[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 215 (Thursday, November 6, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62942-62969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-27649]



[[Page 62941]]

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

Part IV





Department of Transportation





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



 Federal Railroad Administration



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



49 CFR Part 224



Reflectorization of Rail Freight Rolling Stock; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 2003 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 62942]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 224

[Docket No. FRA-1999-6689, Notice No. 3]
RIN 2130-AB41


Reflectorization of Rail Freight Rolling Stock

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to require retroreflective material on the 
sides of freight rolling stock (freight cars and locomotives) to 
enhance the visibility of trains in order to reduce the number of 
accidents at highway-rail grade crossings in which train visibility is 
a contributing factor. This document proposes a rule establishing a 
schedule for the application of retroreflective material and 
prescribing standards for the application, inspection, and maintenance 
of the material.

DATES: Written Comments: Comments must be received by March 5, 2004. 
Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent 
possible without incurring additional expense or delay.
    Public Hearing: FRA is planning to conduct a public hearing in 
Washington, DC, on Tuesday, January 27, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in order to 
provide all interested parties the opportunity to comment on the 
provisions contained in this notice. Any person wishing to participate 
in the public hearing should notify the Docket Clerk by telephone (202-
493-6030) or by mail at the address provided below at least five 
working days prior to the date of the hearing. The notification should 
identify the party the person represents, and the particular subject(s) 
the person plans to address. FRA reserves the right to limit 
participation in the hearing of persons who fail to provide such 
notification.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT DMS Docket Number 
FRA-1999-6689 by any of the following methods:
    [sbull] Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitted comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
    [sbull] Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    [sbull] Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-001.
    [sbull] Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif 
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    [sbull] Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 
for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments 
and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public 
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this 
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided. 
Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory Notices.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC, between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday, except 
Federal Holidays.
    Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held at the Washington 
Plaza Hotel, 10 Thomas Circle, NW., Massachusetts Avenue at Fourteenth 
Street, Washington, DC 20005 (202-842-1300). Written notification of a 
party's intended participation should identify the docket number and 
must be submitted to Ms. Ivornette Lynch, Docket Clerk, Office of Chief 
Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, RCC-10, 1120 Vermont Ave., 
NW., Stop 10, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Tom Blankenship, Mechanical 
Engineer, Office of Safety, FRA, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW., Mailstop 25, 
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6446); Mary Plache, Industry 
Economist, Office of Safety, FRA, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW., Mailstop 
21.1, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6297); or Lucinda 
Henriksen, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont 
Ave., NW., Mailstop 10, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6038).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    This proposed rule represents a partial solution to a safety 
problem that has long concerned FRA--the need to reduce the incidence 
and severity of collisions between motor vehicles and trains at 
highway-rail grade crossings throughout the United States. 
Approximately 4,000 times each year, a train and a highway vehicle 
collide at one of this country's 262,000 public and private highway-
rail grade crossings. Approximately 23% of all highway-rail grade 
crossing accidents involve motor vehicles running into trains occupying 
grade crossings (``RIT'' accidents).\1\ Almost 80% of these RIT 
accidents occur during nighttime conditions (dawn, dusk, and darkness) 
and involve a highway vehicle striking a train after the first two 
units of the consist. These statistics suggest that a contributing 
factor to many RIT accidents is the difficulty motorists have in seeing 
a train consist at a crossing in time to stop their vehicles before 
reaching the crossing, particularly during periods of limited 
visibility, such as dawn, dusk, darkness, or during adverse weather 
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Based on available data from 1992 through 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The physical characteristics of trains, in combination with the 
characteristics of grade crossings (e.g., grade crossing configuration, 
type of warning devices at a crossing, rural background environment 
with low level ambient light, or visually complex urban background 
environment, etc.), and the inherent limitations of human eyesight, 
make it difficult for motorists to detect a train's presence on 
highway-rail grade crossings, particularly during periods of limited 
visibility. Freight trains lack conspicuity (i.e., the ability to be 
seen) in some of their different environmental settings. For example, 
trains are typically painted a dark color and are covered with dirt and 
grime which are inherent in the rail environment. With the exception of 
locomotives, trains are usually unlighted and are not equipped with 
reflective devices. Similarly, a large percentage of crossings are not 
lighted. Consequently, much of the light from a motor vehicle's 
headlights is absorbed by the freight cars, instead of being reflected 
back toward the motorist. The large size of freight cars, which are out 
of scale relative to a motorist's expectations, also make them 
difficult to detect. For instance, even if a motorist is looking for a 
train, if the locomotive has already passed, it is difficult to detect 
the freight cars because the cars often encompass the motorist's entire 
field of view and have the tendency to ``blend'' into the background 
environment, especially at night. In addition, because most drivers 
involved in grade crossing accidents are familiar with the crossings 
and with roadway features at the crossings, the

[[Page 62943]]

drivers become habituated (or pre-conditioned) to the crossings. In 
other words, based on previous driving experiences and conditioning, a 
driver may not expect a train to be occupying a crossing, and without a 
clear auditory signal (because the locomotive has already cleared the 
crossing) or visual stimuli alerting the driver to a train traveling 
through the crossing, the driver may fail to perceive the train in time 
to stop. This condition is further exacerbated when a train is stopped 
on a crossing.
    There is currently no requirement for lighting or reflective 
markings on freight rolling stock. However, in recognition that the 
transportation of people and goods is not restricted to daytime hours 
and pristine weather conditions, reflectorization has become an 
indispensable tool for enhancing visibility in virtually all other 
modes of transportation, including air, highway, maritime, and 
pedestrian travel. For example, airplanes and motor vehicles are 
equipped with high brightness retroreflective material at key locations 
on the exterior surfaces to increase their conspicuity. Mircoprismatic 
corner cube retroreflectors (which have the ability to direct light 
rays back to the light source) are typically used on roadway signs that 
warn of construction or other hazardous conditions. Federal regulations 
require retroreflective materials on the sides and rear of large trucks 
to increase their conspicuity and to aid motorists in judging their 
proximity to these vehicles. Even regulations addressing bicycle safety 
have specific requirements on the use of reflective materials. 
Lifesaving marine equipment, such as life vests and rafts, require 
reflectorization; and to enhance the conspicuity of pedestrians, 
especially at night, retroreflective material has been incorporated 
into clothing and similar items.
    The everyday use of reflectors indicates their acceptance to 
delineate potential hazards and obstructions to a vehicle's path of 
travel. Research specific to the railroad industry has demonstrated 
that reflective materials can increase the conspicuity of freight cars, 
thereby enhancing motorists' ability to detect the presence of trains 
in highway-rail grade crossings. This greater visibility can help 
drivers avoid some accidents and reduce the severity of other accidents 
that are unavoidable. Accordingly, FRA, as the Federal agency 
responsible for ensuring that America's railroads are safe for the 
traveling public, and in direct response to a Congressional mandate, 
proposes to require use of reflective material on the sides of certain 
rail cars and locomotives to enhance the visibility of trains in order 
to reduce the number of accidents at highway-rail grade crossings where 
train visibility is a contributing factor.

A. History of Railroad Car Conspicuity Issue and Congressional Mandate

    As applied to rail car visibility, the term ``conspicuity'' refers 
to the characteristic of a rail car in its roadway setting to command 
the attention of approaching motorists and be recognizable to 
reasonably prudent motorists at sufficient distance to allow the 
motorists to reduce their vehicles' speed and take action to avoid 
collisions. Research relating to the conspicuity of rail cars is not a 
new concept. Research dating back to the early 1950s has noted the 
potential viability of rail car conspicuity materials such as luminous 
sources (lights on rail cars), self-luminous sources (phosphorescent), 
and reflective sources. In the mid 1950's, researchers concluded that 
reflective material along the side sill of boxcars increased the 
visibility of the cars and aided in the perception of the cars' motion. 
The same study also found that the amount and distribution of 
reflectorized material proportionally affected the level of visibility 
and accuracy of perception of rail cars' motion. In other words, by 
using material with high coefficients of reflectivity (i.e., high 
levels of reflected light) against a high contrast background (e.g., 
dark and dirty rail cars), the amount of illumination was increased, 
and the motorists' ability to discriminate the movement of the rail 
cars across their line of vision was enhanced. In the early 1970's, a 
study concentrating on the conspicuity of trains at night found that 
although luminous and reflective sources both proved effective in 
enhancing the visibility of trains, reflectors provided conspicuity at 
a greater distance and field of vision than the other sources which 
were studied.
    The general consensus of historical research was that reflective 
materials can increase the conspicuity of objects to which they are 
attached, but previous generations of reflective materials did not 
reflect enough light to be effective in the railroad environment and 
lacked the durability to survive the harsh railroad operating 
environment. For example, in 1959 a Canadian freight car 
reflectorization program was begun. In this program, high-intensity 
retroreflective sheeting in the shapes of circular discs and squares 
were applied to the sides of rail cars for the purpose of assessing 
their long term durability and performance. Reflective intensity 
measurements on the Canadian cars after six months, one year, and two 
years of service indicated rapid deterioration of the retroreflective 
material. Only 23% of the material's original reflectivity remained at 
the end of six months. This declined to 14% after one year and to 5% at 
the end of two years of service. Tests of similar high intensity 
retroreflective sheeting conducted by the Boston and Maine Railroad in 
1981 yielded substantially the same results as the earlier Canadian 
tests.
    FRA first evaluated the use of reflective material on rail rolling 
stock in the early 1980s, and supported a study completed in 1982 on 
the potential use of reflectorization to reduce nighttime accidents at 
highway-rail intersections. The study concluded that although the use 
of reflective material enhanced the visibility of trains, the 
reflective material was not durable enough to withstand the harsh 
railroad environment. It was decided that rulemaking action was not 
warranted at that time.
    Since 1982, however, improvements in the brightness, durability, 
and adhesive properties of reflective materials have been achieved and 
a new material, microprismatic retroreflective material, is now 
available. Because of the technological advances in reflective 
materials and the creation of microprismatic retroreflective material, 
beginning in the early 1990's FRA funded renewed research through the 
John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center in Cambridge, 
Massachusetts (``Volpe'') to reexamine the issue of using reflective 
material to enhance railcar conspicuity.
    In July 1999, FRA announced the results of its renewed research 
efforts with the release of the report Safety of Highway-Railroad Grade 
Crossings: Freight Car Reflectorization (DOT/FRA/ORD-98/11) (``1999 
Volpe Report''). The 1999 Volpe Report provided significant 
information, including cost estimates and data on the performance of 
equipped rail car fleets in an actual service environment. Similar to 
earlier research, the 1999 Volpe Report concluded that reflective 
materials enhanced motorists' ability to detect the presence of a train 
in a highway-rail grade crossing and could therefore prevent collisions 
involving highway vehicles. Unlike earlier studies which utilized 
previous generations of reflective material, the 1999 Volpe Report 
concluded that the durability and adhesive properties of the new 
microprismatic retroreflective material could provide adequate 
luminance intensity levels which can be sustained

[[Page 62944]]

for up to 10 years with minimum maintenance. A copy of the complete 
1999 Volpe Report is in the docket of this proceeding (Document No. 
FRA-1999-6689-17).
    Building upon the research detailed in the 1999 Volpe Report, and 
recognizing that the study's human factors tests did not provide a 
realistic environment in which to evaluate the detectability and 
recognition of freight cars equipped with microprismatic 
retroreflective material in a real-world environment, FRA subsequently 
investigated whether motorists, under real world driving conditions, 
would likely confuse reflectorized trains with other roadway hazards, 
particularly trucks which were already required by federal regulations 
to be equipped with retroreflective material. It is important for 
motorists to be able to distinguish rail cars from trucks because 
motorists' interaction with trains is different from trucks. Because 
trucks are shorter in length and pass through an intersection more 
quickly than the average train, a motorist approaching a truck in an 
intersection may only need to slow his or her vehicle to avoid a 
collision, while a motorist approaching a grade crossing occupied by a 
train more likely will need to stop at the crossing to avoid a 
collision. In July 2001, FRA released the results of this research in 
the report Safety of Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings: Recognition of 
Rail Car Retroreflective Patterns for Improving Nighttime Conspicuity 
(DOT/FRA/ORD-00/07) (``2001 Volpe Report''). The 2001 Volpe Report 
concluded that motorists had difficulty discriminating unreflectorized 
rail cars from trucks as illuminance levels declined, but motorists 
could discriminate between reflectorized freight cars and truck 
trailers for each of the four reflective patterns tested. In addition, 
the report concluded that vertically oriented patterns, as opposed to 
outline or horizontally oriented patterns, were preferable because they 
were less likely to be confused with the horizontally oriented truck 
reflectorization patterns. A copy of the complete 2001 Volpe Report is 
in the docket of this proceeding (Document No. FRA-1999-6689-48).
    Meanwhile, in 1994 Congress passed the Federal Railroad Safety 
Authorization Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-440 (``Act''). The Act added 
Sec.  20148 to title 49 of the United States Code. Section 20148 
required FRA to conduct a review of the Department of Transportation's 
(``Department'') rules with respect to the visibility of railroad cars 
and mandated that if the review established that enhanced railroad car 
visibility would likely improve safety in a cost-effective manner, the 
Secretary of Transportation (``Secretary'') must initiate a rulemaking 
proceeding to prescribe regulations requiring enhanced visibility 
standards for railroad cars. Section 20148 specifically directs the 
Secretary to examine the use of reflectors. Section 20148 of title 49 
of the United States Code states as follows:

    (a) REVIEW OF RULES.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
conduct a review of the Department of Transportation's rules with 
respect to railroad car visibility. As part of this review, the 
Secretary shall collect relevant data from operational experience by 
railroads having enhanced visibility measures in service.
    (b) REGULATIONS.--If the review conducted under subsection (a) 
establishes that enhanced railroad car visibility would likely 
improve safety in a cost-effective manner, the Secretary shall 
initiate a rulemaking proceeding to prescribe regulations requiring 
enhanced visibility standards for newly manufactured and 
remanufactured railroad cars. In such proceeding the Secretary shall 
consider, at a minimum--
    (1) visibility of railroad cars from the perspective of 
nonrailroad traffic;
    (2) whether certain railroad car paint colors should be 
prohibited or required;
    (3) the use of reflective materials;
    (4) the visibility of lettering on railroad cars;
    (5) the effect of any enhanced visibility measures on the health 
and safety of train crew members; and
    (6) the cost/benefit ratio of any new regulations.
    (c) EXCLUSIONS.--In prescribing regulations under subsection 
(b), the Secretary may exclude from any specific visibility 
requirement any category of trains or railroad operations if the 
Secretary determines that such an exclusion is in the public 
interest and is consistent with railroad safety.

    On July 28, 1999, FRA hosted a workshop on reflectorization of rail 
rolling stock. Attendees included representatives from the railroad 
industry, reflector manufacturing and supply companies, as well as 
representatives from the National Transportation Safety Board and the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and other 
interested parties. The workshop provided an opportunity for FRA and 
all interested parties to review and discuss the issue of rail car 
conspicuity and specifically, rail car reflectorization. During the 
workshop, representatives from Volpe provided a briefing on the 1999 
Volpe Report and a representative of NHTSA provided a briefing on that 
agency's rule requiring the reflectorization of large truck trailers. 
The workshop also provided an opportunity for all interested parties to 
share their views, concerns, and experiences with regard to rail car 
reflectorization. Discussion during the workshop focused on the 
potential effectiveness of rail car reflectorization under a variety of 
circumstances (e.g., at nighttime versus daytime, at passively 
protected crossings versus actively protected crossings, or when 
drivers are under the influence of alcohol or otherwise impaired), as 
well as more practical aspects of any rail car reflectorization program 
(e.g., maintenance and cleaning requirements, when and where reflector 
installation would occur, and the costs involved in installing and 
maintaining the reflectors). Throughout the workshop FRA 
representatives acknowledged participants' concerns regarding 
reflectorization and invited interested parties to share further 
comments and relevant data as FRA continued its investigation into 
whether a rulemaking mandating reflectorization of rail cars was 
warranted. A copy of the transcript of this workshop is included in the 
docket of this proceeding. (Document No. FRA-1999-6689-7).
    Recognizing that part of the review mandated by Congress included 
collecting relevant data from operational experience by railroads 
having enhanced visibility measures in service, on January 14, 2000, 
FRA established a public docket (Docket No. FRA-1999-6689) to provide 
all interested parties with a central location to both send and review 
relevant information concerning railroad car conspicuity and to provide 
a venue to gather and disseminate information and views on the issues. 
The docket contains several submissions from FRA (e.g., transcript of 
the July 28, 1999 workshop, an analysis of signal detection theory, 
FRA's preliminary cost-benefit analysis on railcar reflectorization, 
and technical reports from the NHTSA and Volpe), as well as comments 
from numerous members of the public and the regulated community, which 
will be discussed in more detail below.
    FRA regards the 1999 and 2001 Volpe Reports, as well as the 1999 
workshop and establishment of the public docket as responsive to 
section 20148's directive to review the Department's rules with respect 
to rail car visibility. Further, because the 1999 and 2001 Volpe 
Reports concluded that reflectorization could enhance rail car 
visibility, FRA conducted a preliminary cost-benefit analysis 
(``Preliminary Analysis'') to determine whether reflectorization would 
provide a cost effective method of reducing the number of collisions at 
highway-rail grade crossings and the casualties and

[[Page 62945]]

property damages which result from those collisions. FRA's Preliminary 
Analysis concluded that the benefits of a uniform, nationwide freight 
car reflectorization program would far outweigh the costs of such a 
program.
    In the Preliminary Analysis, FRA identified the primary source of 
benefits to be gained from freight car reflectorization as the 
avoidance of a portion of the fatalities, injuries, and property damage 
that result from collisions between motor vehicles and freight trains 
at grade crossings. Statistics show that collisions between trains and 
motor vehicles often result in fatal or very serious injuries to the 
occupants of the motor vehicle involved, and the vehicle may be 
completely destroyed. In addition, collisions between trains and motor 
vehicles often result in damage to the rail equipment and significant 
delays and disruptions to rail operations. For example, FRA's Railroad 
Safety Advisory Committee estimates that collisions cause an average of 
a two-hour train delay at $250 per hour for freight trains. This 
estimate does not include the ripple effect of delays incurred by other 
trains, including passenger trains, awaiting use of the track where 
service has been interrupted.
    FRA calculated the expected safety benefits of reflectorization in 
terms of the decline in the probability of RIT accidents. Recognizing 
that the effectiveness of retroreflectors (and therefore the benefits 
to be gained from their use) will vary by circumstance (e.g., nighttime 
versus daytime conditions, clear versus cloudy weather conditions, 
presence of other warning devices at a crossing, train speed and 
length, etc.), FRA's Preliminary Analysis recognized that forecasting 
the benefits which would likely result from reflectorization 
necessitated a certain amount of subjective analysis and the exercise 
of judgment. Accordingly, based on the manufacturers' 10-year 
guaranteed useful life of retroreflective sheeting, FRA employed four 
different approaches to the estimation of benefits. Benefit estimates 
were based on varying effectiveness rates derived from (1) two previous 
studies analyzing the effectiveness of reflective material on large 
trucks, (2) subjective estimates of reflector effectiveness by internal 
FRA grade crossing experts, and (3) a signal detection model consisting 
of an analysis of the statistical probability of different potential 
severities of hazard or injury, based on laboratory experiments and 
accident/incident data from FRA's Rail Accident/Incident Reporting 
System database. FRA estimated the ten-year discounted benefits of a 
reflectorization program, in terms of avoided casualties and property 
damage, to be in the range of $57 million, $70 million, $100 million, 
or $105 million, depending on the methodology employed.
    Taking into consideration material, installation and maintenance 
costs, FRA's Preliminary Analysis concluded that over a ten-year period 
(the estimated useful life of the retroreflective material), the 
discounted cost to reflectorize the entire freight railroad fleet would 
be approximately $40 million. Accordingly, FRA concluded that the 
reflectorization of railroad freight equipment is a viable and cost-
effective method of reducing the number of collisions at highway-rail 
grade crossings and the casualties and property damages which result 
from those collisions. FRA published the results of its Preliminary 
Analysis on October 26, 2001. See 66 FR 54326. A copy of the 
Preliminary Analysis is in the docket of this proceeding. (Document No. 
FRA-1999-6689-25).
    Because of the rail industry's continued interest in the issue of 
rail car reflectorization, FRA met with members of the regulated 
community on March 24, 2003, to again listen to their comments and 
concerns regarding reflectorization. During this meeting, the 
participating railroads and car owners reiterated their concerns 
regarding a potential rail car reflectorization rulemaking. 
Specifically, participants expressed concern that a federal rulemaking 
mandating reflectorization could have the effect of increasing their 
liability for grade crossing accidents. Participating railroads and car 
owners also raised important considerations regarding many practical 
aspects of a potential reflectorization program (e.g., a feasible 
schedule for the application of reflectors to rail cars, what types of 
reflective material would be required, reflector cleaning and 
maintenance responsibilities, and when and where reflectors would be 
applied to cars).

B. Fundamentals of Reflectivity and Human Eyesight

    Materials that have reflective properties can be classified into 
three general categories: direct reflectors, diffuse reflectors, and 
retroreflectors. Direct reflectors, such as mirrors, bounce light off 
the reflective material at an angle equal and opposite to the direction 
of the light source. Diffuse reflectors, such as license plates, bounce 
light off the reflective material at an angular spread of up to 180 
degrees. Retroreflectors, however, direct the reflected light in the 
direction of the light source. As applied to motorists approaching 
grade crossings, retroreflective material on the sides of rail cars 
will reflect light from an approaching vehicle's headlights back to the 
motorist in a concentrated beam. If either a direct or diffuse 
reflective material was applied to the sides of rail cars, light from 
an approaching vehicle's headlights would be reflected in several 
different directions, thereby lessening the amount of light reflected 
back to the motorist.
    Retroreflective material is rated in terms of the reflected light 
per unit area as contrasted with the light striking it (``specific 
intensity per unit area'' or SIA). The amount of reflected light 
reaching the driver's eyes will determine how bright that object 
appears to the driver. Therefore, retroreflective materials that are 
efficient in returning light to a driver's eyes may appear brighter to 
the driver than materials that are not as efficient. The newest, most 
durable, and most efficient retroreflective material available today, 
the prismatic type retroreflector, is made of microscopic prisms or 
corner cubes. Each of these prisms or corner cubes contains three 
surfaces oriented at 90 degrees to each other. The entering rays of 
light are reflected from each of the surfaces and are returned to the 
observer in a more concentrated and focused beam than direct or diffuse 
reflectors or even other types of retroreflective material.
    The amount of light received by an observer from a retroreflector 
is affected by six factors: (1) Reflective intensity of the material 
(the SIA), (2) size of the retroreflector, (3) intensity of the light 
source (in the case of grade crossings, the intensity of approaching 
motor vehicles' headlights and the efficiency of those headlights), (4) 
atmospheric transmissivity (e.g., clear, foggy, or hazy weather 
conditions), (5) windshield transmittance, and (6) the distance of the 
observer from the retroreflector. The relationship among these factors 
and the illuminance received by an observer is based on Allard's Law 
and is represented by the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06NO03.000

in which

Ee = Illuminance received by the observer (measured in 
footcandles (fc))
Is = Intensity of the light beamed toward the reflector 
(measured in candela (cd))
A = Area of the reflector (measured in square feet)

[[Page 62946]]

B = Reflective intensity of reflector (i.e., SIA, measured in candela/
footcandle/square foot (cd/fc/ft 2))
t = Transmissivity of the atmosphere (per foot)
d = Distance between the observer and the reflector (measured in feet)
W = Windshield transmittance (percentage)
H = Headlight efficiency (percentage)

    The above relationship assumes that the incident light from the 
light source is normal to (i.e., perpendicular to) the surface of the 
retroreflector. At highway-rail crossings, however, light will often 
strike retroreflectors on rail cars at an angle other than 90 degrees, 
and as a result, the reflected light received by an approaching 
motorist will be reduced. This reduction is a function of three 
factors: the incidence (or entrance) angle, the divergence (or 
observation) angle, and the properties of the retroreflective material. 
The incidence angle is the angle formed between a line from the light 
source (e.g., headlights of approaching motor vehicle) to the 
reflective surface and a line perpendicular to the reflective surface. 
The divergence angle is the angle between the line of sight of the 
observer to the reflective surface and the path of the light from the 
source to the reflective surface. A retroreflector's effectiveness is 
affected primarily by the divergence angle and secondarily by the 
incidence angle. The divergence angle is a function of the distance 
between the driver's eyes and the light source and the distance between 
the reflector and the light source. In the scenario of a motor vehicle 
approaching a highway-rail grade crossing, since the distance between 
the light source (i.e., vehicle's headlights) and the motorist's eyes 
is a constant, the divergence angle decreases as the distance between 
the vehicle and the reflector increases. The retroreflector will 
produce maximum reflectivity for the motorist when both the incidence 
and divergence angles equal zero. This maximum reflectivity will not be 
achieved for highway-rail grade crossings, however, due to the fact 
that the divergence angle increases as the vehicle approaches the 
reflective material on the train. In other words, the reflective 
intensity of retroreflectors on the sides of rail cars will increase 
with distance since both the observation and entrance angles vary 
inversely with the distance between the reflector and the vehicle. 
Similarly, as a vehicle gets closer to a rail car, the entrance and 
observation angles get larger, and the retroreflective material's 
performance drops (i.e., the intensity of the reflected light drops). 
Because illuminance is inversely proportional to the square of the 
distance, however, as a motorist gets closer, less performance is 
needed. In addition, the reduction in the material's reflectivity as a 
vehicle approaches a train can be partly compensated for by using 
reflective materials with the highest level of performance (e.g., 
microprismatic retroreflective material).
    In evaluating the performance of reflective materials in the 
railroad operating environment, the inherent limitations of human 
eyesight must also be taken into account. In general, an individual's 
visual attention orients toward areas that contain a great deal of 
information (such as concentrations of signs, lights, people, etc.) and 
toward objects that differ greatly from their background (such as 
contrasting color or brightness, or moving objects against a still 
background). Accordingly, although reflectorization will increase the 
visibility of trains in normal daytime conditions, it is expected that 
reflectorization will be most effective in reducing RIT accidents at 
nighttime or during other times of limited visibility when the 
reflective material contrasts the most with the background environment.
    For human beings to see in darkness and other low-light conditions, 
sufficient light must illuminate their retinas. Two types of light 
sources affect a human's ability to see. The primary light source is 
one that is self-luminous (e.g., a vehicle's headlights or crossing 
illumination). Secondary light sources (e.g., reflective material) are 
not self-luminous and can be detected in darkness only if light is 
reflected from their surface. Non-luminous and non-reflecting objects 
are also visible under low light conditions based on available contrast 
with a lighter background against which they stand out. As applied to 
railroad crossings during periods of darkness or otherwise limited 
visibility, a motor vehicle's headlights and retroreflection can be 
used to partially compensate for the daylight that is not present.
    The light that illuminates the retina stimulates two types of 
photoreceptor cells--cones and rods. The cones are sensitive to normal 
daylight conditions (photopic vision). Photopic vision requires higher 
levels of illumination and allows color perception and high visual 
acuity. The rods are sensitive to lower levels of illumination, do not 
allow color perception, and do not provide as high a level of visual 
acuity as the cones. This is called scotopic vision. At dusk and dawn 
both types of receptors are activated (mesopic vision). Mesopic vision 
is characterized by diminished color vision and reduced detail 
discrimination relative to photopic vision.
    During normal daylight conditions, the human visual system operates 
at its highest level of visual acuity and has the greatest capability 
of distinguishing differences between objects in the visual field (good 
detail discrimination). At night, and in other conditions of low 
ambient light, contrast sensitivity is greatly diminished, colors 
cannot be discriminated, and details are not easily discernible. Thus, 
in order to be seen at night, objects must be sufficiently brighter (or 
darker) than their backgrounds. The perceived brightness of an object, 
including an object with reflective properties, is, at least in part, 
dependent on its color.
    The visible spectrum of light, which lies between the nonvisible 
ultraviolet and infra-red radiation, contains all colors. Color is the 
property of an object reflecting the light of a particular wavelength. 
The colors range from the longest wavelength, red, to the shortest 
wavelength, violet. The various cones (red, green, and blue) of the 
human visual system are selectively sensitive to different wavelengths 
of light, resulting in the perception of color. The unaided human eye 
is able to detect light (visible radiation) within a narrow band of the 
electronmagnetic spectrum between approximately 400 nanometers (nm) 
(violet end) and 780 nm (red end). The eye is most sensitive, however, 
to light in the wavelengths that stimulate both the red and green cones 
(approximately 500 nm to 650 nm, with peak sensitivity at approximately 
550 nm, the wavelength corresponding to the color yellow-green). The 
eye is least sensitive to red or violet light at either extreme of the 
spectrum. Wavelengths between 500 nm and 650 nm, and particularly at 
about 550 nm (yellow-green), contribute most to the perception of 
color, as well as the definition of visual detail. As such, reflective 
materials with a color falling within the range of yellow-green peak 
sensitivity would provide the most visible contrast with the normally 
dark and dirty background of freight cars.

C. FRA's Studies of Freight Car Reflectorization

    FRA's study resulting in the 1999 Volpe Report consisted of a four-
phase research program to determine the feasibility of reflectorization 
as a train conspicuity device. Specifically, the goals of the research 
were to: (1) Determine whether the new generation of reflective 
material (microprismatic retroreflective material) would provide 
adequate brightness in the railroad environment; (2) determine whether 
the new material could withstand the harsh

[[Page 62947]]

environmental conditions of railroad operations; (3) establish the 
minimum intensity level required to attract a motorist's attention; and 
(4) assess the effectiveness of pattern placement on freight car 
detectability. After reviewing past and current transportation 
experiences with the use of reflectors, Volpe conducted a demonstration 
test to establish the durability of the newly developed microprismatic 
material, and to create a test pattern. Next, a nationwide in-service 
test was conducted to measure the microprismatic retroreflectors' 
performance, accident reduction potential, and costs. Finally, a human 
factors test was conducted to evaluate the detectability and 
recognition of several retroreflective designs.
    First, Volpe reviewed past and current reflectorization experiences 
in the railroad environment. Specifically, Volpe surveyed the rail 
industry and identified several railroads and other industry 
participants, including the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (``BNSF''), 
the Soo Line, the Georgia Power Company, and Southern Company, that had 
already begun using retroreflective markings on at least some portion 
of their fleets. BNSF reported using a rail car marking system having 
retroreflective material on each end of freight cars and eleven 5x8 
inch rectangular white diamond grade markings along the side sill of 
each side of its freight cars. Smaller 3x8 inch markings were 
reportedly used on car sides where surface space is limited, such as 
under boxcar doors. The Soo Line reported applying retroreflective 
material to its cars for advertisement purposes and to improve the 
safety of nighttime yard operations. The Georgia Power Company reported 
using twelve 3x12 inch yellow prismatic retroreflectors located at 42 
inches above the top of the rail (``TOR'') on its coal hoppers since 
1981, while the Southern Company reported using high intensity yellow 
retroreflective material on its open top hopper cars. Although none of 
railroads which responded to Volpe's survey conducted any formal 
evaluations of their marking systems, the Soo Line reported 
satisfaction with their program and that some of the retroreflective 
materials applied to cars in the mid 1960s still performed adequately.
    Using information gleaned from previous studies of 
reflectorization, Volpe next established a minimum threshhold for 
reflector brightness (minimum SIA) to be used as a basis for evaluating 
reflector performance. For reflectorization to be effective in reducing 
RIT accidents, reflectors must be sufficiently bright to attract the 
attention of approaching motorists early enough in the approach path of 
the vehicles so that the drivers have time to react to avoid 
collisions. Accordingly, Volpe defined the minimum threshold of 
intensity as the lowest luminous value that allows a motorist to detect 
the presence of a retroreflector (and therefore a freight car equipped 
with a retroreflector) in a crossing, even if the motorist is not 
actively looking for a train. In developing this minimum threshold, 
Volpe took into account the effects of the harsh railroad operating 
environment, including the inherent dirt and grime that accumulates on 
rail cars and the effects of often severe weather conditions, as well 
as the aging of the retroreflective material and the orientation and 
configuration of rail cars. Utilizing visibility assumptions 
established by previous reflectorization studies (i.e., a level 
approach grade, a 2.5 second driver reaction time, wet pavement, and a 
vehicle speed of 50 miles per hour), Volpe first concluded that a 
motorist must become aware of a train's presence when the vehicle is 
500 feet from the crossing so that the vehicle can be brought to a safe 
stop.
    Next, using the ``point source method'' upon which many guidelines 
for reflector intensity are built, Volpe determined that the minimum 
threshold illuminance level of 2.3 x 10-\6\ footcandles 
would be sufficient to make a reflector detectable to most drivers. The 
``point source method'' is based on the fact that astronomical 
observations have determined that a star producing an luminance of 2.3 
x 10-\9\ footcandles at the eye of an observer against an 
overcast moon sky illuminance, equal to 9.9 x 10-\4\ 
footlamberts, can be detected with a 98% probability when the observer 
is actively looking for the light and knows precisely where to look for 
it. This level must be increased five to ten times if the light is to 
be easily found. (The FAA detection level for pilots is almost eight 
times this minimum threshold). If the light signal is to attract the 
attention of an observer who is not actively looking for it, then 
increases of 100 to 1,000 times the threshold level are needed--which 
is equivalent to 2.3 x 10-\6\ footcandles. Accordingly, 
Volpe determined that an illumination level of 2.3 x 10-\6\ 
footcandles should be sufficient to make the reflector detectable to 
all but the few drivers who are completely oblivious to their driving 
environment.
    Finally, using several additional visibility assumptions 
established by previous research, Volpe used Allard's Law to determine 
the minimum reflector intensity (SIA) required to enable approaching 
motorists to detect and recognize a train's presence in a crossing from 
a distance of 500 feet. These assumptions include:

Ee= Required level of illuminance to be received by an 
observer sufficient for detectability & recognition--2.3 x 
10-\6\ fc
W = Windshield Transmittance--0.70
H = Headlight Efficiency--0.85
Is= Headlight Intensity--3,000 cd (per headlight)
t\2d\ = Atmospheric Transmittance--0.945

Using these known assumptions and rearranging Allard's Law to solve for 
A, the area of the reflector, and B, the reflector's SIA (i.e., A*B = 
Ee*d\4\/Is*t\2d\*W*H), a range of values was 
determined. Specifically, assuming a vehicle is traveling 50 miles per 
hour on wet pavement, a 4x8 inch reflector (0.22 ft\2\) must have a 
minimum reflector brightness (SIA) of 200 cd/fc/ft\2\ for detection to 
occur in time for motorists to stop before entering the highway-rail 
grade crossing. A 4x36 inch (one square foot) reflector, however, must 
have an SIA of only approximately 45 cd/fc/ft\2\ for detection to occur 
in time for motorists to stop before entering the crossing. These 
results demonstrate that for the same amount of illumination to attract 
the driver's attention, the smaller the area of the reflector (e.g., 
0.22 ft\2\) the larger the required SIA of the reflector (e.g., 200 cf/
fc/ft\2\). The same holds true for the opposite scenario, the larger 
the reflector area (e.g., one square foot), the smaller the required 
SIA of the refector (e.g., 45 cd/fc/ft\2\).
    The demonstration test was designed to evaluate the degradation in 
reflectivity of different reflective materials applied to freight cars 
under controlled conditions and to develop a test pattern. Three types 
of reflective materials (enclosed lens, bonded, and microprismatic 
retroreflective material) were tested. For the tests, nine open top 
hopper cars were treated with groups of three 4x4 inch diamond shaped 
markings placed near the side sill (at approximately 42 inches TOR). 
Each group of markings was comprised of the three types of materials 
being evaluated. Five more hopper cars had groups of two or three 4x2 
inch rectangular markings attached to the wheels at 90, 120, or 180 
degrees of separation. Only microprismatic material was used on the 
wheel application. One car had a 4x96 inch vertical strip applied to 
the corner post at each end of the car. All of the marking systems 
evaluated were either all white, all red, or a combination pattern of 
red and white.
    Results of the demonstration test indicated that the white 
microprismatic

[[Page 62948]]

material performed satisfactorily, while the enclosed lens and bonded 
materials did not. The microprismatic material had a much higher 
initial SIA value than the other two materials and was found to be ten 
times brighter than the material tested in 1982. In addition, after one 
year of service, the microprismatic retroreflective material maintained 
an SIA value that was 87% of the original measurement, which was well 
above the established minimum conspicuity threshold. The enclosed lens 
material lost approximately the same percentage of reflectivity as the 
microprismatic material, but due to its lower original SIA value, this 
loss was sufficient for it to fall below the minimum reflectivity 
required. The red microprismatic material degraded approximately the 
same as the white. However, none of the all red markings evaluated in 
the study met the minimum reflectivity requirements after one year. In 
addition, all of the materials placed on the wheels degraded very 
quickly and became ineffective in only a few months. Of the markings 
that were comprised of both red and white materials, only the 
performance of the vertical 4x96 inch strips of microprismatic material 
(applied to the corner posts of one car) was reported. The reflectivity 
of these markings decreased to about 67% of their initial value after 
one year. Because of the relatively large size of the markings, 
however, this amount of reflectivity was well above the conspicuity 
threshold level.
    Based on the preliminary results of the demonstration test, larger 
scale trials, spanning approximately two years, were initiated in 
collaboration with Norfolk Southern Corporation and the Alaska Railroad 
Corporation. This in-service test allowed data collection of the 
retroreflective material's durability, performance, and accident 
reduction potential under in-service conditions. For these trials, two 
color combinations of microprismatic retroreflective material were 
selected based on the demonstration test and input from the railroads: 
A pattern of all white material and a pattern of alternating red and 
white material. The marking configuration selected consisted of three 
4x8 inch white rectangular markings applied horizontally every nine 
feet just above the side sill (at approximately 42 inches TOR in most 
instances), and a 4x36 inch strip of red/white material applied 
vertically at the side sill on both ends of the cars. In 1991, the 
markings were applied to 29 tank cars carrying various petroleum 
products on the Alaska Railroad. Because of the curvature of the tank 
body, the markings were placed at 72 inches TOR. In January 1992, the 
markings were applied to 149 Norfolk Southern double-stack intermodal 
flat cars. Because of the limited surface area of these flat cars, the 
4x8 inch markings were placed at 42 inches TOR, while the 4x36 inch 
markings were placed at 30 inches TOR. This was followed in March and 
April 1992 with 336 captive Norfolk Southern open top hopper cars and 
74 boxcars in clay service, respectively, receiving the marking system.
    Although the results of the in-service test showed that the harsh 
railroad operating environment could have a severe effect on the 
performance of the retroreflectors, Volpe identified a general 
correlation between reflector performance and height above TOR. 
Specifically, reflectors mounted highest on test cars performed the 
best, while reflectors mounted lower, and particularly below the side 
sill, did not perform as well. Finding little change in reflector 
performance due to dirt and grime accumulation above the side sill 
level (approximately 42 inches TOR), Volpe identified a minimum 
placement height as 42 inches TOR to allow maximum efficiency of 
reflector performance. The average performance of the vertical 4x36 
inch reflective strips at the ends of the cars remained above the 
minimum threshold level for all car types for the entire testing 
period. The average performance of all 4x8 inch reflectors degraded 
more quickly, especially when mounted under the side sill or in mid-car 
locations where loading operations occur. Accordingly, Volpe concluded 
that any reflectorization pattern should minimize reflectors' location 
under the side sill and at loading points, and should utilize larger 
reflectors. Larger-size reflectors would lower the acceptable SIA level 
and would also degrade at a slower rate than the 4x8 inch reflectors.
    Although the in-service test did not provide statistically valid 
results regarding the reflectors' accident reduction potential, the 
test did show a reduction in RIT accidents. During the three year 
period before the installation of the reflectors on the captive Norfolk 
Southern hopper cars, there were six accidents in which the motorist 
hit the side of the train after the first unit had passed through the 
crossing (i.e., referred to as Category 1 RIT accidents). These 
accidents occurred during the hours of dawn, dusk, and darkness. During 
the three year period after the cars were reflectorized, no RIT 
accidents occurred.
    The primary concern of the fourth phase of the research program, 
the human factors evaluation, was to develop a retroreflective pattern 
that is detectable in time for the motorist to recognize a train in the 
grade crossing and respond in time to avoid an accident. Specifically, 
the test was designed to determine the detection characteristics of the 
new microprismatic retroreflective material in various color and 
mounting configurations. Several potential placement patterns and color 
combinations were developed and analyzed to determine the most 
effective reflectorization configuration. Based on the outcome of both 
subjective and objective evaluation techniques, reflectorized freight 
cars were found to be significantly more detectable than non-
reflectorized cars. Even the worst performing pattern and color 
configuration tested was several orders of magnitude better than an 
unreflectorized car. Generally, the results indicated that a uniform 
pattern of reflectorized material would facilitate motorists' detection 
of a hazard in his or her path and recognition of that hazard as a 
freight car. The results specifically indicated that a uniform vertical 
reflector pattern yielded the highest levels of detection and 
recognition and that a red/white color combination was preferable in 
order to facilitate motorists' recognition of a train as a hazard in 
the motorists' path and convey a sense of danger. In addition, 
distribution patterns that outlined the shape or that spaced the 
retroreflective material over a relatively large area of the rail car 
side were found to be superior to a distribution that concentrated the 
material along the bottom of the car. Accordingly, Volpe recommended 
the development of a standard pattern that: (1) Either outlined the 
shape of the freight car, or otherwise spaced the material over a large 
area of the rail car side; (2) could fit on all types of rail cars; and 
(3) would not likely be confused with other roadway hazards, 
particularly reflectorized trucks and trailers.
    FRA addressed the issue of motorist confusion with the issuance of 
the 2001 Volpe Report. This study recognized that the previous study 
did not provide a realistic environment in which to evaluate the 
detectability and recognition of freight cars reflectorized with 
microprismatic retroreflective material. For example, in the 1999 
study, observers did not see anything else in the scene that might be 
encountered in an actual driving environment (e.g., signs, other 
vehicles, lights, foliage, buildings, etc.). In the real world, 
foliage, buildings, or other

[[Page 62949]]

obstructions may block a motorist's view, or lights, signs, and other 
visual clutter may compete for a motorist's attention. In addition, 
with reflective materials in comon use on the nation's highways, the 
opportunity exists for motorists to confuse freight cars with other 
roadway hazards, particularly reflectorized truck trailers and respond 
inappropriately. NHTSA regulations require trucks more than 80 inches 
wide and weighing more than 10,000 pounds to be reflectorized (49 CFR 
571.108). Specifically, the regulation requires the use of a strip (two 
to four inches wide) in alternating colors (red and white) and covering 
at least 50% of the length of the trailer. Because trucks are shorter 
in length and pass through an intersection more quickly than the 
average train, an approaching motorist may only need to slow the 
vehicle to avoid a collision instead of stopping prior to reaching the 
intersection. Conversely, because the average train is longer than the 
average truck, it spends a greater amount of time in the intersection. 
For motorists approaching a grade crossing, the greater amount of time 
the train spends in the intersection means it is more likely that the 
motorists will need to stop at the intersection. Accordingly, the 2001 
study was designed to determine whether, at night when relying upon 
retroreflective patterns for identification, motorists are likely to 
confuse reflectorized trains with reflectorized trucks.
    In the 2001 study, four patterns, each utilizing 144 square inches 
of reflective material, were evaluated: An outline, a horizontal strip, 
a vertical strip, and a variable height vertical strip. The outline 
pattern outlined the shape of the freight car. The horizontal strip 
pattern concentrated the retroreflective material along the side sill 
of the car. The vertical strip pattern (also known as the ``fence'' 
pattern), distributed the material in six equally-sized vertical strips 
over a relatively large area of the car sides. The variable height 
vertical strip pattern distributed the material in six varying-sized 
vertical strips over a relatively large area of the freight car sides. 
The patterns were placed on two types of freight cars, hopper cars and 
flat cars. The study measured the degree to which drivers recognized 
reflectorized freight cars in the grade crossing when both the motor 
vehicle and the train were in motion, and the driver's ability to 
discriminate reflectorized freight cars from other objects in the 
intersection.
    The 2001 Volpe Report concluded that motorists could, at least to a 
certain extent, discriminate between reflectorized freight cars and 
reflectorized truck trailers for all of the patterns tested. The most 
effective patterns, in terms of detectability distance and recognition 
of the object as a freight car, however, were the fence pattern and the 
variable height vertical strip patterns. The report also concluded that 
using a vertically oriented pattern clearly distinguishable from the 
horizontally oriented patterns founds on truck trailers will minimize 
the likelihood that motorists will confuse a train in a grade crossing 
with a truck trailer.

D. Accident Reduction Potential of Reflective Markings and Alternative 
Approaches to Reducing Grade Crossing Accidents

    FRA recognizes that the effectiveness of rail car reflectorization 
will, to a certain extent, vary by circumstance. As discussed earlier, 
various factors will influence the degree of effectiveness of 
reflectors and in turn, the resulting accident reduction and mitigation 
achieved. While all RIT accidents are potentially affected by 
reflectorization, those RIT accidents that result from a highway 
vehicle striking the train after the lead unit has entered the crossing 
(Category 1 RIT accidents) are the accidents most likely preventable by 
reflectorization. In particular, reflectorization is expected to be 
most effective in reducing nighttime Category 1 RIT accidents, which 
currently make up almost 70% of all Category 1 RIT accidents, despite 
the generally lower volume of highway traffic at night as compared to 
the daytime.
    Although reflectorization of rail cars is expected to be most 
effective at nighttime, some daytime RIT accidents are also expected to 
be prevented, or at least mitigated, by reflectorization. Under 
conditions of reduced daytime visibility (e.g., inclement weather), 
reflectors enhance the visibility of freight cars by providing an 
increased visible contrast with the freight car side wall, especially 
when an approaching motor vehicle's headlights are turned on. During 
the day, other light sources (e.g., the sun), may be at an appropriate 
orientation to cause reflected light to be seen by the motorist.
    The type of warning device at the crossing can also influence the 
effectiveness of reflectorization. Crossings with only passive devices, 
where almost 50% of all Category 1 RIT accidents occur, will benefit 
the most from reflectorization. Passive warning devices include signs 
(e.g., crossbucks, stop signs, etc.) and other statically displayed 
information (e.g., pavement markings) that warn motorists of the 
potential of a train at a crossing. Passive devices warn motorists that 
tracks are present; these devices do not indicate if a train is 
actually approaching or in the crossing. Reflectorization of rail cars 
improves the visual detection of the train by making its distance and 
relative state of motion more quickly and accurately gauged by drivers 
of other vehicles.
    Crossings with active warning devices (e.g., flashing lights, 
gates, etc.) will also receive some benefit from reflectorization. Each 
year over 200 accidents occur when motorists drive around lowered gates 
or past flashing lights and strike trains at highway-rail grade 
crossings. Under conditions of limited visibility, such as darkness or 
inclement weather, the added, unique visual signal offered by 
reflectors will augment the visual warning of flashing lights. The same 
rationale, although to a lesser extent, applies to crossings with 
gates. In many instances, a train standing in or passing through a 
crossing encompasses the motorist's entire field of view because of its 
size and proximity. The motorist may not see the train in the crossing 
because there is no contrast between the train and the surrounding 
environment. The motorist can look both ways, but because there is no 
detectable train movement, may still attempt to cross the track. 
Crossing warning devices, active or passive, only provide a warning to 
the motorist. The signal delivered by reflective material on the sides 
of rail cars is clear and indicates to approaching motorists the actual 
presence and current movement of a train in or through a crossing.
    FRA also recognizes the existence of numerous other methods for 
reducing the occurrences of RIT accidents (e.g., the elimination of 
highway-rail grade crossings, installation and upgrading of crossing 
warning devices, crossing illumination, etc.). FRA believes that a 
number of these alternatives used alone and in combination, are viable 
methods for mitigating collision risk at highway-rail grade crossings. 
However, FRA also believes that reflectorization of freight rolling 
stock is a feasible and cost-effective method of reducing and 
mitigating grade crossing accidents that provides unique safety 
benefits not obtainable with the other grade crossing warning devices 
and safety measures. Obviously, the most effective way to reduce 
highway-rail grade crossing accidents, RIT accidents or otherwise, is 
to eliminate highway-rail grade crossings. Closing access to highway-
rail crossings where redundant or unnecessary crossings exist or 
constructing grade separating overpasses where necessary is an

[[Page 62950]]

effective safety improvement. However, local opposition to closing 
crossings and the associated expenses with constructing grade 
separations or other alternatives to the crossings, often render these 
methods impractical, if not impossible. Efforts have also been underway 
in recent years to illuminate crossings with street lamps. It is 
generally believed that crossing illumination reduces the likelihood of 
RIT accidents (by enabling motorists to recognize a train in a crossing 
earlier), at a lower cost than that required to install active warning 
systems. To date, however, limited cost information is available and no 
specific effectiveness or accident reduction statistics have been 
developed. In addition, an obvious limit to crossing illumination is 
the unavailability of commercial power sources at some crossings, 
particularly rural, passively protected crossings. Without a commercial 
power source, a crossing illumination system may require its own energy 
generating and storage device and train detection equipment, often 
making it a cost-prohibitive measure.

E. Discussion of Comments

    The public docket in this proceeding contains approximately 55 
comments from interested parties, including members of the railroad 
industry, trade organizations, local governments, public interest 
organizations, reflective material manufacturing and supply companies, 
as well as members of the general public. Specifically, comments were 
received from the following organizations: The American Trucking 
Association (ATA), the Texas Motor Transportation Association, Niagara 
Bulk Service Limited, the Port of Woodland, the Conway Scenic Railroad, 
the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees (BMWE), the American 
Automobile Association (AAA), the City of Hudsonville in Michigan, 
Reidler Decal Corporation, 3M, Reflexite, the American Highway Users 
Alliance, the Tourist Railroad Association, the Association of American 
Railroads (AAR), Avery Dennison, Great Lakes Transportation LLC, the 
Railway Progress Institute (now known as the Railway Supply Institute 
(RSI)), the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association 
(ASLRRA), the North American Freight Car Association (NAFCA), the 
National Industrial Transportation League, as well as TTX. Although the 
majority of comments submitted were in favor of reflectorization, some 
members of the railroad industry raised important considerations 
related to the implementation of a nationwide rail car reflectorization 
program.
    Several individual members of the public and organizations of 
concerned citizens (including the Angels on the Track Foundation and 
Active People Against Railroad Tragedies), voiced strong support for a 
nationwide rail car reflectorization program. These commenters related 
stories of personal tragedy in which friends or loved ones were injured 
or killed as a result of grade crossing accidents--specifically, grade 
crossing collisions in which the motor-vehicle drivers apparently did 
not see a train in the path of their vehicles in time to react to avoid 
collisions. FRA has the greatest sympathy for the losses suffered by 
these commenters. The goal of this rulemaking is to reduce the number 
of RIT accidents, but rules must be based on consideration of evidence 
and data. Accordingly, this preamble focuses on the technical and 
economic aspects of rail car reflectorization. FRA, however, has not 
ignored the advice of those whose tragic personal experiences has led 
them to support this proposal addressing rail car conspicuity.
    Other commenters expressing support for a nationwide freight car 
reflectorization program include municipalities, trade organizations 
such as the ATA and the Texas Motor Transportation Association, and 
other organizations concerned with safe and efficient highway 
transportation (including AAA and the American Highway Users Alliance). 
These commenters expressed the view that the issue of highway-rail 
grade crossing safety is an issue that affects not only the railroad 
industry, but the entire motoring public as well, including individual 
motorists and commercial motor carriers which traverse grade crossings 
on a daily basis. Specifically, the ATA expressed support for the 
December 1999 petition for rulemaking filed by the South Dakota 
Trucking Association, the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, the Wyoming 
Trucking Association, and the Mississippi Trucking Association which 
sought to require railcars to bear retroreflective sheeting. These 
commenters also pointed out the prevalence of unlighted, passively 
protected highway-rail grade crossings in rural communities and the 
particular vulnerability of these types of crossings to RIT accidents.
    The BMWE, a rail labor organization, also submitted comments in 
support of rail car reflectorization. The BMWE cited the federal 
highway rule requiring reflectorization of large trucks as evidence of 
the benefits which could be derived from rail car reflectorization 
(e.g., reduced property damage and reductions in injuries and deaths 
associated with RIT accidents). The BMWE also expressed its agreement 
with FRA's conclusion that reflectorization represents a cost-effective 
approach to mitigating the problem of RIT accidents. Another commenter, 
although acknowledging some of the inherent difficulties in 
implementing a nationwide reflectorization program (e.g., catching up 
with specific rail cars to apply reflective material, reflector 
maintenance and cleanliness issues), expressed support for rail car 
reflectorization and suggested that FRA adopt NHTSA's standards for 
reflective material on commercial vehicles.
    Railroad industry participants, such as the AAR, Great Lakes 
Transportation LLC (which submitted comments on behalf of two class II 
carriers, Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Company and the Duluth, 
Missabe and Iron Range Railway Company), RSI, the ASLRRA, as well as 
NAFCA, raised important considerations related to implementation of a 
nationwide rail car reflectorization program (e.g., a feasible schedule 
for the application of reflectors to rail cars, reflector cleaning and 
maintenance requirements, the treatment of rail cars already equipped 
with reflective material pursuant to one of the many voluntary 
reflectorization programs already underway throughout the industry). 
These commenters also expressed the opinion that a federal regulation 
mandating reflectorization would not be a cost-effective safety measure 
given the costs railroads and car owners would incur implementing such 
a program (e.g., the costs of initially installing the material, 
periodically inspecting, cleaning, and maintaining the material, and 
the potential for increased litigation exposure).
    The ASLRRA and Great Lakes Transportation LLC (which submitted 
comments on behalf of two class II carriers, Bessemer and Lake Erie 
Railroad Company and the Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway 
Company), additionally expressed the opinion that a Federal regulation 
mandating rail car reflectorization would be unduly burdensome and 
costly on small railroads. One commenting railroad, however, recognized 
that adopting a high visibility, common color scheme on rail equipment 
could reduce accidents at highway-rail grade crossings. A 
representative of another small railroad, the Conway Scenic Railroad in 
New Hampshire, suggested that railroads should make their locomotives 
and cars

[[Page 62951]]

more visible and that reflectorization could be a practical method of 
doing so. This commenter, however, recognized the limits of any program 
designed to enhance the visibility of trains, including 
reflectorization, and explained that ``[t]he most visible train is only 
as safe as the motor vehicle operator who encounters it.'' FRA strongly 
agrees with this statement and recognizes that reflectorization will 
provide only a partial solution to the safety issues surrounding 
highway-rail grade crossings. FRA recognizes, and feels it worthy of 
emphasis, that nothing in this rule relieves motorists from the 
responsibility to be alert at highway-rail crossings and use due 
diligence in operating motor vehicles safely, even during times of 
limited visibility.

F. The Proposed Rule

    Based upon the information currently available, FRA believes that 
reflectorization of rail freight rolling stock is a feasible method of 
enhancing rail car visibility that would likely improve safety in a 
cost-effective manner. Accordingly, as the Federal agency responsible 
for ensuring that America's railroads are safe for the traveling public 
and in direct response to the Congressional directive of 49 U.S.C. 
20148, FRA is proposing to require the use of reflective material on 
the sides of certain rail cars and locomotives.
    Generally, this rule proposes that all freight cars and locomotives 
that operate over a public or private highway-rail grade crossing in 
the United States in revenue or work train service be equipped with 
retroreflective sheeting on both sides. This rule contemplates that 
conforming retroreflective sheeting will be applied to freight cars on 
a fleet basis so that each segment of the freight car fleet is brought 
into compliance within ten years, and each segment of the locomotive 
fleet is brought into compliance within five years. To ensure the most 
efficient and cost-effective implementation of the rule, FRA proposes 
that retroreflective sheeting be applied to new freight rolling stock 
at the time of construction, and to existing stock when such stock is 
being repainted, rebuilt, or is undergoing other periodic maintenance.
    This rule proposes specific color, construction, placement, and 
performance requirements for the required retroreflective sheeting and 
also sets forth a schedule for the application, inspection, and 
maintenance of the sheeting. The performance requirements set forth in 
this proposal are based on the material as it is initially applied. In 
other words, FRA has chosen to impose color, type, size, and placement 
requirements that ensure sufficient reflectivity will be retained over 
time, despite the harsh railroad operating environment. The amount and 
placement of retroreflective sheeting required to be applied to freight 
rolling stock pursuant to this part depends on the size of the freight 
car or locomotive, as well as the car type. Generally, however, this 
rule proposes a vertical pattern of retroreflective material along the 
entire side of freight rolling stock, as the physical configuration of 
various equipment types allows.
    In drafting this rule, FRA has carefully considered the comments 
submitted to the docket of this proceeding and has attempted to devise 
a rule which will ensure the most efficient and cost-effective 
implementation of a nationwide reflectorization program which will 
provide valuable safety benefits to both the railroad industry and the 
motoring public. FRA anticipates that many constructive comments will 
result from public analysis of this proposal and that the proposed rule 
may be changed as a result of the public input. As such, FRA invites 
public comments on all aspects of this proposed rule.
Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 224.1 Purpose and Scope

    This section contains a formal statement of the proposed rule's 
purpose and scope. FRA intends that the rule cover all aspects of 
reflectorization of freight rolling stock, including but not limited 
to, the size, color, placement, and performance standards of the 
reflective material, as well as the schedule for the application, 
inspection, and maintenance of the material.
    Paragraph (a) states that the proposed rule is intended to reduce 
highway-rail grade crossing accidents, deaths, injuries, and property 
damage resulting from those accidents by enhancing the conspicuity of 
rail freight rolling stock as to increase its detectability by motor 
vehicle operators at night and under conditions of poor visibility. 
Paragraph (b) explains that the proposed rule establishes the duties of 
freight rolling stock owners and railroads to progressively apply 
retroreflective material to freight rolling stock, and to periodically 
inspect and maintain that material in order to achieve cost-effective 
mitigation of collision risk at highway-rail grade crossings. Paragraph 
(c) explains that the proposed rule establishes a schedule for the 
application of retroreflective material to rail freight rolling stock 
and prescribes standards for the application, inspection, and 
maintenance of retroreflective material to rail freight rolling stock 
for the purpose of enhancing its detectability at highway-rail grade 
crossings. This rule will not restrict freight rolling stock owners 
from applying retroreflective material to freight rolling stock on an 
accelerated schedule, nor will this rule restrict freight rolling stock 
owners from applying additional reflective material as long as any such 
additional material does not interfere with the recognizable pattern 
contemplated in proposed Sec.  224.105. Freight rolling stock owners, 
however, are under no duty to install, maintain, or repair reflective 
material except as specified in this rule.

Section 224.3 Applicability

    This section proposes that this rule apply to all freight cars and 
locomotives used for revenue or work train service that operate over a 
public or private highway-rail grade crossing and are used for revenue 
or work train service. FRA is aware that cars with Canadian reporting 
marks are used extensively within the United States. Transport Canada 
has previously administered a reflectorization program for Canadian 
cars, and FRA expects that Transport Canada will take actions in 
parallel with this proposal to handle the North American fleet.
    This part will not apply to (1) freight railroads that operate only 
on track inside an installation that is not part of the general 
railroad system of transportation, (2) rapid transit operations within 
an urban area that are not connected to the general system of 
transportation, or (3) locomotives or passenger cars used exclusively 
in passenger service. Although FRA recognizes that both public and 
private grade crossings may be found on plant railroads and freight 
railroads that are not part of the general railroad system of 
transportation, these operations typically involve low speed vehicular 
traffic and FRA has not determined that reflectorization would be 
helpful in these areas. These reasons, together with the historical 
basis for not asserting jurisdiction over insular rail operations, 
leads FRA to propose not to exercise jurisdiction over public and 
private crossings at such plant and private railroads. FRA does, of 
course, retain the statutory right to assert jurisdiction in this area 
and will do so if circumstances warrant.
    Paragraph (c) provides that this rule will not apply to locomotives 
and passenger cars used exclusively in passenger service. FRA proposes 
to

[[Page 62952]]

exclude locomotives and passenger cars used exclusively in passenger 
service from this rule because the conspicuity issues attendant to 
passenger service are significantly different from those of freight 
service. For example, particularly in commuter service, the highway-
rail grade crossings through which passenger trains operate are 
typically better protected than crossings used exclusively in freight 
service. Also, many passenger cars have bright stainless steel 
exteriors or are painted contrasting light colors and are maintained in 
a much cleaner condition than freight cars. Passenger cars typically 
have inside lights which are visible through side windows that run the 
entire length of the cars. Although FRA does not at this time propose 
to require the application of reflective material to locomotives and 
passenger cars used exclusively in passenger service, FRA may do so in 
a future rulemaking if it proves a cost-effective method of mitigating 
collision risk at highway-rail grade crossings.
    As in all aspects of this proposed rule, FRA invites comments on 
the jurisdictional determinations proposed in this notice.

Section 224.5 Definitions

    This proposed rule uses various terms, which for purposes of this 
rulemaking, have very specific meanings. FRA intends these definitions 
to clarify the meaning of important terms as they are used in the text 
of the proposed rule and several of these definitions warrant further 
discussion.
    ``Freight rolling stock'' includes any locomotive subject to 49 CFR 
part 229 used to haul or switch freight cars in revenue or work train 
service and any railroad freight car subject to 49 CFR part 215, 
including a car stenciled MW pursuant to Sec.  215.305. Although FRA 
proposes to limit the definition of ``freight rolling stock'' to 
locomotives and freight cars, FRA requests comments on the potential 
utility and practicability of reflectorizing other rail equipment, such 
as specialized maintenance of way vehicles (particularly maintenance of 
way vehicles not falling within the purview of subpart D to 49 CFR part 
214) or any other rail equipment used to haul freight cars. FRA 
specifically requests data demonstrating what, if any, other types of 
rail equipment (other than locomotives subject to 49 CFR part 229) are 
used to haul freight cars and the potential feasibility of 
reflectorizing such equipment and any data and/or relevant comments 
related to the conspicuity of maintenance of way equipment which is not 
subject to 49 CFR part 214 (e.g., how often is this equipment involved 
in grade crossing accidents, what, if any, conspicuity devices are 
already utilized on this equipment, would it be practicable to equip 
these vehicles with retroreflective material, etc.).
    ``Freight rolling stock owner'' is defined to include any person 
who owns freight rolling stock, leases freight rolling stock, manages 
the maintenance or use of freight rolling stock on behalf of an owner 
or one or more lessors or lessees, or who otherwise controls the 
maintenance or use of freight rolling stock. This definition recognizes 
the practicalities of freight car ownership in the industry today. It 
is estimated that over one-half of all freight cars are privately 
owned. This number continues to increase. Because private freight car 
owners often contract with others to maintain their cars and may not 
even see their cars on a regular basis, this definition contemplates 
that those who control the maintenance or use of freight cars by 
contractual agreements or otherwise, will also be responsible for 
compliance with this part in conjunction with the actual owners of the 
cars.
    ``Obscured'' means, for purposes of this part, concealed or hidden. 
Specifically excluded from this definition are ordinary accumulations 
of dirt, grime, or ice resulting from the normal railroad operating 
environment. FRA recognizes that the harsh railroad operating 
environment inevitably results in dirt accumulating on the sides of 
freight rolling stock. The standards for retroreflective material set 
forth in this part take into account this ordinary accumulation. The 
term ``obscured,'' however, is intended to refer to situations where 
reflective material is covered by paint, a dense chemical residue, or 
any other foreign substance, such that the material no longer reflects 
light. For example, FRA understands that the sides of coal cars will 
accumulate coal dust and other dirt over time due to the nature of 
normal railroad operations. An accumulation of coal dust or other dirt, 
even if it significantly darkens and dirties the retroreflective 
material, will not cause the material to be ``obscured'' for purposes 
of this rule. The standards proposed in this rule account for the 
effects of accumulations of dirt and grime inherent in the railroad 
operating environment, the aging of the reflective material, and other 
adverse effects of the operating environment (e.g., harsh weather 
conditions). FRA believes that reflective material meeting the 
requirements of this rule when initially applied will still provide 
adequate reflectivity throughout the manufacturers' stated useful life 
despite inevitable accumulations of dirt. If, however, retroreflective 
material is covered with paint (e.g., graffiti), a dense chemical 
residue (e.g., product spilled from a tank car), or any other foreign 
substance, other than dirt or grime, which effectively blocks all 
incoming light, that material would be considered ``obscured'' under 
this part.
    In order to ensure that the requirements of this part would be 
practicable for each type of freight car to which they apply, FRA has 
included definitions for railroad freight car, flat car, and tank car. 
The proposed requirements for each type of car differ based on 
configurational differences between the vehicles in those groups. FRA 
believes that almost 99% of the freight car fleet that would be subject 
to this rule falls within one of these three definitions. The remaining 
1% of the fleet that does not fall within one of these definitions is 
provided for in Sec.  224.105(a)(4) addressing ``cars of special 
construction.'' FRA requests comments on the use of these definitions, 
specifically, whether these definitions are adequate to identify car 
types for purposes of this rule or whether commenters have other 
definitions that they would prefer.

Section 224.7 Waivers

    This section explains the process for requesting a waiver from a 
provision of this rule. FRA has historically entertained waiver 
petitions from parties affected by an FRA regulation. In reviewing such 
requests, FRA conducts investigations to determine if a deviation from 
the general regulatory criteria can be made without compromising or 
diminishing safety.
    The rules governing the FRA waiver process are found in 49 CFR part 
211. In summary, after a petition for a waiver is received by FRA, a 
notice of the waiver request is published in the Federal Register, an 
opportunity for public comment is provided, and an opportunity for a 
hearing is afforded the petitioning or other interested party. FRA, 
after reviewing information from the petitioning party and others, will 
grant or deny the petition. In certain circumstances, conditions may be 
imposed on the grant of a waiver if FRA concludes that the conditions 
are necessary to assure safety or if they are in the public interest.

Section 224.9 Responsibility for Compliance

    General compliance requirements are proposed in this section. 
Paragraph (a) states that freight rolling stock owners

[[Page 62953]]

(as defined in Sec.  224.5), railroads, and (with respect to 
certification of material) manufacturers of retroreflective material, 
are primarily responsible for compliance with the rule. The 
responsibility of manufacturers is discussed in more detail in the 
analysis of proposed Sec.  224.103(a) below.
    Paragraph (a) also clarifies FRA's position that the requirements 
contained in the rule are applicable to any ``person'' (as defined in 
the rule) that performs any function or task required by the proposed 
rule. Although various sections of the rule address the duties of 
freight rolling stock owners, railroads, and manufacturers of 
retroreflective material, FRA intends that any person who performs any 
action on behalf of any of these parties or any person who performs any 
action covered by the rule is required to perform that action in the 
same manner as required of the freight rolling stock owner, railroad, 
or manufacturer, or be subject to FRA enforcement action. For example, 
employees or agents of freight rolling stock owners, or railroad 
contractors that perform duties covered by these regulations would be 
required to perform those duties in the same manner as required of a 
freight rolling stock owner or railroad. Likewise, employees or agents 
of manufacturers of retroreflective sheeting being manufactured 
pursuant to this part, would be required to perform those duties in the 
same manner as the manufacturer.
    Paragraph (b) states that any person performing any function or 
task required by this part will be deemed to have consented to FRA 
inspection of the person's facilities and records to the extent 
necessary to ensure that the function or task is being performed in 
accordance with the requirements of this part. This provision is 
intended to put freight rolling stock owners, railroads, manufacturers, 
and contractors performing functions or tasks required by this part on 
notice that they are consenting to FRA's inspection for rail safety 
purposes of that portion of their facilities and records relevant to 
the function or task required by this part. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 
20107, FRA has the statutory authority to inspect any facilities and 
relevant records pertaining to the performance of functions or tasks 
required under this part, and this provision is merely intended to make 
that authority clear to all persons performing such tasks or functions.

Section 224.11 Civil Penalties

    This section identifies the civil penalties that FRA may impose 
upon any person that violates any requirement of this part. These 
penalties are authorized by 49 U.S.C. 21301, 21302, and 21304. The 
penalty provision parallels penalty provisions included in numerous 
other safety regulations issued by FRA. Essentially, any person who 
violates any requirement of this part or causes the violation of any 
such requirement will be subject to a civil penalty of at least $500 
and not more than $11,000 per violation. Civil penalties may be 
assessed against individuals only for willful violations, and where a 
grossly negligent violation or a pattern of repeated violations creates 
an imminent hazard of death or injury to persons, or causes death or 
injury, a penalty not to exceed $22,000 per violation may be assessed. 
In addition, each day a violation continues will constitute a separate 
offense. Maximum penalties of $11,000 and $22,000 are required by the 
Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-
410) (28 U.S.C. 2461 note), as amended by the Debt Collection 
Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-373) which 
requires each agency to regularly adjust certain civil monetary 
penalties in an effort to maintain their remedial impact and promote 
compliance with the law.

Section 224.13 Preemptive Effect

    This section informs the public as to FRA's intention regarding the 
preemptive effect of the final rule. While the presence or absence of 
such a section does not conclusively establish the preemptive effect of 
a final rule, it informs the public concerning the statutory provisions 
which govern the preemptive effect of the rule.
    This section points out that the preemptive effect of this rule is 
governed by 49 U.S.C. 20106 (``section 20106''). Section 20106 provides 
that all regulations prescribed by the Secretary relating to railroad 
safety preempt any State law, regulation, or order covering the same 
subject matter, except a provision necessary to eliminate or reduce an 
essentially local safety hazard that is not incompatible with a Federal 
law, regulation, or order, and that does not unreasonably burden 
interstate commerce. With the exception of a provision directed at an 
essentially local safety hazard that is not inconsistent with a Federal 
law, regulation, or order, and that does not unreasonably burden 
interstate commerce, section 20106 will preempt any State or local law 
or regulatory agency rule covering the same subject matter as the 
regulation proposed today when issued as a final rule.
    The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted section 20106 to 
confer on the Secretary the power to preempt not only State statutes, 
but State common law as well. See CSX Transp. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 
658, 664 (1993) (``(L)egal duties imposed on railroads by the common 
law fall within the scope of (the) broad phrases' of section 20106.). 
See also Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Shanklin, 529 U.S. 344 (2000). The 
Court has further held that Federal regulations under the Federal 
Railroad Safety Act will preempt common law where the regulations 
``substantially subsume'' the subject matter of the relevant State law. 
Easterwood, 507 U.S. at 664.
    As is evident in the language of proposed Sec.  224.1, FRA intends 
to cover the subject matter of standards for the use of retroreflective 
materials on freight rolling stock and the specific duties of freight 
rolling stock owners in this regard. FRA intends this part to preempt 
any State law, rule, or regulation, or common law theory of liability 
that might attempt to impose a duty on freight rolling stock owners 
pertaining to the reflectorization of freight rolling stock that is not 
specifically set forth in this part. For example, FRA intends to 
preempt any State law or common law theory of liability which might 
attempt to impose a duty on freight rolling stock owners to apply 
additional retroreflective material other than that specified in this 
part, to apply retroreflective material on a different schedule than 
that specified in this part, or to inspect, or maintain retroreflective 
material on a more frequent basis than that specified in this part. 
Inference of any duties not specifically set forth in this part may 
cause the costs of the proposed rule to outweigh the safety benefits of 
the rule in direct conflict with the Congressional mandate of 49 U.S.C. 
20148 (requiring that FRA initiate a rulemaking proceeding prescribing 
regulations requiring enhanced visibility standards for railroad cars 
if such regulations would likely improve safety in a cost-effective 
manner).

Section 224.15 Special Approval Procedures

    This section contains the procedures to be followed when seeking to 
obtain FRA approval of alternative standards under proposed Sec.  
224.103(e). FRA anticipates continued technological improvements and 
product advances in the field of reflective materials. Accordingly, 
this section is intended to provide a relatively quick approval process 
to allow the incorporation of new technology into the standards of

[[Page 62954]]

this part, thereby making the technology available to all car owners 
and railroads, while maintaining the same level of safety originally 
contemplated. FRA believes this proposed procedure will speed the 
process for taking advantage of new technologies over that which is 
currently available through the waiver process. However, in order to 
provide an opportunity for all interested parties to provide input for 
use by FRA in its decision making process, as required by the 
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553 et seq., (APA), FRA believes 
that any special approval provision must, at a minimum, provide proper 
notice to the public of any significant change or action being 
considered by the agency with regard to the existing regulations.
    Paragraph (b) sets forth the substantive and procedural 
requirements for petitions for special approval of alternative 
standards. For example, paragraph (b) states that each petition must 
contain (1) relevant identification and contact information of the 
primary person to be contacted with regard to the petition, (2) a 
detailed description of the alternative proposed, and (3) sufficient 
data and analysis establishing that the alternative will provide at 
least an equivalent level of safety and meet the requirements of Sec.  
224.103(e). Paragraphs (c) and (d) provide opportunity for notice and 
public comment on any petition for special approval of an alternative 
standard received by FRA, and paragraph (e) describes the process FRA 
will follow in acting on any such petitions.
Subpart B--Application, Inspection, and Maintenance of Retroreflective 
Material

Section 224.101 General Requirements

    This section contains the general requirement that all rail freight 
rolling stock subject to this part be equipped with retroreflective 
sheeting conforming to the requirements of this rule and that the 
sheeting be applied, inspected, and maintained in accordance with 
subpart B or in accordance with an alternative standard approved under 
Sec.  224.15. This general requirement reflects FRA's understanding 
that motorists need to be given as much visual information as possible 
to correctly decide whether a roadway hazard (e.g., a train) exists in 
a vehicle's path. Specifically, devices intended to make a train 
conspicuous should: (1) Tell the motorist that something is there, (2) 
tell the motorist that what he or she sees is a train, (3) tell the 
motorist if the train is on or about to cross a road in the vehicle's 
path, (4) aid the motorist in estimating the distance he or she is from 
the train, and (5) aid the motorist in estimating the speed and 
direction of the train's motion. FRA believes that the retroreflective 
sheeting contemplated in this subpart B, applied and inspected in 
conformance with this part, effectively achieves these objectives.

Section 224.103 Characteristics of Retroreflective Sheeting

    This section sets forth the proposed construction, color, and 
performance standards for the retroreflective sheeting required by 
Sec.  224.101. Paragraph (a) states that retroreflective sheeting must 
be constructed of a smooth, flat, transparent exterior film with 
microprismatic elements embedded or suspended beneath the film so as to 
form a non-exposed retroreflective optical system. Paragraph (a) also 
provides that air encapsulated sheeting must be sealed around all 
edges. FRA understands that air encapsulated sheeting that is not 
sealed on all edges will allow water to seep between the layers of the 
product. Over time, due to the normal railroad operating environment, 
this water will freeze and expand, causing layers of the sheeting to 
peel.
    Paragraphs (b) and (c) propose to require that the retroreflective 
sheeting meet the color and performance requirements, except for the 
photometric requirements, of the American Society of Testing and 
Measurements' (ASTM) standard D 4956-01, Standard Specification for 
Retroreflective Sheeting for Traffic Control. ASTM D 4956-01 has been 
chosen as the basis for the FRA specification because FRA understands 
it to be the specification that manufacturers of retroreflective 
sheeting are following in their current manufacturing process. NHTSA's 
rule requiring reflectorization of large truck trailers (49 CFR 
571.108) is also based on this ASTM standard. Information provided by 
several retroreflective sheeting manufacturers indicates that the 
products of most manufacturers currently meet the performance 
requirements of this proposed rule, and FRA has no reason to believe 
that other manufacturers could not meet the performance standards if 
there was a market for the product. In addition, because FRA is 
requiring that retroreflective sheeting meet the requirements of ASTM D 
4956-01 only as initially applied and does not propose to require 
specific minimum reflectivity for vehicles in service, FRA believes 
that highly durable sheeting meeting the performance tests of the ASTM 
standard is required. It is less costly to install durable material 
than it would be to install less durable material but be required to 
regularly test its performance relative to a performance standard.
    Specifically, paragraph (b) requires that the retroreflective 
sheeting be yellow as specified by the chromaticity coordinates of ASTM 
D 4956-01. As explained above, the human eye is more sensitive to some 
colors than others. This color sensitivity can vary in different 
lighting situations, making some colors more noticeable at different 
times of the day. Although the 1999 Volpe Report concluded that a 
pattern of red-and-white reflectors was preferred to facilitate 
motorists' recognition of a hazard as a train and convey a sense of 
danger, FRA proposes to require yellow retroreflective material as 
specified by the chromaticity coordinates of ASTM D 4956-01. FRA 
proposes to require yellow retroreflective material because the 
spectral measurement of the color (approximately 550 nm) is within the 
peak sensitivity range of the human visual system and accordingly, it 
is one of the most easily detectable colors under varying ambient light 
and other environmental conditions (e.g., darkness, fog, haze, etc.). 
In addition, the color yellow minimizes the risk of motorist confusion 
with the colors of other roadway hazards (e.g., red and white 
reflectors on trucks) and is not a color prevalent in most background 
environments.
    In comments submitted to the docket, 3M, a manufacturer of 
retroreflective materials, recommended the use of a high contrast 
colored corner cube retroreflective material with a spectral 
measurement within the peak sensitivty range of the human visual system 
(e.g., yellow/green) and fluorescent properties. 3M explained that the 
efficient corner cube retroreflective material would aid nighttime 
visibility and the fluorescent properties would provide additional 
daytime luminance. Although FRA's own research found that fluorescent 
yellow retroreflective material had the highest SIA value of all 
materials tested and could be detected from a further distance than any 
of the other materials, because the duration of fluorescent pigments is 
substantially less than the ten-year reflector product guarantee, FRA 
is not proposing to require the use of fluorescent-colored 
retroreflective material at this time. However, if a fluorescent 
retroreflective material meets all of the requirements of this part, 
its use is acceptable.
    Paragraph (c) requires that retroreflective sheeting applied in

[[Page 62955]]

accordance with the rule meet all the performance requirements, except 
for the minimum photometric performance requirements, of ASTM D 4956-
01. The minimum photometric performance requirements (i.e., minimum 
SIA) of the FRA standard are set forth in Table 1 of the proposed rule. 
The proposed values were developed to perform above the minimum 
detection threshold of 45 cd/fc/ft2 identified in the 1999 
Volpe Report as necessary to enable most motorists to detect a train in 
time to avoid a collision. Recognizing that in the real world railroad 
operating environment, the effective SIA of retroreflective materials 
depends on various factors (e.g., grade crossing configurations and 
angles, ambient light conditions, vehicle headlight type and lens 
cleanliness, weather, and the presence and working condition of 
illumination and other warning devices) and may be reduced because of 
accumulated dirt and grime, the proposed minimum photometric 
performance requirements take into account these varying factors. 
Specifically, extrapolating the test data detailed in the Volpe Report 
out ten years, the manufacturers' stated useful life of the material, 
FRA found that the forecasted SIA levels remained well above the 
minimum detection level established in the 1999 Volpe Report. In 
addition, although the primary degradation in the SIA of the material 
occurs during the first two years as a result of ultraviolet light 
exposure, after which the material maintains a relatively consistent 
intensity throughout its useful life, FRA forecasted SIA degradation of 
the material due to dirt and grime accumulation exponentially. As a 
result, FRA's analysis substantially overestimates the degradation rate 
of the material and even with this overestimation, the expected SIA 
values remain well above the minimum detection level identified in the 
1999 Volpe Report.
    Table 1 specifies the minimum photometric performance requirement 
(i.e., minimum required SIA) for yellow retroreflective material at 
observation angles of 0.2[deg] and 0.5[deg] and light entrance angles 
of -4[deg] and 30[deg] based on ASTM D 4956-01. FRA's Grade Crossing 
Inventory identifies crossings into three categories of crossing 
angles: 60-90[deg], 30-59[deg], and 0-29[deg]. Approximately 80% of all 
crossings have crossing angles between 60 and 90[deg], almost 17% have 
crossing angles between 30 and 59[deg], and only 4% have crossing 
angles less than 30[deg]. Accordingly, the requirements of Table 1 
ensures that the retroreflectors will perform above the minimum 
detection threshold for the average motor vehicle at approximately 97% 
of all crossings.
    Although the minimum photometric performance requirements set forth 
in the proposal are specific to yellow microprismatic retroreflective 
material, FRA recognizes that many car owners who currently 
reflectorize their cars have used white microprismatic retroreflective 
material. If FRA alternatively required the use of white 
retroreflective material, the minimum photometric performance 
requirements (based on a required detection distance of 500 feet) for 
the retroreflective material would be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Observation angle
                Entrance angle                 -------------------------
                                                  0.2[deg]    0.53[deg]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-4[deg].......................................          600          160
30[deg].......................................          350          75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Photometric Performance (Coefficient of Retroreflection (RA) in
  Candela/Lux/Meter2) Requirement for White Retroreflective Sheeting.

    FRA requests commenters' views as to the desirability of using 
white versus yellow retroreflective material and further solicits 
comments and alternative suggestions to the proposed construction, 
color, and performance requirements of this section.
    The responsibility for compliance with the construction, color, and 
performance requirements of the retroreflective sheeting used to comply 
with this rule would rest upon the manufacturers of the sheeting. Thus, 
manufacturers who are providing retroreflective sheeting to the 
railroad industry would have to certify compliance with Sec.  224.103. 
Paragraph (d) sets forth this certification requirement and would 
require that the characters ``FRA-224'' be permanently stamped, etched, 
molded, or printed, in characters at least 3 mm high, with each set of 
characters spaced no more than four inches apart, on each piece of 
retroreflective sheeting manufactured.
    Although, the proposed rule generally requires application of 
retroreflective sheeting meeting the specific construction, color, and 
performance requirements of Sec.  224.103(a) through (c), paragraph (e) 
of this section recognizes that under Sec.  224.15, freight rolling 
stock owners and railroads may request FRA approval to use alternative 
standards. As discussed in the analysis of Sec.  224.15 above, any 
alternative standard utilized must result in an equivalent level of 
safety as the sheeting described in 224.103(a) through (c) applied in 
accordance with the rule.

Section 224.105 Size and Location

    This section proposes to make the amount and placement of 
retroreflective sheeting required to be applied to freight rolling 
stock pursuant to this part dependent on the size of the car or 
locomotive, as well as the car type. A primary concern in developing 
the proposed standards of this part was developing a retroreflective 
pattern that is detectable in time for an approaching motorist to 
recognize a train in the grade crossing and respond appropriately in 
time to avoid an accident. Another concern was the potential for 
motorist confusion as more potential roadway hazards (particularly 
truck trailers) benefit from the addition of reflectorization. 
Accordingly, recognizing that a unique, uniform pattern of application 
is necessary to facilitate recognition of rail cars and that the 
placement of retroreflectors affects their performance, this section 
proposes a specific pattern of application, striving to achieve as 
uniform a pattern as possible throughout the relevant fleet, while 
taking into consideration the configurational differences between 
various types of freight rolling stock. Although a vertical pattern of 
retroreflective material along the entire side of freight cars is 
proposed, FRA recognizes that the physical configuration of locomotives 
and the conspicuity issues surrounding locomotives are different. 
Accordingly, in paragraph (b) of this section, FRA proposes a more 
flexible approach to the reflectorization of locomotives.
    As discussed earlier in the preamble, the general consensus of 
research pertaining to retroreflective materials is that 
retroreflective materials can increase the conspicuity of objects to 
which they are attached. FRA, however, found little existing research 
that suggested how retroreflective materials should be displayed on 
rail cars to maximize the conspicuity of the cars for approaching 
motorists. Early studies suggested that massed applications 
(concentrating retroreflective material in one or two locations) were 
more effective than those applications that were distributed over a 
wider area. More recent studies assessing the effectiveness of 
retroreflective markings on trucks used the newer prismatic materials 
and concluded that providing a design that outlined the shape of the 
vehicle increases conspicuity.
    The recommendation to use an outline shape was based in part on the 
need of a motorist to estimate closing distance when following behind a 
truck. However, motorists' interaction with trains is different from 
trucks. Because

[[Page 62956]]

trucks are shorter in length and pass through an intersection more 
quickly than the average train, the motorist may only need to slow his 
or her vehicle to avoid a collision instead of stopping prior to 
reaching the intersection. Conversely, because the average train is 
longer than the average truck, it spends a greater amount of time in 
the intersection. For a motorist approaching a grade crossing, the 
greater amount of time the train spends in the intersection means the 
more likely the motorist will need to stop at the intersection in order 
to avoid a collision.
    FRA's own research concluded that either a pattern that outlined 
the shape of the railroad equipment, or a vertically-oriented pattern 
that spaced retroreflective material uniformly over a large area of the 
equipments' side, was most effective. Based on the results of studies 
investigating truck reflectorization, the specific findings of FRA's 
targeted research, as well as input from the railroad industry and 
manufacturers of retroreflective material, FRA is proposing in this 
section what it believes to be the optimum placement patterns of 
retroreflective material on freight rolling stock. The proposed 
placement patterns in this section are designed to maximize the 
effectiveness of the material, allow retroreflectorization of a variety 
of freight car types with the same generally recognizable pattern, and 
also minimize the degradation rate of the material. In addition, other 
practical advantages to a standardized reflectorization pattern include 
the potential for volume discounts on the costs of materials and 
minimizing labor costs by standardizing the repair and installation of 
the material.
    This section proposes a vertical pattern of retroreflective 
sheeting on the sides of freight cars, where the physical configuration 
of the car allows, with strips of sheeting to be located as close to 
each end of the car as practicable and at equidistant intervals of not 
more than 10 feet. This pattern is intended to alert an approaching 
motorist to the approximate dimensions of the hazard (the freight car) 
in his or her path. In addition, because roadway lanes in the United 
States are typically 10 to 12 feet wide, applying strips of 
retroreflective sheeting at least every ten feet along the sides of 
freight cars, increases the likelihood of at least one reflector being 
in the sight path of an approaching motorist.
    A vertically oriented pattern, as opposed to an outline pattern, is 
proposed because it contrasts with the horizontally oriented pattern of 
the retroreflective pattern required for truck trailers, thereby 
reducing the likelihood that motorists will confuse a train in a grade 
crossing with a truck trailer. In addition, because not all approaches 
to grade crossings are level, to the extent that a motor vehicle's 
headlights are aimed away from the retroreflective material, less light 
will reach the retroreflective material if it is applied horizontally 
and therefore less light will be returned to the driver and a train in 
a crossing will be more difficult to detect. Orienting the 
retroreflective material vertically increases the likelihood that the 
maximum available light from vehicle headlights will enter the 
retroreflective material and be returned to the motorist when the road 
grade is not level.
    This section also proposes to require four square feet of 
retroreflective material on each side of the typical 50-foot freight 
car and provides that freight cars longer than 50 feet would require 
one additional foot of material for each additional ten feet in length. 
Although the optimum configuration of retroreflectors identified in the 
1999 Volpe Report, required slightly less retroreflective material, 
this configuration assumed that the material would be periodically 
washed. Volpe found that periodic washing of the retroreflectors could 
recover the intensity of the prismatic material to nearly original 
levels. However, because of practical concerns expressed by many 
members of the railroad industry (e.g., increased labor costs, 
environmental wastewater and water usage issues), FRA does not propose 
to require the periodic cleaning of the retroreflective sheeting. 
Instead, in order to compensate for the lack of cleaning, FRA is 
proposing to require approximately one additional square foot of 
material on each side of freight rolling stock, thereby lowering the 
level of luminance needed.
    Paragraph (a) of this section generally explains that the amount of 
retroreflective sheeting required to be applied to freight cars under 
this part is dependent on the length of the car, measured from endsill 
to endsill, exclusive of the draft gear. Paragraph (a)(1) proposes to 
require that on freight cars other than tank cars and flat cars, 
retroreflective sheeting be applied vertically in 4x36 inch and 4x18 
inch strips along the car sides, with the bottom edge of each strip no 
lower than 42 inches above the top of the rail. Further, this paragraph 
proposes to require that either a minimum of one 4x36 inch (one square 
foot) strip of retroreflective material or two 4x18 inch strips, 
directly above each other, be applied vertically as close to each end 
of the car as practicable and that a minimum of one 4x18 inch strip be 
applied vertically at intervals of no more than every 10 feet between 
each end (i.e., for a typical 60 foot freight car, at 10 feet, 20 feet, 
30 feet, 40 feet, and 50 feet). See Figure 1.
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P

[[Page 62957]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06NO03.001

BILLING CODE 4910-06-C
    Although paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) follow this same basic pattern, 
FRA has attempted to account for the configurational differences 
between various types of freight cars. Paragraph (a)(2) addresses tank 
cars specifically, while paragraph (a)(3) addresses flat cars. 
Paragraph (a)(2) proposes to require that on tank cars, retroreflective 
sheeting be applied vertically along the car sides and centered on the 
horizontal centerline of the tank, or as near as practicable. See 
Figure 2. If it is not practicable to safely apply the sheeting 
centered on the horizontal centerline of the tank, the sheeting may be 
applied vertically with its top edge no lower than 70'' above the top 
of the rail. See Figure 2(a). Similar to the pattern proposed in 
paragraph (a)(1), paragraph (a)(2) requires a minimum of one 4x36 inch 
(one square foot) strip of retroreflective material or two 4x18 inch 
strips, directly above each other, be applied vertically as close to 
each end of the tank as practicable and that a minimum of one 4x18 inch 
strip be applied vertically at intervals of no more than every 10 feet 
between each end of the tank. The intent of this configuration is that 
the retroreflective sheeting will be centered, as practicable, on the 
outermost curved area of the tank, thereby reflecting the most light. 
FRA recognizes that the material applied underneath the centerline of 
the tank may reflect a certain amount of light downward and not 
directly back to the motorist and that illumination from a vehicle's 
headlights may not even reach some of the material applied above the 
centerline.
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P

[[Page 62958]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06NO03.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06NO03.003

BILLING CODE 4910-06-C

[[Page 62959]]

    Recognizing the limited surface area of the sides of a typical flat 
car, paragraph (a)(3) proposes to require a minimum of two 4x18 inch 
strips, one next to the other, be applied vertically as close to each 
end of the car as practicable, with the bottom edge of each strip no 
lower than 30 inches above the top of the rail, as practicable. 
Consistent with the application pattern for other freight cars, 
paragraph (a)(3) requires that a minimum of one 4x18 inch strip be 
applied to the sides of flat cars vertically at intervals of no more 
than every ten feet (i.e., at 10 feet, 20 feet, 30 feet, 40 feet, 
etc.), with the bottom edges of each strip no lower than 42 inches 
above the top of the rail, as practicable. See Figure 3. Because the 
surface area of a typical flat car is between 4 and 18 inches in 
height, if vertical application of 4x18 inch strips is not feasible, 
paragraph (a)(3) allows retroreflective sheeting on flat cars to be 
applied vertically in three 4x6 inch strips placed directly next to 
each other, or placed horizontally along the side sills of the cars.
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06NO03.004

BILLING CODE 4910-06-C
    Paragraph (a)(4) recognizes that not all freight cars will fit the 
standard configuration contemplated in paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(a)(3). FRA estimates that the patterns proposed for typical freight 
cars, tank cars, and flat cars would be impractical to apply to 
approximately 1% of the fleet (e.g., schnabel cars, etc.) due to their 
unique physical configurations. Accordingly, this paragraph proposes a 
more flexible application pattern for these ``cars of special 
construction.'' Specifically, based on the length of a ``car of special 
construction,'' this paragraph specifies the required amount of 
retroreflective material and requires that the pattern of application 
for these cars conform as close as practicable to the standard patterns 
proposed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3).
    Paragraph (b) contains the proposed requirements for the 
reflectorization of locomotives. The conspicuity issues surrounding 
locomotives differ from the issues surrounding freight cars in many 
respects. First, the physical configuration of locomotives is obviously 
quite different from the configuration of most freight cars. In some 
cases, locomotives are painted brighter colors than freight cars; and 
locomotives owned by major railroads and used in road service are 
cleaned on a more frequent basis. Often, company logos are displayed on 
the sides of locomotives in fluorescent or reflective materials and 
locomotives have a light source attached at the front and sides. 
However, in other cases, locomotives are painted in dark colors or are 
not repainted for several years, resulting in a very dark appearance.
    FRA believes that some pattern of retroreflective material 
recognizable to motorists is necessary to facilitate motorists' 
recognition of locomotives in grade crossings. Most major railroads 
have already instituted programs to accomplish this. Application of 
retroreflective material to locomotives will enhance conspicuity under 
the following scenarios:
    [sbull] Several locomotives are coupled in a multiple-unit consist 
pulling a train and the motorists' first view of the crossing occurs 
when the first locomotive is already on the crossing.
    [sbull] The train is stopped with one or more locomotives on the 
crossing.
    [sbull] A locomotive is embedded in the consist providing 
``distributed power'' or is in ``helper service'' pushing from the 
rear.
    [sbull] During switching operations, the locomotive is pushing the 
train.
    Inclusion of locomotives in this program is further warranted by 
their high utilization. While many freight cars sit idle for days or 
weeks at a time, locomotives are generally used on a daily basis. 
Investments in improved conspicuity of locomotives should be amortized 
through safety benefits even more quickly than would be the case with 
freight cars.
    Although requiring the same amount of retroreflective material on 
locomotives as comparably sized freight cars, paragraph (b) does not 
propose to mandate a specific pattern. Instead, this paragraph proposes 
to allow any pattern that divides the amount of retroreflective 
sheeting equally between both sides of a locomotive and is applied in a 
``pattern recognizable to motorists,'' even a horizontal pattern along 
the sill or side walkway of a locomotive.
    Although FRA believes that the patterns of application proposed in 
this

[[Page 62960]]

Sec.  224.105 represent the optimum configuration of retroreflective 
material on freight rolling stock, FRA solicits comments as to the 
feasibility and efficiency of these patterns and any recommendations 
for alternative patterns of application.

Section 224.107 Application of Retroreflective Sheeting

    This section proposes to require that all freight cars subject to 
this part be equipped with retroreflective sheeting conforming to this 
part within ten years of the effective date of the final rule, and 
similarly, that all locomotives subject to this part be equipped within 
five years. Recognizing the voluntary efforts by many freight rolling 
stock owners who have already begun reflectorizing their fleets and the 
practical differences involved in applying reflective materials to 
freight rolling stock already in use versus newly manufactured stock, 
FRA has attempted to devise a schedule for the application of 
retroreflective material which assures the most efficient and cost-
effective implementation of the rule. Generally, FRA proposes that 
retroreflective sheeting be applied to new freight rolling stock at the 
time of construction and to existing stock when such stock is being 
repainted, rebuilt, or undergoing other periodic maintenance. As an 
alternative to this schedule, FRA is also proposing the more flexible 
approach of allowing freight car owners to designate, in individualized 
reflectorization implementation plans, a schedule for the 
reflectorization of their freight car fleets.
Railroad Freight Cars
    Newly constructed cars: Paragraph (a)(1) requires that 
retroreflective sheeting conforming to the rule be applied to cars 
manufactured after the effective date of the final rule at the time of 
construction.
    Existing cars without retroreflective sheeting: As applied to cars 
that, as of the date of publication of the final rule, are not equipped 
with at least one square foot of retroreflective sheeting on each side, 
paragraph (a)(2) generally requires the application of retroreflective 
sheeting to the cars as they are repainted, rebuilt, or taken out of 
service for other scheduled maintenance and/or inspections. 
Specifically, paragraph (a)(2)(i) requires that conforming 
retroreflective sheeting be applied to existing freight cars when, 
after the effective date of the final rule, either (1) the car is 
repainted or rebuilt, or (2) the car first undergoes a single car air 
brake test required under 49 CFR 232.305, whichever occurs first. 
Paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B) also provides that the application of 
retroreflective sheeting to a freight car may be deferred until the 
second single car air brake test, if it is more practicable to apply 
the sheeting at that time. By allowing the flexibilty to defer 
application of the sheeting until the second single car air brake test, 
FRA recognizes that conditions at the time of the first single car air 
brake test may make it impractical to apply retroreflective sheeting at 
that time.
    FRA understands that most rail cars are repainted, on average, 
every seven years and undergo a major overhaul or rebuild every ten 
years, depending upon mileage and condition. Similarly, the single car 
air brake test is required every eight years for new cars and every 
five years for other cars. See 49 CFR 232.305(c), (d). Accordingly, FRA 
believes that the schedule set forth in paragraph (a)(2)(i), providing 
for application of the retroreflective sheeting when cars are out of 
service for regularly scheduled maintenance, will allow the entire U.S. 
fleet of freight cars to be reflectorized well within the ten year 
implementation period and will not require cars to incur any additional 
downtime outside of the normal maintenance cycle for the purpose of 
reflectorization.
    Although FRA believes the schedule set forth in Sec.  
224.107(a)(2)(i) is the most cost-effective and efficient method of 
reflectorizing freight cars, paragraph (a)(2)(ii) recognizes that some 
freight car owners may prefer to develop their own schedule for 
reflectorization. Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) provides that a freight car 
owner may elect not to follow paragraph (a)(2)(i)'s schedule, if within 
60 days of the effective date of the final rule, the owner submits to 
FRA a Fleet Reflectorization Implementation Plan. This plan must set 
forth the car numbers constituting the fleet subject to this part and 
indicate when the identified cars will be reflectorized. The plan must 
also contain an affirmation that at least 20% of the total fleet will 
be equipped with retroreflective sheeting conforming to this part 
within 24 months after the effective date of the final rule and that 
not less than an additional ten percent of the total fleet will be 
completed each 12-month period thereafter for the duration of the 10-
year implementation period. Absent identification of a car in a Fleet 
Reflectorization Implementation Plan, retroreflective sheeting 
conforming to this part will be applied to that car at the time of its 
first single car air brake test after the effective date of the final 
rule. See Appendix B for the standard form Fleet Reflectorization 
Implementation Plan anticipated by this section.
    If a freight car owner elects the procedures of paragraph 
(a)(2)(ii) and submits a Fleet Reflectorization Implementation Plan to 
FRA, the owner is thereafter responsible for compliance with the plan. 
In keeping with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act and the 
Government Paperwork Elimination Act, FRA anticipates providing car 
owners with the option of submitting this plan (and any required 
updates) to FRA electronically. If upon completion of the initial 24-
month period an owner fails to reflectorize at least 20% of the freight 
car fleet, or if after any subsequent 12-month period an owner fails to 
reflectorize at least an additional 10% of the total fleet, the owner 
must notify FRA's Associate Administrator of such a failure. 
Thereafter, the owner will be required to comply with the schedule set 
forth in paragraph (a)(2)(i), the percentage requirements of paragraph 
(a)(2)(ii) will continue to apply, and the fleet owner must take any 
additional action necessary to bring cars under his ownership or 
control into compliance.
    Existing cars already equipped with retroreflective sheeting as of 
publication date of final rule: Recognizing the voluntary efforts 
already underway by many railroads and car owners to reflectorize their 
freight car fleets, paragraph (a)(3) of this section addresses existing 
freight cars that, as of the publication date of the final rule, are 
already equipped with retroreflective material. FRA understands that 
approximately 25% of the domestically-owned freight car fleet is 
already equipped with some type of reflective material. However, many 
of the color schemes, the levels of reflectivity of the material, and 
the per car amount of material in use, differ from the standards 
proposed in this rule. If car owners are required to replace the 
retroreflective materials that they voluntarily installed to improve 
safety, it would have the effect of penalizing owners that demonstrated 
an extra level of safety consciousness. This would have the unintended 
effect of discouraging car owners from exploring innovative approaches 
to improving safety. With this in mind, FRA is proposing that freight 
cars equipped with at least one square foot of retroreflective 
material, uniformly distributed over the length of each car side, will 
be considered in compliance with this part for ten years from the 
effective date of the final rule, provided that the sheeting is not 
engineering grade, super engineering grade (enclosed lens), or glass 
bead

[[Page 62961]]

encapsulated type sheeting. FRA intends to exclude all engineering 
grade and glass bead encapsulated type retroreflective sheeting because 
such sheeting does not meet the minimum photometric performance 
requirements of Sec.  224.103. Accordingly, freight cars already 
equipped with engineering grade, super engineering grade, or glass bead 
encapsulated type retroreflective sheeting, or any other reflective 
material that is not retroreflective, must be brought into compliance 
with this part in accordance with Sec.  224.107(a)(2). FRA proposes a 
minimum requirement of one square foot of retroreflective sheeting per 
car side under this section because based on the information provided 
to FRA to date, it appears that one square foot per side is the minimum 
amount currently utilized in existing voluntary reflectorization 
programs.
    In order for previously equipped cars to be considered in 
compliance pursuant to this section, a car owner must, within 60 days 
of the effective date of the final rule, file a Fleet Reflectorization 
Implementation Plan with FRA identifying by car numbers the freight 
cars in the fleet already equipped with complying retroreflective 
sheeting and providing a description of the technical specifications of 
the retroreflective material already applied (e.g., color of material, 
type of material, amount and placement pattern of material on each side 
of car). See Appendix B.
Locomotives
    Newly constructed locomotives: Paragraph (b)(1) requires that 
retroreflective sheeting conforming to the rule be applied to 
locomotives manufactured after the effective date of the final rule at 
the time of construction.
    Existing locomotives without retroreflective sheeting: As applied 
to locomotives that, as of the date of publication of the final rule, 
are not equipped with at least one square foot of retroreflective 
sheeting on each side, paragraph (b)(2) generally requires the 
application of retroreflective sheeting to the locomotives not later 
than the first biennial inspection performed pursuant to 49 CFR 229.29 
occurring after the effective date of the final rule. Again, FRA's 
proposal to install the retroreflective sheeting on a locomotive while 
the locomotive is already out of service for the required biennial 
inspection ensures that reflectorization of the entire locomotive fleet 
can be completed well within the 5 years contemplated by this proposal 
without incurring any additional out of service time for the 
locomotives.
    Existing locomotives already equipped with retroreflective sheeting 
as of publication date of final rule: Again, recognizing the voluntary 
reflectorization efforts already underway by many freight rolling stock 
owners, paragraph (b)(3) addresses existing locomotives that, as of the 
publication date of the final rule, are already equipped with 
retroreflective material. Specifically, paragraph (b)(3) provides that 
locomotives equipped with at least one square foot of retroreflective 
sheeting, uniformly distributed over the length of each side, will be 
considered in compliance with this part for a period of 5 years from 
the effective date of the final rule, provided that the sheeting is not 
engineering grade, super engineering grade (enclosed lens), or glass 
bead encapsulated type sheeting. Again, FRA proposes to exclude all 
engineering grade and glass bead encapsulated type retroreflective 
sheeting because such materials do not meet the minimum photometric 
requirements of the rule. Locomotives already equipped with engineering 
grade, super engineering grade, or glass bead encapsulated type 
retroreflective sheeting, or any other reflective material that is not 
retroreflective, must be brought into compliance with this part in 
accordance with Sec.  224.107(b)(2). Similar to Sec.  224.107(a)(3) 
addressing freight cars, in order for previously equipped locomotives 
to be considered in compliance pursuant to this part, the locomotive 
owner must, within 60 days of the effective date of the final rule, 
file with FRA a Fleet Reflectorization Implementation Plan identifying 
by locomotive reporting marks the locomotives in the fleet already 
equipped with complying retroreflective sheeting and providing a 
description of the technical specifications of the retroreflective 
material already applied (e.g., color of material, type of material, 
amount and placement pattern of material on each side of locomotives). 
See Appendix B.
    For ease in understanding the requirements of this section, the 
following table summarizes the schedules of application proposed in 
this section.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Freight Cars: At time of
                 New                              construction              Locomotives: At time of construction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing stock without                Earliest of: (a) when car is          No later than first biennial
 retroreflective sheeting.             repainted, or rebuilt, or (b) when    inspection performed per 49 CFR
                                       car first undergoes single car air    229.29.
                                       brake test under 49 CFR 232.305,
                                      OR
                                      In accordance with Individual
                                       Reflectorization Plan filed with
                                       FRA per Sec.   224.107(a)(2)(ii).
Existing stock with retroreflective   10 years from date of final rule's    5 years from date of final rule's
 sheeting (not ASTM D 4956-01 Types    publication.                          publication.
 I, II, or III).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 224.109 Inspection and Replacement

    This section sets forth the proposed requirements for the periodic 
inspection and replacement of damaged retroreflective material on 
freight rolling stock. Although FRA is not proposing any specific 
maintenance requirements, paragraph (a) requires that retroreflective 
sheeting on freight cars subject to this part be visually inspected for 
presence and condition whenever a car undergoes a single car air brake 
test required under 49 CFR 232.305. Likewise, paragraph (b) requires 
that retroreflective sheeting on locomotives subject to this part be 
visually inspected for presence and condition whenever the locomotive 
receives the annual inspection required under 49 CFR 229.27. Upon 
inspection, if more than 20 percent of the amount of sheeting required 
on either side of the car or locomotive under Sec.  224.105 is damaged, 
obscured, or missing, that damaged, obscured, or missing sheeting must 
be replaced. In other words, if a 4x36 inch end strip (or two 4x18 inch 
strips) of retroreflective sheeting is missing from one side of a 
typical 50 or 60 foot freight car, that sheeting must be replaced.

Section 224.111 Renewal

    This section proposes to require that all retroreflective sheeting 
required under this part be replaced with new conforming sheeting, 
regardless of its condition, no later than ten years after the date of 
initial installation. This section is based on the manufacturers' 
stated useful life of retroreflective

[[Page 62962]]

material. FRA, however, will monitor the retroreflective qualities of 
various fleet segments over time and may extend the ten year interval 
if warranted.

Appendix A--Schedule of Civil Penalties

    This appendix is being reserved until the final rule. At that time 
it will include a schedule of civil penalties to be used in connection 
with this part. Because such penalty schedules are statements of 
policy, notice and comment are not required prior to their issuance. 
See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Nevertheless, commenters are invited to 
submit suggestions to FRA describing the types of actions or omissions 
under each regulatory section that would subject a person to the 
assessment of a civil penalty. Commenters are also invited to recommend 
what penalties may be appropriate, based upon the relative seriousness 
of each type of violation.

G. Public Participation

    When conducting a rulemaking, FRA must follow the APA. The APA 
generally requires that FRA allow all interested parties to review and 
comment on any proposed rule. Thus, by this notice, FRA is providing 
the public an opportunity to study the proposed rule and comment on it. 
Based on comments provided in response to this notice, FRA will, after 
the close of the comment period, determine what action to take.
    The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this 
rulemaking. Comments and documents as indicated in this preamble will 
become a part of this docket and will be available for inspection or 
copying at Room PL-401 on the Plaza Level of the Nassif Building at the 
same address during regular business hours. You may also obtain access 
to this docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.
Regulatory Impact and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This proposed rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing 
policies and procedures, and determined to be non-significant under 
both Executive Order 12866 and DOT policies and procedures (44 FR 
11034; Feb. 26, 1979). FRA has prepared and placed in the docket a 
regulatory evaluation addressing the economic impact of this rule. 
Document inspection and copying facilities are available at 1120 
Vermont Avenue, NW., 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20590. Photocopies may 
also be obtained by submitting a written request to the FRA Docket 
Clerk at the Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, 
1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590. Access to the docket 
may also be obtained electronically through the Web site for the DOT 
Docket Management System at http://dms.dot.gov. FRA invites comments on 
this regulatory evaluation.
    The life expectancy of the proposed reflective material is 10 
years, therefore, the potential costs and benefits are calculated for a 
ten-year period. Because most of the costs of the rule for a single car 
occur in the year material is applied while benefits are spread over 
subsequent years, and because the benefits are discounted to present 
value, use of this limitation on the study period is a very 
conservative approach. If a twenty-year period were used, the benefits 
would substantially increase relative to the costs. The total cost of 
reflectorizing locomotives, $194,512.08 (NPV), added to the cost of 
reflectorizing rail cars, $48,671,710.63 (NPV) equals the total costs 
of $48,866,222.71 (NPV).
    Benefits of increased rail car visibility are measured in terms of 
grade crossing accidents averted. Safety benefits were calculated in 
terms of the decline in the probability of accidents. The magnitude of 
the reduction in the probability of accidents as a result of rail car 
reflectorization depends on the effectiveness of reflectors and the 
number of accidents expected absent reflectorization. The FRA employed 
three completely separate approaches to the estimation of benefits 
utilizing data from FRA's highway-rail grade crossing accident/incident 
reports (Form F 6180.57) from 1998-2001. In each method of benefits 
estimation, in order to ensure a realistic estimate, FRA took into 
account various factors that could influence the effectiveness of the 
retroreflective material (e.g., active versus passive grade crossings, 
clear versus cloudy weather conditions, dark versus illuminated 
crossings). FRA accounted for these factors by developing 
``effectiveness rates'' which varied depending on the circumstances of 
reported Category 1 RIT accidents. For example, the highest 
effectiveness rate employed was 60% for accidents where motor vehicles 
ran into the sides of trains at night at unlighted, passive crossings, 
while the lowest effectiveness rate employed was 15% for accidents 
where motor vehicles ran into the sides of trains at night at lighted 
crossings equipped with active warning devices (i.e., flashing lights 
or gates).
    Each approach appears to be reasonable, and the FRA suggests that 
together they provide a good idea of the order of magnitude of benefits 
likely to result from a rule requiring the reflectorization of rail 
freight equipment. The first approach employed the Delphi methodology 
based on the opinions of FRA's grade crossing experts. The discounted 
total ten-year benefit equals $87,517,527.50. Using the signal 
detection model, which is based on signal detection theory, the 
accident reduction potential of placing reflectors on rail cars is 
estimated, once discounted, to equal a total ten-year benefit of 
$69,304,986.61. Using results from a NHTSA report evaluating truck 
reflector effectiveness, the average benefit estimates are 
approximately $101 million. The following chart summarizes the three 
different benefit estimation techniques, unique subsets of the accident 
pool utilized, resulting values of collisions, and the resulting net 
present value of estimated benefits.

                                 Reflectorization Benefit Estimation Techniques
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative Approaches...............  Grade Crossing Experts.  Signal Detection Model.  NHTSA Technical
                                                                                          Report.\2\
Methodology..........................  Delphi Method..........  Risk and Uncertainty     Truck Reflector
                                                                 Analysis.                Effectiveness Rates.
Subset of RIT accident pool (1998-     67.89 accidents (271.55  53.76 accidents (768     93.68, 76, 47.72
 2001 data: 768 accidents, 84           accidents/4 years x      accidents/4 years x      accidents (707
 fatalities, 347 injuries).             various scenario         effectiveness rate of    accidents/4 years.
                                        effectiveness rates).    28%).                    (176.75) x various
                                                                                          effectiveness rates of
                                                                                          53%, 43%, and 27%).
Value of accident....................  $412,829...............  $412,829...............  $442,738.

[[Page 62963]]

 
    Total Benefits (NPV).............  $87,517,527.50.........  $69,304,986.61.........  $101,411,947.44 (AVG).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``The Effectiveness of Retroreflective Tape on Heavy Trailers,'' National Highway Traffic Safety
  Administration (NHTSA) Technical Report, DOT HS 809 22, March 2001.

    Estimated ten-year discounted benefits range from a low of $69 
million based on the Signal Detection Model, to a high of more than 
$101 million (NHTSA's truck reflectorization follow-up study), with FRA 
subjective analysis coming in between at $87 million. While there is 
certainly a broad range in these estimates, the fact that they are as 
close as they are, given the vastly different approaches taken, gives 
FRA confidence that together they represent a reasonable indicator of 
the magnitude of benefits achievable for the reflectorization of 
railroad freight equipment. FRA believes that reflectorization of rail 
freight rolling stock is a feasible method of enhancing rail car 
visibility, that will likely improve safety in a cost effective manner. 
FRA expects that the measures called for in this proposal would prevent 
or mitigate the severity of casualties greater in value than the costs 
of complying with the proposed requirements.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and Executive Order 13272

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires 
an assessment of the impacts of proposed rules on small entities. FRA 
has conducted a regulatory flexibility assessment of this rule's impact 
on small entities, and the assessment has been placed in the public 
docket for this rulemaking. This proposed rule affects railroad freight 
car and locomotive owners and may affect other entities as well.
    Entities impacted by the proposed rule are companies and railroads 
that own freight cars and locomotives. Many companies that own freight 
cars are subsidiaries of larger companies that are not considered small 
businesses. FRA does not expect that smaller railroads will be affected 
disproportionately. The level of costs incurred by each organization 
should vary in proportion to car ownership.
    Passenger railroads are excepted from the proposed rule. Visibility 
conditions for passenger rail cars are different than freight rail 
cars. FRA solicits comments to identify the impacts of these provisions 
to the extent that those affected by such provisions are small 
entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
The sections that contain the new information collection requirements 
and the estimated time to fulfill each requirement are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        CFR section--49 CFR               Respondent universe           Total annual responses         Average time per response      Total annual burden hours       Total annual burden cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
224.7--Waivers....................  289 Car Owners................  20 petitions..................  1 hour........................  20 hours.....................  $700
224.15--Special Approval
 Procedures:
    --Petitions For Special         289 Car Owners................  10 petitions..................  40 hours......................  400 hours....................  $19,040
     Approval.
    --Public Comments.............  Public/Railroads..............  None..........................  NA............................  NA...........................  NA
    --Written Request For Hearing.  Interested Parties............  None..........................  N/A...........................  N/A..........................  N/A
224.103--Characteristics of
 Retroreflective Sheeting:
    --Certification...............  4 Manufacturer................  NA............................  NA............................  NA...........................  NA
    --Alternative Standards.......  289 Car Owners................  Cov. Under 224.15.............  Cov. Under 224.15.............  Cov. Under 224.15............  Cov. Under 224.15
224.107--Application of             289 Car Owners................  140 plans/forms...............  28 hours......................  3,920 hours..................  $137,200
 Retroreflective Sheeting:
    --Reports of Failure Meet       289 Car Owners................  15 reports....................  16 Hours......................  240 hours....................  $8,400
     Percentage requirements.
    --Existing Cars with            289 Car Owners................  Cov. Above....................  Cov. Above....................  Cov. Above...................  Cov. Above.
     Retroreflective Sheeting--
     Forms.
224.109--Inspection and             289 Car Owners................  2 records.....................  3 minutes.....................  .10 hour.....................  $5
 Replacements: Locomotives--
 Records of Restriction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions; 
searching existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed 
data; and reviewing the information. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits comments concerning: whether these 
information collection requirements are necessary for the proper 
performance of the functions of FRA, including whether the information 
has practical utility; the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of 
the information collection requirements; the quality, utility, and 
clarity of the information to be collected; and whether the burden of 
collection of information on those who are to respond, including 
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology, may be minimized. For information or a copy of 
the paperwork package submitted to OMB, contact Mr. Robert Brogan, 
Information Clearance Officer, at 202-493-6292.
    Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the 
collection of information requirements should direct them to Mr. Robert 
Brogan, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW, Mail 
Stop 17, Washington, DC 20590. Comments may also be submitted via e-
mail to Mr. Brogan at

[[Page 62964]]

the following address: [email protected].
    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of 
information requirements contained in this proposed rule between 30 and 
60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. 
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect 
if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. The final rule will 
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection 
requirements contained in this proposal.
    FRA is not authorized to impose a penalty on persons for violating 
information collection requirements which do not display a current OMB 
control number, if required. FRA intends to obtain current OMB control 
numbers for any new information collection requirements resulting from 
this rulemaking action prior to the effective date of a final rule. The 
OMB control number, when assigned, will be announced by separate notice 
in the Federal Register.

D. Federalism Implications

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism,'' issued on August 4, 
1999, requires that each agency ``in a separately identified portion of 
the preamble to the regulation as it is to be issued in the Federal 
Register, provide to the Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget a federalism summary impact statement, which consists of a 
description of the extent of the agency's prior consultation with State 
and local officials, a summary of the nature of their concerns and the 
agency's position supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a 
statement of the extent to which the concerns of State and local 
officials have been met.'' FRA will adhere to Executive Order 13132 
when issuing a final rule in this proceeding.

E. Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this rule in accordance with its ``Procedures for 
Considering Environmental Impacts'' (FRA's Procedures) (64 FR 28545, 
May 26, 1999) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (42 
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental statutes, Executive Orders, 
and related regulatory requirements. FRA has determined that this 
regulation is not a major FRA action (requiring the preparation of an 
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment) because it 
is categorically excluded from detailed environmental review pursuant 
to section 4(c)(20) of FRA's Procedures. 64 FR 28547, May 26, 1999. 
Section 4(c)(20) reads as follows:

    (c) Actions categorically excluded. Certain classes of FRA 
actions have been determined to be categorically excluded from the 
requirements of these Procedures as they do not individually or 
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. * * 
* The following classes of FRA actions are categorically excluded:
* * * * *
    (20) Promulgation of railroad safety rules and policy statements 
that do not result in significantly increased emissions of air or 
water pollutants or noise or increased traffic congestion in any 
mode of transportation.

    In accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of FRA's Procedures, the 
agency has further concluded that no extraordinary circumstances exist 
with respect to this regulation that might trigger the need for a more 
detailed environmental review. As a result, FRA finds that this 
regulation is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the 
quality of the human environment.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Pursuant to Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency ``shall, unless 
otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory 
actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector 
(other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate 
requirements specifically set forth in law).'' Section 202 of the Act 
(2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that ``before promulgating any general 
notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the 
promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may 
result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more 
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and before 
promulgating any final rule for which a general notice of proposed 
rulemaking was published, the agency shall prepare a written 
statement'' detailing the effect on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. This proposed rule will not result 
in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more in any 
one year, and thus preparation of such a statement is not required.

G. Energy Impact

    Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a 
Statement of Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' 66 
FR 28355, May 22, 2001. Under the Executive Order, a ``significant 
energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency (normally 
published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to 
lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including 
notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices 
of proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) that is 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the 
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 
significant energy action. FRA has evaluated this NPRM in accordance 
with Executive Order 13211. FRA has determined that this NPRM is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. Consequently, FRA has determined that 
this regulatory action is not a ``significant energy action'' within 
the meaning of Executive Order 13211.

H. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects

    Incorporation by reference, Penalties, Railroad locomotive safety, 
Railroad safety, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The Proposed Rule

    In consideration of the foregoing, FRA proposes to amend chapter 
II, Subtitle B, of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations to add part 
224 as follows:

PART 224--REFLECTORIZATION OF RAIL FREIGHT ROLLING STOCK

Subpart A--General
Sec.
224.1 Purpose and scope.
222.3 Applicability.
224.5 Definitions.
224.7 Waivers.
224.9 Responsibility for compliance.
224.11 Civil penalties.
224.13 Preemptive effect.
224.15 Special approval procedures.
Subpart B--Application, Inspection, and Maintenance of Retroreflective 
Material
224.101 General requirements.
224.103 Characteristics of retroreflective sheeting.
224.105 Size and location.
224.107 Application of retroreflective sheeting.

[[Page 62965]]

224.109 Inspection and replacement.
224.111 Renewal.
Appendix A to Part 224--Schedule of Civil Penalties [Reserved]
Appendix B to Part 224--Form Fleet Reflectorization Implementation 
Plan

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107 and 20148; 28 U.S.C. 2461; and 
49 CFR 1.49.

Subpart A--General


Sec.  224.1  Purpose and scope.

    (a) The purpose of this part is to reduce highway-rail grade 
crossing accidents and deaths, injuries, and property damage resulting 
from those accidents, by enhancing the conspicuity of rail freight 
rolling stock so as to increase its detectability by motor vehicle 
operators at night and under conditions of poor visibility.
    (b) In order to achieve cost-effective mitigation of collision risk 
at highway-rail grade crossings, this part establishes the duties of 
freight rolling stock owners (including those who manage maintenance of 
freight rolling stock, supply freight rolling stock for transportation, 
or offer freight rolling stock in transportation) and railroads to 
progressively apply retroreflective material to freight rolling stock, 
and to periodically inspect and maintain that material. Freight rolling 
stock owners, however, are under no duty to install, maintain, or 
repair reflective material except as specified in this part.
    (c) This part establishes a schedule for the application of 
retroreflective material to rail freight rolling stock and prescribes 
standards for the application, inspection, and maintenance of 
retroreflective material to rail freight rolling stock for the purpose 
of enhancing its detectability at highway-rail grade crossings. This 
part does not restrict a freight rolling stock owner or railroad from 
applying retroreflective material to freight rolling stock for other 
purposes if not inconsistent with the recognizable pattern required by 
this part.


Sec.  224.3  Applicability.

    This part applies to all railroad freight cars and locomotives that 
operate over a public or private highway-rail grade crossing and are 
used for revenue or work train service, except:
    (a) Freight rolling stock that operates only on track inside an 
installation that is not part of the general railroad system of 
transportation;
    (b) Rapid transit operations in an urban area that are not 
connected to the general railroad system of transportation; or
    (c) Locomotives and passenger cars used exclusively in passenger 
service.


Sec.  224.5  Definitions.

    As used in this part--
    Administrator means the Administrator of the Federal Railroad 
Administration or the Administrator's delegate.
    Associate Administrator means the Associate Administrator for 
Safety, Federal Railroad Administration, or the Associate 
Administrator's delegate.
    Flat car means a car having a flat floor or deck on the underframe 
with no sides, ends or roof.
    Freight rolling stock means:
    (1) Any locomotive subject to part 229 of this chapter used to haul 
or switch freight cars (whether in revenue or work train service), and
    (2) Any railroad freight car subject to part 215 of this chapter 
(including a car stenciled MW pursuant to Sec.  215.305).
    Freight rolling stock owner means any person who owns freight 
rolling stock, leases freight rolling stock, manages the maintenance or 
use of freight rolling stock on behalf of an owner or one or more 
lessors or lessees, or otherwise controls the maintenance or use of 
freight rolling stock.
    Locomotive has the meaning assigned by Sec.  229.5 of this chapter, 
but for purposes of this part applies only to a locomotive used in the 
transportation of freight or the operation of a work train.
    Obscured means concealed or hidden (i.e., covered up, as where a 
layer of paint or dense chemical residue blocks incoming light); this 
term does not refer to ordinary accumulations of dirt, grime, or ice 
resulting from the normal railroad operating environment.
    Person means an entity of any type covered under 1 U.S.C. 1, 
including but not limited to the following: a railroad; a manager, 
supervisor, official, or other employee or agent of a railroad; any 
owner, manufacturer, lessor, or lessee of railroad equipment, track or 
facilities; any independent contractor providing goods or services to a 
railroad; and any employee of such an owner, manufacturer, lessor, 
lessee, or independent contractor.
    Railroad means all forms of non-highway ground transportation that 
run on rails or electromagnetic guideways, including high speed ground 
transportation systems that connect metropolitan areas, without regard 
to whether they use new technologies not associated with traditional 
railroads.
    Railroad freight car has the meaning assigned by Sec.  215.5 of 
this chapter.
    Tank car means a rail car, the body of which consists of a tank for 
transporting liquids.
    Work train means a non-revenue service train used for the 
administration and upkeep service of the railroad.


Sec.  224.7  Waivers.

    (a) Any person subject to a requirement of this part may petition 
the Administrator for a waiver of compliance with such requirement. The 
filing of such a petition does not affect that person's responsibility 
for compliance with that requirement while the petition is being 
considered.
    (b) Each petition for waiver under this section shall be filed in 
the manner and contain the information required by part 211 of this 
chapter.
    (c) If the Administrator finds that a waiver of compliance is in 
the public interest and is consistent with railroad safety, the 
Administrator may grant the waiver subject to any conditions that the 
Administrator deems necessary.


Sec.  224.9  Responsibility for compliance.

    (a) Freight rolling stock owners, railroads, and (with respect to 
certification of material) manufacturers of retroreflective material, 
are primarily responsible for compliance with this part. However, any 
person that performs any function or task required by this part 
(including any employee, agent, or contractor of the aforementioned), 
must perform that function in accordance with this part.
    (b) Any person performing any function or task required by this 
part shall be deemed to have consented to FRA inspection of the 
person's facilities and records to the extent necessary to determine 
whether the function or task is being performed in accordance with the 
requirements of this part.


Sec.  224.11  Civil penalties.

    Any person (including but not limited to a railroad; any manager, 
supervisor, official, or other employee or agent of a railroad; any 
owner, manufacturer, lessor, or lessee of railroad equipment, track, or 
facilities; any employee of such owner, manufacturer, lessor, lessee, 
or independent contractor) who violates any requirement of this part or 
causes the violation of any such requirement is subject to a civil 
penalty of at least $500, but not more than $11,000 per violation, 
except that: Penalties may be assessed against individuals only for 
willful violations, and, where a grossly negligent violation or a 
pattern of repeated violations has created an imminent hazard of death 
or injury to persons, or has caused death or injury, a penalty not to 
exceed $22,000 per violation may be assessed. Each day a violation 
continues shall constitute a separate offense. Appendix A to this part 
contains a schedule of civil penalty amounts used in connection with 
this part.

[[Page 62966]]

Sec.  224.13  Preemptive effect.

    Under 49 U.S.C. 20106, issuance of this part preempts any State 
law, rule, regulation, or order covering the same subject matter, 
except an additional or more stringent law, rule, regulation, or order 
that is necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local safety 
hazard; that is not incompatible with a law, rule, regulation, or order 
of the United States Government; and that does not unreasonably burden 
interstate commerce.


Sec.  224.15  Special approval procedures.

    (a) General. The following procedures govern consideration and 
action upon requests for special approval of alternative standards 
under Sec.  224.103(e).
    (b) Petitions.
    (1) Each petition for special approval of an alternative standard 
shall contain--
    (i) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the primary 
person to be contacted with regard to the petition;
    (ii) The alternative proposed, in detail, to be substituted for the 
particular requirements of this part; and
    (iii) Appropriate data and analysis establishing that the 
alternative will provide at least an equivalent level of safety and 
meet the requirements of Sec.  224.103(e).
    (2) Three copies of each petition for special approval of an 
alternative standard shall be submitted to the Associate Administrator 
for Safety, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW., 
Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590.
    (c) Notice. FRA will publish a notice in the Federal Register 
concerning each petition under paragraph (b) of this section.
    (d) Public comment. FRA will provide a period of not less than 30 
days from the date of publication of the notice in the Federal Register 
during which any person may comment on the petition.
    (1) Each comment shall set forth specifically the basis upon which 
it is made, and contain a concise statement of the interest of the 
commenter in the proceeding.
    (2) Each comment shall be submitted to the DOT Central Docket 
Management System, Nassif Building, Room Pl-401, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590, and shall contain the assigned docket number 
which appears in the Federal Register for that proceeding. The form of 
such submission may be in written or electronic form consistent with 
the standards and requirements established by the Central Docket 
Management System and posted on its Web site at http://dms.dot.gov.
    (3) Upon written request of an interested party, or in the event 
FRA requires additional information to appropriately consider the 
petition, FRA will conduct a hearing on the petition in accordance with 
the procedures provided in Sec.  211.25 of this chapter.
    (e) Disposition of petitions.
    (1) If FRA finds that the petition complies with the requirements 
of this section and that the proposed alternative standard is 
acceptable or changes are justified, or both, the petition will be 
granted, normally within 90 days of its receipt. The Associate 
Administrator may determine the applicability of other technical 
requirements of this part when rendering a decision on the petition. If 
the petition is neither granted nor denied within 90 days, the petition 
remains pending for decision. FRA may attach special conditions to the 
approval of the petition. Following the approval of a petition, FRA may 
reopen consideration of the petition for cause stated.
    (2) If FRA finds that the petition does not comply with the 
requirements of this section, or that the proposed alternative standard 
is not acceptable or that the proposed changes are not justified, or 
both, the petition will be denied, normally within 90 days of its 
receipt.
    (3) When FRA grants or denies a petition, or reopens consideration 
of a petition, written notice is sent to the petitioner and other 
interested parties and a copy of the notice is placed in the electronic 
docket of the proceeding.

Subpart B--Application, Inspection, and Maintenance of 
Retroreflective Material


Sec.  224.101  General requirements.

    All rail freight rolling stock shall be equipped with 
retroreflective sheeting that conforms to the requirements of this 
part. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the 
application, inspection, and maintenance of that sheeting shall be 
conducted in accordance with this subpart or in accordance with an 
alternative standard providing at least an equivalent level of safety 
after special approval of FRA under Sec.  224.15.


Sec.  224.103  Characteristics of retroreflective sheeting.

    (a) Construction. Retroreflective sheeting shall consist of a 
smooth, flat, transparent exterior film with microprismatic 
retroreflective elements embedded in or suspended beneath the film so 
as to form a non-exposed retroreflective optical system. 
Retroreflective sheeting construction that entraps air between 
laminations shall be sealed around all edges in the final application 
sufficiently to prevent water from penetrating the sheeting.
    (b) Color. Retroreflective sheeting applied under this part must be 
yellow as specified by the chromaticity coordinates of the American 
Society for Testing and Materials' (ASTM) Standard D 4956-01, 
``Standard Specification for Retroreflective Sheeting for Traffic 
Control.''
    (c) Performance. Retroreflective sheeting applied pursuant to this 
part shall meet the requirements of ASTM D 4956-01, except for the 
photometric requirements, and shall, as initially applied, meet the 
minimum photometric performance requirements specified in Table 1 of 
this section.

        Table 1.--Minimum Photometric Performance (Coefficient of
  Retroreflection (RA) in Candela/Lux/Meter \2\) Requirement for Yellow
                        Retroreflective Sheeting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Observation angle
                Entrance angle                 -------------------------
                                                  0.2[deg]     0.5[deg]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-4[deg].......................................          400          100
30[deg].......................................          220           45
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) Certification. The characters ``FRA-224'', constituting the 
manufacturer's certification that the retroreflective sheeting conforms 
to the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, 
shall appear at least once on the exposed surface of each sheeting in 
the final application. The characters shall be a minimum of 3 mm high, 
and shall be permanently stamped, etched, molded, or printed within the 
product and each certification shall be spaced no more than four inches 
apart.
    (e) Alternative standards. Upon petition by a freight rolling stock 
owner or railroad under Sec.  224.15, the Associate Administrator may 
qualify an alternative technology as providing equivalent safety. Any 
such petition shall provide data and analysis sufficient to establish 
that the technology will result in conspicuity and durability at least 
equal to sheeting described in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this 
section applied in accordance with this part and will present a 
recognizable visual target that is suitably consistent with freight 
rolling stock equipped with retroreflective

[[Page 62967]]

sheeting meeting the technical requirements of this part.


Sec.  224.105  Size and location.

    (a) Railroad freight cars. The amount of retroreflective sheeting 
to be applied to each car is dependent on the length of the car. For 
purposes of this part, the length of a car is measured from endsill to 
endsill, exclusive of the draft gear.
    (1) General rule. On railroad freight cars other than tank cars, 
flat cars, and cars of special construction (as defined in paragraph 
(a)(4) of this section), retroreflective sheeting shall be applied 
vertically to each car side, with its bottom edge as close as 
practicable to 42 inches above the top of the rail. Either a minimum of 
one 4x36 inch strip or a minimum of two 4x18 inch strips, one above the 
other, shall be applied as close to each end of the car as practicable. 
Between the ends of the car, a minimum of one 4x18 inch strip shall be 
applied at equal intervals that shall not exceed 10 feet.
    (2) Tank cars. On tank cars, retroreflective sheeting shall be 
applied vertically to each car side and centered on the horizontal 
centerline of the tank, or as near as practicable. If it is not 
practicable to safely apply the sheeting centered on the horizontal 
centerline of the tank, the sheeting may be applied vertically with its 
top edge no lower than 70 inches above the top of the rail, as 
practicable. A minimum of either one 4x36 inch strip or two 4x18 inch 
strips, one above the other, shall be applied as close to each end of 
the car as practicable. Between the ends of the car a minimum of one 
4x18 inch strip shall be applied at equal intervals that shall not 
exceed 10 feet.
    (3) Flat cars. On flat cars, a minimum of two 4x18 inch strips, one 
next to the other, shall be applied vertically to each car side as 
close to each end of the car as practicable. The bottom edges of these 
4x18 inch strips shall be no lower than 30 inches above the top of the 
rail, as practicable. A minimum of one 4x18 inch strip shall be applied 
vertically as can be best fit at equidistant intervals between each 
end, with the bottom edge of each strip no lower than 42 inches from 
the top of the rail, as practicable. Between the ends of the car, a 
minimum of one 4x18 inch strip shall be applied at equal intervals that 
shall not exceed 10 feet. When vertical application of a 4x18 inch 
strip is not feasible, the sheeting may be applied vertically in three 
4x6 inch strips placed directly next to each other or as close as 
practicable, or placed horizontally along the sill of the car.
    (4) Cars of special construction. This paragraph applies to any car 
the design of which is not compatible with the patterns of application 
otherwise provided in this section. Retroreflective sheeting shall 
conform as close as practicable to the requirements of paragraphs 
(a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section and shall have the following 
amount of sheeting equally distributed between both sides of the car:
    (i) For cars less than 50 feet long, a minimum of seven square feet 
of sheeting;
    (ii) For cars that are 50 to 60 feet long, a minimum of eight 
square feet of sheeting; and
    (iii) For cars greater than 60 feet long, one additional square 
foot of sheeting for every additional 10 feet of length.
    (b) Locomotives:
    (1) For locomotives that are less than 50 feet long, a minimum of 
seven square feet of sheeting must be equally distributed between both 
sides of the locomotive in a pattern recognizable to motorists.
    (2) For locomotives 50 feet long or greater, an additional square 
foot of sheeting must be equally distributed between both sides of the 
locomotive for every additional 10 feet of length. The sheeting must be 
distributed in a pattern recognizable to motorists.
    (3) For any locomotive, application of material horizontally along 
the sill or side walkway of the locomotive shall be considered a 
pattern recognizable to motorists.


Sec.  224.107  Application of retroreflective sheeting.

    (a) Railroad freight cars. All railroad freight cars subject to 
this part must be equipped with retroreflective sheeting conforming to 
this part by 10 years after the effective date of the final rule. If a 
car already has reflective material applied that does not meet the 
standards of this part, it is not necessary to remove the material 
unless its placement interferes with the placement of the sheeting 
required by this part.
    (1) New cars. Retroreflective sheeting conforming to this part must 
be applied to all new cars at the time of construction.
    (2) Existing cars without retroreflective sheeting.
    (i) If as of the date of publication of the final rule a car 
subject to this part is not equipped on each side with at least one 
square foot of retroreflective sheeting as specified in paragraph 
(a)(3) of this section, retroreflective sheeting conforming to this 
part must be applied to the car at the earliest of the following 
occasions occurring after the effective date of the rule or in 
accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section:
    (A) When the car is repainted or rebuilt; or
    (B) When the car first undergoes a single car air brake test as 
prescribed by 49 CFR 232.305. Application may be deferred until the 
second such test if it is more practicable to do so and the test will 
be made before 10 years after the effective date of the final rule.
    (ii) A freight rolling stock owner may elect not to follow the 
schedule in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section if, not later than 60 
days after the effective date of the final rule, the freight rolling 
stock owner submits to FRA a Fleet Reflectorization Implementation Plan 
designating the car numbers constituting the fleet subject to this part 
and affirming that the cars will be equipped with retroreflective 
sheeting as required by this part such that not less than 20 percent of 
the total fleet subject to this part shall be equipped within 24 months 
following the effective date of the final rule and not less than an 
additional 10 percent of the total fleet shall be completed each 12-
month period thereafter for the duration of the 10-year period. See 
Appendix B of this part. Thereafter,
    (A) The designated fleet shall be equipped with retroreflective 
sheeting according to the requirements of this paragraph (a)(2)(ii); 
and
    (B) If, following the conclusion of the initial 24-month period or 
any 12-month period thereafter, the percentage requirements of this 
section have not been met--
    (1) The freight rolling stock owner shall be considered in 
violation of this part;
    (2) The freight rolling stock owner shall, within 60 days of the 
close of the period, report the failure to the Associate Administrator;
    (3) The requirements of paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section shall 
apply to all railroad freight cars subject to this part in the fleet;
    (4) The percentage requirements of this paragraph (a)(2)(ii) shall 
continue to apply; and
    (5) The fleet owner shall take such additional action as may be 
necessary to achieve future compliance.
    (C) Cars to be retired shall be included in the fleet total until 
they are retired.
    (3) Existing cars with retroreflective sheeting. If as of the date 
of publication of the final rule a car is equipped on each side with at 
least one square foot of retroreflective sheeting, uniformly 
distributed over the length of each side, that car shall be considered 
in compliance with this part for a period of 10 years from the 
effective date of the final rule, provided the sheeting is not 
engineering grade, super engineering grade (enclosed lens), or glass 
bead encapsulated type sheeting, and

[[Page 62968]]

provided the freight rolling stock owner files a Fleet Reflectorization 
Implementation Plan with FRA no later than 60 days after the effective 
date of the final rule identifying the cars already so equipped. See 
Appendix B of this part.
    (b) Locomotives. All locomotives subject to this part must be 
equipped with conforming retroreflective sheeting by five years after 
the effective date of the final rule. If a locomotive already has 
reflective material applied that does not meet the standards of this 
part, it is not necessary to remove the material unless its placement 
interferes with the placement of the sheeting required by this part.
    (1) New locomotives. Retroreflective sheeting conforming to this 
part must be applied to all new locomotives at the time of 
construction.
    (2) Existing locomotives without retroreflective sheeting. If as of 
the date of publication of the final rule a locomotive subject to this 
part is not equipped on each side with at least one square foot of 
retroreflective sheeting as specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this 
section, retroreflective sheeting conforming to this part must be 
applied to the locomotive not later than the first biennial inspection 
performed pursuant to 49 CFR 229.29 occurring after the effective date 
of the final rule.
    (3) Existing locomotives with retroreflective sheeting. If as of 
the date of publication of the final rule a locomotive is equipped on 
each side with at least one square foot of retroreflective sheeting, 
uniformly distributed over the length of the locomotive side, that 
locomotive shall be considered in compliance with this part for a 
period of 5 years from the effective date of the final rule, provided 
the existing material is not engineering grade, super engineering grade 
(enclosed lens), or glass bead encapsulated type sheeting, and provided 
the freight rolling stock owner files a Fleet Reflectorization 
Implementation Plan with FRA no later than 60 days after the effective 
date of the final rule identifying the cars already so equipped. See 
Appendix B of this part.
    (4) Each railroad that has fewer than 400,000 annual employee work 
hours, and does not share locomotive power with a railroad with 400,000 
or more annual employee work hours, may bring its locomotive fleet into 
compliance according to the following schedule: fifty percent of the 
railroad's locomotives must be retrofitted pursuant to Sec.  224.105(b) 
within five years of the effective date of this part and one hundred 
percent must be retrofitted pursuant to Sec.  224.105(b) within 10 
years of the effective date of this part. If a railroad with fewer than 
400,000 annual employee work hours shares locomotive power with a 
railroad with 400,000 or more annual employee work hours, the smaller 
railroad must comply with the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) 
of this section.


Sec.  224.109  Inspection and replacement.

    (a) Railroad freight cars. Retroreflective sheeting on railroad 
freight cars subject to this part must be visually inspected for 
presence and condition whenever a car undergoes a single car air brake 
test required under 49 CFR 232.305. If at the time of inspection more 
than 20 percent of the amount of sheeting required under Sec.  224.105 
on either side of a car is damaged, obscured, or missing, that damaged, 
obscured, or missing sheeting must be replaced. If conditions at the 
time of inspection are such that replacement material can not be 
applied, such application may be completed not later than the earliest 
of the following events: when the car next receives a required single 
car air brake test or when the car is taken out of service for repairs 
or other maintenance.
    (b) Locomotives. Retroreflective sheeting must be visually 
inspected for presence and condition when the locomotive receives the 
annual inspection required under 49 CFR 229.27. If more than 20 percent 
of the amount of sheeting required under Sec.  224.105 on either side 
of a locomotive is damaged, obscured, or missing, that damaged, 
obscured, or missing sheeting must be replaced. If conditions at the 
time of inspection are such that replacement material can not be 
applied or if sufficient replacement material is not available, such 
application can be completed at the next forward location where 
conditions permit, provided a record of the restriction is maintained 
in the locomotive cab or in a secure and accessible electronic database 
to which FRA is provided access on request.


Sec.  224.111  Renewal.

    Regardless of condition, retroreflective sheeting required under 
this part must be replaced with new sheeting no later than 10 years 
after the date of initial installation.

Appendix A to Part 224--Schedule of Civil Penalties [Reserved]

Appendix B to Part 224--Form Fleet Reflectorization Implementation Plan

    This appendix contains the standard form Fleet Reflectorization 
Implementation Plan referenced in Sec. Sec.  224.107(a)(2) and 
(a)(3). Freight rolling stock owners electing not to follow the 
reflectorization schedule of Sec.  224.107(a)(2)(i) and freight 
rolling stock owners seeking compliance with this part under Sec.  
224.107(a)(3) must file this form no later than 60 days after the 
effective date of the final rule.

Fleet Reflectorization Implementation Plan

Railroad or Car Owner Name

Prepared and Submitted By:

Name:
Title:
Address:

Phone:
Fax:
E-mail:

    Instructions for completing form:
    Report in this plan only the freight cars in your fleet subject 
to 49 CFR part 224 that will be reflectorized on a schedule other 
than that specified in 49 CFR 224.107(a)(2(i), and those cars that 
are already equipped with retroreflective material meeting the 
requirements of 49 CFR 224.107(a)(3).
    I. Column (a): Insert the car number(s) identifying each freight 
car in fleet subject to 49 CFR part 224. A range(s) of car numbers 
may be inserted. Note: exclusions from range(s) may be listed in 
column (b).
    II. Column (b): List the car number of each car subject to 49 
CFR part 224 not included in range (a). (Such as cars sold, retired, 
or permanently removed from fleet as of the date of filing.)
    III. Column (c): Indicate the status of each car identified in 
column (a) as follows:
    1. Enter REFL 20XX (year) if the car(s) is scheduled to be 
reflectorized by owner or other authorized party at a time other 
than that specified in 49 CFR 224.107(a)(2)(i). REFL indicates that 
reflective material meeting the requirements of 49 CFR part 224 will 
be installed on the car specified in column (a) at a time other than 
when that car is being repainted, rebuilt, or undergoing the first 
single car air brake test pursuant to 49 CFR 232.305 after the 
effective date of the final rule. 20XX indicates the year that 
reflective material will be applied to that car. Example: REFL 2005 
indicates that the car owner will reflectorize the car specified in 
column (a) by the end of the 2005 calendar year.
    2. Enter RET XXXX (year) if the car indentified in column(a) is 
scheduled to be retired from service during the initial 10-year 
implementation period. RET indicates that the car will be retired, 
and 20XX indicates the year that the car is scheduled to be retired. 
Example: RET 2006 indicates that the car owner will retire the car 
specified in column (a) by the end of the 2006 calendar year.
    3. Enter COM if the car indentified in column (a) is, as of the 
date of publication of the final rule, already equipped with 
retroreflective material meeting the requirements of 49 CFR 
224.107(a)(3).
    4. Enter REPT XXXX (year) if the car identified in column (a) is 
to be repainted or rebuilt during the initial 10-year implementation 
period of 49 CFR part 224, and not to be reflectorized during the 
first single car air-brake test (49 CFR 232.305) after the effective 
date of the final rule. 20XX

[[Page 62969]]

indicates the year that the car will be rebuilt or repainted. 
Example: REPT 2008 indicates that the car owner will repaint the car 
specified in column (a) by the end of the 2006 calendar year.
    IV. If for any car listed in column (a), COM is entered in 
column (c), please describe the technical specifications of the 
retroreflective material with which the cars are presently equipped 
(e.g., color of material, type of material, amount and placement 
pattern of material on each side of car).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (a) Car no. and identification no.                                           (c) Status (REFL XXXX, RET XXXX,
             (or range)                    (b) Subtractions from range                 COM, REPT XXXX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By filing this FLEET REFLECTORIZATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN and 
any accompanying documents or electronic files with FRA, the 
Railroad or Car Owner agrees to equip the cars identified in column 
(a) with retroreflective material conforming to 49 CFR part 224 in 
accordance with this plan. By filing this plan, the Railroad or Car 
Owner also agrees to update, at least annually, the American 
Association of Railroad's UMLER file to reflect the current 
reflectorization status of each freight car in its fleet subject to 
Part 224. If the Railroad or Car Owner is not able, or chooses not 
to update UMLER at least annually, the Railroad or Car Owner shall 
annually file an updated FLEET REFLECTORIZATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 
with FRA.

(signature of Corporate Officer/Car Owner)

Name:
Title:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date

    Issued in Washington, DC on October 29, 2003.
Allan Rutter,
Federal Railroad Administrator.
[FR Doc. 03-27649 Filed 11-5-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P