[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-5371] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: March 10, 1994] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration 49 CFR Part 215 [Docket No. RSFC-7, Notice 1] Freight Car Safety Standards; Maintenance-of-Way Equipment AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: FRA is proposing in this document to amend the Freight Car Safety Standards by making all maintenance-of-way vehicles subject to the Standards with the exception of stenciled cars not used in revenue service and restricted to a speed of less than 20 miles per hour. This proposal would add to the present regulation an additional condition which must be met before a freight car in maintenance-of-way service can be operated without complying with the Freight Car Safety Standards: the equipment must be operated at a speed of less than 20 mph. DATES: Written comments must be received no later than April 11, 1994. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent possible without incurring additional delay or expense. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted to the Docket Clerk, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. Persons desiring to be notified that their written comments have been received should submit a stamped, self-addressed postcard with their comments. The Docket Clerk will indicate the date on which the comments were received and will return the postcard to the addressee. Written comments will be available for examination during regular business hours in room 8201 of the Nassif Building located at the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phil Olekszyk, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Safety, Federal Railroad Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-366-4094), or Kyle M. Mulhall, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-366-0628). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FRA proposes to revise its Freight Car Safety Standards to make all maintenance-of-way vehicles subject to these Standards with the exception of any stenciled maintenance-of-way car operated at a speed less than 20 miles per hour and not used in revenue service. The Freight Car Safety Standards, at 49 CFR 215.3(c)(3), excluded maintenance-of-way equipment from the requirements of Part 215, ``if that equipment is not used in revenue service and is stenciled in accordance with section 215.305.'' When it revised these rules in 1979, FRA proposed that equipment used exclusively in work train service be excluded from the requirement of the proposed rules (44 FR 1419). The theory of this proposal was that if a car were limited to work train service, with its slow speed and low mileage operations, safety considerations would not necessitate bringing the car up to the same maintenance levels needed for safe high speed mainline revenue service cars. All other equipment would be included. Commenters urged that FRA not adopt the proposal. They indicated that having to confine such equipment to work train service would impose such stringent operational restrictions as to effectively force railroads to replace between 200 and 3,000 cars at a cost of about $30,000 each. It was asserted that these costs were not required from a safety standpoint, since there were no accidents attributable to such equipment. FRA accepted the commenters' arguments on the theory that since cars in work train service are not freely interchanged and each railroad knows the condition of its own cars, an appropriate level of operational constraint, tailored to a particular car's condition, can be effectively imposed by individual railroads. FRA concluded that, if such cars were excluded from revenue service and were identified by reporting marks stenciled on the equipment, compliance with the regulation was not necessary from a safety standpoint. Accordingly, in adopting the revised regulation in 1979, FRA made the Freight Car Safety Standards inapplicable to any freight car that is ``maintenance- of-way'' equipment provided that it is not used in revenue service and is marked to indicate its status. FRA did not specifically prohibit use of non-complying maintenance-of-way equipment in revenue trains, only that it be excluded from revenue service. By proceeding in this manner there was no need to define what constitutes maintenance-of-way equipment. In the absence of such a regulatory definition, the railroad industry has identified as ``maintenance-of-way'' cars an extensive group of company service cars when that equipment does not directly produce revenue for the railroad. Typical examples of this broad variety of freight cars include flat cars assigned to move railroad wheels, hopper cars in ballast service, covered hoppers in locomotive sand service, tank cars in locomotive fuel service, and box cars designated as mobile warehouses and containing a wide variety of supplies needed by the railroad in its daily operations. The designation of such cars as ``maintenance-of- way'' equipment is a departure from a historical industry practice that reserved this designation only for cars assigned to the railroad's engineering departments. These cars were used only in limited service to repair or maintain the track, bridge, and signal installations owned by the railroad and were largely of unique designs tailored to perform a specific function. Although the Freight Car Safety Standards have not generally applied to ``maintenance-of-way equipment,'' FRA's Safety Appliance and Power Brake rules do apply to this equipment. Thus, the condition of such cars has been monitored as part of FRA's overall compliance program. In addition, during a special inspection effort in February 1983, FRA inspected 2,849 cars stenciled as ``maintenance-of-way'' cars. Two hundred twenty three (7.8%) had safety appliance violations and 518 (18.2%) had power brake violations. In addition, of 677 cars inspected for potential compliance with the freight car safety standards, 224 (33%) were found with defects that would have been violations of these standards. Effective remedial action was taken by the individual railroads in each instance, but the need for continued review was underscored by a significant accident that occurred on July 18, 1983 at Crystal City, Missouri. Investigation of that accident indicated that the derailed train was operating at a normal speed for a revenue freight train despite the presence of 17 hopper cars in ``maintenance-of-way'' service, all of which were in a deteriorated condition. A cracked and displaced centerplate was present under one of these cars and is believed to have been a major contributing cause to the accident. During another extensive effort in 1984, FRA inspected 3,933 maintenance-of-way cars, finding fewer non-complying conditions: Approximately 279 safety appliance violations (7%), 439 power brake violations (11.2%), and 823 defects that would have been freight car safety violations (20.9%) if these cars were required to comply with the freight car standards. In 1986, a third inspection survey of 25% of the nation's fleet of these cars revealed 700 safety appliance (7%) and 878 power brake (8.8%) violations, and 1,730 defects that would have been freight car safety violations (17.2%). Several salient facts emerge from FRA's monitoring effort. Although each successive inspection has found that the percentage of cars with safety problems has decreased, the percentage of cars found with safety problems remains significantly higher for this group of cars than for the national fleet. In all instances, the railroads have taken remedial action once the non-complying conditions have been identified. However, after repairing a defective car on a repair track, railroads often elect to place the car back in service without correcting conditions that are substandard according to the freight car standards. For example, a car shopped for repair of a brake defect may be sent back into service without attention being given to broken and missing truck springs, despite the obvious and serious nature of that condition. Railroads differ as to whether to impose operational constraints on this type of equipment or limit speed or train makeup. For instance, FRA has observed ballast cars with both broken centerplates and broken or missing truck springs placed in a relatively high-speed revenue train and coupled to a car containing hazardous materials. Nothing in current FRA regulations prevents this from happening. Similarly, ample evidence emerged that these cars are being interchanged among railroads fairly extensively. To identify the role that these cars may play in causing accidents, FRA has reviewed its accident data to find accidents caused by freight cars that were in ``maintenance-of-way'' service and to isolate those that can be attributed to conditions that would constitute noncompliance with the Freight Car Safety Standards. FRA has isolated 26 accidents involving maintenance-of-way cars between January 1, 1980 and July 1, 1987 in which defective components, which would otherwise have been regulated by these standards, were the probable cause of the accident. These accidents resulted in property damage exceeding $1 million. Because of data limitations regarding identification of maintenance-of- way cars, the study could not include any maintenance-of-way cars entering the fleet since 1984. That limitation, together with the fact that our field inspection forces report increasing observation of such cars used in revenue trains, leads to the conclusion that the risk is substantial today and likely to grow in the future. One further reason for concern relates to a recent change in industry requirements regarding cars with friction bearings. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) has changed its field manual of interchange rules, effective January 1, 1994, to require that ``all cars must be equipped with journal roller bearings and may not be equipped with friction (plain) bearings.'' AAR Interchange Rule 88, Item 17(b). Although this change does not specifically address MOW equipment, the majority of these cars are equipped with friction bearings. The AAR prohibition of interchanging cars equipped with friction bearings will greatly reduce the the number of locations on the railroads where personnel are capable of performing frequent inspections of the bearing components and application of lubrication. Reduced inspection could lead to increases in journal burn offs, hot boxes, and derailments. In summary, several factors call into question FRA's prior decision not to bring company-service-type equipment under the Freight Car Safety Standards: The increasing size of the ``maintenance-of-way'' car fleet; carrier decisions to minimize the level of repair work being performed on these cars rather than to voluntarily improve their general condition; fewer operational constraints for this fleet; and an accident history attributable to these cars. But the strongest argument for this proposal is simple common sense. FRA has required every car moving in a revenue service train to meet certain safety standards because it recognizes that equipment failure on a single car can derail an entire train. This is as true of maintenance-of-way vehicles as it is with any other type of car. Exempting maintenance-of-way vehicles from the freight car safety standards and allowing them to move at high speeds in trains which often carry hazardous materials does not appear logical in safety terms. This exemption appears to have contributed to at least 26 accidents, and mere chance appears to be responsible for the fact that none of these accidents produced catastrophic consequences. Because we do not believe that public safety can continue to be predicated on luck, FRA is proposing to remove this anomaly from the freight car safety standards. The Proposed Rule FRA proposes to revise Sec. 215.3(c)(3) to exclude from the application of the Freight Car Safety Standards freight cars assigned to maintenance-of-way service only if that equipment is: (1) Not used in revenue service; (2) operated at a speed of less than 20 miles per hour; and (3) stenciled in accordance with Section 215.305. All three of these conditions would have to be met before the car is excluded from the application of the rules. This proposal would add to the present regulation an additional condition which must be met before a freight car in maintenance-of-way service can be operated without complying with the Freight Car Safety Standards: the equipment must be operated at a speed of less than 20 mph. Under this approach, if a railroad wants to continue its current practice of operating a maintenance-of-way car at track speeds in revenue trains, the railroad will either have to bring the car into compliance with the Freight Car Safety Standards or substitute a car that is in compliance. However, a railroad could operate a non- complying stenciled maintenance-of-way car in a revenue train as long as that train travelled less than 20 miles per hour. This proposal would not prohibit stenciled, non-complying maintenance-of-way cars from being used in revenue trains as long as those trains operate at speeds less than 20 miles per hour. We specifically request comments on this aspect of the proposal. Should the permissible conditions for operating non-complying maintenance-of- way equipment be further limited by prohibiting use in all revenue trains as well as in revenue service? In view of the possibility that a car being used in restricted service might derail, fouling an adjacent track and leading to a raking collision, should all maintenance-of-way cars be required to comply with the provisions of the Freight Car Safety Standards? The proposed language does not change the regulation's effect on self-propelled maintenance-of-way equipment except insofar as that equipment would also have to comply with the Freight Car Safety Standards if operated at a speed of 20 miles per hour or more. FRA data indicates that freight cars specially modified for maintenance service constitute only a small segment of the group of cars that would be affected by this proposal. The vast majority of affected cars are unmodified cars that could just as easily be used in revenue service. Indeed, FRA investigations disclosed at least one railroad that was routinely employing in revenue service equipment stenciled for maintenance service. Given the potential for such alternative service, these cars should either be brought into compliance or replaced. Even if a railroad elects to replace all of its current equipment in this category, there does not appear to be any lack of equipment available for this purpose at minimal cost since the industry has a large number of freight cars in storage. FRA estimates that approximately 40,000 freight cars stenciled to indicate their potential use as maintenance-of-way cars would, to the degree railroads choose to use them in revenue trains at speeds of 20 miles per hour or higher, be brought into compliance with the Freight Car Safety Standards if this proposed amendment is adopted. To place that number in context, the national freight car fleet now includes more than 1.5 million cars. FRA estimates that less than three percent of the entire fleet would be affected by this proposal. Regulatory Impact This proposed rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing regulatory policies. The proposed rule does not constitute a major rule under Executive Order 12291, but is a significant rule under DOT regulatory policies and procedures due to industry and public interest. The proposed rule will have a direct economic impact only on railroads. If a railroad plans its maintenance activities in a manner that necessitates operating its MOW equipment at the same speed as normal revenue service trains, this proposal will have an adverse economic impact in that a railroad will either have to upgrade the condition of their equipment or replace that equipment with stored cars that comply with the standards. FRA estimates the cost of repairing the railroad industry's maintenance-of-way fleet to be $1,576,000 the first year and $1,733,600 the second year of compliance, with $315,200 in increased annual maintenance costs thereafter. Operating MOW cars at low speeds in dedicated MOW trains will considerably reduce the threat of derailments. When MOW equipment is operated at high speed in trains that may well contain large quantities of hazardous materials, any derailment could have grave consequences. Preventing just one accident from causing substantial loss of life or property would result in benefits well above those identifiable in a review of past accidents. A full regulatory evaluation has been placed in the public docket and is available for inspection. The Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 was enacted by Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily and disproportionately burdened by Government regulations. FRA certifies that this proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule will not have any significant impact on small entities because the limited speed provision will allow small railroads to continue to operate their equipment at current speeds since virtually all small railroads have very low operating speeds. The proposed rule does not contain any new or altered provisions that will affect the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulation. Federalism Implications The proposed rulemaking action would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 12612, FRA has determined that this notice does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment. List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 215 Railroad safety. The Proposed Rule In consideration of the foregoing, FRA proposes to amend part 215, title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below: PART 215--[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 215 continues to read as follows: Authority: 45 U.S.C. 431 and 438, as amended; Pub. L. 100-342; and 49 CFR 1.49(m). 2. In section 215.3, paragraph (c)(3) is revised to read as follows: Sec. 215.3 Application * * * * * (c) * * * (3) Maintenance-of-way equipment (including self-propelled maintenance-of-way equipment) if it is not used in revenue service, is operated at a speed of less than 20 miles per hour, and is stenciled in accordance with Sec. 215.305 of this part. Issued in Washington, DC on March 3, 1994. Donald M. Itzkoff, Acting Administrator. [FR Doc. 94-5371 Filed 3-9-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P