[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 6, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8881-8888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4838]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 229

[FRA Docket No. RSGC-2, Notice No. 10]
RIN 2130-AA80


Locomotive Visibility; Minimum Standards for Auxiliary Lights

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FRA amends the locomotive safety standards to increase train 
visibility. This action requires that certain locomotives be equipped 
with auxiliary lights to enable motorists, railroad employees and 
pedestrians to recognize approaching trains at a greater distance. The 
rule requires that locomotives operated over public highway-rail 
crossings at greater speeds than 20 miles per hour be equipped with 
auxiliary lights.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 6, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gordon Davids, Bridge Engineer, Office 
of Safety, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 
(telephone: 202-366-0507); Grady Cothen, Jr., Deputy Associate 
Administrator for Safety Standards, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone: 202-366-0897); or Kyle M. Mulhall, 
Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone: 202-366-0635).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 28, 1995, FRA published a notice 
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would change headlight regulations 
for locomotives by requiring two auxiliary lights that would be placed 
on the front of the locomotive to form a triangle with the headlight. 
60 FR 44457. Publication of this final rule was required by section 14 
of the Amtrak Authorization and Development Act (Pub. L. 102-533). This 
legislation added a new subsection (u) to Sec. 202 of the Federal 
Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (FRSA) [45 U.S.C. 431(u)], to address 
locomotive visibility. On July 5, 1994, Sec. 202(u) of the FRSA, 
together with all the other general and permanent Federal railroad 
safety laws, was simultaneously repealed, revised and reenacted without 
substantive change, and recodified as positive law at 49 U.S.C. 20143. 
As recodified, the section now reads as follows:

Locomotive Visibility

    (a) Definition.--In this section, ``locomotive visibility'' means 
the enhancement of day and night visibility of the front end locomotive 
of a train, considering in particular the visibility and perspective of 
a driver of a motor vehicle at a grade crossing.
    (b) Interim Regulations.--Not later than December 31, 1992, the 
Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe temporary regulations 
identifying ditch, crossing, strobe, and oscillating lights as 
temporary locomotive visibility measures and authorizing and 
encouraging the installation and use of those lights. Subchapter II of 
chapter 5 of title 5 does not apply to a temporary regulation or to an 
amendment to a temporary regulation.
    (c) Review of Regulations.--The Secretary shall review the 
Secretary's regulations on locomotive visibility. Not later than 
December 31, 1993, the Secretary shall complete the current research of 
the Department of Transportation on locomotive visibility. In 
conducting the review, the Secretary shall collect relevant information 
from operational experience by rail carriers using enhanced visibility 
measures.
    (d) Regulatory Proceeding.--Not later than June 30, 1994, the 
Secretary shall begin a regulatory proceeding to prescribe final 
regulations requiring substantially enhanced locomotive visibility 
measures. In the proceeding, the Secretary shall consider at least--
    (1) Revisions to the existing locomotive headlight standards, 
including standards for placement and intensity;
    (2) Requiring the use of reflective material to enhance locomotive 
visibility;
    (3) Requiring the use of additional alerting lights, including 
ditch, crossing, strobe, and oscillating lights;
    (4) Requiring the use of auxiliary lights to enhance locomotive 
visibility when viewed from the side;
    (5) The effect of an enhanced visibility measure on the vision, 
health, and safety of train crew members; and
    (6) Separate standards for self-propelled, push-pull, and multiple 
unit passenger operations without a dedicated head end locomotive.
    (e) Final Regulations.--(1) Not later than June 30, 1995, the 
Secretary shall prescribe final regulations requiring enhanced 
locomotive visibility measures. The Secretary shall require that not 
later than December 31, 1997, 

[[Page 8882]]
a locomotive not excluded from the regulations be equipped with 
temporary visibility measures under subsection (b) of this section or 
the visibility measures the final regulations require.
    (2) In prescribing regulations under paragraph (1) of this 
subsection, the Secretary may exclude a category of trains or rail 
operations from a specific visibility requirement if the Secretary 
decides the exclusion is in the public interest and is consistent with 
rail safety, including grade-crossing safety.
    (3) A locomotive equipped with temporary visibility measures 
prescribed under subsection (b) of this section when final regulations 
are prescribed under paragraph (1) of this subsection is deemed to be 
complying with the final regulations for 4 years after the final 
regulations are prescribed.
    After publication of the NPRM, FRA held a public hearing at the 
request of the Association of American Railroads (AAR) and The American 
Short Line Railroad Association (ASLRA). This hearing was held in 
Washington, on November 28, 1995. FRA also extended the comment period 
on the NPRM. FRA now responds to the comments concerning this 
rulemaking.

FRA Study of Auxiliary Lights

    FRA's Office of Research and Development, through the Volpe 
National Transportation Systems Center (VNTSC), has studied the impact 
of auxiliary lights as alerting devices to improve locomotive 
visibility. A copy of the final report was placed in the docket of this 
rulemaking.
    As part of this study, FRA initially evaluated various lighting 
systems, paint schemes, and reflective materials. Four of the alerting 
light systems were selected for further study: standard locomotive 
headlights and crossing, ditch, and strobe lights. FRA evaluated the 
lights for compliance with FRA's interim advisory standards and for 
cost and reliability and conducted field tests on their ability to 
increase an approaching train's visibility.
    The results were that the addition of auxiliary lights 
significantly increased train visibility compared to the use of 
standard headlights alone. Results indicated a 10 to 20 percent 
increase in the distance an approaching train can be recognized. Tests 
also indicated that motorists are better able to predict the time it 
takes for an approaching train to enter a crossing. Limited data 
collected from three railroads participating in the study suggested 
that accident rates drop significantly when auxiliary lights are used.
    The AAR dismisses FRA's findings on two grounds; one, that the 
field tests did not adequately reproduce real conditions at highway-
rail grade crossings; and, two, that FRA failed to separate locomotives 
that were and were not equipped with auxiliary lights when it 
determined there was a drop in the accident rate after auxiliary lights 
were installed on some locomotives.
    FRA replies that the field tests were not intended to simulate real 
conditions at highway-rail grade crossings. They were intended to 
compare the responses of a selected group of subjects to the approach 
of trains with several configurations of auxiliary lights, and a 
control sample with no auxiliary lights. Real conditions at highway-
rail grade crossings involve so many variables that testing for all 
possible conditions would not have been possible within the time and 
resources available for this project. The tests were successful in 
measuring the subjects'' response to the carefully selected parameters.
    The in-service accident data was requested from the participating 
railroads by VNTSC after the periods for which the data had been 
accumulated. FRA used data that was available at the time, and the data 
had not been collected with this rulemaking in mind. Therefore, the 
data was not available for an ideal detailed statistical analysis. 
However, the trend favoring the accident-reduction potential of 
auxiliary lights was obvious throughout the analysis that was performed 
and reported by VNTSC.

Section Analysis

1. Three-Light Triangle: Sec. 229.125(d)

    It continues to be FRA's belief that a uniform light configuration 
on locomotives will help the public become familiar with and quickly 
recognize the appearance of an approaching locomotive. A configuration 
of three front-mounted lights is the most common system adopted by the 
railroad industry since the issuance of the first interim rule in 1993. 
Those three lights form a triangle with one major dimension (base or 
vertical axis) of at least 60 inches.
    In its post-hearing comments, AAR objects to the standard measures 
used for placing auxiliary lights. AAR argues that 236 Canadian 
National locomotives, which operate over the United States border with 
Canada, would have to be refitted to come into compliance since their 
auxiliary lights are not arranged as required by this rule. As an AAR 
spokesman at the public hearing states, however, ``[w]e could 
understand FRA is looking toward standardization of some type over 
time, and we support that.''
    FRA is indeed concerned with giving a consistent warning so 
motorists are not confused. In addition, the Canadian National filed 
comments with FRA addressing the NPRM and did not raise this objection. 
FRA did, however, consider AAR's latest comment.
    The normal human eye can discern two objects as separate when the 
objects are spaced to form a visual angle of approximately one-half of 
one degree. When the lights are seen as separate, the observer can 
better estimate the speed of an approaching train because as the 
locomotive moves closer the lights will appear to move further apart. 
It is the goal of this rule to give a uniform warning. If the lights 
are arranged in a standard position, then motorists at grade crossings 
will become accustomed to judging the train's rate of approach. If the 
distance between the lights vary, from locomotive to locomotive, then 
the motorists will not be receiving a consistent warning. The Canadian 
National locomotives have a maximum axis of as little as 44.5 inches. 
The smaller axis reduces the distance at which the lights can be 
discerned as separate, and would give a false visual indication of a 
greater than actual distance from the train.
    It is also unclear under what circumstances these Canadian National 
locomotives will operate in this country, or if all of these 
locomotives are intended to be used in the United States. Given the 
fact that all carriers have been aware of the proposed dimensions for 
several years, it is difficult to understand why locomotives in use in 
this country would have been fitted with auxiliary lights which were 
not in compliance with the interim standards or the NPRM.
    Given the prevalence and practicality of the three-light triangle 
system, the desire for a uniform appearance of an approaching 
locomotive, and the physical advantages of this system, FRA believes it 
to be the best lighting system to accomplish the purpose of this rule.
    The dimensions for the three-light triangle are the same as those 
specified in the interim rule as revised on May 13, 1994. Those 
dimensions were prescribed as the result of comments made on the first 
interim rule of February 3, 1993. They are functionally the same, but 
the second interim rule permitted more flexibility in light placement 
on locomotives to accommodate various locomotive configurations and 
placement of other vital appliances. FRA will, however, permit the 
light arrangement on the Canadian National locomotives to be 
grandfathered. Any locomotive equipped before May 30, 1994, with a 

[[Page 8883]]
three-auxiliary-light arrangement with one axis at least 44 inches, 
will be considered in compliance with this rule until such time as the 
locomotive is rebuilt or retired. This liberalization of the 
grandfathering provision will validate early investment in visibility 
measures that increase safety.
    The 36-inch minimum vertical axis requirement aids the observer's 
sight distance. The maximum vertical curve recommended by the American 
Railway Engineering Association for main track has a rate of change of 
grade of 0.2 percent per 100 feet. On this vertical curve, a light 
three feet above the track will be visible to an observer at a distance 
of 1,095 feet, provided the observer's eyes are three feet above the 
track. A reduction in height of one foot, of either the observer or the 
light, reduces the sight distance by approximately 100 feet.
    One comment to the first interim rule requested a lower height 
above the rail for lights on cab control cars in suburban passenger 
service. FRA believes that an inflexible requirement to place lights on 
cab control cars or other multiple unit locomotives as defined in this 
regulation at a height of 36 inches might lead to a reduction in the 
integrity of the car body structure at this critical location. Such 
reduced structural integrity could increase the risk of injury to the 
occupants of the equipment in the event of an accident. The final rule 
would therefore permit auxiliary lights to be mounted at heights down 
to 24 inches above the rail on equipment that would not readily 
accommodate a higher placement.
    However, the lower, 24-inch minimum height for multiple unit 
locomotives and cab control cars is not suitable for general railroad 
service, owing to the reduced visibility on vertical curves, and 
susceptibility to damage from snow and foreign material away from 
commuter lines. FRA therefore retains the minimum height of 36 inches 
for auxiliary lights for all other applications.
    Horizontal orientation of the auxiliary lights should also be 
reasonably uniform in order to ensure recognition. FRA has selected the 
``crossing light'' configuration (focused within plus or minus 15 
degrees of a line parallel to the centerline of the locomotive) in lieu 
of the extreme ``ditch light'' configuration as described in the 
grandfathering rule (turned outward up to 45 degrees). In the extreme 
ditch light configuration, there appears to be a risk that the 
auxiliary lights might affect the night vision of motorists on parallel 
roadways. Several parties commented that this was a legitimate fear, 
although no direct evidence was presented.
    FRA had also requested comment as to whether a dimmer feature 
should be required for auxiliary lights similar to the dimmer used on 
headlights. The comments received on this point indicated that the 
dimmer feature would be unnecessary. FRA can identify no compelling 
safety need for a dimmer on auxiliary lights. The one argument made for 
dimmers was that the device might prevent blinding motorists. As noted 
above, FRA believes that aligning the lights as required in the final 
rule should reduce this possibility. Several parties also argued that 
requiring dimmers would significantly increase installation cost per 
locomotive.
    The interim rule and the proposed rule provided a minimum intensity 
requirement of 200,000 candela for each auxiliary light. The criterion 
assumes steady-state operation. Field observations suggest that current 
alerting light pulsing systems provide more than adequate effective 
candela; however, research conducted to date evaluated only strobe 
lights for effective intensity in a pulsing or flashing mode. No 
comments were received suggesting a separate effective intensity 
requirement be stated in the final rule for systems that operate 
pulsing. At this time, FRA can identify no compelling safety reason to 
set a different candela intensity for pulsing auxiliary lights.
    FRA's final rule permits the use of either the steady-state or 
pulsing auxiliary lights, drawing permissible features from both the 
``ditch lights'' and ``crossing lights'' as described in the interim 
requirements.
    It should be noted that nomenclature for auxiliary lights is not 
standard. For example, most non-pulsing installations referred to by 
railroads as ``ditch lights'' have, in practice, been aligned within 15 
degrees of centerline and would therefore meet FRA's requirements for 
permanent auxiliary lights. This rule does not elect a single option 
from among the configurations that railroads continue to evaluate. 
Rather, it proposes a minimum standardization of placement and 
alignment of the two auxiliary lights that, with the locomotive 
headlight, form the distinct triangle.

Speed Limits

    Much comment has been received concerning FRA's low speed exclusion 
from the auxiliary lights requirement. FRA proposed this exception for 
two reasons; one, accidents at lower speeds are significantly less 
likely to cause injuries or fatalities (for example, on an annual 
average, 92 percent of accident fatalities occur at speeds greater than 
20 miles per hour); and two, FRA believed the cost of equipping these 
locomotives, which are, on average, nearer the end of their useful 
life, would not produce the justifying benefits, given the shorter time 
for recovering the costs of upgrading.
    FRA originally considered requiring the use of auxiliary lights 
only during the 20 seconds before a locomotive entered a public 
highway-rail grade crossing. It was quickly concluded, however, that it 
would be too difficult for a train operator to tell whether or not he 
was 20 seconds approach time from the crossing. FRA concluded, 
therefore, that the interest of safety would be best served if all 
locomotives required by this rule to be equipped with auxiliary lights 
were required to use those lights whenever the locomotive is moving. 
Only locomotives which never exceeded 20 miles per hour would be 
allowed to operate without ever using auxiliary lights.
    AAR, ASLRA, and parties representing tourist railroads requested an 
increase in this speed limit. These parties asked that FRA raise the 
speed exclusion to 30 miles per hour. FRA has considered this option 
and also the option of raising the limit to 25 miles per hour. After 
much consideration, FRA has concluded that the projected reduction in 
accidents that would occur at speeds greater than 20 miles per hour if 
locomotives at those speeds were equipped with auxiliary lights 
significantly outweighs any cost savings from not having to equip the 
affected class of locomotives.
    FRA also believes that having large numbers of unequipped 
locomotives would confuse the public. Many unequipped locomotives would 
be able to operate on freight main lines if the speed were 
significantly raised. Motorists crossing such lines will likely expect 
to see the light triangle. This might be particularly true in rural 
areas where many crossings are only passively signed. FRA's analysis of 
costs and benefits, discussed further below, confirmed the positive 
contribution that auxiliary lights can make to grade crossing safety, 
even at speeds only slightly above 20 miles per hour. FRA therefore 
will retain the 20 miles per hour speed exclusion.
    FRA is required to issue a rule that would require that by December 
31, 1997, locomotives be equipped with a form of auxiliary lights. In 
order to develop additional information that may later provide a basis 
for distinguishing between steady-burning and alternately-pulsing 
arrangements, AAR has indicated that they would conduct a 

[[Page 8884]]
further study under which two or more major railroads would equip 
portions of their fleets used in the same service with steady and 
pulsing lights. In order to eliminate transient effects, the study 
would follow the two matched fleets for a period of approximately three 
years. The progress of this study will be tracked on an annual basis, 
and at the conclusion of the study, FRA will review the data to 
determine if a statistically significant difference can be discerned 
between the effectiveness of steady and flashing lights. The results of 
the study should provide a factual basis for determining whether 
further refinement of the rule is appropriate and, if so, the degree of 
urgency associated with any such change.

2. Flash Rates: Sec. 229.125(e)

    Subsection (e) provides that auxiliary lights may be illumined 
continuously or may be arranged to flash on approach to a highway-rail 
grade crossing. If flashing lights are used, the rate must be not fewer 
than 40 and not more than 180 per minute, as provided in the second 
interim rule. FRA has received no negative comments regarding the range 
of flash rates permitted for locomotive visibility lights in the second 
interim rule or the NPRM. The rates are constrained by the need for 
visibility but also the need to avoid a ``flicker vertigo'' effect on 
train crew members.
    FRA leaves control of flashing lights to the discretion of the 
railroad. Depending on their operations, some railroads might consider 
it advisable to interconnect the horn and lighting controls to provide 
joint activation when approaching a crossing, but that question need 
not be addressed in a regulation.

3. Operation of Auxiliary Lights: Sec. 229.125(f)

    In subsection (f), FRA proposed to require operation of auxiliary 
lights for a period of at least 20 seconds prior to arrival of the 
locomotive at the crossing. FRA received comments, however, that 
estimating the approach time to a crossing is too difficult an 
assignment to be reliably carried out by the locomotive engineer. FRA 
agrees that this is an unfair responsibility to place on the train 
crew. The Final Rule, therefore, requires continuous use of auxiliary 
lights. Railroads using locomotives with flashing lights shall include 
in the railroad's operating rules standard procedures for use of this 
model of auxiliary light.
    FRA received several comments from railroads asking allowance for 
not using auxiliary lights under certain circumstances for the safety 
of motorists, or railroad employees working in the area, or for certain 
weather conditions. FRA believes that any exception should be made only 
in the best interest of safety to avoid grade crossing accidents where 
there has been a railroad decision not to use the auxiliary lights.
    Railroads may wish to extinguish auxiliary lights when the 
headlight is dimmed under existing operating rules. Rule 5.9 of the 
General Code of Operating Rules, for instance, requires that the 
headlight be dimmed at stations and yards where switching is done, when 
the engine is stopped close behind another engine, when passing another 
train, and under other specified circumstances.
    FRA will allow railroads subject to this rule to except, for a 
public safety purpose, auxiliary light use at any highway-rail grade 
crossing so designated in the railroads'' operating rules, timetable, 
or special order. These exceptions will be subject to disapproval by 
FRA's Associate Administrator for Safety, or one of FRA's Regional 
Administrators, after investigation and opportunity for response by the 
railroad, for good cause stated.
    FRA believes there will be little burden on the industry from this 
requirement since it is currently standard practice for railroads to so 
print such directions for use by train crews. Under existing railroad 
rules, there are few exceptions, limited primarily to situations where 
two trains are approaching each other and it is necessary to avoid 
blinding their respective locomotive engineers.

4. Other Uses of Auxiliary Lights: Proposed Sec. 229.125(g)

    FRA's proposed subsection (g) is deleted from the Final Rule. 
Continuous use of auxiliary lights is now required for any lead 
locomotive that is equipped with such lights.

5. Defective En Route: Sec. 229.125(g)

    FRA's proposed subsection (h) is relettered, and its provisions are 
now contained at subsection (g).
    FRA received comments from several carrier representatives that 
more flexibility was needed for making auxiliary light repairs. FRA's 
proposed subsection regarding movement of defective locomotives 
permitted a lead locomotive with one defective auxiliary light to 
proceed to a point where repairs could be made. If both auxiliary 
lights were out, Sec. 229.9 (movement of non-complying locomotives) 
would apply, which would ordinarily require that the locomotive be 
switched to a trailing position or be operated at less than 20 miles 
per hour. It should be noted that the requirement for auxiliary lights 
applies only to a lead locomotive.
    FRA recognizes that light failures should be infrequent, and 
accidents occurring during a period of failure even more rare. Although 
each is important, the large number of safety items on a locomotive 
presents a challenge with respect to appropriate use of an asset that 
may be valued as high as two million dollars.
    FRA's final rule requires that if either of the two auxiliary 
lights on a lead locomotive is inoperative at an initial terminal, then 
each inoperative auxiliary light must be fully repaired prior to the 
train's departure. At any other time, a lead locomotive may continue 
with one auxiliary light out to the place where the next calendar day 
inspection is conducted. An en route failure of both lights would 
require repair at the next location in the direction of movement where 
repairs of the kind can be made. This movement must be consistent with 
Sec. 229.9.

6. Exception for Historic Equipment: Sec. 229.125(h)

    FRA also received comments on its proposed rule from parties 
concerned with historic locomotive models that are not steam driven. 
FRA agrees that requiring these rare locomotives to be equipped with 
auxiliary lights is unnecessary and would compromise their historic 
appearance. These locomotives, including inter-urban electric cars, 
operate at low speeds on limited operations, and generally during 
daylight hours. Fitting these historic locomotives with auxiliary 
lights can entail the upgrading of the entire electrical system. This 
expense seems unnecessary. FRA has been informed that these locomotives 
were no longer built after the end of 1948. FRA will therefore allow an 
exception for historic locomotives built before December 31, 1948. This 
exception does not apply to any locomotive used in regular commuter or 
inter-city passenger service. This exception does apply to locomotives 
operated by historic or tourist railroads.
    In 1992, FRA reviewed its policy regarding tourist, scenic and 
excursion railroads that transport passengers on lines separate from 
the general railroad system of transportation. While in the past FRA 
has usually limited its exercise of jurisdiction over passenger 
operations to those on the general system, FRA determined that public 
safety required a uniform floor of regulation for this growing segment 
of the railroad marketplace. Only those 

[[Page 8885]]
railroads deemed ``insular'' were excluded from this exercise of 
jurisdiction; however, several existing sets of regulations, including 
Part 229, do not apply to passenger railroads that are not part of the 
general rail system. Since a major criterion of non-insular status is 
the presence of a public highway-rail grade crossing, the issue is 
presented in this proceeding whether these non-general system railroads 
should be required to equip their locomotives with auxiliary alerting 
lights.
    FRA has determined that any passenger railroad that is not part of 
the general railroad system of transportation should not be required to 
comply with this rule. The small number of locomotives, if any, that 
would fit in this category present little safety risk at grade 
crossings. These trains tend to operate at lower speeds, carry fewer 
passengers over grade crossings, and are used predominately during 
daytime when visibility is better. This locomotive visibility rule 
already excludes locomotives operated at 20 miles per hour or less. 
This exclusion renders the rule inapplicable to many non-steam 
locomotives owned and operated by passenger railroads off the general 
system.

7. Grandfathering: Sec. 229.133

    The interim provisions on auxiliary lights are contained in 49 CFR 
229.133. Subsection (c), which makes use of auxiliary lights elective 
during the period prior to December 31, 1997, would be repealed on that 
date.
    The interim provisions identify four alerting light arrangements 
that FRA believed would increase locomotive visibility. First, ditch 
lights, which are composed of two white lights focused within 45 
degrees of the longitudinal centerline of the locomotive. Second, 
strobe lights, which are two white stroboscopic lights that flash at a 
rate between one pulse every 1.0 to 1.3 seconds. Third, crossing 
lights, which are two white standard lights that flash at the same rate 
as the strobes and are focused within 15 degrees of the longitudinal 
centerline of the locomotive. And the final alerting lights system, an 
oscillating light, which is composed of one or more white lights that 
cast a moving beam in circular or elliptical shapes in front of the 
locomotive. These alerting light systems will be ``grandfathered'' and 
considered in temporary compliance with any final rule.
    By law, ``grandfathered'' auxiliary lights installed before the 
final rule is issued may continue in use for four years from the date 
the final rule is issued.
    During the comment period on the NPRM, FRA was asked to extend the 
grandfathering period beyond the minimum set by the statute. This 
request was referred to as ``supergrandfathering.'' These comments 
concerned oscillating and strobe lights.
    FRA did consider the use of oscillating lights and strobe lights 
for inclusion in the NPRM and final rule in Sec. 229.125(d). Both light 
systems offer significant advantages but have unique drawbacks. An 
oscillating light can provide a startling effect when the light rapidly 
reflects off nearby objects, fog, or snow. However, in general, 
oscillating lights are costly and difficult to maintain. Oscillating 
lights have often been used individually, a configuration inconsistent 
with the triangular signature common in European railroad operators.
    Desirable effects can also be achieved with pulsating strobe 
lights, particularly those lights operated in pairs. However, extensive 
use of strobe and oscillating-type lights on emergency vehicles has 
reduced their usefulness as a distinct warning of an approaching train. 
Further, strobe lights can tend to wash out against a light background 
and may not compete well for attention in a nighttime environment with 
a variety of light sources.
    Research in support of this proceeding indicates that crossing 
lights and ditch lights--the auxiliary lights most widely used by U.S. 
railroads--also appear to perform well under both experimental 
conditions and in revenue service. Experimental field tests compared 
the performance of a lone headlight with combinations of a headlight 
and each of the following:
    (i) pulsing ``crossing lights'' that were aligned straight down the 
railroad,
    (ii) steady burning ``ditch lights'' that were outwardly aligned at 
15 degrees, and
    (iii) dual strobe lights mounted on the top of the locomotive.
    All three types of auxiliary lights outperformed the lone headlight 
by significantly increasing the distance a train can be detected and 
improving an observer's ability to estimate a train's arrival time at 
the crossing. For detection distance, the crossing light performed 
best, followed by the ditch and strobe lights. With respect to 
estimation of time of arrival, the crossing lights were judged to 
result in the smallest estimation errors for actual arrival time 
intervals between 7 and 22 seconds. However, the ditch lights clearly 
aided estimation of arrival, as well.1

    \1\ In the field tests, observers wore headphones to mask noise 
from the oncoming locomotive. FRA has conducted separate analyses 
that indicate locomotive horns provide a very powerful (though not 
always sufficient) warning to motorists that the train is present 
and its arrival at the crossing is imminent. FRA recognizes that 
some overlap may exist between the two warning systems; however, to 
the extent this overlap may be beneficial in modifying risky 
behavior, its potential should be exploited. The actual service 
experience tends to confirm the possibility that such an effect may 
exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Volpe Center gathered limited data from Norfolk Southern, 
Conrail, and CalTrans (California) comparing accident experience of 
locomotives equipped with crossing lights to locomotives equipped with 
a headlight alone. These data suggest that the use of crossing lights 
may result in a greater than 50- percent reduction in accident rates. 
Although these trials lasted from only nine to twenty-four months, and 
some of the accident reduction may have resulted from a ``novelty 
effect'' (an initial impact that wanes as risk-taking motorists become 
accustomed to the new lights), there is no reason to believe that there 
will not be substantial and continuing benefits from use of auxiliary 
lights.
    All of the service applications examined by the Volpe Center 
involved pulsing auxiliary lights, and the experimental field tests 
potentially relevant to this issue involved a confounding variable 
(angle of alignment). Accordingly, no empirically-based comparisons can 
be made at this time between lights that pulse (alternately flash) on 
approach to a crossing and those that burn steadily.
    FRA agrees with those parties who argued that evidence that 
crossing lights are superior is not, however, extensive. FRA also 
recognizes that it has been the agency's policy to encourage early 
installation of auxiliary lights. Many carriers made just such good 
faith investments in safety. FRA therefore will permit 
``supergrandfathering'' for certain light arrangements. The final rule 
will consider oscillating lights, installed in newly-acquired equipment 
ordered prior to January 1, 1996, as permanently grandfathered. Use of 
these lights is concentrated in low speed and commuter operations over 
territories where an oscillating pattern should provide significant 
benefits. Strobe lights will be permitted on a locomotive until the 
locomotive is retired or rebuilt. Strobe lights will be permanently 
grandfathered on any locomotive that is limited to operating at speeds 
no greater than 40 miles per hour. FRA believes this approach best 
validates early 

[[Page 8886]]
investment in safety, while encouraging uniform light configurations.
    FRA notes that application of strobe or oscillating lights, as 
attention-getting supplements to the triangular pattern of auxiliary 
lights made standard by this rule, can have further beneficial effects 
on safety. Nothing in this final rule should be construed to discourage 
use of such systems as supplements to the triangle pattern, either 
through retention of existing lights or new installations.

Related Issues

Reflective Materials

    The enabling legislation requires that the Secretary consider the 
use of reflective materials to enhance locomotive visibility. Research 
has shown that the frontal visibility of a locomotive displaying a 
headlight is not affected by reflective material or distinctive colors. 
The headlight is visible at a far greater distance than any light 
reflected from the front of the locomotive.
    Analysis of the 4,240 highway-rail grade crossing accidents 
reported to FRA in 1993 shows that the lead locomotive of a train 
struck the motor vehicle in 3,171 of the accidents. The motor vehicle 
struck the lead locomotive in 664 accidents. In the remaining 405 
accidents, the motor vehicle struck the train at a point behind the 
lead locomotive.
    This information suggests that enhancing the visibility of the 
front of the train could affect up to 90 percent of crossing accidents. 
The effect of increasing the visibility of the side of the train does 
not have as clearly defined a potential to reduce accidents. 
Nevertheless, FRA continues to conduct research, including analysis of 
recently designed retro-reflective materials and evaluation of the 
accident experience of car fleets equipped with retro-reflective 
material. FRA is required by other legislation to consider the use of 
retro- reflective materials on railroad cars as well as locomotives, 
and will address the issue in a separate proceeding. See 49 U.S.C. 
20148, Pub. L. 103-440, Sec. 212 (Nov. 2, 1994). As soon as sufficient 
information becomes available to support a decision on whether to place 
reflective material on cars and locomotives, FRA will act accordingly.

Applicability: Steam Locomotives

    This rule amends Part 229 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, 
which applies, in general, to railroads in the general system and only 
to non-steam locomotives. FRA believes that, as a general rule, steam 
locomotives are used with relatively less frequency or at lower speeds 
than non-steam locomotives. Equipping steam locomotives with alerting 
lights would cost more per locomotive because of the need to update 
generators, and some steam operators have commented that the 
modification would detract from the historic authenticity of this 
antique equipment. FRA presently has insufficient specific information 
indicating that safety would benefit from application of auxiliary 
lights to steam locomotives.

Regulatory Impact

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This final rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing 
policies and procedures and is considered ``nonsignificant'' under 
Executive Order 12866. It is also considered to be not significant 
under DOT policies and procedures. See 44 FR 11034.
    Although the rule is ``nonsignificant,'' FRA nonetheless has 
prepared a regulatory evaluation addressing the economic impact of the 
rule. This regulatory evaluation has been placed in the docket and is 
available for public inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in Room 8201, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Copies may also be obtained by submitting 
a written request to the FRA Docket Clerk at the above address.
    The evaluation found costs and benefits associated with this rule 
calculated for a twenty-year period using the seven percent discount 
rate required by federal regulatory evaluation guidelines.
    This rule allows two distinct light system specifications--a 
pulsing light system and a steady beam light system. Auxiliary light 
requirements can be met by equipping locomotives with the lower cost 
steady beam lights. However, realistically, some locomotives will have 
steady beam lights installed and others will have pulsing lights 
installed. Information available to FRA suggests that at least 8,327 
locomotives are currently equipped with auxiliary lights complying with 
the rule. About 52.84 percent of these locomotives have pulsing lights. 
The remainder (47.16 percent) have steady beam lights. Small operators 
involved mainly in shortline service may choose to equip their affected 
locomotive fleet with the less expensive steady beam lights. Assuming 
locomotives which operate at speeds below 30 m.p.h. are equipped with 
steady beam lights and all others continue to be equipped in the 
current proportions, we expect twenty-year costs to total about $83 
million. This includes installation and maintenance costs which the 
railroad industry would not incur in the absence of this rule.
    Although specifications for pulsing and steady beam lights differ, 
data is not available to establish that one light system is more 
effective than the other. This analysis assumes both are equally 
effective than the other. For total benefits of the auxiliary lights to 
justify incurring $83 million in costs, use of the lights must prevent 
an average of about nine accidents annually. FRA estimates that the use 
of auxiliary lights will prevent at least 3,300 grade crossing 
accidents (involving about 750 fatalities and 1,800 injuries) valued at 
$1.3 billion over twenty years, or an average of about 165 accidents 
annually. Analysis indicates this accident reduction will almost 
certainly be achieved and probably will be substantially exceeded as a 
result of using auxiliary lights. The benefit/cost ratio is 15.7:1.
    Analysis of costs and benefits of locomotives operating at maximum 
speeds between 21 and 25 m.p.h. indicates that for that particular 
sector this rule has a benefit/cost ratio of no less than 1.3:1. The 
return on investment represented by the ratio is relatively lower for 
this sector. However, the increased safety still justifies incurring 
the costs associated with applying the rule to this sector.
    Costs and benefits associated with the in-service tests are not 
quantified in this analysis. FRA recognizes that participating 
railroads will incur data collection costs. However, given the 
permissive nature of the industry in-service tests, we cannot determine 
the level of participation or the magnitude of costs which the industry 
will incur. Nevertheless, safety benefits resulting from application of 
the knowledge gained should far outweigh costs incurred by the 
participants. Including test costs would not change the final outcome 
of this analysis.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
requires a review of rules to assess their impact on small entities, 
unless the Secretary certifies that a final rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
It is certified that this rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the provisions 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule will require that railroads note any grade crossings 
excluded from 

[[Page 8887]]
auxiliary light use in the railroads'' operating rules, time tables, or 
special orders. It is therefore necessary to estimate the public 
reporting burden for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
    FRA is currently preparing this analysis. Once it is completed, 
before the rule takes effect in December, 1997, the paperwork reduction 
review will be placed in the docket.
    FRA is anticipating a minimal paperwork impact from this rule given 
the fact that railroad operating rules standardly contain the type of 
operating instructions now required by FRA.

Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated these regulations in accordance with its 
procedures for ensuring full consideration of the environmental impact 
of FRA actions, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act 
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental statutes, Executive 
Orders, and DOT Order 5610.1c. It has been determined that this rule 
will not have any effect on the quality of the environment.

Federalism Implications

    This rule will not have a substantial effect 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, a 
Federalism Assessment is not necessary.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 20106 (superseding at 45 U.S.C. 434), issuance of 
this regulation preempts any State law, rule, regulation, order, or 
standard covering the same subject matter, except for a provision 
directed at a local safety hazard if that provision is consistent with 
this rule and does not impose an undue burden on interstate commerce.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 229

    Railroad safety.

The Final Rule

    In consideration of the foregoing, FRA amends Part 229, Title 49, 
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
    1. The authority citation for Part 229 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20103, 20110-20112, 20114, 20133, 
20137, 20138, 20143, 20301-20303, 20306, 20701-20703, 21301- 21302, 
21304, 21306, and 21311; 49 CFR 1.49 (c), (g) and (m).

    2. Section 229.9 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory 
text to read as follows:


Sec. 229.9  Movement of non-complying locomotives.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c) and Sec. 229.125(h), 
a locomotive with one or more conditions not in compliance with this 
part may be moved only as a lite locomotive or a dead locomotive after 
the carrier has complied with the following:
* * * * *
    3. Section 229.125 is amended by revising the section heading and 
by adding (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) to read as follows:


Sec. 229.125  Headlights and auxiliary lights.

* * * * *
    (d) Effective December 31, 1997, each lead locomotive operated at a 
speed greater than 20 miles per hour over one or more public highway-
rail crossings shall be equipped with operative auxiliary lights, in 
addition to the headlight required by paragraph (a) or (b) of this 
section. A locomotive equipped on March 6, 1996 with auxiliary lights 
in conformance with Sec. 229.133 shall be deemed to conform to this 
section until March 6, 2000. All locomotives in compliance with 
Sec. 229.133(c) shall be deemed to conform to this section. Auxiliary 
lights shall be composed as follows:
    (1) Two white auxiliary lights shall be placed at the front of the 
locomotive to form a triangle with the headlight.
    (i) The auxiliary lights shall be at least 36 inches above the top 
of the rail, except on MU locomotives and control cab locomotives where 
such placement would compromise the integrity of the car body or be 
otherwise impractical. Auxiliary lights on such MU locomotives and 
control cab locomotives shall be at least 24 inches above the top of 
the rail.
    (ii) The auxiliary lights shall be spaced at least 36 inches apart 
if the vertical distance from the headlight to the horizontal axis of 
the auxiliary lights is 60 inches or more.
    (iii) The auxiliary lights shall be spaced at least 60 inches apart 
if the vertical distance from the headlight to the horizontal axis of 
the auxiliary lights is less than 60 inches.
    (2) Each auxiliary light shall produce at least 200,000 candela.
    (3) The auxiliary lights shall be focused horizontally within 15 
degrees of the longitudinal centerline of the locomotive.
    (e) Auxiliary lights required by paragraph (d) of this section may 
be arranged
    (1) to burn steadily or
    (2) flash on approach to a crossing.
    If the auxiliary lights are arranged to flash;
    (i) they shall flash alternately at a rate of at least 40 flashes 
per minute and at most 180 flashes per minute,
    (ii) the railroad's operating rules shall set a standard procedure 
for use of flashing lights at public highway-rail grade crossings, and
    (iii) the flashing feature may be activated automatically, but 
shall be capable of manual activation and deactivation by the 
locomotive engineer.
    (f) Auxiliary lights required by paragraph (d) of this section 
shall be continuously illuminated immediately prior to and during 
movement of the locomotive, except as provided by railroad operating 
rules, timetable or special instructions, unless such exception is 
disapproved by FRA. A railroad may except use of auxiliary lights at a 
specific public highway-rail grade crossing by designating that 
exception in the railroad's operating rules, timetable, or a special 
order. Any exception from use of auxiliary lights at a specific public 
grade crossing can be disapproved for a stated cause by FRA's Associate 
Administrator for Safety or any one of FRA's Regional Administrators, 
after investigation by FRA and opportunity for response from the 
railroad.
    (g) Movement of locomotives with defective auxiliary lights.
    (1) A lead locomotive with only one failed auxiliary light must be 
repaired or switched to a trailing position before departure from the 
place where an initial terminal inspection is required for that train.
    (2) A locomotive with only one auxiliary light that has failed 
after departure from an initial terminal, must be repaired not later 
than the next calendar inspection required by Sec. 229.21.
    (3) A lead locomotive with two failed auxiliary lights may only 
proceed to the next place where repairs can be made. This movement must 
be consistent with Sec. 229.9.
    (h) Any locomotive subject to Part 229, that was built before 
December 31, 1948, and that is not used regularly in commuter or 
intercity passenger service, shall be considered historic equipment and 
excepted from the requirements of paragraphs (d) through (h) of this 
section.
    4. Amend Sec. 229.133 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec. 229.133  Interim locomotive conspicuity measures--auxiliary 
external lights.

* * * * *
    (c)(1) Any lead locomotive equipped with oscillating lights as 
described in paragraph (b)(4) that were ordered for installation on 
that locomotive prior to 

[[Page 8888]]
January 1, 1996, is considered in compliance with Sec. 229.125(d) (1) 
through (3).
    (2) Any lead locomotive equipped with strobe lights as described in 
paragraph (b)(2) and operated at speeds no greater than 40 miles per 
hour, is considered in compliance with Sec. 229.125(d) (1) through (3) 
until the locomotive is retired or rebuilt, whichever comes first.
    (3) Any lead locomotive equipped with two white auxiliary lights 
spaced at least 44 inches apart on at least one axis which was equipped 
with these auxiliary lights before May 30, 1994, will be considered in 
compliance with Sec. 229.125(d) (1) through (3) until the locomotive is 
retired or rebuilt, whichever comes first.

Appendix B [Amended]

    5. Amend Appendix B to Part 229--Schedule of Civil Penalties--by 
adding in numerical sequence by section number the following:


2,500

5,000

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Willful 
                      Section                       Violation  violation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
                  *        *        *        *        *                 
229.125:                                                                
  (a) Headlights..................................     2,500      5,000 
  (d) Auxiliary lights............................     2,500      5,000 
                                                                        
                  *        *        *        *        *                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 28, 1996.
Jolene M. Molitoris,
Federal Railroad Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-4838 Filed 3-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P