[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 21, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6610-6616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4017]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 232

[FRA Docket No. PB-9, Notice No. 5]
RIN 2130-AA73


Power Brake Regulations: Two-way End-of-Train Telemetry Devices

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).

ACTION: Notice of public regulatory conference.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FRA is scheduling a public regulatory conference to further 
discuss issues related to two-way end-of-train telemetry devices (2-way 
EOTs) previously developed in its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
on power brakes published on September 16, 1994. By earlier notice, FRA 
indicated that it would defer action on the NPRM for a short period; 
however, FRA also stressed that it did not intend to defer 
implementation of the requirement for 2-way EOTs beyond the effective 
date contemplated by Congress. Consequently, FRA has decided to 
separate proposals regarding 2-way EOTs from the rest of the proposed 
power brake revisions and proceed with this public regulatory 
conference in order to clarify and resolve those issues related to 2-
way EOTs and issue a final rule on this subject as soon as practicable. 
FRA urges railroads to immediately begin acquiring and equipping trains 
with 2-way EOTs to enhance the safety of their operations rather than 
waiting until issuance of the final rule.

DATES: (1) Written Comments: Written comments must be received no later 
than April 15, 1996. Comments received after that date will be 
considered to the extent practicable without incurring additional 
expense or delay.
    (2) Public Regulatory Conference: A public regulatory conference to 
discuss issues related to 2-way EOTs will be held March 5, 1996 
beginning at 8:30 a.m. in Washington, D.C. Any person wishing to 
participate in the public regulatory conference should notify the 
Docket Clerk at the address provided below at least five working days 
prior to the date of the conference. This notification should identify 
the party the person represents and the particular issues the person 
plans to address. The notification should also provide the Docket Clerk 
with the participant's mailing address. FRA reserves the right to limit 
participation in the conference of persons who fail to provide such 
notification.

ADDRESSES: (1) Written Comments: Written comments should identify the 
docket number and the notice number and must be submitted in triplicate 
to the Docket Clerk, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 8201, Washington, D.C. 
20590. Persons desiring to be notified that their written comments have 
been received by FRA should submit a stamped, self-addressed postcard 
with their comments. The Docket Clerk will indicate on the postcard the 
date on which the comments were received and will return the card to 
the addressee. Written comments will be available for examination, both 
before and after the closing date for comments, during regular business 
hours in room 8201 of the Nassif Building at the above address.
    (2) Public Regulatory Conference: The public regulatory conference 
will be held at the following location and date:
    Location: Nassif Building, Conference Room 2230, 400 Seventh Street 
SW, Washington, D.C. Date: March 5, 1996. Time: 8:30 a.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Peacock, Motive Power and 
Equipment Division, Office of Safety, RRS-14, Room 8326, FRA, 400 
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone 202-366-9186), 
or Thomas Herrmann, Trial Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, FRA, 
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone 202-366-
0628).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In 1992, Congress amended the Federal rail safety laws by adding 
certain statutory mandates related to power brake safety. See 49 U.S.C. 
20141 (formerly contained in Section 7 of the Rail Safety Enforcement 
and Review Act, Pub. L. No. 102- 365 (September 3, 1992), amending 
Section 202 of the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) of 1970, formerly 
codified at 45 U.S.C. 421, 431 et seq.). In these amendments, Congress 
instructed the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to promulgate 
regulations requiring the use of 2-way EOTs. Congress' mandate sets out 
various minimum requirements that any promulgated rule must contain and 
specifically lists various types of operations that are to be excluded 
from the requirements, leaving the Secretary with discretion to exclude 
other types of operations if it is in the public interest and 
consistent with railroad safety. See 49 U.S.C. 20141. Congress mandated 
that the rules be promulgated by the end 

[[Page 6611]]
of 1993, and envisioned a date for implementation of the requirements 
of no later than December 31, 1997. In addition to the statutory 
mandate, FRA received recommendations from the National Transportation 
Safety Board (NTSB) and petitions from the United Transportation Union, 
the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, the Oregon Public Utilities 
Commission, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, and 
the Montana Public Service Commission to require 2-way EOTs on all 
cabooseless trains operating in certain territories.
    In response to the statutory mandate, the various recommendations, 
and due to its own determination that the power brake regulations were 
in need of revision, FRA published an Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPRM) on December 31, 1992 (57 FR 62546). A section of the 
ANPRM was specifically designed to elicit comments, information, and 
views on 2-way EOTs and a portion of the public hearings covered this 
topic. See 57 FR 62550-62551. Based on the comments and information 
received, FRA published an NPRM regarding revision the power brake 
regulation which contained specific requirements related to 2-way EOTs. 
See 57 FR 47700, 47713-14, 47731, 47734, and 47743.
    Following publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register (59 FR 
47676), FRA held a series of public hearings in 1994 to allow 
interested parties the opportunity to comment on specific issues 
addressed in the NPRM. Public hearings were held in Chicago, Illinois 
on November 1-2; in Newark, New Jersey on November 4; in Sacramento, 
California on November 9; and in Washington, D.C. on December 13-14, 
1994. These hearings were attended by numerous railroads, organizations 
representing railroads, labor organizations, and state governmental 
agencies. Due to the strong objections raised by a large number of 
commenters, FRA announced by notice published on January 17, 1995 that 
it would defer action on the NPRM and permit the submission of 
additional comments prior to making a determination as to how it would 
proceed in this matter. 60 FR 3375. In the January notice, FRA also 
stressed that it did not intend to defer implementation of the 
requirement for 2-way EOTs beyond an effective date of December 31, 
1997.
    In the ANPRM and the NPRM, FRA identified eleven recent incidents 
that might have been avoided had the involved trains been equipped with 
2-way EOTs. See 57 FR 62550; 59 FR 47713-14. In addition, on December 
14, 1994, in Cajon Pass, an intermodal train operated by The Atchison, 
Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company (Santa Fe) collided with the rear 
end of a unit coal train operated by the Union Pacific Railroad Company 
resulting in the serious injury of two crew members and total estimated 
damages in excess of $4 million. After investigation of this incident, 
the NTSB concluded that had the train been equipped with a 2-way EOT 
the collision could have been avoided because the engineer could have 
initiated an emergency brake application from the end of the train. On 
December 15, 1995, based on the conclusion reached above, the NTSB made 
the following recommendation to FRA:

    Separate the two-way end-of-train requirements from the Power 
Brake Law NPRM, and immediately conclude the end-of-train device 
rulemaking so as to require the use of two-way end-of-train 
telemetry devices on all cabooseless trains. (Class II, Priority 
Action)(R-95-44).

    Furthermore, on February 1, 1996, again in Cajon Pass, a westward 
Santa Fe freight train derailed on a descending 3-percent grade. The 
incident resulted in fatal injuries to two of the crew members, serious 
injuries to a third, and the derailment of 45 of 49 cars and four 
locomotives. Although investigation of this incident is currently in 
progress, it appears as though it could have been avoided had the train 
been equipped with a means for the train crew to have effected an 
emergency brake application from the rear of the train. The two 
aforementioned incidents resulted in FRA's issuance on February 6, 
1996, of Emergency Order No. 18, 61 FR 5058, which requires the 
affected railroad to ensure that its train crews have the ability to 
effect an emergency brake application from the rear of the train on all 
westward freight trains operating through Cajon Pass.
    Consequently, based on these considerations and after review of all 
the comments submitted, FRA has determined that in order to limit the 
number of issues to be examined and developed in any one proceeding it 
will proceed with the revision of the power brake regulations via three 
separate processes. In light of the testimony and comments received on 
the NPRM, emphasizing the differences between passenger and freight 
operations and the brake equipment utilized by the two, FRA will 
propose to separate passenger equipment power brake standards from 
freight equipment power brake standards. As passenger equipment power 
brake standards are a logical subset of passenger equipment safety 
standards, the passenger equipment safety standards working group will 
assist FRA in developing a second NPRM covering passenger equipment 
power brake standards. See 49 U.S.C. 20133(c). In addition, it is FRA's 
intention to have a second NPRM covering freight equipment power brake 
standards developed with the assistance of the Railroad Safety Advisory 
Committee, which FRA is in the process establishing, subject to 
Administration approval. Furthermore, in the interest of public safety 
and due to statutory as well as internal commitments, FRA intends to 
separate the issues related to 2-way EOTs from both the passenger and 
freight issues, address them in the public regulatory conference being 
announced by this notice, and issue a final rule on the subject as soon 
as practicable. FRA feels that an informal public regulatory conference 
would prove advantageous in the development of regulations related to 
2-way EOTs. FRA also believes that the quality of the agency's final 
rule will be improved by facilitating an exchange of ideas that may 
lead to solutions acceptable to all interested parties.

Methodology

    In accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure 
Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), the public regulatory conference is a 
continuation of the power brake rulemaking proceeding. A court reporter 
will take a verbatim transcript of the conference which will be placed 
in the public docket for this rulemaking. The format of the discussions 
will be informal and will employ a topical, interactive approach. The 
public regulatory conference is currently scheduled for one day. FRA 
believes the time allotted for this conference will prove more than 
adequate. Of course, the conference will conclude earlier than planned 
if, based upon advice from the participants in attendance the agency 
concludes that the major issues have been adequately addressed.

Participants

    FRA invites all affected parties, including small entities, to 
participate in the public regulatory conference. FRA believes that 
extensive comment from all interested parties is necessary to develop 
the most effective and reasonable final regulation. For this conference 
to be successful, participants should be prepared to discuss, at a 
minimum, the issues identified below and provide reasonable 
alternatives, if necessary. FRA also encourages participants to bring 
supporting documentation where appropriate. 

[[Page 6612]]


Issues for Discussion

    In 1992, Congress amended the Federal rail safety laws by adding 
specific statutory mandates related to 2-way EOTs which state:
    (r) POWER BRAKE SAFETY.
* * * * *
    (3)(A) The Secretary shall require 2-way end of train devices (or 
devices able to perform the same function) on road trains other than 
locals, road switchers, or work trains to enable the initiation of 
emergency braking from the rear of the train. The Secretary shall 
promulgate rules as soon as possible, but not later than December 31, 
1993, requiring such 2-way end of train devices. Such rules shall at a 
minimum--
    (i) Set standards for such devices based on performance;
    (ii) Prohibit any railroad, on or after the date that is one year 
after promulgation of such rules, from acquiring any end of train 
device for use on trains which is not a 2-way device meeting the 
standards set under clause (i);
    (iii) Require that such trains be equipped with 2-way end of train 
devices meeting such standards not later than 4 years after 
promulgation of such rules; and
    (iv) Provide that any 2-way end of train device acquired for use on 
trains before such promulgation shall be deemed to meet such standards.
    (B) The Secretary may consider petitions to amend the rules 
promulgated under subparagraph (A) to allow the use of alternative 
technologies which meet the same basic performance requirements 
established by such rules.
    (C) In developing the rules required by subparagraph (A), the 
Secretary shall consider data presented under paragraph (1).
    (4) The Secretary may exclude from the rules required by paragraphs 
(1), (2), and (3) any category of trains or rail operations if the 
Secretary determines that such an exclusion is in the public interest 
and is consistent with railroad safety. The Secretary shall make public 
the reasons for granting any such exclusion. The Secretary shall at a 
minimum exclude from the requirements of paragraph (3)--
    (A) Trains that have manned cabooses;
    (B) Passenger trains with emergency brakes;
    (C) Trains that operate exclusively on track that is not part of 
the general railroad system;
    (D) Trains that do not exceed 30 miles per hour and do not operate 
on heavy grades, except for any categories of such trains specifically 
designated by the Secretary; and
    (E) Trains that operate in a push mode.
    Pub. L. No. 102-365, Sec. 7; codified with some differences in 
language at 49 U.S.C. 20141 (formerly codified at 45 U.S.C. 431(r)).
    FRA has already received a substantial number of comments on 2-way 
EOTs, either through testimony provided or written comments submitted 
in connection with the ANPRM and the NPRM that were previously issued. 
This public regulatory conference is designed to afford interested 
parties an opportunity to expand on those comments and further discuss 
the issues related to 2-way EOTs. After review of the comments 
received, FRA has identified seven major issues for discussion which 
include: the definition of ``mountain grade territory''; the handling 
of en route failures of the devices; the operations to which the 
requirements will be applicable; initial terminal requirements; design 
requirements; calibration requirements; and cost/benefit information. 
The following discussion is intended to highlight FRA's proposals 
regarding 2-way EOTs contained in the NPRM and to provide a brief 
overview of some of the comments received on those proposals. For the 
exact wording of any of the proposed requirements or for more detailed 
discussion of the proposals, individuals should refer directly to the 
NPRM. Furthermore, the listing of issues contained below is not 
intended to be exhaustive; we solicit comments on all issues relevant 
to 2-way EOTs.

A. Definition of ``Mountain Grade Territory''

    In Appendix C of the NPRM, FRA proposed a definition of mountain 
grade territory as a section of track of distance, D, with an average 
grade of 1.5 percent or more over that distance which satisfies the 
relationship:

(30/V)\2\G\2\D12
Where:
G=average grade x 100
D=distance in miles over which average grade is taken
V=speed of train

    See 59 FR 47719,47753. FRA also provided a chart containing 
mountain grade territory curves based on an application of the 
definition. See 59 FR 47753. FRA developed this empirical relationship 
based on most commenters' suggestions that some type of formula be 
developed based on a variety of factors, including train tonnage, 
speed, length of grade, percent of grade, and distance of grade. FRA 
determined that the three most important variables in defining mountain 
grade were: (i) The speed of the train (V); (ii) the steepness of the 
grade (G); and (iii) the length of the grade (D).
    According to the empirical relationship proposed by FRA, no one of 
these variables determines mountain grade operating conditions; it 
takes a combination of the three. The (30/V)\2\ term is the ratio of 
the train's speed to the reference speed of 30 mph, and it is squared 
because the speed of the train is a dominant variable in the 
relationship. The V term is in the denominator because as the speed of 
the train increases the ratio decreases, which makes satisfying the 
overall inequality defining mountain grade operating conditions more 
likely. The G term is squared because the steepness of the grade is a 
dominant variable. The G term is in the numerator because a steeper 
grade makes satisfying the overall inequality more likely. The D term 
is not squared because the length of the grade is less dominant than 
either the speed of the train or the steepness of the grade. The D term 
is in the numerator because a longer distance of grade makes satisfying 
the overall inequality more likely. The number 12 was selected because 
it yields a range of reasonable results for the definition.
    Many commenters stated that FRA's definition was confusing, 
inaccurate, and impractical. These commenters suggested that the 
definition would result in known mountain grades not being covered by 
the 2-way EOT requirement, while other areas never before believed to 
be mountain grades would fall within the requirement. Several 
commenters also recommended that the definition be eliminated and that 
the 2-way EOT requirements apply solely to trains operating in excess 
of 30 mph. The California Public Utilities Commission suggested that 
short of requiring the devices on every train, the fundamental 
criterion should be the ability of the train to stop within a safe 
distance. Other commenters suggested that other criteria be used to 
define mountain grade territory and that the formula be simplified. One 
commenter recommended that the proposed definition be eliminated, and 
that the 2-way EOT requirements be applied to trains operating over 30 
mph and to heavy tonnage and long trains as defined in the proposal.
    (1) FRA recognizes that the definition contained in the NPRM may be 
somewhat confusing and may lead to anomalous results. FRA also 
recognizes that a definition of mountain grade that uses speed as a 
variable may be inappropriate because if a significant portion of the 
braking system becomes 

[[Page 6613]]
inoperative on a long, steep grade a runaway can occur regardless of 
the speed that the train started down the grade. Consequently, FRA is 
open to alternate suggestions to simplify or clarify the definition of 
mountain grade territory. However, FRA does not believe discarding the 
concept of mountain grade territory would be consistent with the safety 
objectives of the statute.
    (2) FRA is interested in any alternative methods or formulas for 
defining mountain or heavy grade territory. For example:

    Mountain grade territory could be defined as: any portion of a 
railroad with an average grade of 1% or greater where the product of 
the average percent grade (as a decimal) and the distance over which 
the grade persists (in miles) is greater than or equal to .03. Thus 
a 1% (.01) average grade for 3 miles or a 2% (.02) average grade for 
1.5 miles would meet the definition for mountain grade territory.

    FRA encourages all interested parties to develop and be prepared to 
discuss their alternatives for defining mountain grade territory.
    (3) Several railroads include definitions of mountain grade 
territory in their operating rules, for example, Burlington Northern 
Railroad Company's Air Brake and Train Handling Rules define mountain 
grade as 1.8 percent grades and greater. For what purpose do railroads 
use these definitions of mountain grade, and could these definitions be 
used as a basis for defining mountain grade territory in this rule?

B. En Route Failures

    In the NPRM, FRA proposed that if a 2-way EOT or equivalent device 
becomes incapable of initiating an emergency brake application from the 
rear of the train while the train is en route, then the speed of that 
train would be limited to 30 mph. See 59 FR 47714, 47743. FRA's 
rationale for this limitation was that two-way EOT devices are not 
required on trains that travel less than 30 mph. Thus, operating with a 
non-functional two-way EOT device is the same as not having a device; 
consequently, trains operating with failed two-way EOT devices should 
be subjected to this same limitation. Furthermore, FRA suggested that 
the concerns raised by several railroads regarding train delays, missed 
deliveries, and safety were not justified. The Association of American 
Railroads (AAR) as well as several railroads commented that these 
devices are very reliable and have an extremely low failure rate, if 
properly maintained. Consequently, FRA believed that the concerns of 
the railroads were outweighed by the potential harm to both the public 
and railroad employees caused by trains being allowed to operate 
without the devices at speeds which Congress and FRA feel require the 
added safety benefits provided by these devices.
    Several railroads commented on FRA's proposal reinforcing the view 
that such a limitation could cause serious train delays and missed 
deliveries and would actually produce additional safety hazards due to 
the bunching of trains. Commenters also suggested that FRA failed to 
include the cost of this limitation in its analysis. Other commenters 
noted that subsequent to the drafting of the NPRM, Canada eliminated 
its speed restriction for failure of a 2-way EOT en route.
    (1) Are there alternative operating limits that could be imposed 
when a failure of a 2-way EOT occurs en route providing a degree of 
safety similar to the proposed speed limitation?
    (2) Can the costs of train delays and missed deliveries 
attributable to the proposed speed limitation be quantified? What are 
they?
    (3) Has Canada's elimination of a similar speed restriction 
resulted in a reduction in safety? What has been the result of the 
elimination?
    (4) To what extent should failures en route in mountain grade 
territory trigger special restrictions?

C. Applicability

    Based on the statutory mandate and after review of the comments 
received and the accidents relied on for support of the use of 2-way 
EOTs, FRA in the NPRM proposed that the devices be required equipment 
on trains that operate at speeds in excess of 30 mph and on trains that 
operate in mountain grade territories. See 59 FR 47743. (A discussion 
of FRA's definition of ``mountain grade territory'' is contained in 
Section A). In addition to those operations specifically excluded from 
2-way EOT requirements by the statute (49 U.S.C. 20141), FRA found 
sufficient safety justification for excluding two other types of 
operations: (i) freight trains equipped with a locomotive capable of 
initiating a brake application located in the rear third of the train 
length; and (ii) trains equipped with fully independent secondary 
braking systems capable of safely stopping the train in the event of 
failure of the primary system. In order to provide the industry with 
time to acquire a sufficient number of 2-way EOTs and to ease the 
economic impact of acquiring the devices, FRA proposed that the 
requirement that all road trains not specifically excepted be equipped 
with either a 2-way EOT or an alternate technology device performing 
the same function not become effective until December 31, 1996. See 59 
FR 47713, 47743. FRA also proposed that all 2-way EOTs purchased prior 
to the effective date of the final rule would be deemed to meet the 
design requirements contained in the proposal. See 59 FR 47713, 47743.
    Other than FRA's definition of ``mountain grade territory,'' there 
were very few comments specifically addressing the applicability 
requirements contained in the NPRM other than stylistic suggestions. 
One commenter did recommend that the exception for trains operating in 
a push mode be amplified to require that the control cab on the rear of 
train be occupied, display a reading of the brake pressure, and be 
capable of making an emergency application.
    (1) Is there a safety justification for excluding other types of 
operations not currently contemplated? What are they?
    (2) As it has been over three years since Congress issued the 
statutory mandate regarding 2-way EOTs and because the data relied on 
by FRA in developing the NPRM is close to two years old, FRA would like 
updated information regarding the number of 2-way EOTs currently in 
use, the number currently on order with manufacturers, the current cost 
of 2-way EOTs meeting the proposed design requirements, and the 
reliability of the devices currently in use.
    (3) Subsequent to the drafting of the NPRM, FRA has learned that 
some traditional passenger operations are considering the operation of 
mixed passenger and freight trains. How should these types of 
operations be handled with regard to the use of 2-way EOTs? Is there a 
safety justification for excepting these operations from the 
requirements?

D. Initial Terminal Requirements

    At the ANPRM stage, FRA received several comments regarding the 
batteries used in 2-way EOTs. Several commenters suggested that the 
most frequent cause of failure of 2-way EOTs is battery failure. These 
commenters also indicated that this problem could be cured by replacing 
batteries at initial terminals. Other commenters suggested that some 
minimum charge be required at initial terminals and that inspections be 
performed at all brake tests and crew change points. Several commenters 
also suggested that interchangeable battery packs were necessary 
because some railroads were unable to charge the devices that come onto 
their lines from other railroads. 

[[Page 6614]]

    Based on these comments, FRA proposed that any train equipped with 
a 2-way EOT or its equivalent shall not depart from the point where the 
train is originally assembled unless (i) the device is capable of 
initiating a brake application from the rear of the train and (ii) the 
batteries of the device are charged to at least 75 percent of watt-hour 
capacity. See 59 FR 47734. Although FRA did not receive any comments on 
this provision subsequent to the issuance of the NPRM, FRA feels this 
was due to most commenters focusing on some of the broader issues 
contained in the NPRM.
    Due to the period of time since hearings on the ANPRM were 
conducted, FRA requests the following:
    (1) Information regarding the operating life of batteries currently 
used in 2-way EOTs;
    (2) Information regarding the reliability and interchangeability of 
these batteries; and
    (3) Opinions on whether the proposed requirements are necessary 
based on the experiences of those parties currently using 2-way EOTs on 
a regular basis.

E. Design Requirements

    In order to maintain uniformity in the performance of 2-way EOT 
devices, FRA proposed basic performance and design requirements for 
these devices in the NPRM. As 2-way EOTs that are currently in 
production meet the design requirements already established for one-way 
devices contained at 49 CFR 232.19, FRA intended to retain those 
requirements, apply them to 2-way EOTs and establish other specific 
requirements to ensure two-way communication and the ability to make an 
emergency brake application from the rear of the train. The additional 
proposed requirements include the following:
    (a) An emergency brake application command from the front unit 
shall activate the emergency air valve at the rear of the train within 
one second.
    (b) The rear unit shall send an acknowledgment message to the front 
unit immediately upon receipt of a brake application command. The front 
unit shall listen for this acknowledgment and repeat the brake 
application command if the acknowledgment is not correctly received.
    (c) The rear unit, on receipt of a properly coded command, shall 
open a valve in the brake line and hold it open for a minimum of 15 
seconds. This opening of the valve shall cause the brake line to vent 
to the exterior.
    (d) The valve opening and hose diameter shall have a minimum 
diameter of 3/4 inch to effect an emergency brake application.
    (e) Restoring of the braking function (recharging the air brake 
system) shall be enabled automatically by the rear equipment, no more 
than 60 seconds after it has initiated an emergency.
    (f) The front unit shall have a manually operated switch which, 
when activated, shall initiate an emergency brake transmission command 
to the rear unit. The switch shall be labeled ``Emergency'' and shall 
be protected so that there will exist no possibility of accidental 
activation.
    (g) The availability of the front-to-rear communications link shall 
be checked automatically at least every 10 [seconds]*.
    (h) Means shall be provided to confirm availability and proper 
functioning of the emergency valve.
    (i) Means shall be provided to arm the front and rear units to 
ensure the rear unit responds only to an emergency command from its 
associated front unit.
    See 59 FR 47731. *(Section 232.117(g) of the NPRM inadvertently 
contained ``10 minutes'' for this requirement; it should have read ``10 
seconds.''  See 59 FR 47731). FRA recognizes that currently available 
2-way EOTs have several optional features that could prove beneficial 
to railroads and although FRA recommends that railroads obtain as many 
of the optional features as they can when purchasing the devices, FRA 
does not intend to mandate their use and feels each railroad is in the 
best position to determine which features benefit its operation.
    Several commenters suggested that the provision requiring the 
automatic restoration of the brake function after 60 seconds should be 
eliminated. These commenters stated that the brake function should not 
be restored until the train has come to a complete stop and/or that the 
locomotive engineer should retain control of the restoration. One 
commenter recommended that a separate labeled and protected emergency 
switch should not be mandated if the EOT's emergency application could 
be integrated into the existing emergency brake controls.
    (1) Are the proposed design requirements sufficient to ensure 
uniformity in the devices' design? Do they unduly restrict 
technological advances?
    (2) FRA is interested in any information regarding any 
technological advancements or design changes, that may have been made 
in the area of 2-way EOTs in the last two years, that would necessitate 
a change in or addition to the proposed design requirements.
    (3) FRA is also interested in any information from railroads 
currently using 2-way EOTs regarding the procedures or practices they 
have adopted for testing and inspecting the devices to ensure that the 
devices are armed and operational prior to a train's departure. Could 
or should these practices and procedures form the basis of such 
requirements in this rule?
    (4) Based on information obtained in investigating the recent 
accident near Cajon Pass, FRA is interested information regarding 
problems with maintaining communication between the front and rear 
units. What procedures or operations have been developed to overcome 
these communication problems? Could or should these be incorporated in 
this rule? Are there additional design requirements that could cure 
these communication problems? Minimum wattage requirements? Requiring 
repeater stations where necessary?

F. Calibration Requirements

    In the NPRM, FRA proposed to extend the calibration period for all 
EOTs from 92 days to 365 days. See 59 FR 47700, 47731. FRA based this 
proposed extension not only on its own experience but also on the 
comments received from several parties that the devices are fairly 
reliable and can operate for years without calibration. Furthermore, 
FRA believes that the 92-day calibration period was established at a 
time when there was little experience with the devices. Since that 
time, not only has calibration of the devices not proven to be a 
problem, but technology has further improved the reliability of the 
devices. Although several commenters, both at the ANPRM and NPRM stage, 
commented on the unreliability of the devices, these comments generally 
addressed either the failure of the railroads to properly perform the 
calibrations or the misuse of the devices.
    (1) FRA is interested in information and operating experiences 
regarding the reliability and accuracy of recently manufactured EOTs.

G. Cost/Benefit Information

    Based on information collected and additional research conducted 
subsequent to the issuance of the NPRM, FRA has updated its Regulatory 
Impact Analysis regarding 2- way EOTs. See FRA's Regulatory Impact 
Analysis: Two-way End-of-Train Devices. (This document will be 
distributed to all interested parties at the public regulatory 
conference, or copies may be 

[[Page 6615]]
obtained by contacting the individuals previously identified.) FRA 
currently estimates that the proposed requirements regarding 2-way EOTs 
would cost the industry approximately $214 million over 20 years at a 7 
percent discount rate. This estimate is based on the following 
assumptions: (i) unit purchase and installation cost of $7,000 per unit 
(front and rear); (ii) annual maintenance and calibration cost of 
Sec. 415 per unit; (iii) Class I railroads would be required to 
purchase 16,375 units; and (iv) Class II and Class III railroads would 
be required to purchase 1,096 units.
    Although FRA did not quantify the safety benefits that would be 
achieved by requiring 2-way EOTs in its original Regulatory Impact 
Analysis of the NPRM, FRA is in the process of developing an analysis 
to include safety benefits of the proposed requirements. See FRA's 
Regulatory Impact Analysis: Two-way End-of-Train Devices. FRA currently 
estimates that the quantifiable safety benefits from the proposal would 
be approximately $46 million over 20 years at a 7 percent discount 
rate. However, it should be noted that the benefits currently estimated 
by FRA are extremely conservative and are based on a limited number of 
cost factors arising as a result of an accident. FRA's conservative 
benefit estimate does not capture many of the costs associated with an 
accident such as: wreck clearance; damage to lading; train delay, 
emergency response, or enviromental clean-up. FRA looks forward to 
receiving information and suggestions from commenters on methods for 
capturing or estimating these additional costs. FRA's Office of Safety, 
Accidents Reports Division, has identified 26 accidents since 1990 
which potentially could have been prevented had the trains been 
equipped with 2-way EOTs. The accidents and railroad property damages 
associated with the potentially preventable accidents are contained in 
Table 1 below.

                                                       Table 1--Potentially Preventable Accidents*                                                      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 RR Property                  Accidents 
                Date                          Place              Listed Cause**        Injuries     Fatalities    updated to     Rate of     preventable
                                                                                                                   12/95 $    effectiveness    Benefit  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
900429.............................  Yardley, WA...........  Automatic Brake, other            1             0       $46,560           0.9       $41,904
                                                              improper use.                                                                             
901004.............................  Devore, CA............  Use of brakes, other..            0             0         7,857           0.9         7,071
901022.............................  Esbon, KS.............  use of brakes, other..            1             0        90,016           0.9        81,014
900517.............................  Nampa, WY.............  Obstructed brake pipe.            0             0       151,319           0.9       136,187
910918.............................  Spague, WA............  Obstructed brake pipe.            0             1     4,275,873           0.9     3,848,286
910304.............................  Waterfall, WY.........  Use of brakes, other..            2             0       980,075           0.5       882,068
910304.............................  Waterfall, WY.........  Use of brakes, other..            0             0       646,407           0.5       581,767
911021.............................  Vernon, IA............  Other brake defects,              0             0        24,755           0.5        22,280
                                                              cars.                                                                                     
920307.............................  Kansas City, MO.......  Obstructed brake pipe.            2             0       430,432           0.9       387,389
920307.............................  Kansas City, MO.......  Obstructed brake pipe.            0             0        61,875           0.9        55,688
920611.............................  Money, MS.............  Improper operation of             0             0       224,778           0.5       202,300
                                                              line air.                                                                                 
920611.............................  Money, MS.............  Improper operation of             2             0       452,334           0.5       407,101
                                                              line air.                                                                                 
920913.............................  Benton, WY............  Other brake defects,              0             0        15,579           0.5        14,021
                                                              loco.                                                                                     
921016.............................  Sterling, IL..........  Other brake defects,              0             0       148,998           0.5       134,098
                                                              loco.                                                                                     
921203.............................  Hillcrest, ID.........  Automatic brake,                  2             0         7,071           0.5         6,364
                                                              insufficient.                                                                             
921203.............................  Hillcrest, ID.........  Automatic brake,                  0             0        71,819           0.5        64,638
                                                              insufficient.                                                                             
931001.............................  Keystone, NB..........  Obstructed brake pipe.            0             0        10,572           0.9         9,515
931001.............................  Keystone, NB..........  Obstructed brake pipe.            2             0     2,642,466           0.9     2,378,219
931004.............................  Faust, UT.............  Use of brakes, other..            0             0        14,801           0.9        13,321
931011.............................  Fulton, KY............  Improper operation of             0             0         3,172           0.5         2,854
                                                              line air.                                                                                 
931011.............................  Fulton, KY............  Improper operation of             0             0        11,418           0.5        10,276
                                                              line air.                                                                                 
931221.............................  Wood, IA..............  Improper operation of             0             0       321,600           0.5       289,440
                                                              line air.                                                                                 
931221.............................  Wood, IA..............  Improper operation of             0             0       106,936           0.5        96,242
                                                              line air.                                                                                 
931223.............................  Grenada, MS...........  Improper operation of             0             0         5,815           0.5         5,233
                                                              line air.                                                                                 
931223.............................  Grenada, MS...........  Improper operation of             0             0         5,286           0.5         4,757
                                                              line air.                                                                                 
940909.............................  Cajon, CA.............   Automatic brake other            0             0        73,331           0.9        65,998
                                                              improper use.                                                                             
940909.............................  Cajon, CA (San B).....  Automatic brake,                  0             0         2,353           0.9         2,117
                                                              insufficient.                                                                             
941214.............................  Cajon, CA.............  Obstructed brake pipe.            1             0     1,293,484           0.9     1,164,135
941214.............................  Cajon, CA.............  Obstructed brake pipe.            2             0     2,765,060           0.9     2,488,554
950209.............................  Nelsons, WI...........  Use of brakes, other..            0             0        25,025           0.9        22,522
950209.............................  Nelsons, WI...........  Use of brakes, other..            1             0         5,702           0.9         5,132
950406.............................  Argonne, MI...........  Improper operation of             0             1       268,798           0.9       241,918
                                                              line air.                                                                                 
960201.............................  Cajon, CA.............  Unknown...............            1             2       Unknown  .............      Unknown
      TOTAL........................  ......................  ......................           17             4    16,540,459  .............  14,886,413 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A double entry showing more than one accident on the same date and at the same location indicates that the equipment or other property of two         
  railroads were involved.                                                                                                                              
** Cause listed in the Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Report filed with FRA, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 225, by the railroad involved.                   

    The accidents range in severity from those having very little 
monetary damages to those involving death, serious injury, the release 
of hazardous materials and the subsequent closure of a major federal 
highway and evacuation of a nearby town. The values for railroad 
property and track damages are shown updated to December 1995 dollars 
using the Engineering News Record index for heavy machinery and 
equipment. 

[[Page 6616]]

    Furthermore, there is a wide variety of qualitative safety benefits 
which could be gained from prevention of accidents by using 2-way EOTs. 
These types of qualitative benefits would include risk reduction of 
accidents involving hazardous materials and the associated costs, as 
well as reduced anxiety for residents of communities along railroad 
tracks, a safer environment for their families, and improved quality of 
life. Unfortunately, we do not have the type of information necessary 
to quantify the safety impact of many of these elements.
    (1) Are the assumptions used by FRA in its updated Regulatory 
Impact Analysis valid?
    (2) What is the current purchase and installation cost of a 2-way 
EOT required by FRA's proposal?
    (3) Are the estimated annual maintenance costs accurate?
    (4) Is FRA's estimate of the number of units required to be 
purchased accurate? How many 2-way units are currently in operation? 
How many are currently on order with a manufacturer?
    (5) What is the en route failure rate of 2-way devices currently in 
use?
    (6) What is the average useful life of currently available 2-way 
EOTs? Front units? Rear units?
    (7) What is the estimated cost per hour of delay for a given train?
    (8) On average, how long does it take to calibrate newer (post-
1992) 2-way EOTs?
    (9) Should any of the accidents/incidents identified in Table 1 not 
be considered potentially preventable? Why? Are there other accidents/
incidents, not identified in Table 1, occurring since 1990 that should 
be added to the list of potentially preventable accidents/incidents? 
Provide specifics.
    (10) FRA's ability to analyze accident/incident costs contained in 
Table 1 has been limited to data supplied by the industry. This 
information does not include costs such as wreck clearance, damage to 
lading, train delay, emergency response, and environmental cleanup. 
Consequently, FRA encourages commenters to provide any suggestions or 
information they have for capturing, or estimating, these additional 
costs.

H. Compliance Plans

    Unlike most FRA safety rulemaking proceedings, this proceeding is 
principally concerned with defining exceptions to an otherwise absolute 
statutory command. Thus, whatever the final rule may provide, railroads 
must plan well in advance of December 31, 1997 (the date by which the 
statute requires all covered trains to be equipped with 2-way EOTs) to 
procure large numbers of 2-way EOTs, equip their trains with them, and 
train their employees to install, maintain, and use them. FRA, 
therefore urges railroads to immediately begin acquiring and equipping 
trains with 2-way EOTs to enhance the safety of their operations rather 
than waiting until the issuance of the final rule. FRA is interested in 
knowing in the greatest detail available what plans railroads currently 
have in place for complying with the statute.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., on February 15, 1996.
Jolene M. Molitoris,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-4017 Filed 2-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P