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
------- |