RAILROAD NOISE
EfniSSION STANDARD

-------
:NviRQ2iMENTA& PROT-CIIOH AGENCY

-------
               Title40—PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT


Chapter I — Environmental Protection Agency


Part 201 — Railroad Noise Emission Standards


                              CONTENTS
                                                                Page
Subpart A
     General Provisions	      19

Subpart B
     Interstate Rail Carrier Operations	      20

Subpart C
     Measurement Criteria	      21

-------

-------
   Title 40—Protection of Environment
     CHAPTER  I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
              [PBL 469-3]

      PART 201—RAILROAD NOISE
         EMISSION  STANDARDS
  On July 3, 1974,  notice was published
in the FEDERAL REGISTER  (39 FB 24580)
that   the  Environmental  Protection
Agency (EPA or Agency)  was proposing
noise emission standards for surface car-
riers engaged in interstate commerce by
railroad.
  The purpose  of this notice is to estab-
lish  final noise emission standards for
surface  carriers  engaged in  interstate
commerce by railroad by establishing a
new Part 201 of Title 40  of the Code of
Federal Regulations. This final rulemak-
ing is promulgated pursuant  to section
17 of the Noise Control Act of  1972, 86
Stat. 1248, Pub. L. 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." Congress also
declared within  section  2  of  the Act,
"that it is the policy of the United States
to  promote  an  environment  for  all
Americans free from noise that jeopar-
dizes  their health or welfare." As a part
of this essential Federal  action, section
17 requires the Administrator  to publish
proposed  noise  emission  regulations
which "shall  include noise  emission
standards, setting such limits on noise
emissions resulting from operation  of
the equipment  and facilities of surface
carriers engaged in interstate  commerce
by railroad which reflect the degree of
noise reduction achievable through the
application of the best available technol-
ogy, taking into account the cost of com-
pliance." After the effective  date  of a
regulation  under section  17,  applicable
to noise emissions resulting from the op-
eration of any equipment  or facility of a
surface  carrier engaged in  interstate
commerce by railroad,  no State or po-
litical  subdivision thereof may adopt or
enforce any standard applicable to noise
emissions resulting from the operation
of the same equipment  or facility  of
such  carrier unless  such  standard is
identical  to  a standard  applicable  to
noise emissions resulting  from such op-
eration prescribed by these regulations.
The Administrator,  after consultation
with  the  Secretary of  Transportation
may, however, determine that the State
or local standard, control, license, regu-
lation, or restriction is  necessitated  by
special  local conditions and  is  not  in
conflict with  regulations  promulgated
under  section 17. Procedures for State
and  local governments to apply under
section  17(c> (2) of  the Act will be pub-
lished by this Agency shortly after pro-
mulgation of this regulation.
  These sections of the Noise Control
Act reflect the desire of Congress to pro-
tect  both the  environment  and com-
merce through the establishment  of uni-
form national noise emission regulations
for the operation of interstate railroad
equipment  and  facilities which require
national uniformity of  treatment  in
order to facilitate interstate commerce.
Such treatment is  requisite  for those
types of interstate  railroad  equipment
and  facilities whose operation would  be
burdened by conflicting State and local
noise controls. Preemption under  section
17 occurs only for  State or  local noise
regulations  on  equipment and facilities
on which Federal regulations are in ef-
fect.  Where  national  uniformity  of
treatment is not needed, Congress rec-
ognizes the primary  responsibility  of
State and local governments to protect
the environment from  noise. State and
local regulations on noise emissions re-
sulting from the operation of equipment
and  facilities  of  surface  carriers en-
gaged in interstate commerce by railroad,
which are not  preempted by applicable
Federal regulations under section 17, are
subject to the  Commerce Clause of the
U.S.  Constitution.  Under  that  Clause,
any State or local regulations which con-
stitute  an  undue burden on interstate
commerce cannot, stand.
  The Act directs that Federal regula-
tions on interstate  railroad  equipment
and facilities under section 17 are to in-
clude noise emission standards  setting
such limits  on  noise emissions resulting
from their  operation which  reflect the
degree  of   noise reduction  achievable
through the  application  of  the  best
available technology, taking into account
the cost of  compliance. Based upon the
strict language of the Noise Control Act,
its legislative history, and other relevant
data,  these requirements are  further
clarified as  follows:
  "Best available  technology''  is  that
noise abatement technology available for
application  to  equipment and facilities
of surface carriers engaged in Interstate
commerce by railroad which produces the
greatest achievable  reduction-  in  the
noise produced by  such equipment and

-------
facilities.  "Available technology" is fur-
ther defined to include:
  1. Technology which has been demon-
strated and  is currently known  to be
feasible.
  2. Technology for which there will be
a production capacity to produce the esti-
mated number of parts required in rea-
sonable time to  allow for distribution
and installation  prior to the effective
date of the regulation.
  :!- Technology that is compatible with
all  safety regulations and takes into ac-
count operational considerations includ-
ing maintenance,  pnd other  pollution
control equipment.
  "Cost of  compliance" is the cost of
identifying what action must be taken to
meet the  specified  noise emission level,
the cost of taking  that action, and any
additional cost of operation and mainte-
nance caused by that action.
  In preparing this final regulation the
Administrator has  given full considera-
tion to cost of compliance and available
technology and has consulted with the
Secretary of Transportation to assure ap-
propriate  consideration for safety and
for  availability of technology.
  Further, recognizing that the  Noise
Control Act was enacted to protect the
public  from adverse health and welfare
effects due to noise, EPA has also con-
sidered the  impact  of railroad  noise
taking into account the levels of environ-
mental noise requisite to  protect  the
public health and welfare  with an ade-
quate margin of safety, as published by
the EPA  in  March 1S74  in  accordance
with section 5(a) (2) of the Act.
  Accordingly, EPA has developed  and is
now  implementing an interstate  rail
carrier noise control strategy  based on
section 17 of the Act that should  prove
to be effective in reducing environmental
noise from railroads in many areas to the
levels  Identified as protective  of  public
health and welfare. The strategy calls for
the reduction of the noise from railroad
locomotives and rail cars  to the  lowest
noise  levels  consistent with the  noise
abatement technology  available,  taking
into account the cost of compliance.
  Compliance regulations are  to  be de-
 veloped and  promulgated under separate
rule  making  by  the  Department of
Transporation as  called for in  section
 17  (b) of the Act.
  The legal  basis supporting promulga-
tion of this  regulation was set forth in
substantial detail  in the notice of pro-
 posed rulemaking  published in the FED-
ERAL REGISTER on  July 3, 1974 (39 FR
 24580). In the same publication,  notice
 was  given   of the availability   of the
"Background  Document  and Environ-
mental Explanation for the Proposed In-
terstate  Rail Carrier  Noise Emission
Regulations," which provided the factual
basis for the standards proposed, meas-
urement methodology applicable thereto,
costs of compliance with the proposed
standards  and  the  public  health and
welfare benefits expected. Public com-
ment was  solicited,  with the comment
period extending from July 3,  1974, to
August 17,1974.
  To ensure that  all issues involved in
the proposed regulation and Background
Document were  fully addressed  prior to
promulgation of the  final regulation, a
public  consultation   meeting was  an-
nounced in  the FEDERAL REGISTER  of
August 6, 1974 (39 FR 28318) and was
subsequently held on August 14,  1974, in
Des Plaines, Illinois. The principal issues
reviewed at this meeting related to  the
adequacy of the available technology to
meet requirements in the proposed stand-
ards and the impact of Federal preemp-
tion on State and local noise  regula-
tions. The transcript of the meeting has
been  includec. as a portion  of the total
body of public comment received.
  Public comments received during  the
public comment period are maintained
at the EPA Headquarters. 401 M Street,
SW.,  Washington, D.C.  20460, and  are
available  for public  inspection  during
normal working hours.
  In the future the Agency may propose
further regulations concerning  railroad
noise, as the need for and feasibility of
such are demonstrated. Such regulations
may be proposed as amendments to that
part of the Code of Federal Regulations
being established by  this regulatory  ac-
tion, or may be proposed pursuant to the
EPA's authority to  set  noise emission
standards for new products specified in
section 6 of the Act.

   SUMMARY  OF  COMMENTS RECEIVED
  While the EPA received and considered
carefully a significant number of com-
ments which were in agreement with the
railroad  noise regulation as  proposed,
other comments were received identify-
ing matters which the Agency  believes
warrant further  discussion.
  (1) The scope  of railroad facilities and
equipment regulated. A significant num-
ber of comments brought into issue  the
general question  of why the EPA decided,
apart from considerations of available
technology and cost  of compliance, not
to regulate all  railroad  facilities  and
equipment, and chose rather to regulate
only certain equipment at this time.
  This decision  by the EPA was based

-------
on its view that the uniform Federal reg-
ulation of the noise produced by certain
railroad facilities and equipment is not
necessary at this time since such noise
sources can best be controlled by meas-
ures which do not now require national
uniformity  of  treatment  in order  to
facilitate interstate commerce  as spec-
ified in section 2(a) (3) of the Act.
  The EPA has studied the operations of
carriers engaged in interstate commerce
by rail and recognizes that such opera-
tions are imbedded into  every corner of
the nation at thousands of locations and
along hundreds of thousands of  miles of
right-of-way. The nature and magnitude
of the noises produced by the many types
of facilities and equipment utilized in
these operations differ greatly and their
impact on the environment varies widely
depending on whether they occur, for
example, in a  desert or adjacent  to  a
residential area.  The Agency concludes
that the control of certain of these noise
sources, such as fixed  facilities, or equip-
ment used infrequently  or  primarily in
one location, is best handled by the State
and local  authorities, rather than the
Federal government, since the State and
local authorities are believed in this case
to be better able than the Federal gov-
ernment to consider local circumstances
in applying such measures  as the addi-
tion of noise barriers or sound insula-
tion to particular facilities, or the posi-
tioning of noisy equipment  within these
facilities as far as possible from noise-
sensitive areas. Further, and more im-
portantly, the EPA did  not find during
its analysis, and  has  not received from
rail carriers, any information identifying
situations "where  lack of uniform State
and local  laws with respect  to these
facilities  and  equipment  has   imposed
any  significant  burden on  interstate
commerce.
  In  view therefore  of  the absence of
evidence calling for the national regula-
tion of all interstate rail carrier facilities
and equipment in order  to facilitate in-
terstate commerce, the EPA believes that
its limited regulatory  action, as proposed
in the 'notice of proposed rulemaking, to
consider interstate rail operations, facil-
ities, and  eauicment on an individual
basis in determining  the need for their
uniform  Federal  regulation is  appro-
priate.
  a. Horns, bells, whistles,  and  other
warning devices.  A.  number of  com-
menters, ranging from private citizens to
both  State and Federal administrative
agencies, expressed both concern  over
and  agreement with the EPA's decision
not  to regulate  rail carrier  acoustic
 warning devices.
   This broad response serves as an in-
 dication of the conspicuous nature of the
 noises produced by such warning devices,
 and that to many citizens they are one of
 the most noticeable and disagreeable ex-
 amples of railroad noise.
   Three State  environmental  agencies
 indicated that complaints from citizens
 about railroad warning device noise were
 not only large in number but comprised
 the major source of all complaints about
 railroad noise, and therefore contended
 that  such warning  devices should  be
 regulated.
   The Agency in analyzing the  problem
 of acoustic warning device noise recog-
 nized  a unique characteristic  of  such
 noise as opposed to other railroad noises.
 That is, it is  a form of noise that is pur-
 posefully created and intended  to  be
 heard for safety reasons, instead of be-
 ing  an  unwanted by-product of some
 other activity. As such, the EPA  found
 that these warning devices and their use
 are regulated at both Federal and State
 levels; information as to the number and
 nature  of such regulations are included
 in the Background Document. In addi-
 tion, studies considered by the EPA, also
 included in the Background Document,
 show that such warning  devices do not
 appear to be  unrelated to highway and
 pedestrian  safety,  especially in emer-
 gency situations. The reduction or elimi-
 nation of such warning devices  through
 the authorities of  the Noise Control Act
 does not therefore appear  to be a reason-
 able consideration, as suggested by three
 commenters.
  The EPA does recognize that a noise
 problem exists as to the use and extent of
 railroad warning devices, and that regu-
 latory action may be appropriate for con-
 trolling same. However, the Agency be-
lieves that such regulation can best be
considered  and implemented by  State
 and local authorities who  are better able
 to evaluate the particular local  circum-
stances with  respect to the nature and
extent of the noise problem and the reg-
 uisite  safety  considerations  involved.
Any comprehensive Federal regulation in
 this  area could be  overly  diverse and
cumbersome. The EPA encourages in this
regard the interaction between local and
State governments and the railroads di-
rectly concerned in solving the particular
local noise problems  associated with the
use of such warning devices. Such inter-
 action  has  taken  place,  examples of
which are included in  the Background
Document, and has apparently produced
both safe and cost effective solutions to
these local noise problems.  However, if

-------
local authorities, after having first sought
solutions  with the  railroads  involved,
have still not been able to resolve their
problems, they are encouraged to then
direct their concerns to the EPA for pos-
sible further Federal action.
  Two   other   State   environmental
agencies indicated that locomotive horns,
bells,  or whistles around  railroad yards
are unnecessarily overused by the rail-
roads,  and  that such use  should  be
limited by Federal regulation.
  The EPA has determined that the use
of such warning devices in and around
railroad yards is not entirely out of place
due to the often  heavy intermingling of
workers and mobile eauipment with loco-
motives and  rail cars. Such use may of
course be beyond the extent necessary to
ensure safety, not only in railroad yards
but wherever else railroad horns, bells,
and whistles are used.  The term "over-
used,"  however, is  relative to the  par-
ticular circumstances surrounding such
use:  Whether, for example, a railroad
yard  or  rail-highway intersection  is
situated in a residential as opposed to an
industrialized area. These situations are
instances where the EPA's recommenda-
tion for railroad and community interac-
tion is at  this time the most appropriate
means of achieving  effective  warning
device noise abatement.
  Another commenter stated  that rail-
road acoustic warning signals  are inef-
fective  due to the often loud  ambient
noise  levels that exist in motor vehicle
interiors due to  radios and other noise
sources.
  Acoustical analysis  available to  the
Agency indicates that  the effectiveness
of acoustic warning signals as used  on
police  and emergency  vehicles as well
as urban buses  and trucks is not only
a function of amplitude or loudness but
also  of tonal characteristics.  That  is,
recognition is achieved by a  particular
fixed or variable frequency of a reason-
able  loudness that  impinges itself upon
whatever ambient noise may exist. This
view is in accord with the study refer-
enced above which indicates  that rail-
road warning signals do appear to affect
safety,  especially in  emergency situa-
tions.
  One commenter indicated  that road-
way  drop gates  equipped with flasher
units provide visual warning that is ade-
quate without acoustic signals.
  EPA encourages alternate solutions to
the routine use of acoustic warning de-
vices at rail and  road crossings. For ex-
ample, the elimination of public  grade
level railroad crossings would do away
with the source of the  problem, the in-
tersection of rail tracks and public thor-
oughfares. However, such a program on
a national basis of elevating or depress-
ing either the railroad line or the public
thoroughfare at each crossing, solely for
the purpose of the abatement of acoustic
warning signal noise,  is not considered
appropriate. However, it should be seri-
ously considered  in  future  public thor-
oughfare  or railroad  line  construction
programs for  both  safety and environ-
mental  noise reasons.
  Warning  gates,   too,  as suggested,
would appear to  be an effective safety
alternative  to acoustic warning signals.
Specifying their use on a national basis.
however, would be  prohibitively expen-
sive considering that  costs range from
-i>45,000  to $90,000 per unit, and with the
extensive use of grade level crossings in
the United  States,  for example Illinois
having  approximately  15,000  crossings
without drop gates,  the cost would be
$875 million or more in that State alone.
  Since acoustic warning devices do serve
the  interests  of safety  and, in  the
Agency's opinion, can best  be regulated
at  the  local  and  State level for the
reasons indicated, EPA does not propose
to regulate railroad acoustic warning de-
vices  at this time.
  b.  Repair  and  maintenance  shops,
terminals,  marshalling yards,  humping
yards, and specifically, rail car retarders.
Some commenters voiced objection to the
exclusion of noise emission standards for
fixed facility and  area-type  sources from
the  regulation, while  others were ex-
plicit in their agreement not to include
such standards.
  A major national  railroad association
commented that  the  EPA  should pre-
scribe  noise  standards for  area-type
sources  such as yards and terminals.
  The  facilities  and  equipment  found
within railroad yard and terminal areas,
with  the exception  of locomotives, rail
cars,  and some mobile  special purpose
equipment,  are permanent  installations
which are normally  subject to the envi-
ronmental noise regulations of only one
jurisdiction.
  The Agency has determined that such
fixed facility railroad yard and terminal
noise is best controlled at  this time at
the local level, employing measures which
do  not  in themselves affect the move-
ment of trains and therefore do not re-
quire national uniformity of treatment.
  Local  jurisdictions are familiar with
the particular complexities of their com-
munity/railroad  yard  noise  situation,
ana as  such, are  in a position to exhibit

-------
greater sensitivity in prescribing practi-
cal and cost  effective  solutions to the
local noise problem. Indeed, the same
railroad association which has encour-
aged the establishment of Federal area
noise standards for yards and terminals,
specifically pointed  out in its  remarks
that such facilities do vary in size, shape,
and special characteristics, and that the
noises produced there are diverse. The
EPA  recognizes that the communities
which neighbor these yards and termi-
nals are equally diverse, varyin. In land
zoning and population density and dis-
tribution.  As  such,  Federal  regulation
which successfully produces substantial
population health and welfare benefit at
one locality may produce little or no such
benefit at another locality. For example,
the regulation of a railroad jard facility
which is enveloped by a residential com-
munity would not achieve similar popu-
lation health and  welfare benefit when
equally applied to a similar railroad yard
facility which exists  within a large in-
dustrial park complex. This observed dif-
ferential is directly  attributable to the
different land zoning  and  population
density and distribution  characteristics
of the two communities.
  Acknowledging both the single juris-
dictional nature and the diversity which
characterize railroad yards and termi-
nals and their neighboring communities.
and citing the virtual absence of evidence
that non-uniform State  and local regu-
lation of  railroad  yard  and terminal
facilities in fact substantially  burdens
interstate commerce,  the  Agency at this
time does not propose to establish stand-
ards for the regulation  of railroad yard
and terminal fixed facility noise.
  Two commenters  requested that  the
KPA impose property line standards on
railroad  noise using  an  L,»  noise level
standard.
  The use  of property line noise stand-
ards is applicable primarily to the regu-
lation of noise from fixed facility and
area noise  sources. In the regulation of
railroad noise such sources include main-
tenance shops, marshalling yards, hump-
ing yards, and terminals.  Since EPA has
not covered these facilities in ;he regula-
tion,  the use  of such area  noise  level
standards in the regulation is not appro-
priate.
  The Department  of  Transportation
commented that the EPA should regulate
retarder noise emissions. They indicated
that active retarders should be regulated
by October 1976 since established barrier
technology makes it possible to meet that
schedule. They further state that a plan
to convert to retractable inert retarders
should be implemented by 1979.
  The EPA recognizes that rail car re-
tarding operations may  produce indi-
vidual peak  noise  levels  of up  to  120
dB(A) at 100 feet, and may be a problem
noise source to the  surrounding com-
munity. However,  as with other fixed
facilities,  retarders are  subject  to  the
authority of only one jurisdiction, and as
such can best be regulated at the local
level by means  which do not In them-
selves affect the movement of trains and
therefore  do not require national  uni-
formity of treatment.
  The Agency's study of railroad yard
noise (inclusive of  retarder noise) indi-
cates that concern for noise from rail-
road yards is apparently limited  to cer-
tain localities and is not a national con-
cern. This is due In  large part  to  the
location of a number of  yards In non-
urban areas  and the relatively few ex-
isting  retarder  systems,  approximately
120 today. This local nature of the re-
tarder noise problem further reduces the
desirability  of  a  Federally  preemptive
regulation. DOT's comment in support of
a  Federally  preemptive   retarder noise
regulation which  would  utilize  barrier
technology does not  consider the local
characteristics of each community which
is impacted  by  retarder  noise. For ex-
ample, in a  situation where a retarder
yard is bordered on one side by a residen-
tial  area and on  all  other sides by an
unpopulated wooded area, a barrier could
be beneficial to public health and wel-
fare only If erected on that side of the
retarder which faces the residential area.
Under such circumstances a conjr.unity
would receive insufficient health and wel-
fare  benefits to justify  the costs  in-
curred by a Federally  preemptive regula-
tion which mandates the Installation ot
barrier walls on both sides of retarder
mechanisms. At the currently estimated
materials cost of $70 to  $100 per linear
foot for barriers, barrier costs would run
from $75 thousand to $150 thousand per
railroad  yard  and from $9.J  to $19.1
million for the entire railroad  industry.
Maintenance  and replacement  costs,
yard down time, and  track modification
costs have not  been fully identified.  Ex-
penditures should be  assured of produc-
ing maximum benefits, and this may best
be done through local regulation. Avail-
able space for  installation of barriers,
and safety hazards which might accrue
thereto,  have not been   identified,  and
are peculiar to the particular character-
istics of the individual  railroad yards,
and as such may be  best accounted for
through local regulation.

-------
  A Federal regulation for conversion of
inert  retarders to retractable inert  re-
tarders  would be subject to considera-
tions  similar to  those discussed for  the
erection of barriers around active retard-
ers, except that  probable yard downtime
and   installation and  materials  costs
would be considerably greater for con-
version to  inert  retractable  retarders
than  for  the erection of barriers. The
EPA   estimates that  conversion   to
retractable  inert retarders would  cost
$7.5 thousand for each retarder, not in-
cluding labor, yard  down time, or main-
tenance costs. Applying a gross estimate
of 20 thousand such inert retarders  na-
tionally, estimated  national conversion
costs, exclusive of labor, down time, and
operational costs, would be $150 million.
  Although the  EPA does not currently
propose to regulate retarder noise, it does
recommend that local jurisdictions es-
tablish regulations which require  rail-
roads to utilize barrier technology where
needed, and where both practical  and
feasible. Further consideration may be
given by  the EPA to possibly providing
future regulations to require that new re-
tarder installations be equipped with re-
tractable inert retarders, computer con-
trol systems,  retarder beam lubrication
systems, or other available technical de-
velopments which  result in significant
noise reduction from retarders as the
need for such regulations is demonstrat-
ed relative to the costs involved and the
availability of technology.
   DOT also commented that the EPA
should promulgate a regulation  which
protects railroad workmen as well as the
community from retarder noise.
   For  reasons outlined  above, the EPA
does not presently propose to regulate
 retarder  noise from either the commu-
nity  health and welfare or the occupa-
tional  health and  safety point of view.
 The  latter consideration is specifically
 under  the purview of the Occupational
 Safety   and   Health   Administration
 (OSHA)  and is properly addressed by
 that Agency.
   Currently,  the Federal Railroad Ad-
 ministration (FRA) is proposing a regu-
 lation which  would  limit noise levels
 within railroad workmen's sleeping quar-
 ters. This proposal is in response  to a
 petition  from the Congress of Railway
 Unions (CRU)  that the FRA institute
 rule making procedures to prohibit  rail-
 roads from having or providing employee
 sleeping quarters less than one mile from
 its property or  yards where switching or
 humping operations are performed. The
 FRA's proposed regulation does not reg-
 ulate  the distance of sleeping quarters
from  the railroad yard; however, it does
specify  acceptable interior noise levels
for sleeping quarters.
  c. Special purpose equipment. A major
national railroad association commented
that the EPA should promptly establish
noise  limits applicable to the noise Jrom
special purpose equipment.
  Examples of special purpose equipment
which may be located on or operated
from  rail cars include:  Ballast cribbing
machines, ballast regulators, condition-
ers and  scarifiers, bolt  machines, brush
cutters,  compactors, concrete  mixers,
cranes and derricks, earth  boring ma-
chines, electric welding machines, grind-
ers, grouters, pile drivers, rail heaters,
rail  layers,  sandblasters,  snow  plows,
spike  drivers, sprayers and other numer-
ous types of maintenance-of-way equip-
ment.
  The Agency realizes that special pur-
pose  equipment such as  that used  for
maintenance-of-way activities is essen-
tially construction equipment,  and  as
such  may emit loud intermittent noise.
Railroads may avoid noise problems  by
keeping routine maintenance activities to
reasonable times, and local jurisdictions
may easily regulate  operation times for
such eauipment as long  as exceptions are
allowed for emergency use. For example,
a community may wish to regulate the
hours allowed  for routine operation of
spike driving equipment, but exception
must be made for the operation of such
equipment in the aftermath of a derail-
ment, so that interstate commerce would
not be unduly impeded.
  The small numbers of such equipment,
their infrequency of use, and the rela-
tive ease with which viable local regula-
tions may be instituted, all tend to make
a Federally preemptive regulation overly
expensive  relative to  the  benefits  re-
ceived.
   Comments received by the Agency  did
not indicate that any cases  currently
exist where nonuniform local or state
regulation of special purpose equipment
has unduly burdened those railroads so
regulated, and at this  time  the  Agency
does  not  believe that  special  purpose
equipment requires  national uniformity
of  treatment. However, the  rail cars
themselves on which such  special pur-
pose  equipment is located are included
 under the standards for rail car opera-
 tions. The Agency  continues  to solicit
 notice  of  specific cases where nonuni-
 form local or state  regulation  of special
 purpose equipment has created a burden
 on interstate commerce. If in the future
 it  appears that national uniformity of
 treatment of such equipment is appropri-

-------
ate, noise emission standards  may  be
proposed.
  d. Track and right of way. Three com-
menters raised  questions  dealing with
the absence  of  track and right-of-way
standards  in the proposed regulation.
Two stated that in view of the fact that
the EPA had preempted State and local
authorities  from  regulating  track and
right-of-way in the notice of proposed
rulemaking,  it was  in  conflict  with  its
mandate to issue  noise emission stand-
ards  reflecting  "best  available  tech-
nology" since the regulation itself did
not contain  any  track standard. The
other was concerned that since a track
standard was not included in the regula-
tion, quiet rail cars  might be penalized
for wheel/rail  noise caused  by faulty
track.
  The EPA fully recognizes the need for
track and right-of-way standards in any
regulatory strategy that  attempts  to
quiet the movement of rail cars.
  The  standard promulgated  for rail
cars applies to the total noise produced
by the operation of  trains on track.  As
such it is preemptive  with respect  to
both rail cars and track. It reflects the
noise level achievable by application of
best maintenance  practices  to rail cars.
Further reductions  in  noise  levels  are
achievable through various track repairs
and modifications. However, the EPA has
not fully  identified  the available tech-
nology or  the applicable costs  associated
with such practices. In the future, the
EPA may propose standards which would
require their application.
  e. Rail  cars equipped with auxiliary
power   equipment  and  mass  transit
systems.
  Three commenters recommended that
the regulation be revised so as to include
noise standards for rail cars equipped
with auxiliary power units, more specifi-
cally, mechanically refrigerated freight
cars, and various auxiliary powered pas-
senger-related cars.
  The initial decision by the Agency was
to regulate noise from  all sources pro-
duced by rail cars while in motion only,
and to leave  to State and local authori-
ties the regulation of whatever noise is
produced from rail cars  while stationary.
This decision was made because these
noises are a problem only when such cars
are parked  near  noise-sensitive  areas
(such  noises  being  indistinguishable
from other railroad car noises while the
cars are in motion), and because it was
felt that such localized problems could
best be controlled by measures  such  as
the relocation of such cars to less noise-
sensitive areas.
  The Agency was and continues to DC
cognizant of the extent of the problem
that can be caused in specific instances
by the continuous operation of the diesel
or gasoline engines which operate  on
such  cars. Noise  levels  as high  as 75
dB(A) at 15 meters  (50 feet)  are pos-
sible from refrigerator cars parked with
their  cooling   systems   running   in
marshalling yards  and humping yards.
Noise levels from such refrigerator cars
can be even greater due to the fact that
such  cars are often parked coupled to-
gether in large numbers. Additional data
acquired by and supplied to the Agency
has shown that the problem exists not
only with refrigerator cars but  also with
various passenger-related  cars such as
dining cars, lounge cars, cafe-type cars,
and others equipped with self-contained
power units; and that the abatement of
such noise appears able to be and in cer-
tain instances is now being accomplished
through   the  use  of existing  muffler
designs. In this regard,  the statements
on pages  4-28 and 4-37 of the original
Background Document have been cor-
rected to reflect  the use  (although of
undetermined adequacy) of mufflers on
the auxiliary engines used in refrigerator
cars.
  The Agency therefore may consider
the possible promulgation of a regulation
dealing with the noise  produced  by
mechanically  refrigerated freight cars
and  passenger cars equipped with aux-
iliary power equipment so as to reduce
the impact of such noise when these cars
are parked near noise sensitive areas.
  Considerations as to the costs to be
incurred by the owners of such rail cars
as may be affected by any future regula-
tory  action would  be fully  and  ade-
quately addressed during the course of
the regulatory process that would be con-
ducted relative to such regulation.
  It should be noted that in the regula-
tion being promulgated herein the stand-
ard for rail car  operations refers to the
total  noise generated, and  that the set-
ting of emission standards on any ele-
ment of that noise is preempted, whether
the rail car is in motion or stationary.
This Federal regulatory action does not,
however,  interfere with the  ability of
State and local governments to enact or
enforce noise emission  regulations  on
railroad yards that require railroads to
erect noise .barriers. Nor does this regu-
lation interfere with the ability of State
and  local governments to  enact or en-'
force noise emission regulations  which
require the relocation of parked rail cars
that generate noise so long as such regu-
lation is reviewed and approved by EPA

-------
pursuant to section 17(c) (2) of the Act.
  One of  the commenters asked for an
extension of the period of time prior to
promulgation of the final regulation  so
that  refrigerator  car  noise  emissions
could be studied in relation to wheel/rail
noise.
  Studies and  data  considered by  the
EPA  show  that such noise  can range
from  72 dB(A)  (Thermo King Corpora-
tion, a major manufacturer of refrigera-
tion equipment, 1975) to 75 dB(A) (Wyle
Laboratories, an  acoustical  consulting
firm,  1973), and that it is Indistinguish-
able from overall  train noise while  the
train is moving. As such, and In the ab-
sence of a showing that the existing data
is questionable, no  extension has been
granted.
  One commenter suggested that the reg-
ulation be made applicable to the opera-
tion of and equipment used by intra-
urban mass transit svstems.
  The Agency has not intended and does
not intend that intraurban mass transit
systems be covered  by the regulation
being promulgated  herein.  It  Is  the
Agency's  judgment that such  systems
are specifically excluded from regulation
under section 17 of the Noise Control Act
of  1972 by the definition of  "carrier"
cited in the Act which excludes "•  * *
street, suburban, and interurban electric
railways  unless operated as a part of a
general railroad system of transporta-
tion." In addition such systems operate
principally within one jurisdiction or in
 some  cases throughout a small number
of  contiguous metropolitan jurisdictions
under the purview of a single transit au-
thority, and as such do not appear to
require uniform Federal regulation in
order to  facilitate interstate commerce.
However, the exclusion of such systems
does not also exclude the operations and
equipment  associated  with  commuter
rail services provided  by  a  number of
 interstate rail carriers.
   (2)  Standards for locomotive opera-
tion under stationary conditions. A ma-
jor locomotive  manufacturer and a ma-
jor national railroad association com-
mented that the  application of muffler
technology alone would not be adequate
to  bring  existing diesel-electric locomo-
tives into compliance with the 67 dB(A)
 idle standard to be effective 4 years from
the date  of promulgation of the regula-
 tion. Because this regulation as proposed
 has been revised and does not now call
 for the modification of In-use locomo-
 tives, this  becomes  a  question of  new
 locomotive design.
   Available data indicate that although
locomotive exhaust  noise  is often the
dominant noise source at  idle,  struc-
turally radiated noise may in some cases
be dominant.
  A major locomotive manufacturer pre-
sented the Agency with data which indi-
cate that for certain idling locomotives,
including models equipped with  turbo-
charged and Rootes blown engines, the
octave bands representing the overall A-
weighted locomotive sound levels at 100
feet are not totally dominated by exhaust
noise,  but are  somewhat controlled by
structurally  radiated noise. These data
further indicate that particular locomo-
tives  may emit overall locomotive idle
noise levels  of  approximately 69  dB(A)
at 100 feet.  EPA data further indicate
that  some locomotives may emit idle
noise levels in excess of 69 dB(A) which
are also dominated by structurally radi-
ated noise. Locomotives with such high
levels of structurally radiated noise can-
not be brought  into compliance with the
proposed level of  67  dB(A)  through, for
example, muffler  application alone. Ac-
cordingly, the Agency has  amended the
locomotive idle noise standard, increas-
ing the  allowable noise emission level
from 67 d3(A)  to 7J dB(A) at  100 feet.
  A  major  rail  passenger  corporation
commented  that diesel electric locomo-
tives equipped with auxiliary power gen-
erators or twin  traction engines, and gas
turbine locomotives,  may not be able to
meet the idle standard, and that special
standards should be  pi'onvulgated for
such equipment.
  In   proposing  this   regulation  the
Agency intended to provide Federal pre-
emption for  all locomotive  noise sources
excepting acoustical warning  devices,
thus  providing national uniformity of
treatment to protect these  mobile noise
sources.  Accordingly,  State  and local
regulation of noise emissions from such
locomotives equipped with auxiliary gen-
erators used to power electrical units on
passenger cars, including the noise from
such auxiliary generators per se.  should
be Federally preempted.
  On this basis, the Agency has deter-
mined that  Federally preemptive regu-
lation of noise from  auxiliary  power
units is appropriate. However, the noise
from such sources  was not specifically
addressed by the Agency during rule
making,  and the standard as proposed
considered only idle setting noise emis-
sions from the primary  propulsion en-
gines of  the stationary locomotives.
  Because  passenger  locomotives  do
spend considerable time  in a stationary
disposition with  auxiliary  power units

-------
operating at the same time that the pri-
mary  diesel  engines  are  idling,  the
Agency forsees circumstances where the
auxiliary unit noise may dominate other
noise emissions from the idling locomo-
tive, and  thus be  appropriate for regu-
latory action. After further consideration
of this  matter the Agency may address
noise standards for such auxiliary  units
in a separate  rule  making. However, be-
cause the intent of the Act was to provide
national uniformity  of  treatment where
non-uniform State and local ordinances
could likely impose  a burden on inter-
state commerce, and  because the locomo-
tive as a whole is subject to this regula-
tion, the  Agency  believes that its reg-
ulatory action  relative  to  locomotive
noise emissions  is also  preemptive  with
respect to State  and  local  ordinances
relative to noise emissions from the aux-
iliary power units  which are  an integral
part of many such locomotives.
  The Agency has received no data which
would  demonstrate   that twin diesel
electric locomotives are  in fact incapable
of  compliance with  the idle standard.
Since the  Agency has  no  data which
would  demonstrate  that  twin  diesel
engines are inherently louder than larger
single diesel  engines,  and  since twin-
engined locomotives  utilize the same ba-
sic diesel-electric technology as the  more
common  single   engined  locomotives,
separate  standards  for  twin-engined
diesel-electric locomotives are  not in-
cluded in  this regulation. The standards
as promulgated are therefore applicable
to these locomotives.
  While the  Agency  has sufficient  data
to confidently assess the ability of gas
turbine-powered locomotives to meet the
moving condition  standard, the Agency
has  not been able to acquire sufficient
data on the  idle  setting or  stationary
runup noise levels of gas turbine locomo-
tives. Due to the virtual  unavailability of
such stationary noise data, the regulation
as proposed has been revised, and the idle
setting and stationary runup noise stand-
ards are no longer applicable to gas tur-
bine locomotives. However, this regula-
tion is preemptive with  respect to State
and local  regulation of  all turbine  loco-
motive noise excepting that from acousti-
cal warning devices, including regulation
when such locomotives  are stationary at
idle. After the Agency  has compiled  a
sufficient data base, idle setting and sta-
tionary  runup noise  standards for gas
turbine locomotives  may be  established
as a revision to these regulations.
  Considerable comment was  received
concerning the  full  throttle stationary
standard. DOT questioned the acoustical
acceptability of the typical load cell test
sites and the validity of self loading due
to the unaccounted for influence of noise
emissions from the dynamic brake grid
fans. Also cited was the possible obstruc-
tion of  routine railroad operations due
to local  enforcement of the stationaiy
standards.
  DOT indicated that areas near railroad
load cells are not far enough  from re-
flective  surfaces to be effective test  sites.
They also indicated that if load cells are
to  be  used  for enforcement  the  EPA
should prescribe correction factors to ac-
count for the acoustical variability  of
actual load cell test sites.
  In answering the above claim that load
cells are unsuitable for locomotive noise
measurement because they are situated
too close to reflective areas, the EPA cites
the fact that a number of load  cells are
portable and are readily available  on a
rental  basis. These portable  load  cells
may be  transported  to  an acoustically
acceptable site for locomotive noise test-
ing. At such sites, accurate and meaning-
ful noise measurements may be obtained
without the use of site correction factors.
  Additional  DOT  response   indicated
that the self-loading test is not valid be-
cause the cooling fans on the dynamic
brake grids operate  during self-loading,
while in actual operations grid  fans are
never operated. They stated that the in-
iierently high level of noise attributable
to  cooling fan operation  (both engine
and dynamic brake grid fans) during self
load would interfere with the accurate
and meaningful   measurement  of  ex-
haust noise.
  The EPA  has   considered the above
comment and believes that objections to
the self loading test are valid. Therefore,
considering the difficulties involved in ob-
taining  accurate  measurements due  to
the interference of dynamic brake grid
fan noise, and citing the availability of
portable rented load cells, the Agency
has  decided  to delete  the  self loading
test as a recommended stationary testing
procedure,  while  simultaneously   en-
dorsing the  use of  portable load  cells.
when necessary.
  DOT  indicated concern that enforce-
ment of stationary standards could result
in significant obstruction of routine rail-
road operation and hence interfere  with
the flow  of  interstate commerce. That
is, any enforcement official could order
any one or any number of locomotives to
be moved to  a load cell or self load  area
for testing, regardless of the maintenance
work schedule at the load cell or the  need
for the subject locomotives to be engaged

-------
in interstate commerce.
  Such  potential difficulties have been
considered by EPA, and the Agency be-
lieves that their effects  may  be mini-
mized through proper structuring of the
DOT compliance regulations which may
specify  responsible  enforcement  pro-
cedures.
  (3) Standards for  locomotive opera-
tion under moving conditions. The DOT
favors a moving locomotive standard as
a substitute for a stationary standard,
but stated that EPA's definition of way-
side surface  conditions  should  be Im-
proved.
  The EPA strongly believes that a sta-
tionary as well  as a moving locomotive
standard is necessary in order to account
for  the varying nature of locomotive
noise. Utilization of both stationary and
moving standards also facilitates ade-
quate and accurate  enforcement. The
additional measurement criteria which
are  being incorporated by the EPA as
part of  the final regulation specify way-
side surface conditions in greater detail.
  A major railway passenger corpora-
tion indicated that the moving locomo-
tive standard should be speed related as
Is the case with the  rail car  standard.
They further stated that gear noise, trac-
tion motor nois , and noise from loco-
motive appurtenances are speed  related.
  EPA data indicates that while diesel-
electric locomotive noise does not appear
to be speed related, electric freight, elec-
tric high speed passenger, and  turbine
high speed passenger noise levels do ex-
hibit some  speed-related  correlations.
However,  the high speed noise emission
levels exhibited by these  locomotives ap-
pear to fall within the EPA's  90 dB(A)
standard, and  should pose no  special
compliance problem.
   (4) Standards for rail car operations.
DOT indicated that it is appropriate  to
limit any car regulation to at least two
degree or wider turns as with the loco-
motive standard.
  The EPA Concurs with that statement
and has made  the appropriate changes
in the Rail Car Standard.
  One private car owner was concerned
that the EPA Rail Car Noise Standards
would require greater maintenance than
that prescribed by the FRA (1974) Rail-
road Freight Car Safety Standards al-
ready in effect.
   The  EPA  Rail Car Noise Emission
Standards are based on those noise levels
achievable through  best  maintenance
practice. As such, the data used to de-
termine 
-------
proposal most widely known as "retro-
fit" because it largely involves the phased
addition of mufflers to the existing loco-
motive fleet. Several docket entries con-
tained economic and technological data
which conflict  significantly  with   the
EPA data which appears in the Back-
ground Document.  The principal areas
of conflict involve  disparities in deter-
mination of  the "best available tech-
nology"  as it  exists today and the  re-
sultant costs  of  its application. There
exists  a  further complicating factor in
that the available  space configurations
existing  within many locomotives have
been  altered  over the years  due to  the
addition and modification  of  various
locomotive components such as dynamic
braking systems and spark arresters. As
a result of this practice there exist today
numerous and diverse locomotive con-
figurations, each possessing its own spe-
cific  peculiarities which  must be  ac-
counted  for in a retrofit program. The
implications of this diversity of locomo-
tive configurations  and the accompany-
ing disagreement concerning  available
technology and the cost of its application
(i.e.,  labor rates,  capital costs of  new
facilities, etc.) have given rise to  cost
of compliance figures which range from
the EPA's  original estimates of $80 to
$100  million  to industry estimates  ap-
proximating  $400 to $800 million.  Al-
though the generation of additional in-
formation concerning the availability of
technology may allow the  Agency to
reconcile these  widely varying  retrofit
cost  estimates,  the collection  of such
data  would be a  costly  and  time  con-
suming  process which  may  produce a
retrofit cost estimate which remains sub-
stantially  high  relative to  the public
health and welfare benefits which would
result, especially in view of the   fact
that railroad  noise has not been identi-
fied as one of the major sources of noise
in  the environment. For these reasons
the Agency has  decided to remove the
retrofit requirement from the regulation
being promulgated herein. Acknowledg-
ing the uncertainties which  currently
accompany  the  retrofit provision,  the
Agency may reconsider the retrofit issue
and may promulgate a retrofit require-
ment  should  further information indi-
cate that the technology is available  and
that retrofit compliance costs are reason-
able,  relative  to the health and welfare
benefits to be accrued.
   (7)  Cost and technology of locomotive
noise reduction. A major national rail-
road  association and two  other com-
menters indicated  concern for  the  im-
pact of the railroad noise regulation on
the bankrupt and marginal railroads.
  The Agency has endeavored to antici-
pate and account for all costs which the
bankrupt  railroads specifically, and all
railroads generally, may incur as the re-
sult  of this regulatory action. Best and
worst  case  estimates  for the sum of
equivalent annual manufacturing costs
and  equivalent annual fuel costs over 25
years,  vary from $4.59 million to $4.76
million for the entire railroad industry.
The  fractional impact of  these costs on
the marginal and bankrupt railroads is
expected to be approximately 28 percent
of the total cost to the  entire railroad
industry, with such costs not seen as be-
ing  significant in comparison  to  other
costs regularly  incurred  by such  rail-
roads.
  Several commenters claimed that the
introduction  of  mufflers  to locomotives
will  cause numerous technical and en-
vironmental problems.
  A  major national railroad association
and  several other  commenters  warned
that the  use  of mufflers,  especially in
combination  with spark  arresters, will
cause increased backpressure, which will
result in increased fuel consumption and
increased  atmospheric pollution.
  Mufflers can be  designed  which are
well  within the manufacturer's warranty
backpressure  specifications  for   both
Rootes  blown and  turbo-charged loco-
motives, for use both with or without
spark  arresters.  Mufflers  which are
within these specifications should  cause
only insignificant increases  in  atmos-
pheric pollutant emissions and a mini-
mal  increase  in  fuel consumption.
  A  major national  railroad association
indicated  that carbon collection in the
mufflers presents a potential fire hazard.
Presently, then is no substantial Indi-
cation that carbon collection in locomo-
tive  mufflers would  present a potential
fire hazard. Within spark arresters which
are currently found on today's locomo-
tives, carbon particles are gathered from
the  exhaust gases prior to the passage
of those gases through the outlet section
of  the spark  arrester  for  discharge
through the  exhaust pipes. While  it
could  be  postulated that  hot  carbon
might conceivably  collect within  muf-
flers which are  in  tandem with or are
integrated into spark arresters, it could
also  be postulated that such carbon col-
lection might just as readily occur at the
outlets of spark arresters or within ex-
haust pipes which  are presently found
on locomotives.  However,  no such fire
hazard due to carbon collection has bepn
                                       11

-------
evidenced at spark  arrester outlets  or
in exhaust pipes,  and the Agency sees
no  indication that  the  installation  of
mufflers will  substantially increase the
potential for such a fire hazard.
  A major railroad association indicated
concern that increased railroad rates  to
cover compliance costs may cause diver-
sion of traffic  to more  fuel intensive
modes which  also emit more atmospheric
pollutants.
  As stated previously, the cost impact
of a regulation on newly manufactured
locomotives should be,  in itself, insuf-
ficient to necessitate the need for any
major railroad   rate  increases.   Thus,
-there does  not  appear to be any likeli-
hood of diverting railroad traffic to more
fuel and pollution  intensive transport
modes.
  One commenter indicated that the ap-
plication of  mufflers will result in de-
creased reliability of the  locomotives
both with respect to failure of the muf-
flers themselves and to other components
of the locomotives.
  Mufflers  could  be  made out of anti-
corrosive,  heat-resistant alloys  for  a
long service life. Also an important con-
sideration  is the  fact that  the muffler
would be within the  carbody of the loco-
motive and would not be exposed to the
elements, thus  extending its  expected
useful life. Industrial mufflers have been
designed for a useful life of over 20 years
and it is expected that locomotive muf-
flers  may  be designed  for  a similarly
long life span. Also,  the  design and uti-
lization of  mufflers  which  are  within
manufacturers'  backpressure specifica-
tions, should preclude major adverse ef-
fects  to other internal locomotive com-
ponents.
  (8) Health and welfare impact. Sev-
eral commenters indicated that the EPA
did not provide adequate information as
to  the number of people impacted  by
railroad noise, nor the number to be ben-
efited by the regulation, or  whether in
fact such people were adversely affected
from a health  and welfare standpoint
initially.
  The Agency  included in  the  Back-
ground  Document  studies  and  data
which indicated that the number of peo-
ple exposed  to  various  noise levels  by
railroad traffic  are significant.  Such
numbers are approximately 2.29 million
people at or above  an Ldn value of 55
dB(A). Exposure to  such noise levels for
extended periods  of time has been de-
termined to  have an adverse effect  on
the health and welfare of those exposed,
as  indicated  in an EPA report of March
1974 entitled "Information on Levels of
Environmental Noise Requisite  to  Pro-
tect Public Health and  Welfare  with an
Adequate Margin of Safety." In addition
the EPA is establishing this regulation
as part of a regulatory strategy that, ac-
cording to Agency analysis, could even-
tually relieve approximately 520,000 peo-
ple from  railroad noise levels in excess of
55dB(A),Ldn.
  Four commenters contended that the
health and  welfare of people  is not af-
fected by railroad equipment which oper-
ates in sparsely populated or rural areas
and  that,  therefore,  the regulation  of
such equipment  is not called for.
  The  Agency has determined  that there
is substantial mobility of the use of rail-
road equipment  not only within partic-
ular railroad operating regions but across
the nation  as a whole, and  that  such
mobility  is  an important facet of the
manner  in which  railroad  companies
operate. This mobility is evidenced by the
fact that rail cars and locomotives are
transferred from one area to another in
order to satisfy the fluctuations in re-
quired hauling capacity which take place,
and  by  the practice whereby  old line
locomotives are  retired by transferring
them to  railroad yards to act  as switch-
ers. It has been found that such  mobility
is increasing as  evidenced by  Railbox, a
plan utilized by a growing number of
railroads whereby rail cars are pooled so
that their use may be shared anywhere
within the operating regions of  the par-
ticipating railroads.
  The Agency has  determined, there-
fore, that the mobility of rail cars and
locomotives requires that the standards
be applied uniformly to all such pieces
of equipment.
   (9; Effect on State and local noise con-
trol. A major railroad industry  associa-
tion questioned  whether the Agency has
the authority to offer an opinion as to
the preemptive  effect of its regulations,
and in particular, felt that, contrary to
the Agency's stated position, the setting
of Federal emission standards for  loco-
motives  and rail cars preempts every ef-
fort to  control noise  from that  same
equipment by local and State authorities,
such  as  the required erection  of  noise
barriers, or the  regulation  of overall
railroad  yard noise.
   The EPA believes that the Noise Con-
trol Act of 1972 is clear in its  contem-
plation that Federal and State govern-
ments work together in  the  control of
noise.  However,  the Act also provides, in
some cases, that the Federal authority be
preemptive. The Agency  therefore feels
                                        12

-------
that it is proper  for it to explain the
extent of its regulations and to indicate
the point beyond  which the States and
local governments may act; and  that it
is not prohibited from assisting the State
and local governments by indicating ways
in which the Agency believes they may
augment its  regulatory efforts. In addi-
tion the EPA's  analysis indicates that,
based  on legal  precedents, subsections
17 (c)  (1) and  (2) provide only for the
preemption of State and local regulations
which  set standards on the noise emis-
sions  of Federally regulated equipment
or facilities,  or  which have that  effect
by requiring the  modification of such
equipment or facilities, or the  alteration
of their  use.
  Another  commenter  indicated  that
State and local governments do not have
the inclination or ability to  determine
the technical feasibility and cost of com-
pliance  of noise regulations and,  there-
fore, the EPA is not acting in accordance
with the instructions of Congress  by en-
couraging such local initiative.
  The Agency believes,  as stated  above,
that the Congress did  intend that the
Federal and  State authorities cooperate
in the control of noise. Certain States, in
particular California, and Illinois, have
well established  environmental agencies
and  have  enacted and are  enforcing
comprehensive noise regulations.  These
States and others  are clearly not  devoid
of technical  and economic expertise. It
appears  to the Agency,  therefore, that
there  is no  fundamental reason  why
such States should not be permitted and
encouraged  to consider the technology
available within relevant economic re-
straints to solve those noise problems pe-
culiar to them that are not preempted
by Federal regulatory action.
  Numerous comments were received re-
garding special local conditions and the
effects of Federal preemption on the re-
lationship between State and local noise
regulations  and Federal  noise regula-
tions. Industry commenters felt strongly
that there  should be one  uniform na-
tional standard  that is totally preemp-
tive. Some States and localities felt that
"special local conditions" should  be in-
terpreted broadly, and  some comment-
ers felt that where stricter State and lo-
cal standards were feasible  they  should
not be preempted by Federal regulations.
  Most  of the comments received from
local and State authorities asked that
local regulation of noise be permitted to
continue, and that they be allowed to at-
tempt to control specialized noise prob-
lems such as night operations  of trains
which affect residential areas. Such local
regulations are not  necessarily  prohib-
ited by this regulatory action. The Agen-
cy has explained the nature of the pre-
emptive effect of this regulation in an-
other section of the preamble and feels
that such explanation should serve as a
guide to the future status of such  State
and local regulatory efforts.
  (10) Measurement methodology and
enforcement  regulations. There were a
number of comments f-rom State and Lo-
cal governments,  private citizens, and
industry relating to measurement meth-
odologies  and  compliance  procedures.
Several recommendations  were offered
indicating that a measurement method-
ology specifying information such  as al-
lowable measurement  equipment, site
conditions, tolerances and measurement
techniques should  be incorporated into
the regulation.  Comments were  also  re-
ceived concerning  the  measurement
procedures published in the Background
Document to  the proposed regulation.
  The proposed regulation  did  not  in-
clude a detailed measurement methodol-
ogy since it was contemplated that such
would be included as part of the  com-
pliance regulation to be promulgated by
the   Department   of  Transportation.
Such measurement methodology, dealing
with the enforcement aspects of railroad
noise measurement, will still be  devel-
oped  by the Department of Transporta-
tion. The Agency, however, as a result of
Its own further analysis and after con-
sideration  of the questions  and sugges-
tions received during the public review
process, has decided to incorporate addi-
tional measurement criteria into  the
standards  as an added subpart of  the
final regulation being promulgated here-
in. Such measurement criteria  contain
specifications  for  ambient  noise,  wind
noise, test site conditions, test equipment
orientation, and other  parameters nec-
essary for  the consistent and accurate
measurement of the sound  levels  speci-
filed in the regulation.
  This decision was made due to  the
complexity of the problem of accurately
and  fairly performing noise measure-
ments of railroad  equipment, and  be-
cause the Agency felt it necessaiy to  en-
sure that the standards within the  regu-
lation be fully and definitively specified
so that there be no question  as to the
standards promulgated. The proper and
complete definition of such  standards is
particularly critical with respect to rail-
road noise because there is no generally
accepted  measurement scheme in  use
nationally or  throughout the affected in-
dustry unlike the situation in other  in-
dustries subject to Federal noise regula-
                                       13

-------
 tion.
  The Agency feels that it is acting prop-
 erly in including the criteria as part of
 this final rulemaking without proposing
 them  separately  because  the  method-
 ology  from  which  such  criteria  were
 taken  was published in the Background
 Document to the proposed regulation and
 was commented on as a  result  of the
 public review process. In addition, that
 methodology   has   since  undergone
 thorough review by concerned Agenices
 of the Federal government, including the
 Department  of Commerce/National Bu-
'reau of Standards, and the Department
 of Transportation/Federal Railroad Ad-
 ministration, and been  revised by the
 EPA in response thereto.
  A comment period, with  respect to the
 additional criteria in Subpart C only, if
 30 days from the date of publication of
 this regulation will be  provided for those
 who have suggestions or  Questions re-
 garding their  provisions.  Information
 concerning the procedural details of such
 correspondence is provided  in a  later
 section of the Preamble, entitled  Future
 Public Comment.
  One  commenter indicated  that  the
 C scale would be more  appropriate for
 this regulation than the  A scale.
  It has been argued that the A-weighted
 sound level discriminates against low fre-
 quencies and, thus, should be replaced
 by the C-weighted sound level.  However,
 the  ear also discriminates against low
 frequencies so that at low frequencies
 the  sound pressure level must be com-
 paratively high  before it can even  be
 heard.  Since the correlations between
 A-weighted sound level  and human re-
 sponse are consistently better than that
 obtained  with  the C-weighted  sound
 level, the EPA believes that the  measure-
 ment  procedures  using  the A scale  on
 which  these  regulations  are based are
 appropriate,  and therefore,  no change
 has  been made.
  Two commenters  expressed concern
 over the 100 foot measuring distance and
 indicated that the specification of a 100
 foot measuring distance in the standards
 is too  far because such would  require
 that too large an area be cleared for the
 necessary -measurement site.
  The Agency believes from the analyses
 used to develop the regulation  and from
 its study associated with the development
 of additional measurement criteria that
 the  100 foot  measuring distance  does
 not  appear  to  create significant prob-
 lems with finding suitable sites for the
 measurement of the sound levels  asso-
 ciated with any of the standards, and has
therefore not changed such distance.
  The Department of Transportation re-
quested more than 270  days  to develop
compliance regulations due to the com-
plexity of the nature of railroad noise
control and because existing  experience
and expertise in the field are  so limited.
  The Agency is aware  of the problems
associated with the regulation of railroad
noise  and  is concerned that adequate
time be provided so that comprehensive
and effective compliance regulations may
be developed. While it has taken upon it-
self the development  of detailec.  meas-
urement criteria which  are being incor-
porated as part of the  final  regulation.
the Agency recognizes the need  of the
DOT  for adequate  time to develop the
compliance regulation. Therefore in di-
rect response to the request of the DOT.
the effective date  of  the Best Mainte-
nance Practice  Standards  has  been
changed from 270 days to 365 days from
the date of promulgation.
  The Agency  realizes  that  unforeseen
difficulties may occur and it  will  there-
fore  attempt to work closely with the
DOT  in the development of the compli-
ance  regulations  so  that appropriate
measures may be taken  should such dif-
ficulties arise.
   (11) Background document data. Spe-
cific questions  were raised which dealt
with the accuracy of facts and data pre-
sented in  the Background Document  to
the proposed regulation.
  A   major  locomotive  manufacturer
questioned the validity  of the 6  dB(A>
conversion factor for changing measure-
ments made at 50 feet  to an equivalent
100 foot value, due to the length of the
locomotive.
  Agency  analysis indicates  that any
slight inaccuracy which may  exist in the
use of the 6 dB(A)  conversion factor for
the conversion of locomotive  noisB levels
measured  at 50 feet to 100 foot levels, is
in fact a conservative error which  under-
states the actual noise level  as it would
be recorded by a physical measurement
at 100 feet. Accordingly, some of those
locomotives whose  noise levels have been
measured   in  this  manner,  may  emit
actual noise levels at  100 feet which are
in fact slightly lower than those levels
described  by EPA  data  which was con-
verted from 50 feet. Such locomotives
may in fact require less quieting than Is
suggested by the 50 foot data,  and as such
may be more easily brought in compli-
ance  with  the noise  standards.  The
Agency emphasizes that any inaccuracy
inherent in using the conversion factor is
slight and has  minimal effects upon the
                                        14

-------
data so converted.
  This same commenter stated that page
5.3 of the Background Document claims
that mufflers will provide 6 dB(A) reduc-
tion of  all locomotive noise levels. They
further indicated that a 6 dB(A) reduc-
tion is not always possible,  and that 87
dB(A>   at  100  feet  would  be  a better
statement than a 6  dB(A)  reduction.
  The above comment appears to be due
to  an   incorrect  interpretation of the
Background Document.  The standards
being promulgated by the EPA require an
absolute noise level  of 87 dB(A).  not a
net reduction of 6 dB(A).  Specifically.
the  Background   Document   states:
"Based on the considerations of available
empirical data, an overall noise reduc-
tion of  6 dB(A) for  the noisest locomo-
tives seems reasonable. Accordingly, the
application of  exhaust mufflers can be
expected  to  permit  all  locomotives to
achieve  the  following  levels:  Idle — 67
dB(A)   (now 70 dB(A^ : Overall Maxi-
mum 87 dB(A>."
  This  same commenter further indi-
cated that based  on the magnitude of
the  one-third  octave  band levels, the
measurements on p. 4-13, Figure 4-2, ap-
pear to  have been made at closer to five
feet than 55 feet as specified when meas-
uring the  noise  emissions  of an EMD
GP40-2 locomotive.
  An investigation of Figure 4-2 in the
Background  Document  does  indicate
that the  recorded noise levels  are in-
ordinately high. These high readings are
attributable to  the increased projection
of fan  and casing radiated noise due to
open engine access doors during the test-
ing. However, the intent of this figure
and its  supporting discussion was not to
quantify the absolute noise levels due to
fan noise, but to demonstrate that fan
noise is in fact  an appreciable  noise
source.  To quote  from page 4-13 of the
Background Document:  "Since it was
necessary to open the engine access doors
during the measurements, the recorded
levels are somewhat  higher than would
be  generated  under  normal operating
conditions. However,  there is little doubt
that cooling-fan operation can contribute
significantly to overall levels." Although
Figure 4-2 does not purport to accurately
quantify cooling-fan noise levels under
normal  operating conditions, it does suc-
ceed in  its primary purpose which is to
demonstrate the relative significance of
cooling-fan noise.
REVISION OF  THE PROPOSED
        PRIOR TO PROMULGATION
  The  Interstate  Rail  Carrier  Noise
Emission Regulation which  is now be-
ing  promulgated' incorporates  several
changes  from  the  proposed regulation
which was  published  on July 3, 1974.
These changes are based upon the public
comments received  and upon the con-
tinuing study of rail carrier noise by the
Agency. In all  but  four instances, such
changes  are not substantial; they are
only intended to further clarify the in-
tent of the regulation.
  The first  substantive change is that
the more stringent longer  range loco-
motive noise emission standards for both
stationary and  moving conditions  will
now  apply  only to those  locomotives
newly manufactured,  effective Decem-
ber 31, 1979. These changes are reflected
in |§ 201.11  and 201.12 of this regula-
tion.  These  sections as originally pro-
posed required the  entire fleet of loco-
motives now in use to  be in compliance
with lower noise levels four years after
promulgation of the final regulation. Be-
cause of  the requirement  for further
identification  of the   applicability  of
"available technology," specifically as it
applies to mufflers,  and the reasonable-
ness of such costs attendant to the ap-
plication of  that technology, the retrofit
requirement for the existing locomotive
fleet has been deleted. The Agency  is
continuing  to  assess   the  evolution of
muffler technologies which may be ap-
plied  to  locomotives without incurring
the significant  restructuring costs re-
quired to install current muffler designs.
At such time that the Agency determines
that such muffler technology is available
at reasonable cost, relative to the health
and welfare  benefits to be accrued, regu-
lations requiring the retrofit of existing
locomotives may be proposed.
  The second substantive change to the
regulation involves  modifying the pro-
posed locomotive Idle  standard by in-
creasing  allowable noise emissions from
the proposed 67 dB(A) to  70 dB(A) at
100 feet.  This change was made in order
to accommodate new data which demon-
strated  that certain locomotive models
appear  to be incapable of compliance
with a 67 dB(A) standard through the
application  of muffler  technology alone,
due to the dominant influence of struc-
turally radiated noise during idle opera-
tion.  The Agency has  not  been able to
identify available technology to solve this
problem in locomotives.
  The third substantive change to the
regulation is that  the effective date of
the initial standards has been changed
from  270 days to 365 days from the date
of promulgation in  response to requests
from  the DOT.
                                      15

-------
  The final substantive  change to the
regulation is the incorporation of addi-
tional measurement  criteria  into  the
standards as a separate Subpart C of the
regulation. The noise emission standards
specified in the  Agency's  regulations
must be fully and definitively  specified
so that there  is no  question as to the
EPA  standard  being promulgated.  Ac-
cordingly, measurement criteria contain-
ing  those  conditions and  parameters
necessary for the consistent and accurate
measurement of the sound levels specified
have been  included  in  the regulation
being promulgated herein.
  Those changes made to clarify the in-
tent of the  regulations and the reasons
therefore, are as follows:
  Section 201.1 Definitions, The defini-
tion  of "sound  level"  was  changed
slightly to be consistent with the defini-
tion of that term  as used in the docu-
ment, "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.
  "Past  meter  response" has  been ex-
panded for clarity.
  "Interstate commerce" has been modi-
fled to insure  that any  questions as to
its  scope would be resolved by reference
of Section 203(a) of the Interstate Com-
merce Act, consistent with the reference
to that Act  in section 17(b)  of the Noise
Control Act.
  "Person"  has been deleted  since the
word is no  longer used in subpart  B of
the regulation.
  "Sound pressure level" has been deleted
since the words are  no longer used in
Subpart B of the regulation.
  "Special track work" has been added
in  order to clarify the meaning of the
term as used in the final regulation.
   "Locomotive" has  been expanded  to
include  self-propelled   rail  passenger
vehicles.
   "Special purpose equipment" has  been
added in order to  clarify the meaning of
the term as used in the final regulation.
   "Retarder" has  been deleted since the
word is no  longer used in Subpart  B of
the regulation.
   "Self load" has  been deleted since the
term is no  longer used in Subpart  B of
the regulation.
   "Idle" has been expanded in order to
clarify the  meaning of the term as used
in the regulation.
   "dBA" has been modified slightly to
specify  the reference  pressure of  20
micropascals.
  Section 201.10 Applicability. This sec-
tion has been  modified slightly to ex-
clude the application of § 201.11 (a) and
(b) to gas turbine powered locomotives
and to any locomotive type which cannot
be connected by any standard method to
a load cell,  and to more clearly specify
the exclusion of intraurban mass transit
systems in terms consistent with the defi-
nition of "carrier" cited in the Act.  In
addition the wording in the section has
been modified to more clearly include the
application of the standards to refrigera-
tion and air conditioning units on loco-
motives  and   rail   cars.   Finally, the
express exclusion of  the applicability  of
the standards to railroad yards,  shops,
rights-of-way,  or any other  railroad
equipment or facility not specified in the
regulation has been deleted as unneces-
sary.
  Section 201.11 and  201.12 Standards
for locomotive  operation under station-
ary and moving conditions, respectively.
In addition to  the applicability and ef-
fective date changes previously described,
the reference to  measurement  site sur-
face has been  deleted and replaced  by
language referencing the measurement
criteria in Subpart C of the regulation.
Also  the  phrase "or the  equivalent
thereof" in  reference to a  load cell has
been deleted.
  Section 201.13 Standard for rail car
operations.  Track   curvature  require-
ments for measurement sites identical to
those specified in § 201.12 for locomotives
were  incorporated into this section  in
addition to  identical language referenc-
ing the measurement criteria of Subpart
C  as used  in  §§201.12 and 201.11  for
locomotive test sites. Also,  the language
in the section  was  modified slightly  so
as  to  include  for regulatory  purposes
the total sound  emitted by rail cars while
in motion,  and to restrict compliance
measurements  to track free of special
track work  or  bridges or  trestles. The
change in  the  effective date previously
described also applies to this section.
             PREEMPTION
  Though the Noise Control Act speaks
of preemption in unequivocal terms, the
various sources of railroad noise are sub-
ject to such complex  interrelationships
that it is not possible to identify all regu-
lations  a priori as either preempted  or
not preempted.  It is necessary to examine
the  regulation  in question, the sources
it   purports  to  control,  the activities
to which it relates, and the reasonable-
ness  of the various  alternative  means
of  complying.  As  to  those  regula-
tions that  are subject to  preemption,
                                       16

-------
the  preemptive effect may  be waived
under Section 17(c) (2)  if the Adminis-
trator determines that the regulation is
necessitated by special  local conditions
and  is not in conflict with EPA regula-
tions. It is anticipated that all such de-
terminations as to not only special local
conditions, but also the preempt status of
State and local  regulations impacting
railroads would be handled by EPA. The
Agency  is currently preparing guidelines
which will specify procedures to be fol-
lowed by State and local governments
where questions of the preemptive effect
of Federal rail  carrier noise  regulations
are at issue.
  In view of the many comments re-
ceived in response to the proposed regu-
lation,  the following  discussion of  pre-
emption  is  intended  to  clarify   the
Agency's interpretation of the preemp-
tive  effect  of  the  regulation   here
promulgated.
  State and local governments can deal
with railroad noise problems in several
different  ways. The  first, the  method
adopted by EPA in this regulation,  is to
set emission standards on railroad equip-
ment to reduce the noise produced at the
source.  Second, they can set  noise emis-
sion standards on  facilities  where  rail
operations occur. A variation of this ap-
proach  is the use of property line stand-
ards, where measurements are taken at
the railroad property boundaries. Third,
they can impose affirmative requirements
on railroad equipment or facilities ("de-
sign" or "equipment" standards), such as
the  installation of mufflers  on locomo-
tives, the elimination of wheel flats on
rail  cars, or the construction of noise
barriers along  rights of way. A fourth
possibility is to regulate, license, control
or restrict the  use, operation or move-
ment of any equipment or facility, for
example,  prohibiting idling  of locomo-
tives on sidings within communities or
prohibiting railroad yard operations be-
tween the hours of 10:00 p.m.  and  6:00
a.m. Fifth, a State or  community  may
set receiving land use standards for prop-
erty which is impacted by railroad noise,
for example requiring that  noise levels
at the property line of residential prop-
erty not exceed 55  dB(A)  Ldn. Each of
these methods  presents special problems
which  affect the determination  of the
preemptive relationship of the EPA  rail-
road noise regulation.
   Noise emission standards  on railroad
equipment. The Noise Control Act  pro-
vides that after the effective date of the
standards here promulgated for loco-
motives and rail cars, no State or  local
subdivision may  adopt or enforce  any
noise emission standard on locomotives
or rail cars unless it is identical to  the
Federal standard. They may adopt and
enforce  noise  emission  standards  on
other pieces  of  equipment not  covered
by EPA  regulations,  such as retarders
and  railroad construction  equipment.
They may  also adopt standards for lo-
comotives and rail cars if such  stand-
ards are  identical to the EPA standards.
  Determining the preemptive effect of a
noise emission  standard  is, however,
complicated by the fact that a standard
for total  noise emissions from the opera-
tion  of a  piece of equipment may not dif-
ferentiate between  the elements which
contribute  to the  noise. Where  this js
the case, the  Administrator believes that
where  any  given  element  of  noise is
either, (1)  generated by  a source that
is an integral part of the federally regu-
lated equipment, or,  (2) is a  component
of the  total noise generated by the fed-
erally regulated  equipment, when oper-
ated under the conditions specified,  the
regulation of that element by State and
local governments is subject  to preemp-
tion. Specifically, these elements include
the noise from refrigerator units on re-
frigerator cars, auxiliary power unite on
locomotives, and the noise caused by  the
condition of  track. The noise caused by
retarders, however, is a separate source
of noise which will not be present during
compliance measurement for  the rail car
standard, and as such is not subject to
preemption.
  Noise emission standards on railroad
facilities. State  and  local governments
may enact noise emission standards  for
facilities  which EPA  has not regulated.
However, in  the judgment of EPA.  the
preemptive purpose of Section 17 of  the
Noise Control Act requires  that such
regulations not be permitted to  do  in-
directly  what is specifically  preempted.
That is, State and local governments may
not  control the noise emissions of loco-
motives  and  rail cars by  setting noise
emission limits on yards where the noise
limit is.  in effect, a  limit on locomotive
and  rail  car noise. Noise emission stand-
ards may be adopted and enforced on
iacilities where rail cars and locomotives
do not operate. Where federally regulated
equipment  is a  noise contributor in a
facility on which a  State or local gov-
ernment proposes to set a noise emission
standard, such as a marshalling yard,
such regulation may or may  not be pre-
empted.  If   the only way  compliance
could reasonably be achieved  were to
take actions the requirement of which
is preempted by Federal regulations, then
such standard  is preempted. Questions
                                       17

-------
concerning situations where alternative
non-preempted means of compliance are
available,  as well  as questions such as
the availability and reasonableness of
alternate  means of  compliance, will be
dealt with by EPA under procedures now
being  developed  to  guide  States  and
localities in dealing  with railroad noise
in light of Federal preemption.
  Design or  equipment standards.  The
Noise Control Act does not deal explicitly
with regulations which require  the in-
stallation  of  noise  abatement devices or
the application of specified maintenance
or repair  procedures. EPA believes  that
this is another area  where the preemp-
tive purpose  of section  17 requires  that
the effect of State or local regulations
on Federally regulated equipment or fa-
cilities be analyzed. The intended result
of section 17(c) is that, except in cases
where  EPA has made  a special deter-
mination, State noise regulations on lo-
comotives or rail  cars  will  not require
that interstate rail carriers modify these
Federally  regulated pieces of equipment.
Accordingly,  EPA  believes  that  design
or equipment standards on federally reg-
ulated equipment—viz, locomotive and
rail cars—are  preempted.  Design or
equipment standards on other pieces of
equipment, such as retarders or cribbing
machines, are not preempted.  Similarly,
design standards on facilities not fed-
erally regulated are not preempted, even
though locomotives  and  rail  cars  may
operate there,  because  they do not re-
quire the  modification of locomotives or
rail cars. An  example of this type of reg-
ulation would be a  local ordinance re-
quiring that noise barriers  be installed
along the rights of way running through
that community.
   Use, operation or  movement controls.
A reduction  in community noise impact
can be achieved if the  manner, time or
frequency of use of a noise source is con-
trolled. Clearly, such controls  may be
adopted and enforced  with respect  to
equipment that EPA has not  regulated.
However, with respect to Federally regu-
lated equipment (locomotives and rail
cars), such controls  may not be imposed
unless the Administrator has determined
that  such State or  local regulation is
necessitated  by special local  conditions
and that it  is  not in conflict  with EPA
regulations. A use restriction on railroad
facilities may be subject to such deter-
mination also,  if in  order to comply the
railroad must control the use, operation
or movement  of   federally  regulated
equipment within  that facility.  The de-
terminations called  for will be made by
EPA   in  accordance  with  procedures
which  are now being developed.
  Receiving land use standards. Receiv -
ing land use standards are to be distin-
guished from property line standards on
the basis that property line standards
focus on the identity of the noise source,
such as railroad yards or rights of way,
whereas receiving  land use standards
focus on the identity of the property re-
ceiving the sound, such as schools, hospi-
tals or residential  property. Obviously,
a community is not preempted from en-
acting  such  standards simply because
it has  a railroad within  its jurisdiction.
However, it is possible that a standard
which  says, for example, that no school
may be exposed to exterior noise levels
in excess of 55 dB(A), may require modi-
fication of locomotives or rail cars in  a
community where schools are close to the
right of way of a railroad. Whether, or to
what extent, such  regulations are pre-
empted, will be determined by EPA  in
accordance  with procedures which are
being developed.
        COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
  Compliance regulations are to be de-
veloped and promulgated under separate
rulemaking  by  the   Department   of
Transportation.
         BACKGROUND DOCUMENT

  "Background Document and Environ-
mental Explanation for the Proposed In-
terstate  Rail Carrier Noise Regulation"
was prepared prior to publication of the
proposed regulation. 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 obtained from
the EPA Public  Information Center, PM
215, Room  2104D,  Waterside Mall, 4th
and M Streets  S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460. To  the extent possible, the sig-
nificant aspects of the  material have
been presented in summary form in the
foregoing preamble. The topics contained
in  the Document are the following:
   1. Statutory basis and regulatory pro-
cedure;
   2. Data base for the regulations;
  3. Background of the railroad industry:
   4. Sources of railroad noise and con-
sideration for Federal regulation;
   5. General procedure to measure rail-
road noise;
   6. Economic effects of a  retrofit pro-
gram;
   7. Summary  of  what  the  regulation
requires;
   8. Environmental effects of the  final
regulation;
                                        18

-------
  9. Economic effects of the filial regu-
lation;
  10. Index of public comment or. the
proposed regulation: and
  11, Appendices.

        FUTURE PUBLIC COMMENT
  As mentioned in the foregoing Agency
responses to public comments, additional
study may be required in a number oi
areas. EPA will evaluate the impact of
these regulations after they become ef-
fective  through  monitoring and other
activities, including evaluation of DOT
and State enforcement data.
  If as a result of government studies, or
as the result of developments by industry
or other institutions, it becomes evident
to the Agency that more advanced tech-
nology  is available  at  some reasonable
cost within a  prescribed compliance pe-
riod, or that problems exist which curtail
the  effectiveness  of  the  regulation.
prompt revision of the regulation will be
initiated.  Accordingly,  comments  and
recommendations are solicited  from all
interested persons as to new or advanced
technology and its projected cost, the ef-
fectiveness of the regulation, or on any
other topic relevant to these regulations
or  revisions  thereof.  Prior  to  actual
formulation of any revision to these  reg-
ulations, notice of proposed rulemaking
will be  published so that there may be
maximum contribution to the rulemak-
ing developmental process by interested
parties. Written data or views may be
submitted to the Director, Standards and
Regulations Division, the Office of Noise
Abatement and Control (AW-571),  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Wash-
ington, D.C.20460.
  In  addition,   as  also  referenced
In  the  foregoing Agency responses to
public comments, any person(s) having
comments regarding the  measurement
criteria included in this final regulation
may  submit such comments to the Di-
rector,  Standards and Regulations Di-
vision,  the Office  of  Noise Abatement
and  Control,  (AW-471),  Docket  No.
ONAC 75-16,  U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460.
  This regulation is promulgated under
the  authority of 42 U.S.C. 4916(a), 86
Stat. 1248.
  Dated: December 31, 1975.
                    JOHN QUARLEE
                Acting Administrator.
        Subpart A—General Provisions
Sec.
201.1
       Definitions.
  Subpart B—Interstate Rail Carrier Operations
               Standards
201.10  Applicability.
201.11  Standard  for  locomotive operation
        under stationary condition.
201.12  Standard  for  locomotive operation
        under moving condition.
201.13  Standard for rail car operations.
      Subpart C—Measurement Criteria
201.20  Applicability and purpose.
201.21  Quantities measured.
201.22  Measurement Instrumentation.
201.23  Acoustical   environment,   weather
        conditions    and    background
        noise.
201.24  Procedures for the measurement of
        locomotive and rail car noise.
  AUTHORITY:  Noise  Control  Act  of 1972,
sec. 17(a), 86 Stat. 1248 (42 U.S.C. 4916(a)).

      Subpart A—General Provisions
§ 201.1  Definitions.
  As  used In this part, all terms not
defined herein  shall have the meaning
given them in the Act:
  (a) "Act"  means the  Noise   Control
Act  of  1972 (Pub.  L. 92-574, 86 Stat.
1234).
  (b) "Carrier" means a common car-
rier by railroad, or partly by railroad and
partly by  water, within  the  continental
United  States, subject to the Interstate
Commerce Act,  as amended, excluding
street, suburban, and interurban  electric
railways  unless  operated   as   a part
of   a  general   railroad   system  of
transportation.
  (c)   "dB(A)"  is  an   abbreviation
meaning A-weighted sound level  in deci-
bels, reference: 20 micropascals.
  (d) "Fast meter response" means that
the  "fast" response of  the  sound level
meter shall  be used. The fast dynamic
response  shall comply  with the meter
dynamic  characteristics in paragraph
5.3 of the American National Standard
Specification for  Sound Level  Meters,
ANSI Sl.4-1971 These publications are
available  from  the American National
Standards Institute, Inc.,  1430  Broad-
way, New York, New York 10018.
  (e)  "Interstate Commerce" means the
commerce between any place in  a State
and  any  place  in  another  state, or
between places in the same State  through
another State, whether such coTimeice
moves wholly by rail or partly by rail and
partly by motor vehicle, express, or water.
This definition of "interstate commerce"
for purposes of this regulation is similar
to  the definition  of  "interstate  com-
merce" in section  203(a)  of the Inter-
state Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. 303(a)).
  (f) "Load Cell" means a device exter-
nal to the locomotive, of high electrical
                                        19

-------
resistance, used in locomotive testing to
simulate engine loading while the loco-
motive is stationary.  (Electrical energy
produced by the diesel generator is dis-
sipated  in the load cell resistors instead
of the traction motors.)
  (g) "Locomotive" means, for the pur-
pose of  this regulation, a self-propelled
vehicle designed for and used on railroad
tracks in the transport of rail  cars,  in-
cluding   self  propelled  rail passenger
vehicles.
  (h) "Rail Car" means a non-self-pro-
pelled vehicle designed for and used on
railroad tracks.
  (i)  "Railroad"  means all the roads in
use by any common carrier operating a
railroad, whether owned or operated un-
der a contract, agreement, or lease.
  (j)  "Idle" means that condition where
all engines capable of providing motive
power to the locomotive are set at  the
lowest operating  throttle position; and
where all  auxiliary non-motive power
engines are not operating.
  (k)   "Special  Purpose   Equipment"
means maintenance of way equipment
which may be located on  or  operated
from rail cars including: Ballast cribbing
machines, ballast regulators, condition-
ers and scarifiers, bolt machines, brush
cutters,  compactors,  concrete  mixers,
cranes  and derricks, earth boring ma-
chines, electric welding machines, grind-
ers,  grouters, pile drivers, rail heaters,
rail  layers,  sandblasters,  snow plows,
spike drivers, sprayers and other types of
such maintenance of way equipment.
  (1) "Sound level" means the quality in
decibels' measured by a sound level meter
satisfying the requirements of American
National Standards  Specification  for
Sound Level Meters Sl.4-1971.
  This  publication is available from the
American National Standards  Institute,
Inc.. 1430 Broadway. New  York, New
York 10018.
   (m)  "Warning device"  means sound
emitting devices  used to alert and warn
people of the presence of railroad equip-
ment.
   (n) "Special track work" means track
 other than normal tie and ballast bolted
 or welded rail or containing devices such
 as  retarders  or  switching  mechanisms.
     Subpart B—Interstate Rail Carrier
          Operations Standards
§ 201.10 Applicability.
  The provisions of this subpart apply to
all  rail cars  and all locomotives, except
steam  locomotives,  operated  or  con-
trolled  by carriers as defined in Subpart
A of this part, except that § 201.11  (a)
and (b) do not apply to gas turbine-pow-
ered locomotives and to any  locomotive
type which cannot be connected by any
standard method to a load  cell.  They
apply to the total sound level emitted by
rail cars and locomotives operated under
the conditions specified,  including  the
sound produced by refrigeration and air
conditioning units which are an integral
element of such equipment. These pro-
visions  do  not  apply to  the  sound
emitted by a warning device, such as  a
horn, whistle or bell when operated for
the purpose of safety. They do not apply
to special purpose equipment which may
be located on or operated  from railcars;
they do not apply to street, suburban or
interurban electric  railways  unless  op-
erated as a part of a general railroad sys-
tem of transportation.
§ 201.11  Standard for locomotive opera-
     tion under stationary condition.
  (a) Commencing  December  31, 1976,
no carrier subject to this regulation shall
operate any locomotive to which this
regulation  is  applicable and of which
manufacture is completed on or before
December 31,1979, which produce^ sound
levels in excess of 93  dB(A) at any throt-
tle setting except idle, and 73 dB(A) at
idle, when operated  singly, connected to
a load cell, and when measured in  ac-
cordance with the  criteria specified in
Subpart C of this part with  fast meter-
response at 30 meters (100 feet)  from the
geometric center of the locomotive and
perpendicular to the  centerline of  the
track.
  (b) No carrier subject to this regula-
tion  shall  operate  any  locomotive  to
which this regulation is applicable and
of which manufacture is completed after
December 31,1979, which produces sound
levels in excess of 87 dB(A) at any throt-
tle setting except idle, and 70 dB(A) at
idle, when operated  singly, connected to
a load  cell, and when measured in ac-
cordance  with the  criteria specified in
Subpart C of this part with fast meter
response at 30 meters (100 feet) from the
geometric center of the locomotive and
perpendicular to the  centerline of  the
track.
§ 201.12  Standard  for locomotive opera-
     tion under moving condition.
   (a)  Commencing December 31,  1976,
no carrier subject to this regulation shall
operate any locomotive or combination
of locomotives to which this regulation
is applicable and of which manufacture
is completed on or  before December 31,
1979. which produces sound levels in ex-
                                        20

-------
cess  of 96 dB(A)  when moving at any
time or under any condition of grade,
load, acceleration, or deceleration, when
measured in accordance with the criteria
specified  in Subpart C of this regulation
with fast meter response at 30 meters
(100 feet) from the centerline of any sec-
tion of track which exhibits less than a
two (2) degree curve (or a radius of cur-
vature greater than  873 meters  (2,865
feet)).
   (b) No carrier subject to this regula-
tion  shall  operate  any locomotive  or
combination of locomotives to which this
regulation is  applicable and of  which
manufacture is completed after Decem-
ber 31, 1979, which produce:  sound levels
in excess of 90 dB(A) when moving at
any  time or  under  any  condition  of
grade, load,  acceleration, or deceleration,
when measured in accordance with the
criteria as specified in Subpart C of this
part  with  fast meter response  ai  30
meters (100 feet)  from the center-line of
any section  of track which  exhibits less
than a two (2) degree curve (or a  radius
of curvature  greater  than 873  meters
(2,865 feet)).
§ 201.13   Standard for rail car  opera-
     tions.
  Effective December 31, 1976,  no car-
rier subject  to this regulation shall oper-
ate any  rail car or combination of rail
cars  which while in motion  ^reduce
sound levels in excess of (1)  88 dB(A)
at rail car  speeds up to and ' -eluding
72 km/hr (45 mph); or (2)  93 dB(A)  at
rail car  speeds greater than  ""2. km/hr
(45 mph); when measured in accordance
with the Criteria specified in Subpart C
of this part with fast meter response at
30 meters (100 feet)  from the centerline
of any section of  track which is free of
special track work or bridges or trr-stles
and  which exhibits lejs than a two (2;
degree curve  (or  a radius of curvature
greater than 873 meters (2,865 feet)).
    Subpart C—Measurement Criteria
§ 201.20  Applicability and purpose.
  The following criteria are applicable to
and  contain the  necessary parameters
and procedures for the measurement uf
the noise emission levels prescribed  in
the standards of Su'jpart B of this part.
These criteria  are specified in order to
further clarify and  define  such stand-
ards.

§ 201.21  Quantities measured.
  The quantities to be measurer1  under
the test  conditions described below, are
the  A-weighted  sound  levels  for fast
meter response as defined in the Ameri-
can National Standard Sl.4-1971.
§ 201.22  Measurement instrumentation.
  (a) A sound level meter or alternate
sound  level measurement system  that
meets,  as a minimum, all the require-
ments  of  American National Standard
S1.4—1971 for a Type II instrument shall
be used with the "fast" meter response
characteristic.
  (b) In  conducting  the sound  level
measurements, the  general requirements
and procedures of  American  National
Standard SI.13-1971 shall be  followed.
This publication is available from  the
American  National  Standard Institute,
Inc., 1430 Broadway, New  York,  New
York 10018.
  (c) A microphone wind-screen recom-
mended by  the manufacturer  of  the
sound  level meter or microphone of an
alternate  sound level measurement sys-
tem shall be used.
 §201.23   Acoustical environment,
     weather conditions and  background
     noise,
  (a) The standard test site shall be
such that  the locomotive or train radi-
ates sound into a  free  field  over  the
ground plane.  This  condition  may be
considered fulfilled if  the test site con-
sists of an open space free of large, sound
reflecting objects, such as barriers, hillj,
signboards, parked  vehicles,  locomotives
or rail  cars on adjacent  tracks,  bridges
or buildings within the boundaries de-
scribed  by Figure 1, as well as conforms
to  the  other  requirements   of   this
§ 201.23.
  (b) Within the complete test site, the
top of at least one rail upon which the
locomotive or train is located shall be
visible (line of sight)  from a position 4
feet above the ground at the mircophone
location, except as provided in paragraph
(c)  of this section.
  (c) Ground cover such as vegetation,
fenceposts, small trees, telephone poles,
etc., shall  be limited within  the area in
the test site between  the vehicle under
test and the measuring microphone such
that 80 percent of the top of at least one
rail along the entire test section of track
be visible from  a position 4 feet above
the ground at the microphone location;
except that no  single obstruction shall
account for more than 5 percent of the
total allowable obstruction.
  (d) The  ground  elevation  at  the
microphone location shall be  within plus
5 feet or minus 10 feet of the elevation of
the top  of the rail at the location in-line
with the microphone.
  (e) Within the test site, the track shall
                                       21

-------
exhibit less  than a 2 degree curve or a
radius of curvature greater than 2,865
feet (873 meters). This paragraph shall
not apply during a stationary test. The
track shall  be tie  and ballast, free of
special track work and bridges or trestles.
  (f) Measurements shall not  be made
during precipitation.
  (g) The  maximum A-weighted fast
response sound level observed at the test
site immediately before and after the test
shall be at least 10 dB(A)  below the level
measured during the test. For the loco-
motive and rail car pass-by tests this re-
quirement applies before and after the
train containing the  rolling stock to be
tested has passed. This background sound
level measurement shall include  the con-
tribution from the operation of  the load
cell, if any, including contribution dur-
ing test.
  (h)  Noise measurements may only be
made if the measured wind velocity is 12
mph (19.3 kph)  or less. Gust wind meas-
urements of up to 20 mph (33.2 kph) are
allowed.
§ 201.24  Procedures for the  measure-
     ment of locomotive and rail car noise.
   (a)  Microphone  positions.  (1) The
microphone shall be  located within the
test site according to the specifications
given in the test  procedures  of para-
graphs (b), (c) and  (d)  of this section,
and shall be positioned 4 feet above the
ground. It shall be oriented with respect
to  the source in accordance  with the
manufacturer's  recommendations.
   (2)  The observer shall not stand be-
tween the microphone and the  source
whose sound level is being measured.
   (b)  Locomotive stationary test (load
cell test). (1) For stationary locomotive
tests, the microphone shall be positioned
on a line perpendicular to the track at a
point 100 feet from the track centerline
at  the longitudinal midpoint of the loco-
motive.
   (2)  The sound level meter shall be ob-
served for thirty seconds after the test
throttle setting is  established  to assure
operating stability. The maximum sound
level observed during that  time shall be
utilized for compliance purposes.
   (3)  Measurement of locomotive noise
shall  be made  with  all  cooling fans
operating.
   (c)  Rail  car pass-by test. (1) For rail
car pass-by tests, the microphone shall
be positioned on a line perpendicular to
the track 100 feet from the track center-
line.
   (2)  Rail car noise measurements shall
be  made  when the  locomotives have
passed a distance of 500  feet or 10 rail
cars beyond  the point at the intersec-
tion of the track and the line which ex-
tends perpendicularly from the track to
the microphone location, providing any
other locomotives are also at least 500
feet or 10 rail car lengths away from the
measuring point. The maximum  sound
level observed in this manner which ex-
ceeds the noise levels specified in § 201.13
shall be utilized for compliance purposes.
  (3)  Measurements shall be taken on.
reasonably well maintained tracks.
  (4)  Noise levels shall not be recorded
if  brake squeal  is  present during the
test measurement.
  (d) Locomotive pass-by test. (1) For
locomotive pass-by  tests,  the  micro-
phone shall be positioned on a line per-
pendicular to the track at a point 100
feet from the track center line.
  (2)  The noise level shall be measured
as the locomotive approaches  and passes
by the microphone location. The maxi-
mum  noise level observed during this pe-
riod shall be utilized for compliance pur-
poses.
  (3)  Measurements shall be taken on
reasonably well maintained tracks.
           a I. . tart eit* ei«ar&nc« ftftTulranmt Blc
              loooaotlv* st«tlonarrt loccmotlm
              PM*-by* Md tall CM: FMI^qr Ke»ea
   [FR Doc.76-732 Filed 1-13-76:8:45 am)
                                        * U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE  1976—622-489/153
                                        22

-------
:.?.?

-------
o  Q
I  o
m  .
o  ^
I
m
E
m
-  °  "   "
CD  ^  Bl
       a   o
       a   3
       -t   a*
                                                       O
                                                       5T


                                                       00
                                                       c





1
(/>
T
5'
•s
-§ 1
° i
p -

ro
o
4^
§



O
3
8

o
-h
Z
O
JB'
>
o-
S
CD
CD
D
r+
0)
3
a.
O
o
C
CO
rn
Z
<
JO
0
m
Z
>
|—
"O
30
0
m
O
6
Z
                                                                                   o
                                                                            O;?2
                                                                            0>T3
                                                                            -

                                                                               D

-------