

emit

more

noise

than

those

without

them (Exhibit

2

p.

111-57).

Medium and heavy trucks use the

noisier

cross

bar

tires

routinely,

so

that

the

monitoring

data and noise standards for that class of vehicles already

include the noisier tires.

(Exhibit 26).

Rule

311

Rule 311 includes buses and all other vehicles weighing

greater than 8000 lb

GVW.

There were three classes encompassing

these vehicles

in the original Task Force proposal.

However,

because Exhibit 12 showed similar noise emission levels for

vehicles in the 8,001 to 14,000

lb. and the 14,001 to 24,000

lb.

classes,

these two classes were combined to form an 8,001

—

24,000

lb.

class

as stated in the proposal published in Environmental Register

#109.

In that proposal the regulation was further simplified by

eliminating the assignment of all diesel powered vehicles to the

proposed Rule

312.

As had been presented in the original Task

Force proposal, all vehicles with

3 or more axles were included

in Rule 312 controlling vehicles over 24,000

lb

GVW

and all

buses were controlled

under Rule

311 for the

8,001

-

24,000 lb.

class.

In a proposal received by the Board on October 15,

1976

(Comment 51)

the

Agency

recommended

that

the

medium

and

heavy

vehicles subject to proposed Rules

311 and 312 be combined to

form one class of vehicles over 8,000

lb.

GVW,

which

would

be

controlled by the standards given for heavy vehicles under

proposed Rule

312.

The rationale given by the Agency to support

its proposal was that because there are so many more heavy

25

—

655

---

trucks in violation

than medium trucks the effect

on enforcement

rates of easing

medium truck standards

would be negligible;

while

screening procedures

for enforcement would be greatly

simplified

for

the field personnel.

They cite

a very small loss of benefit,

as measured in the Economic Impact Study

(Exhibit 44), which

would

result

from deregulating medium trucks; and they point

out

that

the

trucks

would still

in fact be regulated

under

the

equipment

standards in Rules

301 and 302

and the noise standards

of Rule

312.

According to Exhibit

44

(Table 2,7

p. A-19)

trucks between

8,001

—

24,000

lb. GVW comprise 1

to

3

of

the total vehicle miles

traveled on Illinois roads.

They reach an estimated maximum

of

3

on

low

speed

truck routes, with heavy trucks being 4

and

the

remaining

vehicle miles being contributed

by automobiles,

light

trucks,

and motorcycles.

The

violation rates for medium trucks

under the standards

of

82 dBA at low

speeds,

and

88 dBA at high speeds are

estimated

in Exhibit 12

to be about 1

and 1.6

respectively.

These

results are obtained by combining the light-medium

and medium

truck

data

from Figures

5 and 6 of Exhibit

12,

Under this new

Rule

311

they

would be essentially

in full compliance with the

heavy truck standards,

Because of their small contribution to total vehicle miles

and their very low expected violation rates,

the effect of

completely deregulating medium trucks is expected to be small.

The estimated increase

in neighborhood equivalent noise levels

(Leq)

resulting from deregulation was calculated for low speed

truck routes using the method described in Appendix II of the

economic study

(Exhibit 44)

and data presented in Tables 2.7

and 2.9.

The resulting increase of 0.02 dBA was found to be

very small when compared to changes of from 0.12 to 0.83 dBA

if other vehicle categories were unregulated

(See Table

2.12

p.

A—29).

Because the contribution of medium trucks

is

greatest on low speed truck

routes,

changes

in noise levels

near freeways and highways or

in urban traffic should be

even lower.

As

a result of combining the two classes

only one criterion

would remain for classifying trucks during enforcement,

as

compared to

four

criteria for the previous proposal.

Personnel

would now only have to examine truck license plates to separate

light trucks subject to proposed Rule 310 from vehicles subject

to new Rule 311.

The previous proposal would have required

identification of two weight cub-off

levels,

as

well as the

identification of vehicles with more than

2 axles which were

subject to Rule

312,

and the determination of the interstate

status of trucks over

10,000

lb.

GW,

25

—

656

---

~l7~

With

these changes buses will also be

regulated under the

heavy truck

standards.

Although buses

vary in weight from

light

to heavy trucks,

they are generally quieter than trucks

of equal weight because the engine

is shielded to a

greater

extent,

because

they have fewer axles and tires,

and

because

the

tires used are of a quieter variety

(Exhibit 2,

p.

111-77).

Measurements of

bus noise at low speed

found no buses exceeding

79 dBA and

at high speed found only

4

of the buses exceeding

the

88 dBA standard.

Under this new rule

311 buses are expected

to be in total

compliance with the

applicable standards.

Technical data in the record

demonstrate the validity of

establishing

separate classes for vehicles

over

8,000

lb.

GVW,

a

finding

which

is reinforced by the low rates of violation

of

the

medium ~truck standard measured in field surveys.

Vehicles

could comply

with the more stringent

rule, effecting a slight

reduction of

both average and peak noise

levels.

The Board

finds,

however,

that the procedures required for enforcement

of

separate

standards are cumbersome, with only limited

associated

improvements

in neighborhood noise

levels.

Con-

solidating the two classes will allow

more effective enforcement

for those vehicles

which make the greatest

contribution

to

noise

levels,

and on which control procedures should be focused.

Exhibits 2,

12, and

20

can be used to determine the extent of

compliance

by

heavy trucks

(24,000

lb GVW) with the adopted high

and low speed

noise limits.

It should be noted

that

this

rule

does

not

contain adjustments for operation with mud/snow

tires.

Surveys of these vehicles already include high speed

operations with the commonly used and noisier crossbar

tires,

so that

no additional correction

is needed.

There may

be some

conflict

in

the data concerning low

speed noise emissions,

in that Exhibit

2 shows

15

of the

heavy trucks exceeding

86 dBA,

while

Exhibit

29 shows

5,

and Exhibit

12

shows between

1 and

6.

The more recent

Illinois

data

of

Exhibits

12

and

29

represent, we believe,

the

true

picture

of

noise

emissions

at

low

speeds

from

heavy

trucks.

In

addition, Exhibit

2 includes data for operation

on grades where

at low speeds trucks make more noise as

shown

in Exhibit

29.

Data showing

noise

emissions

at high speeds for heavy

trucks

is also contained in Exhibits

12 and 2.

Exhibit 12

shows

that, based on a sample of 3860 vehicles,

17

of the

vehicles

exceed

90 dBA,

This

is not inconsistent with

25

—

657

---

Exhibit

2 which show

triaL bet~en 13

and 24

of the vehicles

tested in various bc

one

~xc’eeded90 dBA.

The

composite

sample

from Exhibit

2

a ~arp1e

of 8,343 vehicles

which

does

not

include the Exi~i

~.

12 data,

shows 20

of the

vehicles

exceeding

90 dBA

~Eri~

l~L~

p

‘:l2~3).

While this ~ay

ser

ba

large number of

violations,

we

anticipate

t

at as

i~

~est

tires are phased out, the

significant tire component of high speed truck noise emissions

will

decrease, result rj

‘

-

e.~ violations.

In

addition,

the need for venicle

r

L5

re

lations

is greatest

in

the

case

of heavy trucks

~

na~~ tI~erefore,established

90 dBA

as the high speed

o~s

~i~c

frr these vehicles.

Rule

3ll(c~

a

i~r’

a~icnlimit based on a

stationary

runup test.

It cold

pl~’yedat weigh stations

according

to the Task Force

~s a

L.

t

of the drive-by noise

emission

level an

r

h’~1ropinion, an invalid rule

(Exhibit 27).

2tc

33

LInt

established is

2 dBA higher than

the low speed dr we

y

‘0

l~

itt,

a difference which

is at least

partly attributable

~

e different acoustic

properties of the

concrete ground of

a

eiai

~tat~

n and roadside ground covers

(Exhibit 4).

While one

1

p seibly characteri~ethe

stationary test as ar

urueri

s~bJetest of the ability to pollute

rather than a teat of o

ti

r

we believe this

rule to be a

rational

and necessar

Inc r enert tool

to effectuate

the

legislative

goal

of reductin

of

utian,

In promulgating

their

interstate moto.~veh~ le no

ac

regulations, the USEPA

stated

that

the statioaary

test

~

i

reans of measuring

maximum

propulsion

system noise

and will represent actual

operation

under

certain conntiors

of

oad,

acceleration,

or

grade

(Exhibit

17)

We beieve

~

this rule is

consistent with

the

drive-by

rules

This rule also contai ed a 2dBA allowance for low speed

operation

up grades.

fus

qas removed after further

review

of

survey

results

in

E

iibit

2)

(Figure

18)

and comments

by the

Task Force

(R.

584-586

C inc

t

55) and the Agency

(Comment

51).

We agree that the

86

dJ3A standurd for heavy trucks

as

developed

by the U.S. EIA and as

e aluated for Illinois takes

into account

acceleration up gr

dc’s b-ca

it i~a standard based on compliance

during maximum aced

a~or.

Also, medium trucks

now included

under

this Rule 311 ~re expcted

to be able to fully comply with

the

86 dBA stard~~~,We axe therefore eliminating

the

2 dBA

allowance for operat~~r on grades.

Rule

312

This rule aaplie-~

t~

otorcyles and motor driven

cycles.

As discussed in Exhib~t

2

pp 111—63 to 111—76),

25

—

658

---

—.L~—

the noise from these vehicles is almost entirely due to the

engine and drive

train.

Tire noise almost never predominates.

In addition,

these vehicles have a significant power to

weight ratio,

so that operator behavior significantly affects

the

noise

emissions during operation.

There is some increase

in maximum noise output with increase in engine size, but in

constant speed drive-by situations,

the smaller engines work

harder and produce more noise

(See Exhibit 2 pp. 111-67,68).

The proposed final draft contained a low speed noise limit

of

78 dBA for motorcycles.

Our review of the record shows that

this level may be unduly restrictive,

and the extent of non-

compliance would be large

(approximately

30).

Testimony supplied by Harley Davidson was that the proposed

low speed standard probably exceeded the state of the art in

noise control,

referring to data supplied by them on new

motorcycles

(Exhibit 35).

Closer inspection by the Task

Force of the Harley Davidson testimony contained in the Task

Forc&s

“Response

to Matters Submitted at the Hearing

in

Chicago, June 10,

1975”

(Comment

20)

revealed that the

statement was based on a single test of one model, and that

other tests

of the same model had shown levels below

78 dBA.

Nevertheless, we have raised the low speed limit to

80 dBA

to insure feasibility of compliance.

The 1974 Illinois noise survey,

Exhibit 12, shows

11

of the motorcycles exceeding the high speed standard of

86

dBA.

This can be compared with 1970-1971 data from California,

reported in Exhibit

2

(p.

111-71), which showed 7

of the motorcycles

exceed

86 dBA,

Of the motorcycles

in

violation

in

1971,

56

had modified exhaust systems and another

11

had defective

exhaust systems according to the data in Appendix A to Part

III

(Page

111-Al)

of Exhibit

2.

More recent 1973 California

data reported in Appendix A show a 15.4

violation rate.

Of

those motorcycles violating the

86 dBA standard,

64

had

modified exhaust systems and 13.5

had defective or inadequate

systems.

The remaining

22.5

of the violations which account

for

only

3.5

of

the total

of 4,884 motorcycles which were

measured,

are

the result of factors other than exhaust

system

equipment.

It appears that compliance with the high

speed

standard would be greatly increased if motorcycles

would simply be maintained and not altered to increase the

noise emission.

During low speed operation, Exhibit 12 shows that 15

of

the

motorcycles

in

Illinois

will

not

comply

with

80

dBA

25

—

659

---

—

while accelerating but only

5

will not comply while cruising,

indicating the importance of driver behavior. Further testing was

conducted by the Task Force under conditions where the acceleration

of the motorcycles was varied

(Exhibit 32).

This test, while

limited in the number of vehicles measured, shows that as

the acceleration rate dropped

(longer time to complete the

100

ft. passby), the noise emissions decreased.

At an

acceleration rate of 100 feet in 4.8 seconds from a stop,

only

2 motorcycles exceeded 80

dBA,

and

one of these had a

modified exhaust system.

The significance

of the 100 ft.

in

4.8

seconds

acceleration

is

that

75

of Illinois automobiles

accelerate

at this or a slower rate during normal driving,

according to Exhibit

32.

As discussed above under Rule

310,

a

2 dBA increase in

noise emissions when operating on a grade greater than

3

has

also

been

included

in

this

rule

for

motorcycles and motor

driven cycles.

Rule 313

This

Rule

is

identical

to

the federal interstate

motor

carrier noise limits promulgated October

29,

1974

(39

FR

38208),

Exhibit

17 in this proceeding.

The federal

support

for the rule is contained in Exhibits

17 and

18.

The federal standard is preemptive

(See Exhibit

2 p.

1—19)

and our adoption of this rule

as an Illinois standard is

limited to just those vehicles covered

by

the federal

regulations

in order to assure national uniformity.

Rule

314:

Horns and Other Warning Devices

This Rule applies

to horn sounding.

It reiterates the

motor vehicle code

(IRS 95—1/2 §12—601(a))

against unnecessary

horn sounding.

Although unnecessary horn sounding could be

covered

under

Rule

102

in

the

absence

of

this rule,

the

prohibitions

contained

in this Rule will bring

it

to everyone’s

attention.

We also have adopted language prohibiting anyone

from circumventing the enforcement of the numerical noise limits

by sounding his horn while driving past

a monitoring site.

Para-

graph

(b)

of this rule prohibits the use of sirens,

whistles, or

bells except by emergency vehicles.

Rule 315:

Tire Noise

This rule prohibits

the operation of a vehicle

so

as

to

cause squealing or screeching of tires,

Examples of

such

25

—

660

---

—4-i-—

operation would include drag racing on public roads,

“jack

rabbit”

starts,

skidding

around

turns,

and

the

like.

We

do

not

intend,

in this rule, to penalize tire noise that occurs

solely

because

of

low

tire

pressures

or

high

temperatures

during

normal

vehicle

operation.

Rule

320:

Exceptions

Paragraphs

(a)

and

(b)

are self evident and need no

further explanation.

Paragraph

(c)

exempts certain equipment

and

vehicles

from

the

operational

standards.

It

does

not

exempt these vehicles from the equipment or inspection

standards.

Rule 321:

Com~lianceDates for Part

3

Compliance with these regulations is delayed for approximately

6

months.

This

will

allow

for

the

replacement

or

repair

of

modified

or defective exhaust systems, including the time

for

operators

of

fleet

vehicles

to

assess

their

compliance

situation.

The Task Force had suggested 90 days but we feel

that the additional time may be necessary based on comments

made

by

Commonwealth

Edison

(Comment

8).

Paragraph

(b)

is

a

one

year

delay

in

enforcement

of

the

noisy tire rule to allow normal attrition to phase out these

tires.

This

eliminates

the

cost burden of replacing the

noisiest type

tires before their useful life was exhausted.

Paragraph

(c)

refers

to

the

high

speed

noise

emission

limitations,

and

since

tire

noise

is

an

important

contributor

to the total vehicle noise emission levels,

the one year

delay in compliance allows for the normal attrition of the

noisy tires.

The Task Force had proposed this rule to apply

to all vehicles included in these regulations, but we do not

believe that the tire noise of motorcycles

is significant,

so motorcycles and motor driven cycles are not included in

this paragraph.

Paragraph

(d)

picks

up the federal compLiance date

for

motor vehicles subject to the federal interstate motor

vehicle noise regulations.

25

—

661

---

—22—

Rule 208(f):

Exceptions

This

is

a new rule added to the existing property line

noise regulations.

Its purpose

is to solve

a possible

conflict between the motor vehicle noise regulations and the

property line noise regulations that could arise from the

use of access roads by vehicles registered

for use on highways.

This does not mean that these vehicles are always exempted

from the property line regulations since,

as was pointed out

by the Task Force in Exhibits

27 and 28,

the motor vehicle

noise regulations do not apply on private property, and

noise from these vehicles,

if used routinely on private

property,

should be included as part of the total noise

emission from ~he property line noise source.

Economic Impact of the Motor Vehicle Noise Regulations

The Task Force on Noise included in its original report

(Exhibit

2)

a section

(Part IV)

in which the economic impact of

the proposed regulations was measured.

In this study the Task

Force estimated for each weight class the number of vehicles

expected to be

i-n

violation and the cost per vehicle of complying

with the regulation.

Using 1973 data,

a total estimated aggregate

cost burden of $13,130,000 was attributed to compliance.

The compli-

ance costs

for individual vehicles

in each weight class were related

to

1)

revenues and operating costs

in the case of carrier trucks

or

2)

operating costs and vehicle values for vehicles used for

private transportation.

Results are summarized in the following

table.

Number of

Compliance Cost

Aggregate

Relative Cost

Vehicle Class

Violations

per Vehicle

Compliance

per Violating

_____________

_______________

Cost

Vehicle*

Heavy Trucks

15,300

$114

$1,744,000

0.9

Medium Trucks

6,200

$

80

496,000

2.5

Buses

0

0

0

Autos/Light

Trucks

244,000

$

40

9,760,000

3.6

Motorcycles

11,300

$100

1,130,000

22.0

$13,130,000

*Relative cost is the compliance cost per vehicle in violation

expressed as

a percent of the annual operating cost for that vehicle.

The subsequent Economic

Impact Study,

IIEQ Document No.

76/10

(Exhibit 44), prepared by the Task Force in accordance with

25

—

662

---

—2j—

P.A.

79—790 included a more recent assessment of the same cost burdens

for vehicle compliance.

A number of other costs were also calculated,

as well as certain expected monetary benefits from vehicular noise

reduction.

The primary costs associated with the regulation are those costs

involved with bringing violating vehicles into compliance.

These

costs were measured for vehicles used by industry,

in

agriculture,

by state and local governments,

and by people driving vehicles for

private transportation

in the State of Illinois.

Costs

to local

and State governments

for

enforcement

programs

were

also

estimated.

Numerous secondary costs were also evaluated.

These include the

impact on prices,

employment and the availability of goods and ser-

vices

(Chapter VIII); effects on the expansion of industry,

attraction

of new industr~, and availability of energy supplies

(Chapter XI);

impact on Illinois agriculture

(Chapter X); and impact on state

and local government

(Chapter XI).

Two kinds of cost calculations were performed.

The first,

called the financial burden,

is the initial cost involved in

bringing a violating vehicle into compliance with the regulation.

The economic impact analysis in the original Task Force report

(Exhibit

2,

Part IV)

calculated only these

financial burdens

for each vehicle class, which were called aggregate cost burdens.

The true economic cost,

however,

is a measure of the extra cost

incurred over the remaining life of a vehicle

as

a result of the

regulation.

This cost

is expressed as the difference between the

present

value

of

the

total

costs

incurred

with

compliance

and

the

present value of the total normal costs which would have been

incurred

in

the

absence

of

the

regulation.

The

figures

used

to

calculate

the

financial

burden

of

compliance for each vehicle class are 1975 data.

They are presented

below, along with their relative costs compared to vehicle operating

costs.

Number

of

Compliance Cost

Financial

Relative Cost*

Vehicle

Violations

per Vehicle

Burden

per

Violating

Class

________________

Vehicle

Heavy

Trucks

a)

retrofit

12,910

$

135.00

$

1,742,900

0.86

b)

tires

6,064

193.00

1,168,000

1.22

Medium Trucks

2,000

87.50

174,000

2.3

Buses

542

87.50

47,500

na

Autos/Light

Trucks

228,800

45.00

10,296,000

3.2

Motorcycles

23,900

110.00

2,629,000

19.6

$16, 057,400

25

—

663

---

—24—

*Relative cost

is the compliance cost per vehicle

in violation

expressed as a percent of the annual operating cost for that vehicle.

These estimates are generally consistent with those of the

earlier study

(Exhibit 2).

Exhibit

44, however, measures both

retrofit and tire violations for heavy trucks and it includes viola-

tions by buses.

Unit compliance costs are also increased due to

increased equipment prices between

1973 and 1975.

Changes

in

the numbers of violating vehicles

in each class, whether increases

or decreases

in numbers, tend to reflect more recent estimates

of vehicle

fleet sizes and more precise violation rate estimates,

as verified by noise surveys performed following the original

report.

A summary of the financial burdens and economic costs imposed

by

the

regulation

is

presented

in

Table

10

of

Exhibit

44.

It

is

reproduced below for reference.

The Task Force calculations show

a net total financial burden of $16,692,000

and a net total annual

economic cost of $4,041,000.

The financial burden includes the

burdens

listed

above

for

each

vehicle

class

plus

an

additional

$310,600

for

agricultural

and

government

vehicles and $324,000

in

enforcement costs.

Assuming that these primary costs are completely passed on

by industry and government

in the form of price increases and

taxes,

the impact on the people of Illinois was determined to be

so small

as

to be imperceptible.

This would hold true for food

and product price increases as well as for effects on employment.

The primary costs were concluded to be the most relevant costs,

and therefore the ones

to be used for benefit cost analysis.

The annual economic cost

is the amount that would be

paid annually,

based on 10

interest rate,

if the economic cost

incurred

were

paid

off

by

equal

annual

payments

indefinitely

into

the future

(Exhibit

44

p.

23,

24).

This measure was used to establish

a consistent base

for comparison of costs with the expected benefits,

wh Ich were

a I no ~aJ

ciii

a

I o1 on

an ann~m

1

han

I

The

benefit

of

the

regulations

will

be

a reduction

in

neighborhood noise

levels,

to which traffic noise

is a major con-

tributor.

The regulations are designed to reduce peak annoyance

noise for land areas adjacent to roadways, and therefore will

also reduce daily background noise levels in

urban/suburban

locations

(Exhibit

44,

pp

A—4,5).

To

estimate

dollar

benefits

of

the

regulation

the

projected

noise reduction

(in dBA) was calculated and translated to a dollar

25

—

664

---

—118—

Heavy

Trucks

Per

riolati;.

vehicle

Average per vehicle, all

heavy

trucks

Total,

all

vehicles

Tires

(Unavy

Trucks

Per violating vehIcle

Average per vehicJe,

all

heavy

trucks

Total,

all

vehicles

Medium

Trucks

Per

violating

vehicle2

Average

per

v&jicLa,

all

medIum

trucks

Total, all vchieles

(includsng

buses)

Autono~j

Lea

cgtd

t$gttt

Trucks

Per violatjn~vehicle3

Average

Per

vehicle.

all

vehicles

Total,

all

vehicles

Xc..orcyc1c.~

Per violating vehicle

Averaa

par

vehicle,

all vehicles

To~z,all vehicles

Agricultural Vchiclcs4

Heavy trucks,

total

Medium

trucks,

total

Light

trucks

•

total

Total,

all

vehicles

Cost

Category

State

Government

Vehicles5

Total, all heavy

trucks

$7,700

Local

Goveraaent

Vehicles5

Total,

all

heavy

trucks

$83,900

Enforcement

Stats

Local

Totals, all categories

*50

40

Grope

Net°

$

.80

$128,100

1telculatod

on

the

basis

of

a

102

interest

rate.

2The

per

vehicle

economic cost

for

medium

trucks

exceeds

that

for heavy

trucks

because

the

former

cost

i.e

treated a

recurring

whereas

the retrofit

cost

is essentially non—recurring.

3The first

figure

for ~annualeconomic

coat refers

to

vehicles

with

deteriorated

muff

tore

and

the

second

to vehicles with

modified

$15

mufflers.

4Tho

medium aed

light

truck figures

include

sums

(for

vehicles

of

12,030

lbs.

or

less)

that

have

been

previously

included

in

the

light

and

medium

truck

categories.

The

not

additional

sums

in

the

agricultural

sector

occur

only

in

the

medium

sod

heavy

truck

segments

•

Per

heavy

trucks

the

additional

costs

arc

those

shown is

the

table.

For

medium

trucks

(with

27,650 in

the

12,0001—24,000 lb.

class,

and

with

442

of

thcse

Sn violation)

the additional

costs

are

as

fellows:

Financial

burden $38,700;

Annual

Economic

Cost,

$22,300.

5The

figuree

cover vcbicle

costs

only

and

exclude

duplicating

sims

attributable

to

increased

freight

costs.

6Exeludee

the

duplication

arising in

essnection with tarn

vehicles ae~

described

in

footnote

4

above.

Table

10

Financial

Burden

and

Econotjc

Coat

for

Al.

Vehicle

Ciaeses~sunma~

Pinanci~1

Cost

Cetegory

Burden

Annual

Economic

Cost~

$12.50

Table

10

(continued)

Financial

Burden

$1.89

$161,400

$0.50

$42,600

$135

$20.35

$l,742,9~

$193

$33.55

$1,168,003

$87.50

$1.40

$221

,500

$45

$1.65

$l0,296,oca

$110

$12

$2,629,300

$180,300

51

,c3~

252,000

$483,300

Annual

‘

1

Economic

Cost

$500

$5,900

$71,100

$142,200

$4,193,100

$4,041,000

$l08,00o

$216,000

$16,956,300

$16,692,000

$25.90/$l.l4

$

.50

$3,093,403

$1.65

$360

,9oo

$12,600

$29,403

*145,000

$187,000

---

—26--

value.

This was done by applying a dollar value per dBA to the

number of dBA’s of reduction in noise.

The dollar values used were based on results of several

~conornetric studies that have demonstrated a relationship between

neighborhood noise levels and the value of property

in the neighborhood.

The

measure, which is calculated by multiple regression techniques,

quantifies the change in property values associated with a change

o~one dBA

in noise level

(Exhibit 44 pp. 122-127; Exhibit

45).

The use of land values can be considered

to be

a surrogate

eor the perceived effects of neighborhood noise

(R.

781-783);

it

is

expressed by the increased price a property buyer is willing to pay

for quieter residential surroundings.

To calculate the value per dBA of noise reduction the Task Force

first

used

a

regression

equation

developed

by

Jon

P.

Nelson

in

a

study

performed

for

the

U.S.

Department

of

Transportation.

(See

Exhibit

44

P.

124

for

reference;

Ex.

45).

He uses the Traffic Noise Index

(TNI)

in dBA as the noise measure, and the value per dBA reduction is de-

pendent on the average value of the dwellings

in his regression san~ple.

In Illinois

in 1975 the average value of owner—occupied homes was

$30,000 and the value of rental units was

$13,000.

Using Nelson’s

equation the average estimated capitalized worth of

1 dBA reduction

in TNI was

$124 for each home and $55 for each apartment.

Annual

average benefits,

based on a 10

interest rate, were thereby estimated

to be

$12.40

and $5.50 respectively per dBA noise reduction per

housing unit.

To estimate the total annual dollar benefit per dBA the

unit benefits were multiplied by the number of homes and apartments

that

would

experience

the noise reduction.

These numbers were

estimated for three categories of land areas,

using noise exposure

data in

a U.S.

EPA report

(Exhibit 44,

p.

133)

and Illinois population

data.

The three land categories were urban and suburban areas,

areas near freeways and highways,

and areas near airports or other

major noise sources.

The procedure used

to estimate the dBA reduction

in

noise

brought

about

by

the

.requlaLiori

is described

in detail

in

Appendix

II of Exhibit

44.

The reduction

is given as equivalent noise levels

(Leq)i which are the energy average values of noise levels

(in dBA)

over a period of time.

The average reduction in Leq was calculated

from noise survey data which gave the distribution of noise levels for

vehicles within each weight class and the proportion of the total

vehicle fleet which

is

in each weight class.

A reduction of

1 dBA

ifl L~0was assumed to be equal to

1 dBA in TNI.

An average noise

reduction of

2 dBA was calculated for urban and suburban areas and

one of 0.67 dBA was obtained for areas near freeways and highways.

Areas near other large noise sources

were

not

expected

to

benefit

25

—

666

---

—27—

from

vehicular

noise

reduction

because

of

the

dominance

of

those

other sources

in noise generation.

An aggregate annual benefit of $63,318,000 was calculated.

The results are presented in Table

12

(Exhibit 44 p.

136), which

is included here.

The estimated total of 3,798,000 households

represents

the total number of households in Illinois.

Of those,

some 404,000 households

(or 11)

are said to be located near other

major noise sources,

and are therefore not expected to receive any

benefit from the regulation.

The greatest benefit is expected to be

to households in urban and suburban areas.

This

is because the

largest noise reduction

(2 dBA)

occurs in those areas, and that

is

also where the greatest number of households

are located

(an estimated

86

of the total households).

The urban/suburban benefits of

$62,483,000 rekresent almost 99

of the total annual benefits esti-

mated.

The benefit—cost comparison based on these calculated annual

costs of $4,041,000 and annual benefits of $63,318,000 yields

a

high benefit cost ratio of 15.7 for the regulation.

Such a ratio

indicates a substantial benefit from regulation while incurring

relatively

small

costs.

The costs are not only small when compared to

the

estimated

benefits,

but

they

are

also

extremely

modest

when

compared to the total operating costs and net revenues of the motor

vehicle industry.

The Task Force designed two variant cases for benefits

in order to test the sensitivity of the benefit estimates

to key variables used in their calculations.

For the first variant

case the annual worth per household of

1 dBA reduction was cut

in

half,

to $6.20 per home and $2.75 per apartment unit.

In addition

the amount of noise reduction

in urban/suburban areas was reduced

from

2 dBA to

1 dBA.

The resulting benefits of $16,038,000

(Exhibit 44,

p.

139) yielded a much lower but still substantial benefit cost

ratio of 3.97.

The Task Force concluded that the “balance of benefits

over costs

is largely insensitive

to possible errors

in the

estimation of costs”

(Exhibit

44

p.

140)

T1~,nvcond

Vd

r

iLl fl

I

(2LlSc

WIS

based on

the results of

a Chicago

noise study by Vaughn and Huckins

(Exhibit

44

p.

144), which found

that when a neighborhood Leq was less than

50 dBA,

noise reductions

were not reflected

in increased property values.

The capitalized

value for noise reductions above that level,

however, were much higher

than those calculated using Nelson’s work.

Assuming that half of

the urban/suburban households are subjected to less than 50 dBA

background noise levels,

the

number

of households benefited in

that category were halved.

The capitalized value per household

was held the same rather than raised, as would be indicated by the

25

—

667

---

Table

12

C)

C)

00

Calculation of Aggregate Benefits Resulting From the Proposed Regulation

Base Case

U,

(1)

Number of

Location

Households

(2)

Expected dB(A)

Reduction

(3)

Annual Worth

of Reduction Per

dB(A)

Per House—

hold

(4)

Total Annual

Worth of Re-

duction, All

Households

(l)x(2)x(3)

Urban and Sub—

urban

Areas

Houses

Apartments

1,926,000

1,338,000

2.0

2.0

$12.40

$

5.50

$47,765,000

$14,718,000

Near

Freeways

and

Highways

Houses

Apartments

77,000

53,000

0.67

0.67

$12.40

$

5.50

$

639,700

$

195,300

Near Airports and

Other Major Noise

Sources

Houses

Apartments

238,000

166,000

0.0

0.0

$12.40

$ 5.50

$0.0

$0.0

Totals

3,798,000

$63,318,000

---

—29--

Chicago study, to maintain a more conservative estimate.

The resulting

benefit of $32,047,000 yields a benefit cost ratio of 7.9.

It is noted in the second variant case that even if none

of the households along freeways or highways were benefited by noise

reductions,

the total benefits would equal $31,241,000 with an asso-

ciated benefit cost ratio of 7.7.

This ratio results from benefits

to only

50

of the estimated urban/suburban households, which

according to the estimates in the study equals

43

of the total

households

in Illinois.

The Task Force also calculated the noise reductions which

would result from control of each of the vehicle classes

(Exhibit 44,

p.

131),

from which the costs and benefits

attributable td each specific class were estimated.

It was

concluded that noise control was cost beneficial for each

of the individual vehicle classes as well as for the overall

regulation

(Exhibit 44,

pp.

142—143, 145—147).

This finding

reinforces the validity of tailoring noise control to the noise

characteristics of different vehicle classes.

The consolidation of the medium and heavy vehicle classes

under a new Rule 311 will result in changes in costs for compliance

and in benefits of noise reduction.

Because all medium vehicles

are expected to be in full compliance with the noise standards

under this rule, the annual economic cost of $128,100 attributed

to these vehicles

is eliminated from the cost estimates.

As

described above,

a noise increase of 0.02 dBA is estimated

to result from deregulating medium vehicles.

Assuming this increase

will be experienced in all locations,

the net loss in benefits

expected using base case benefit values

(Table

12) will be

$649,933 annually.

The ratio of 5.1 for these benefit and cost

increments demonstrate that from a strictly economic standpoint

it would be cost—beneficial to control this class of vehicles

under the separate standards proposed in previous Rule

311 as

published in Environmental Register

#109.

Another question relevant to the analysis

is that of what

portion of the costs and benefits can be attributed to this

regulation in those instances where it duplicates other noise

regulations.

The three cases considered were

1)

the federal

regulation controlling noise from interstate trucks

in excess

of 10,000 lb GVW,

2)

the existing Illinois Motor Vehicle Code

prohibition of modified or defective exhaust systems, and

3)

local noise control ordinances such as the one in effect in

25

—

669

---

—30—

Chicago.

The Task Force

found, when costs and benefits which

could be associated with each of these cases were removed from

the proposed regulation,

“.

.

.that while some of the details

in

the cost benefit ratios would change that the general balance

would not be substantially affected’~ (R.

1006).

Therefore

the

original findings as

to cost benefit hold true,

regardless

of the presence of those other noise regulations.

During

the economic impact study hearings

a number of comments

and criticisms were expressed.

These covered both cost and benefit

estimations,

as well as enforcement capability and associated costs.

As stated above, cost estimates for vehicular noise control

equipment were calculated from an estimated number of violating

vehicles and an estimated average cost per vehicle

for control.

Violation rates have been discussed above under Rule 310-313

dealing with each vehicle

class.

The unit costs are averages

based on costs reported by the U.S.

EPA

(Exhibit 44,

p.

15)

and dealers estimates

of costs

for control equipment

(Exhibit 44

pp.

28,

38,

49,

62)

The State Chamber of Commerce

(R.

811-817; Exhibit

48)

and the Illinois Trucking Association have questioned both the

violation rates and equipment costs used for heavy truck

compliance

cost

estimates.

The

Association

presented

a

retrofit

cost for gas powered trucks which was identical to the Task Force

overall estimate for both gas and diesel trucks.

The Association’s

cost estimate for diesel powered units, was

a higher $295 per

vehicle

(1973 dollars).

That higher cost, along with their much

higher violation rate estimates, yields

a total heavy truck cost

estimate

6 times that of the Task Force

(R.

706—710).

As stated

above, the violation rates used by the Task Force

are consistent

with results of

a number of surveys, and they must be considered

to be more

reliable estimates than those presented by the

Trucking Association

(H.

969—976; Comment

20).

The remaining

question therefore is the accuracy of the unit cost estimates

used by the Task Force.

Additional per vehicle heavy

truck retrofit cost estimates

are presented in

a letter from the American Trucking Association

(Exhibit

50)

and the Wyle report

(Exhibit 52), both of which

were submitted by the State Chamber of Commerce.

Exhibit 50

gives estimates of $235 and $222 average cost per vehicle

(probably

1975 or 1976 dollars), but it does not specify

the vehicle weight

or noise emission characteristics prior to retrofitting for the

trucks involved.

In Appendix G of the Wyle report

a detailed listing of

specific costs

for retrofitting heavy trucks

is given in Table

G.

25

—

670

---

—31—

2-3

(Exhibit

52 pp. G-ll,12).

The costs are broken down by

required treatment,

as determined by the existing truck noise

level and the noise

level to be achieved.

The noise levels cited

are measured by the SAE J366B test procedure

(low speed,

maximum

powered units).

According to the Wyle report, these noise levels have

a

one—to—one relationship with observed highway performance at low

speed, when tire noise is not a contributing factor;

though they

average about

9 dBA higher than levels recorded by roadside

measurements

(Exhibit 52 p. E-l).

We may then use costs associated

with changes

in these noise levels

as estimates of incremental

costs

of noise reduction,

though because of the expected

9 dBA

difference

in measurement results they may overestimate costs

for attainmentof a given dBA level under the Illinois regula-

tion.

According to the Task Force report

(Exhibit 2,

p.

111-27)

15

of heavy trucks exceed 86 dBA in the low speed drive—by

mode of operation.

Half of that 15

exceed 88 dBA.

These trucks

can be brought into compliance by retrofit of exhaust systems

and for some of the trucks by additional modification of the cooling

and/or intake systems.

Referring to Table G.2-3 in the Wyle report

(Exhibit 52),

in order to reduce noise from 88 dBA to

86 dBA a total range

of $50—300 cost per truck

(1973 dollars)

is estimated.

Consistent

with the Task Force assessment,

the control said to be needed is

retrofitting for exhaust and cooling system.

By weighting this maximum

range of costs by the percent of vehicles requiring each treatment,

a range of average cost per vehicle of $90—150

is obtained.

•These

costs, which would be applicable to at least half of the trucks

in

violation at low speed,

are consistent with the Task Force 1973

estimate

of

$114.

The

remaining

violating

trucks

would

probably

require somewhat higher retrofit costs, averaging $l46—265 according

to the Wyle report cost estimates for noise reductions from 90 dBA

to

86

dBA.

The Task Force brouqht out the point that the Wyle

retrofit: cost esl:imates were based on the translation of manufacturers

estimates

for quieting new vehicles

to the quieting of

in—use vehicles,

assuming somehow comparable costs

(R.

947-8).

Based on sensitivity

analysis performed by the Task Force,

even if their cost estimate

is

low,

which

it

does

not

appear

to

be,

at

this

magnitude

of

difference

it would not

change the overall benefit-cost balance for regulating

heavy

trucks,

though it would reduce the benefit cost ratio

(Comment

53)

The Chamber of Commerce also questioned cost estimates for

light trucks and automobiles.

Their argument was that some models

(particularly older vehicles)

could not comply with the noise limits

25

—

671

---

—32—

by

using

currently

available

exhaust

equipment;

that

expensive

redesign

of

equipment would be necessary

CR.

810-811; Exhibit 48).

Nonetheless,

as demonstrated in survey results in Exhibit 29

and

discussed in

Exhibit 27

(pp.

24-26),

compliance is

shown

to

be

possible with

stan-

dard

equipment

and

reasonable

driver

behavior.

Anticipated

costs

associated

with

redesign

would

therefore

not

be

incurred

as

a

result

of this regulation.

Similar questions were raised regarding compliance by

medium

trucks and buses with the low speed 82

dBA

limit

CComment

48).

In

the

case

of

medium

trucks

now

controlled

by

heavy

truck

noise

stan-

dards

they

are

already

essentially

100

in

compliance.

A

comment

by General Motors

CConiment 10) was cited wherein they state that

their diesel powered buses of 30,000 GVW or more are designed

to

not

exceed

a

maximum

of

86

dBA;

and

therefore

some

buses

will

not

be

able

to

comply

with

the

82

dBA

limit.

Survey

results

support the consistently maintained position of the Task Force

that by design buses are quieter than similar weight trucks and

can in fact attain the 82

dB.A noise levels with proper control

equipment

CExhibits 2, 12; Comment 53 p. 19).

Under the new

Rule 311,

as with medium trucks, buses are expected to already

fully comply with the standards, and no costs for compliance will

be

expected.

Costs associated with vehicle noise testing by owners to

ascertain their compliance were suggested as additional costs

which were not considered in the study.

Other costs which would

be incurred as a result of litigation to determine interstate

carrier status under new Rule 313 were also brought forth as omissions

from the analysis

CR.

812; Comment 48).

As stated by the Task

Force

CR. 883),

litigation costs are incurred by choice of the

owners rather than as a necessary response to regulation, and as

such are not appropriately included in the analysis.

Under new Rule

311 no such determination will be necessary.

If included,

both

testing and litigation costs would be very difficult to quantify.

Estimated costs for State enforcement of the regulation were

provided by the State Police

to the

Task

Force,

based

on

use

of

30 teams of two officers each, with each team having its

own

sound

level meter.

Costs include training, salaries, equipment, and

overhead costs.

There are also local enforcement cost estimates

included in the total

CR.

857, Exhibit 44 pp. 94—100).

The State

Police estimates are based on their judgment of reasonable

field coverage within their capability at the time.

Should these

resources not be fully available, which according to testimony of

the Motor Vehicle Laws Commission the Police have since told

them

to be the case

CR.

903-909; Exhibit 47), then the estimated enforcement

25-672

---

—33—

Several questions have also been raised about the use of property

values

to measure incremental benefits of noise control.

The use

of

a

statistica1

analysis

rather

than

personal

interviews

was

criticized,

as well

as the apparent reliance on results of only

one econometric study

in benefit calculations

(H.

784-789;

R.

814,

R.

901)

The limitations of the use of property values are recognized

and should be taken into account when interpreting results of

benefit cost analysis.

The Task Force considers property value to be

a conservative estimate of benefits which only measures perceived

benefits of noise reduction

(R.

781-783; Exhibit 44

p.

126).

References presented in Exhibit

45 discuss these limitations and

specify that the method can only be used to measure incremental

benefits with changes in noise levels rather than absolute benefit

values.

It is noted that benefits such as a reduction in long-

term hearing loss and benefits in other than residential

households

(e.g.

schools, business districts,

or hospitals)

are

not included in this measure.

Within these limitations,

however,

the Task Force carefully

evaluated several econometric studies in selecting the dollar value

per dBA reduction,

and they used values generated by two different

studies

in the base case and one variant case for benefits

(R.

790-791)

Their

estimates

of benefits from neighborhood noise

reduction resulting from in—use motor vehicle noise regulation

may be considered reasonable,

though very probably conservative.

The Wyle Research Report No. WCR75-2, entitled “Community

Noise Countermeasures: Cost—Effectiveness Analysis”

(Exhibit

52)

was cited in testimony by the Motor Vehicle Laws Commission

(H.

788—789,

910)

and the Illinois Chamber of Commerce

(H.

814—817,

995—999).

They both stated that findings of this report as to

costs

and

benefits

for

vehicular

noise

control

were

much

different

from those of the Task Force and that it should have been

considered by the Task Force in its analysis.

The Task Force

responded that,

“The Wyle Report sought

(among other things)

to measure the reduction in community noise levels that the

quieting of various noise sources, including motor vehicles,

might bring.”

(Exhibit 55,

p..

11)

They explain that the

report addresses the question,

“...if

you

have

a budget of

X million dollars, how should it be allocated among alternative

quieting or abatement opportunities

in order to achieve the

maximum noise reduction.”

(H.

930)

It does not contradict

the Nelson property value study because it does not develop

dollar figures for benefits but only a noise impact index in

Leq.

25

—

673

---

Review

of the Wyle Report rerifies the Task Force’s description

of the study.

The study addressEs the control of community noise

in Portland,

Oregon b3

consider

~g trucks, buses,

autos,

railroad

operations,

and aircraft

a5

nois~.

sources.

Control techniques evaluated

included source modificec_en

~e ~ting

of moving sources,

barriers, building 1nsulae~on, a~d elocation of human receptors.

The cost—effectiveness o~ arm

a combinations of these control

techniques

was evaluated, as~

req three levels of total

expenditure

($5,

IC, and

30

million)

Because the Wyle Report

considers more than just veticular sources

of community

noise

and a variety of control teen

ques,

and because it does not

measure benefits of noise red ct~onin dollars,

its conclusions

cannot be directly conpared to

tt

cc of the Economic Impact

Study

(Exhibit 44).

The report does provide estimates of unit

costs for equi~rnentto reduce nn~seemitted by individual vehicles,

and several of those. cost~naic i~ideedbeen

considered

in this Opinion

in discussion of cost estrnat~~sused by the Task Force.

The Comments of

the

o~

on Wage and Price Stability

Regarding Proposed Noiin.

n

slon Standards for Medium and Heavy

Duty Trucks before the U S.

Frvironmental Protection Agency on

May

9,

1975 were cited by

~he

M

t~rVehicle Laws Commission

(H.

899-913)

and submitted as Exhibit

47.

The

Commission

felt

that consideration should

be

v-~nto

the conclusions of the

Comments,

which quest oned t

c

e ‘ift-cost of noise standards

of

80 dBA and

75 dBA for no

~dium

and heavy duty trucks, while

acknowledging the benefit

I an

83 mbA new vehicle standard.

As with the Wyle Repoit,

te n

assessment cannot be compared

directly

with the Task Foece

fit-cost analysis

because

the

document relates to

a diffeic

t subject

The Council was

analyzing

standards for nex vehicles under a

maximum

noise

test

to

be phased in over

a number of years, while the

Task

Force proposal

is designed

to control

in—use

vehicle

noise under roadway operation and measured by a

drive—by

noise

test

(Exhibit 5a

i~

is

ioted that the benefit

measure

used by the co

cii

is the change

in

property

value

measure developed

3n

L

i

I

ii

N

Isun study~ the same measure used

by the ~

I~erc~-~

in

ts

cise

nun’ of benofi ts,

The Board has resiL~wcd rd ccnsrdered the

results

of

the

Economic Impact Study alinq with the rest of the record in its

consideration of the

~

i~ regulation,

the technological

feasibility, and the

conor:ic reasonableness

of

the

proposed

motor

vehicle noise regulatron~

The findings of the

study

of

much

greater

benefits than costs

for

~ ntrol are considered to be conservative

estimates of net ben~?it mbcause of assumptions

in the calculations

made by the Task Force wli

t

tended to overestimate

costs and

underestimate benefits

~ConFcnt

~6) and because of the conservatism

of

the

residential property values used as

a measure of benefit,

as

discussed

above.

25

—

674

---

The Board finds that the enactment of this regulation will,

as has been fully discussed above, create some adverse economic

impact on the people of the State of Illinois.

However, the

Board further finds that such adverse impact will be literally

dwarfed by the benefits which this regulation will bestow upon

the

people

of

Illinois.

Enforcement

Of

The

Regulation

In

its

letter

of

January

19,

1977

(Comment

#79),

the

Motor Vehicle Laws Commission reiterated its concern regarding the

costs of enforcing the proposed regulation.

In essence,

the

Commission’s

fear is that if the State Police will not enforce the

regulations then these costs will be borne by the taxpayers in

some other way which has not been dealt

with

in the Economic Impact

Study.

The Commission assumes that the Agency would spend great

sums

of money to purchase equipment,

etc.

These fears arise from

the budgetary constraints

of the State Police and the apparent

position of the State Police that they would not be required by

law to enforce the proposed regulations

(See Comment #21).

Budgetary

constraints are a reality for all state agencies.

There

is

no reason

to be surprised that not every vehicle which violates the regulations

will be quickly located and enforced against.

The expectation,

rather,

is that enforcement agencies will,

as commanded by the

legislature

in

Section

44(a)

of

the

Environmental

Protection

Act,

fulfill

their

duties.

Furthermore,

the

costs

to

both State and

local

governments

of

enforcing

these

regulations

have

been

fully

considered in the Economic Impact Study

(Exhibit #44, pages

94—100).

These estimates reflect the costs for a given level of enforcement,

regardless of whether and to what extent they will be assumed by

the State Police or the Agency.

It

is the intent of the opening portion of the Board’s Order to

allow and encourage the local enforcement and adoption of these regu-

lations.

By making it clear that any local government may adopt

compatible ordinances,

the Board has recognized that in many cases

local government is

a

proper enforcement

agency, and that the local

Circuit Court is

an appropriate forum for prosecution of either the

Board regulation or compatible ordinances.

This Opinion contains the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions

of

law.

Mr. James

L.

Young will file

a dissenting opinion.

25

—

675

---

—36—

I, Christan L.

Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby

certify the above Opinion was adopted on the ~

day

of

,

1977 by a vote of_

~/—

/

Christan

L.

Moffe

ler

Illinois Pollutio

ntrol Board

25

—

676