[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 2 (Monday, January 5, 1998)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 195-199] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 98-134] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration 49 CFR Part 232 [FRA Docket No. PB-9, Notice No. 8] RIN 2130-AB22 Two-Way End-of-Train Telemetry Devices and Certain Passenger Train Operations AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: FRA proposes to revise the regulations regarding the use and design of two-way end-of-train telemetry devices (two-way EOTs) to specifically address certain passenger train operations where multiple units of freight-type equipment, material handling cars, or express cars are part of a passenger train's consist. Trains of this nature are currently being operated by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), and swift action is necessary to clarify and address the applicability of the two-way EOT requirements to these types of operations. DATES: Written comments regarding this proposal must be filed no later than January 20, 1998. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent possible without incurring additional expense or delay. ADDRESSES: 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, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Stop 10, Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Wilson, Motive Power and Equipment Division, Office of Safety, RRS-14, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-632-3367), or Thomas Herrmann, Trial Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, RCC-12, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Stop 10, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-632- 3178). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 2, 1997, FRA published a final rule amending the regulations governing train and locomotive power braking systems at 49 CFR part 232 to add provisions pertaining to the use and design of two- way end-of-train telemetry devices (two-way EOTs). See 62 FR 278. The purpose of the revisions was to improve the safety of railroad operations by requiring the use of two-way EOTs on a variety of freight trains pursuant to 1992 legislation, and by establishing minimum performance and operational standards related to the use and design of the devices. See Pub. L. No. 102-365 (September 3, 1992); 49 U.S.C. 20141. In this document, FRA proposes to revise the regulations on two- way EOTs to specifically address certain passenger train operations where numerous freight-type cars, material handling cars, or express cars are part of a train's consist. Trains of this nature are currently being operated by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), and prompt action is necessary to clarify and address the applicability of two-way EOT requirements to these types of operations. The current regulations regarding two-way EOTs provide an exception from the requirements for ``passenger trains with emergency brakes.'' See 49 CFR 232.23(e)(9). The language used in this exception was extracted in total from the statutory exception contained in the statutory provisions mandating that FRA develop regulations addressing the use and operation of two-way EOTs or similar technology. See 49 U.S.C. 20141(c)(2). A review of the legislative history reveals that there was no discussion by Congress as to the precise meaning of the phrase ``passenger trains with emergency brakes.'' Consequently, FRA is required to effectuate Congress' intent based on the precise language used in that and the other express exceptions and based on the overall intent of the statutory mandate. See 49 U.S.C. 20141(c)(1)-(c)(5). Furthermore, any exception contained in a specific statutory mandate should be narrowly construed. See Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. v. United States, 248 F. 85 (6th Cir. 1918) cert. den., 248 U.S. 580; DRG R.R. v. United States, 249 F. 822 (8th Cir. 1918); United States v. ATSF Ry., 156 F.2d 457 (9th Cir. 1946). The intent of the statutory provisions related to two-way EOTs was to ensure that trains operating at a speed over 30 mph or in heavy grade territory were equipped with the technology to effectuate an emergency application of the train's brakes starting from both the front and rear of the train. The specific exceptions contained in the statute were aimed at trains (i) that do not operate within the express parameters or (ii) that are equipped or operated in a fashion that provides the ability to effectuate an emergency brake application that commences at the rear of the train without the use of a two-way EOT. See 49 U.S.C. 20141(c)(1)-(c)(5). Based on the intent of the statute and based upon a consistent and narrow construction of the specific language used by Congress in the express exceptions, FRA believes it is clear that Congress did not intend the phrase ``passenger trains with emergency brakes'' to constitute a blanket exception for all passenger trains. If that was Congress' intent, it would not have added the qualifying phrase ``with emergency brakes.'' In FRA's view, this language limits the specific statutory exception to passenger trains equipped with a separate emergency brake valve in each car throughout the train and, thus, to passenger trains possessing the ability to effectuate an emergency application of the train's brakes from the rear of the train. Therefore, passenger trains that include RoadRailers, auto racks, express cars, or other similar vehicles that are designed to carry freight that are placed at the rear of the train, that are not equipped with emergency brake valves, would not fall within the specific statutory or regulatory exception as they are incapable of effectuating an emergency brake application that commences at the rear of the train. Further, FRA does not believe that Congress envisioned freight-type equipment being hauled at the rear of passenger trains when the specific exception was included in the statute. FRA believes that Congress intended to except only those trains traditionally considered to be passenger trains, which would include passenger trains containing baggage and mail cars as these have consistently been considered passenger equipment with emergency brakes. However, passenger trains which operate with numerous inaccessible baggage or mail cars attached to the rear of the train that lack any ability to effectuate an emergency brake application from the rear of the train and would, in FRA's view, fall outside the specific statutory and regulatory exception for ``passenger trains with emergency brakes.'' Subsequent to the issuance of the final rule and the period permitted for the submission of petitions for [[Page 196]] reconsideration of the rule, Amtrak raised concerns regarding the applicability of the final rule to some of its passenger train operations, particularly those which recently began to operate with numerous express, material handling cars, or RoadRailers entrained in the consist. These concerns focused on FRA's enforcement guidance provided to its field inspectors, which stated that the exception for ``passenger trains with emergency brakes'' was intended to apply only to trains traditionally considered to be passenger trains, a category that would include passenger trains containing a limited number of baggage and mail cars at the rear of the train. This guidance was based on the reasoning provided in the preceding discussion. Amtrak contended that FRA's interpretive guidance was an improper reading of the statutory and regulatory exception and did not adequately consider the superior braking capabilities of passenger equipment. Although FRA disagrees that its guidance was improper, FRA does agree that a closer examination of the applicability of the two- way EOT requirements to passenger trains needed to be performed in light of the superior braking ratios of passenger cars and the presence of emergency brake valves on the passenger cars in mixed train consists which provide certain safety assurances that are not present in traditional freight operations. Consequently, FRA agrees that the mixed passenger and ``express'' service currently being operated by Amtrak is unique and needs to be handled separately from traditional freight operations. None of the consists proposed to be excepted raises any issue with respect to the ability to stop on grade using the rearmost available conductor's valve. The issue is the ability to stop within normal signal spacing after determining that there is a blockage in the train line. To gain a perspective on the stopping characteristics and safety implications of the ``mixed'' passenger train operations, FRA requested the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe) to review the information and procedures used by Amtrak in developing various stopping distance calculations submitted to FRA. In addition, FRA requested that Volpe develop and analyze its own data regarding these types of ``mixed'' passenger trains. In making their calculations, both Volpe and Amtrak used variables of grade; train configuration; and the number, weight, and types of cars and locomotives expected to be used in these types of operations. Although all of the calculations were based on worse-case scenarios (e.g., the angle cock was assumed to be closed just behind the last car with an accessible emergency brake valve, and only friction braking--tread or disc brakes of locomotives and cars--was considered available to stop the train), all stops were achieved on the specified grade used in the calculation. In making its calculations Volpe used a MathCad program to compute stopping distances. Volpe used the results of its calculations as a check against the results Amtrak had produced and submitted to FRA. Volpe concluded that Amtrak's procedures predicted longer (more conservative) stopping distances than the approach taken by Volpe. Amtrak's results were also compared to the requirements of the Amtrak Communication and Signal Department, Specification S-603, Curve 8, which is used to determine stopping distances for passenger equipment for signal block spacing. Curve 8 values for stopping distances are augmented by a factor of 25 percent to account for conditions which may impair brake performance. The absolute (actual) signal block spacing on the Northeast Corridor is actually greater than any of the stopping distances produced by either Volpe or Amtrak in their calculations. Therefore, stopping distances within established signal blocks should not be a problem. The process Amtrak used was sufficiently conservative so that predicted stopping distances were greater than would be experienced in reality. Nevertheless, FRA has worked with Amtrak to define further limitations adequate to ensure safety under identified worst-case conditions, and these limitations are set forth in this proposal. Need for 15-Day Comment Period As previously discussed, Amtrak currently operates a number of trains that include numerous material handling cars, express cars, auto racks, mail cars, and/or RoadRailer equipment. These types of rolling equipment are either not equipped with emergency brake valves or, if equipped with such valves, they are not accessible to any member of the train crew. Amtrak expects that the operation of this type of rolling equipment will continue to grow and that many of its trains will eventually have a number of these vehicles in their consists. As explained earlier, FRA believes that a passenger train operated with this rolling equipment falls outside the statutory and regulatory exception to the two-way EOT requirement for ``passenger trains with emergency brakes,'' and thus, would be required under the existing rules to be equipped with an operative two-way EOT or alternative technology. However, FRA also recognizes the unique nature of these types of ``mixed'' operations and realizes that the safety assurances provided by the braking ratios and the presence of emergency brake valves at various locations through much of the consist on certain mixed passenger trains make requiring the use of a two-way EOT unnecessary. As will be further clarified, FRA believes that swift action must be taken with regard to the provisions proposed in this document and that a lengthy comment period would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. A number of freight railroads are currently expressing concern and apprehension over permitting these ``mixed'' passenger trains to operate over their rails in light of FRA's above-mentioned interpretive guidance. In fact, at least one instance has occurred in which a ``mixed'' Amtrak train was detained for six hours by a freight railroad until a two-way EOT was applied because the freight railroad refused to permit the train to operate without the device. In addition, requiring Amtrak to acquire a number of two-way EOTs and operate under the provisions of the current regulatory scheme during a lengthy comment period would impose a substantial and unwarranted financial and operational burden without improving the safety of Amtrak operations. Furthermore, the proposals contained in this document include certain restrictions on the operation and make-up of certain passenger trains that are proposed for exception from the two-way EOT requirements, restrictions that FRA believes enhance the safety of those operations and that are not currently mandated. The current situation mandates swift action to address both safety concerns and practical operating concerns. On the one hand, Amtrak is continuing to take delivery of express and other equipment and to build this line of business in order to close its operating deficit and to support continued intercity rail passenger service in a time of declining support from the public treasury. The public's interest in continued rail passenger service warrants reasonable flexibility to achieve this business objective. This development has corresponded with the implementation of two-way EOT requirements, rapidly complicating what appeared at the outset to be a relatively straightforward issue. Prior to the effective date of the rule, Amtrak had implemented a two- way EOT system on its AutoTrain, [[Page 197]] previously the only Amtrak train operated with any significant number of unoccupied cars at the rear of the train. Anticipating the need to equip other trains as the express business grows, Amtrak is equipping over 100 locomotives and deploying rear-end units at appropriate points along its lines where trains are built. Meanwhile, Amtrak has committed to FRA to operate cars with cables for head-end power transmission (such as mail and baggage cars) at the front of trains where practicable given constraints on loading and unloading, in order limit the number of cars to the rear of the train that are beyond the last car with an accessible emergency valve. As noted above, passenger trains have historically operated with small numbers of unoccupied cars at the rear and without difficulty from the point of view of effective braking. However, as express service grows and Amtrak builds trains responsive to that growth (a phenomenon that is well underway), the danger increases that Amtrak's own internal policies for use of available two-way EOT systems may not be honored in the field through oversight. That is, having clear and certain Federal requirements becomes essential to public safety. FRA recognizes that previous interpretive guidance has been excessively narrow in relation to the safety issues presented by mixed consists. Accordingly, FRA will employ the criteria contained in this proposed rule in exercising enforcement discretion during the period of this rulemaking. In conclusion, FRA believes that prompt action is necessary in order to alleviate and avoid the concerns noted above. Consequently, FRA is issuing this NPRM with a comment period of only 15 days in order to quickly address the applicability of the two-way EOT requirements to ``mixed'' passenger train operations. FRA wishes to make clear that if no substantive adverse comments are received on this proposal within the 15-day comment period, it will immediately issue a final rule containing the provisions of this proposal. Any comments received during this 15-day comment period will be fully considered prior to the issuance of a final rule. FRA intends for any final rule issued to take effect immediately upon publication. FRA is now soliciting comments on this proposal and will consider those comments in determining whether there is a need to amend the proposal at the final rule stage. FRA also intends to exercise its enforcement discretion and will not strictly enforce the current two-way EOT requirements against passenger train operations during the pendency of this proposal, provided that the passenger train is operated in accordance with the proposed provisions contained in this NPRM. Section-by-Section Analysis FRA proposes to amend Sec. 232.23 by revising paragraphs (e) and (g) and by adding a new paragraph (h) to specifically address passenger train operations that include using cars that do not have readily accessible emergency brake valves. Paragraph (e) of Sec. 232.23 contains a listing of the trains that are excepted from the two-way EOT requirements. FRA proposes conforming changes to paragraphs (e)(8) and (e)(9). In paragraph (e)(9) FRA proposes to retain the exception for passenger trains in which all of the cars in the train are equipped with a readily accessible emergency brake valve, as discussed in detail above. In paragraph (e)(10) FRA proposes an exception to the requirements regarding two-way EOTs for passenger trains that operate with a car placed at the rear of the train that is equipped with an emergency brake valve readily accessible to a crew member in radio communication with the locomotive engineer of the train. FRA intends for this proposed exception to be applicable to passenger trains containing cars that do have a readily accessible emergency brake valve at the rear of the train. FRA believes this proposed exception is justified as it is virtually identical to the exception granted to freight trains with an occupied caboose (contained in paragraph (e)(3)) since it would permit an emergency application of brakes to be initiated from the occupied car at the rear of the passenger train. In paragraph (e)(11) FRA proposes to except certain passenger trains that have cars placed at the rear of the train that do not have readily accessible emergency brake valves. This proposed exception is intended to recognize the safety of these types of trains if configured and operated in accordance with the provisions of this exception. The proposed exception contained in this subparagraph applies only to trains of twenty-four (24) cars or fewer. Therefore, passenger trains that have more than 24 cars in the consist and that do not fall within the exceptions contained in subparagraphs (e)(9) or (e)(10) would be required to be equipped with an operative two-way EOT device or alternative technology. It should be noted that FRA intends that each bogie used in RoadRaileroperation be counted as a car for purposes of calculating the number of cars in a passenger train consist. Furthermore, FRA proposes that a locomotive that is not designed to carry passengers should not be considered a car for purposes of these calculations. Based on data and information submitted by Amtrak and reviewed by Volpe and based upon Volpe's independent analysis regarding passenger train braking ratios and the response of passenger train brakes, FRA believes that certain ``mixed'' passenger trains can be safely operated without being required to be equipped with a two-way EOT or alternative technology provided certain operational and train configuration restrictions are maintained. Paragraph (e)(11)(i) proposes that if the total number of cars in a passenger train consist is twelve (12) or fewer, a car located no less than halfway through the consist must be equipped with an emergency brake valve readily accessible to a crew member. For example, in a consist containing twelve (12) cars, the sixth (6th) car (or a car closer to the rear) in the consist must have a readily accessible emergency brake valve; likewise, in an eleven (11) car consist, the sixth (6th) car (or a car closer to the rear) must have a readily accessible emergency brake valve, since all half numbers will be rounded up. Paragraph (e)(11)(ii) proposes that if the total number of cars in a passenger train consist is from thirteen (13) to twenty-four (24), a car located no less than two-thirds (\2/3\) of the way through the consist (counting from the first car in the train) must be equipped with an emergency brake valve readily accessible to a crew member. For example, in a twenty-one (21) car consist, the fourteenth (14th) car (or a car closer to the rear) must have a readily accessible emergency brake valve. In addition to these train-configuration requirements, paragraphs (e)(11)(iii) and (iv) contain certain proposed operating requirements that must be followed by any passenger train operating pursuant to this specific exception. Such trains would be required to have a train crew member occupy the rearmost car equipped with a readily accessible emergency brake valve and remain in constant radio communication with the locomotive engineer whenever the train is operating over a section of track with an average grade of two percent or higher over two continuous miles. FRA recommends that the engineer alert the train crew member approximately ten (10) minutes prior to descending the heavy grade, so the crew member will be in place at the [[Page 198]] crest of the grade. Furthermore, FRA proposes that the crew member not leave his or her position until the locomotive engineer advises that the train has traversed the grade. FRA believes that these proposed operational requirements will ensure that immediate action can be taken by a member of the train crew to effectuate an emergency brake application whenever the train is descending a heavy grade. FRA proposes to amend paragraph (g) to indicate that the operating limitations that will be imposed on a passenger train required to be equipped with a two-way EOT that experiences an en route failure of the device will be contained in paragraph (h). It should be noted that FRA intends that the criteria contained paragraph (g) to determine when a loss of communication between the front and rear units will be considered an en route failure will be applicable to passenger train operations. Paragraph (h) contains the operational limitations and restrictions that are proposed to be placed on passenger trains that experience en route failures of two-way EOTs. Due to the time-sensitive nature of passenger operations, FRA believes that placing a speed restriction on these trains would not be the most effective method of handling en route failures of a device. Rather, FRA believes that other operating restrictions can be imposed to ensure the safety of these trains. FRA believes that in order to realize the benefits of a two-way EOT as contemplated by Congress, the device must be operative when the train descends a heavy grade. Therefore, FRA proposes that if a passenger train is required to be equipped with an operable device, it shall not be permitted to descend an average grade of two percent or more for two continuous miles until an operable device is installed or an alternative method of initiating an emergency brake application from the rear of the train is achieved. However, FRA further proposes that passenger trains that develop an en route failure of the two-way EOT may continue to operate over track that is not in heavy grade territory as long as a crew member occupies the rearmost car with a readily accessible emergency brake valve and remains in constant radio communication with the locomotive engineer. FRA also believes that since the train no longer has the safety assurances provided by a two- way EOT, the engineer must periodically test the braking characteristics of the train by making running brake tests. If the engineer suspects the brakes are not functioning properly, immediate action shall be taken to bring the train to a stop until corrections can be made. FRA also proposes that all en route failures of the devices must be corrected either at the next location where the necessary repairs can be made or at the next location where a required brake test of the train is to be conducted, whichever point the train arrives at first. Regulatory Impact Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures This proposal has been evaluated in accordance with existing policies and procedures. Because the requirements contained in this proposal clarify the applicability of the two-way EOT regulations to a specific segment of the industry and generally reduce the regulatory burden on these operators, FRA has concluded that this NPRM does not constitute a significant rule under either Executive Order 12866 or DOT's policies and procedures. 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. FRA certifies that this proposal does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. There are no substantial economic impacts for small units of government, businesses, or other organizations. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposal does not change any information collection requirements. Environmental Impact FRA has evaluated this proposal in accordance with its procedures for ensuring full consideration of the potential environmental impacts 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 proposal does not have any effect on the quality of the environment. Federalism Implications This proposal does not have a substantial effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government on the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Thus, in accordance with Executive Order 12612, preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted. Request for Public Comments FRA proposes to revise part 232 regarding two-way EOTs as set forth below. FRA is contemplating eventually moving the two-way EOT requirements related to passenger train operations to proposed part 238 containing the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards and would potentially seek the consultation of the working group currently involved with finalizing those standards on the issues addressed in this proposal. Consequently, FRA solicits comments on all aspects of this proposal whether through written submissions, participation in the passenger equipment working group, or both. List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 232 Railroad power brakes, Railroad safety, Two-way end-of-train devices. The Proposal In consideration of the foregoing, FRA proposes to amend part 232, title 49, Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows: PART 232--RAILROAD POWER BRAKES AND DRAWBARS 1. The authority citation for part 232 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102, 20103, 20107, 20108, 20110-20112, 20114, 20133, 20141, 20301-20304, 20701-20703, 21301, 21302, 21304, and 21311; and 49 CFR 1.49(c), (g), and (m). 2. Section 232.23 is amended by revising paragraphs (e) introductory text, (e)(8), and (e)(9) and adding a new sentence to the beginning of the introductory text of paragraph (g) and adding new paragraphs (e)(10), (e)(11) and (h) to read as follows: Sec. 232.23 Operations requiring use of two-way end-of-train devices; prohibition on purchase of nonconforming devices. * * * * * (e) The following types of trains are excepted from the requirement for the use of a two-way end-of-train device: * * * * * (8) Trains that operate exclusively on track that is not part of the general railroad system; (9) Passenger trains in which all of the cars in the train are equipped with an emergency brake valve readily accessible to a crew member; (10) Passenger trains that have a car at the rear of the train, readily accessible to one or more crew members in radio contact with the engineer, that is equipped with an emergency brake valve readily accessible to such a crew member; and (11) Passenger trains that have twenty-four (24) or fewer cars (not including locomotives) in the consist [[Page 199]] and that are equipped and operated in accordance with the following: (i) If the total number of cars in a passenger train consist is twelve (12) or fewer, a car located no less than halfway through the consist (counting from the first car in the train) must be equipped with an emergency brake valve readily accessible to a crew member; (ii) If the total number of cars in a passenger train consist is thirteen (13) to twenty-four (24), a car located no less than two- thirds (\2/3\) of the way through the consist (counting from the first car in the train) must be equipped with an emergency brake valve readily accessible to a crew member; (iii) Prior to descending a section of track with an average grade of two percent or greater over a distance of two continuous miles, the engineer of the train shall communicate with the conductor, to ensure that a member of the crew with a working two-way radio is stationed in the car with the rearmost readily accessible emergency brake valve on the train when the train begins its descent; and (iv) While the train is descending a section of track with an average grade of two percent or greater over a distance of two continuous miles, a member of the train crew shall occupy the car that contains the rearmost readily accessible emergency brake valve on the train and be in constant radio communication with the locomotive engineer. The crew member shall remain in this car until the train has completely traversed the heavy grade. * * * * * (g) Except on passenger trains required to be equipped with a two- way end-of-train device (which are provided for in paragraph (h) of this section), en route failures of a two-way end-of-train device shall be handled in accordance with this paragraph. * * * * * * * * (h) A passenger train required to be equipped with a two-way end- of-train device that develops an en route failure of the device (as explained in paragraph (g) of this section) shall be operated in accordance with the following: (1) The train shall not operate over a section of track with an average grade of two percent or greater over a distance of two continuous miles until an operable two-way end-of-train device is installed on the train; (2) A member of the train crew will be immediately positioned in the car which contains the rearmost readily accessible emergency brake valve on the train and shall be equipped with an operable two-way radio that communicates with the locomotive engineer; (3) The locomotive engineer shall periodically make running tests of the train's air brakes until the failure is corrected; and (4) Each en route failure shall be corrected at the next location where the necessary repairs can be conducted or at the next location where a required brake test is to be performed, whichever is reached first. 3. Appendix A to Part 232, ``Schedule of Civil Penalties,'' is amended by revising the heading of the entry for Sec. 232.23 and revising the entry for Sec. 232.23(g) and adding an entry for Sec. 232.23(h), to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 232--Schedule of Civil Penalties * * * * * ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Willful Section Violation violation ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * * * * * 232.23 Operating standards: * * * * * (g) En route failure, freight............. 5,000 7,500 (h) En route failure, passenger........... 5,000 7,500 * * * * * ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Issued in Washington, D.C., on December 29, 1997. Donald M. Itzkoff, Deputy Federal Railroad Administrator. [FR Doc. 98-134 Filed 1-2-98; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P