[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 28, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36888-36917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-5667]



[[Page 36887]]

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

Part II





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Railroad Administration



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



49 CFR Parts 229 and 238



Locomotive Crashworthiness; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 28, 2006 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 36888]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Parts 229 and 238

[Docket No. FRA-2004-17645, Notice No. 3]
RIN 2130-AB23


Locomotive Crashworthiness

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing comprehensive, minimum standards for locomotive 
crashworthiness. These crashworthiness standards are intended to help 
protect locomotive cab occupants in the event of a locomotive 
collision. Examples of locomotive collision scenarios considered in 
this rulemaking include collisions with another locomotive, the rear of 
another train, a piece of on-track equipment, a shifted load on a 
freight car on an adjacent parallel track, and a highway vehicle at a 
rail-highway grade crossing. Locomotive crashworthiness must be 
demonstrated by complying with either the final rule's new performance 
standards or an FRA-approved design standard.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective August 28, 2006. 
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the 
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 
28, 2006.

ADDRESSES: 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 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Punwani, Office of Research and 
Development, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., 
Mail Stop 20, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6369); Charles 
L. Bielitz, Mechanical Engineer, Office of Safety Assurance and 
Compliance, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., 
Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6314); or 
Melissa Porter, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal 
Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Mail Stop 10, 
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6034).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Statutory and Regulatory Background

A. FRA Regulatory Authority

    FRA has broad statutory authority to regulate railroad safety. The 
Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) (formerly 45 U.S.C. 22-34, now 49 
U.S.C. 20701-20703) was enacted in 1911. It prohibits the use of unsafe 
locomotives and authorizes FRA (by delegation from the Secretary of 
Transportation) to issue standards for locomotive maintenance and 
testing. In order to further FRA's ability to respond effectively to 
contemporary safety problems and hazards as they arise in the railroad 
industry, Congress enacted the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 
(Safety Act) (formerly 45 U.S.C. 421, 431 et seq., now found primarily 
in chapter 201 of Title 49). The Safety Act grants the Secretary of 
Transportation rulemaking authority over all areas of railroad safety 
(49 U.S.C. 20103(a)) and authority to investigate and penalize 
violations of any rail safety law. This authority was subsequently 
delegated to the FRA Administrator (49 CFR 1.49). (Until July 5, 1994, 
the Federal railroad safety statutes existed as separate acts found 
primarily in Title 45 of the United States Code. On that date, all of 
the acts were repealed, and their provisions were recodified into Title 
49.)

    The term ``railroad'' is defined in the Safety Act to include 
all forms of non-highway ground transportation that runs on rails or 
electromagnetic guideways, * * * other than rapid transit operations 
within an urban area that are not connected to the general railroad 
system of transportation.

    This definition makes clear that FRA has jurisdiction over (1) 
rapid transit operations within an urban area that are connected to the 
general railroad system of transportation, and (2) all freight, 
intercity, passenger, and commuter rail passenger operations regardless 
of their connection to the general railroad system of transportation or 
their status as a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce. FRA 
has issued a policy statement describing how it determines whether 
particular rail passenger operations are subject to FRA's jurisdiction 
(65 FR 42529 (July 2, 2000)); the policy statement can be found in 
Appendix A to parts 209 and 211 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (hereinafter, all references to CFR parts and sections will 
refer to parts and sections in Title 49 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations).
    Pursuant to its statutory authority, FRA promulgates and enforces a 
comprehensive regulatory program to address railroad track; signal 
systems; railroad communications; rolling stock; rear-end marking 
devices; safety glazing; railroad accident/incident reporting; 
locational requirements for dispatching of U.S. rail operations; safety 
integration plans governing railroad consolidations; merger and 
acquisitions of control; operating practices; passenger train emergency 
preparedness; alcohol and drug testing; locomotive engineer 
certification; and workplace safety.
    In part 229, FRA established minimum federal safety standards for 
locomotives. These regulations prescribe inspection and testing 
requirements for locomotive components and systems, minimum locomotive 
cab safety requirements, and even basic crashworthiness design 
requirements for electric multiple-unit type locomotives. On May 12, 
1999, FRA issued regulations addressing the safety of passenger rail 
equipment, including passenger-occupied locomotives (i.e., cab control 
cars, powered multiple-unit passenger cars). These are found in part 
238. However, FRA's existing locomotive safety standards do not address 
the crashworthiness of conventional locomotives, which comprise the 
majority of locomotives in use today.

B. Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act

    In 1992, Congress passed The Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act 
(RSERA). Pub. L. 102-365, September 3, 1992. In response to concerns 
raised by railroad employee organizations, members of Congress, and 
recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 
concerning locomotive crew safety, Congress included mandates 
concerning locomotive crashworthiness and cab working conditions in the 
legislation. Section 10 of RSERA, entitled ``Locomotive Crashworthiness 
and Working Conditions,'' required FRA ``to complete a rulemaking 
proceeding to consider prescribing regulations to improve the safety 
and working conditions of locomotive cabs.'' In order to determine 
whether crashworthiness regulations would be necessary, Congress tasked 
FRA with assessing the adequacy of Locomotive Crashworthiness 
Requirements Standard S-580, or any successor standard thereto, adopted 
by the Association of American Railroads in 1989, in improving the 
safety of locomotive cabs. Furthermore, Congress specifically mandated 
that the Secretary, in support of the rulemaking proceeding, consider 
the costs and benefits associated with equipping locomotives with each 
of a number of specified design features.

[[Page 36889]]

    FRA agrees that locomotive crashworthiness protection is necessary 
because train collisions and derailments can result in crew fatalities 
and injuries. In the period from 1995 to 1997, 26 locomotive cab 
occupants were killed and 289 were injured in freight and passenger 
train accidents in the United States, a yearly average of 105 
casualties.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Regulatory Impact Analysis, p. iii of Appendix B of the 
Analysis. These statistics were taken from the data set of injuries/
fatalities that, because of their circumstances, could have been 
prevented by the crashworthiness standards contained in this rule. 
Thus, this set does not include the total number of all locomotive 
cab occupant fatalities/injuries that occurred during this time 
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Adopted in 1989, Association of American Railroads (AAR) 
Specification S-580 (``S-580'') has served as the industry standard for 
crashworthiness design specifications of new road freight locomotives. 
At the time of its development, S-580 provided basic enhancements to 
the crashworthiness of road locomotives. Many of the units built to 
this specification are of wide-nose cab design, often referred to as 
the North American cab design. It is generally held throughout the 
industry that S-580 represented a significant step on the part of the 
railroad industry to improve the crashworthiness of locomotives.

II. FRA's Response to Section 10 of RSERA

    In response to the mandate of Section 10 of RSERA, FRA conducted 
the necessary research and analysis. FRA undertook steps to determine 
the health and safety effects of locomotive cab working conditions and 
evaluated the effectiveness of S-580, along with the benefits and costs 
of RSERA's specified locomotive crashworthiness features (i.e., braced 
collision posts, rollover protection devices, deflection plates, 
shatterproof windows, readily accessible crash refuges, uniform sill 
heights, anticlimbers, or other equipment designed to prevent overrides 
resulting from head-on locomotive collisions, equipment to deter post-
collision entry of flammable liquids into locomotive cabs, any other 
device intended to provide crash protection for occupants of locomotive 
cabs). In an effort to fully address the broad range of issues 
presented in the RSERA, FRA (1) conducted an industry-wide public 
meeting to gather information regarding the areas of concern identified 
in the RSERA, (2) established a locomotive collision database based on 
detailed accident information gathered from actual collisions, (3) 
established a research contract to develop and verify a computer model 
capable of predicting how each of the crashworthiness features in S-580 
and in the RSERA affect the collision dynamics and probability of crew 
injury, and (4) conducted a detailed survey of locomotive crews' cab 
working conditions and environment. FRA detailed the results of these 
actions in ``Locomotive Crashworthiness and Cab Working Conditions 
Report to Congress,'' dated September 18, 1996. A copy of this report 
has been placed in the docket of this rulemaking as Document No. FRA-
2004-17645-9. Actions taken to gather information for that report are 
described below.
    First, meetings with all segments of the railroad industry formed 
an essential part of FRA's plan to meet the requirements of the RSERA. 
FRA held an industry-wide public meeting on June 23, 1993, to gather 
information from the industry on each of the areas of concern 
identified in Section 10 of the RSERA and to inform the industry of 
FRA's approach. This meeting was well attended by all segments of the 
rail industry, including rail labor, freight railroads, locomotive 
builders, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), and 
commuter railroads.
    At this initial meeting, some of the railroads urged that 
improvements in crash avoidance technology should be pursued in lieu of 
improved crashworthiness features. FRA is currently pursuing crash 
avoidance technology and on March 7, 2005, published a separate rule 
(part 236, subpart H) on performance standards for the use and 
development of processor-based signal and train control systems. See 70 
FR 11052. The issue of collision avoidance is more fully discussed 
below in section IV of the preamble.
    Several participants in the public meeting expressed an opinion 
that a series of smaller, informal meetings with the separate segments 
of the rail industry would provide more detailed information regarding 
locomotive crashworthiness. As a result, FRA held a number of such 
meetings which included the following organizations:

American Public Transportation Association (APTA);
American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA);
Amtrak;
AAR;
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (now Brotherhood of Locomotive 
Engineers and Trainmen (BLET);
Burlington Northern (now Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway) (BNSF);
DuPont (glazing);
General Electric Transportation Systems (GE);
General Motors-Electro-Motive Division (GM/EMD);
Morrison Knudsen (MK); NTSB; Sierracin (glazing); and
United Transportation Union (UTU).

    These meetings generated considerable discussion about the adequacy 
of the AAR's Locomotive Crashworthiness Standard S-580 (1989), the 
requirement to conduct research and analysis, including computer 
modeling and full-scale crash testing of the safety of locomotives, and 
the costs and benefits associated with RSERA's specified locomotive 
crashworthiness features. During the meetings, FRA requested specific 
cost or test data to support the positions taken by the various 
organizations. Some supply industry organizations were forthcoming with 
this data, while other organizations were apparently unable or 
unwilling to respond.
    Second, FRA proceeded based on the understanding that earlier 
locomotive collision accident reports did not contain the data 
necessary to support crash modeling. Thus, in 1992, FRA instructed 
field inspectors to investigate all accidents involving either a 
collision of two trains or a collision of one train with an object 
weighing ten tons or more, regardless of monetary damage thresholds and 
locomotive design. This accident data provided information which FRA 
used to determine the possible benefits of a crashworthiness 
regulation.
    Third, with the support of the Volpe National Transportation 
Systems Center (``Volpe Center''), FRA contracted with Arthur D. 
Little, Inc. (ADL) to predict the benefit, if any, of each of the 
locomotive crashworthiness features listed in Section 10 of the RSERA. 
Using the collision data collected by FRA, ADL performed a series of 
analyses using computer models to evaluate the effectiveness of 
specific crashworthiness design features.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Mayville, R. A., Stringfellow, R. G., Rancatore, R. J., 
Hosmer, T. P., 1995, ``Locomotive Crashworthiness Research, Volumes 
1 through 5,'' DOT/FRA/ORD-95/8.1-8.5. A copy of each cited report 
has been placed in the docket of this rulemaking as Document No. FRA 
2004-17645-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, FRA's approach to the research and analysis tasks focused 
on the cost and benefits of design changes to conventional locomotives 
operating at speeds of less than 80 mph. The work done to meet the 
requirements of the RSERA was not intended to address safety concerns 
unique to high speed rail transportation. FRA has addressed high speed 
rail safety concerns,

[[Page 36890]]

including crashworthiness design, in part 238.
    FRA's Report to Congress contained an implementation strategy to 
address each of the issues raised by the RSERA.\3\ FRA determined that 
S-580, which provided for improvements in collision posts, anti-
climbing arrangements, and the short hood structure, represented a 
significant step on the part of the railroad industry to improve 
locomotive crashworthiness. The research and analysis conducted in 
response to the RSERA showed that S-580 could be further improved to 
reduce casualties without significantly impacting locomotive design. 
FRA also found that (1) modified front-end structural designs 
incorporating stronger collision posts, (2) full-height corner posts 
with increased strength, and (3) utilization of roof longitudinal 
strength to support structural members from crushing may provide 
opportunities for additional protection for locomotive cab occupants. 
FRA even evaluated the potential to create a designated crash refuge 
within the space that these measures would help to protect. 
Furthermore, based on accident/incident experience and recent advances 
in fuel tank design being undertaken by the industry, FRA concluded 
that fuel tank design could be significantly improved to minimize the 
risk and severity of future fuel spills. Finally, FRA identified 
locomotive cab emergency lighting and more reliable means of rapid 
egress during derailments and collisions as additional subject areas 
which appeared to warrant further exploration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Locomotive Crashworthiness and Cab Working Conditions 
Report to Congress'', Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, 
Federal Railroad Administration, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the study findings clearly indicate that several 
crashworthiness features warranted further exploration, the findings 
also indicated that several features, including rollover protection, 
uniform sill heights, and deflection plates did not warrant further 
action. Rollover protection costs would be substantial, and no material 
need for such protection was demonstrated by the accident data. Design 
limitations of multi-use freight locomotives all but preclude practical 
design possibilities for deflection plates, and FRA found that a 
successful deflection device would cause collateral safety problems. 
Uniform sill heights were found not to significantly reduce life-
threatening collision damage, would have a high cost, and any benefit 
would accrue only after an extended period over which older standard 
locomotives would be phased out of service. The perceived benefits of 
uniform sill height might be more reliably achieved by improved anti-
climbing arrangements, and the report proposed that development and 
evaluation of a design concept be explored.
    Many of the proposed measures were practical for application only 
to newly constructed locomotives. Further, additional information and 
research were required to determine the cost-effective basis of these 
concepts, and to assure the acceptance of these measures by locomotive 
crews. In order for protective features to be effective, crew members 
must have confidence that they will function as intended. Crew members 
who lack confidence in the safety measures employed may be inclined to 
jump from a locomotive prior to a collision, resulting in a high 
probability of serious injury or death.
    FRA determined that it would use its Railroad Safety Advisory 
Committee to further develop these safety issues thereby tapping the 
knowledge and energies of a wide range of interested parties.

III. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) Recommendations

    In March 1996, FRA established the RSAC, which provides a forum for 
consensual rulemaking and program development. The Committee includes 
representation from all of the agency's major customer groups, 
including railroads, labor organizations, suppliers and manufacturers, 
and other interested parties. A list of member groups follows:

AAR;
American Association of Private Railroad Car Owners (AARPCO);
American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials 
(AASHTO);
American Train Dispatchers Department/BLE (ATDD/BLE) (now American 
Train Dispatcher Association);
Amtrak;
APTA;
ASLRRA;
Association of Railway Museums (ARM);
Association of State Rail Safety Managers (ASRSM);
BLET;
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes (now Brotherhood of 
Maintenance of Way Employes Division (BMWED);
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS);
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (associate member);
High Speed Ground Transportation Association;
Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union;
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers;
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers and Blacksmiths;
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW);
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA) (associate 
member);
League of Railway Industry Women (associate member);
National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP);
National Association of Railway Business Women (associate member);
National Conference of Firemen & Oilers;
National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association;
NTSB (associate member);
Railway Supply Institute (RSI);
Safe Travel America;
Secretaria de Communicaciones y Transporte (associate member);
Sheet Metal Workers International Association (SMW);
Tourist Railway Association Inc.;
Transport Canada (associate member);
Transportation Communications International Union/BRC (TCIU/BRC);
Transport Workers Union of America (TWUA); and
UTU.

    When appropriate, FRA assigns a task to RSAC, and after 
consideration and debate, RSAC may accept or reject the task. If the 
task is accepted, RSAC establishes a working group that possesses the 
appropriate expertise and representation of interests to develop 
recommendations to FRA for action on the task. The working group 
develops the recommendations by consensus. The working group may 
establish one or more task forces to develop the facts and options on a 
particular aspect of a given task. The task force reports to the 
working group. If a working group comes to unanimous consensus on 
recommendations for action, the working group presents the package to 
the RSAC for a vote. If a simple majority of the RSAC accepts the 
proposal, the RSAC formally recommends the proposal to FRA.
    FRA then determines what action to take on the recommendation. 
Because FRA staff has played an active role at the working group level 
in discussing the issues and options and in drafting the language of 
the consensus proposal, and because the RSAC recommendation constitutes 
the consensus of some of the industry's leading experts on a given 
subject, FRA is often favorably inclined toward the RSAC 
recommendation. However, FRA is in no way bound to follow the 
recommendation, and the

[[Page 36891]]

agency exercises its independent judgement on whether the recommended 
rule achieves the agency's regulatory goal, is soundly supported, and 
is in accordance with policy and legal requirements. Often, FRA varies 
in some respects from the RSAC recommendation in developing the actual 
regulatory proposal. If the working group or RSAC is unable to reach 
consensus on recommendations for action, FRA moves ahead to resolve the 
issue through traditional rulemaking proceedings.
    On June 24, 1997, FRA tasked RSAC with the responsibility of making 
recommendations concerning standards for locomotive crashworthiness. 
Specifically, RSAC was charged with the investigation and development, 
if necessary, of crashworthiness standards to ensure the integrity of 
locomotive cabs in collisions, thereby minimizing fatalities and 
injuries to train crews. This task was to be performed in three phases. 
RSAC would first review relevant accident data and existing industry 
standards to determine which, if any, appropriate modifications to the 
cab structure are required to provide additional protection above that 
provided by S-580. In particular, RSAC was to specifically consider the 
following features: full-height corner posts; improved glazing design 
and support structure; equipment to prevent the post-collision entry of 
flammable liquids; and improved fuel tank design. Second, RSAC would 
examine to what extent improved anticlimber designs and/or 
incorporation of shelf couplers, used to complement the existing S-580 
standards, serve to mitigate the effects of the above-listed collision 
scenarios. Third, RSAC would examine past and present methods of cab 
egress, along with the benefits of emergency lighting in the event of a 
collision. Based on a review of relevant accident data, available 
technology, implementation costs, and other applicable factors, RSAC 
would then develop appropriate recommendations.
    To accomplish the above goals, RSAC created the Locomotive 
Crashworthiness Working Group (``Working Group''). Created on June 24, 
1997, this group of about 40 members consisted of FRA personnel and 
representatives from railroad labor and management, States, and two 
major manufacturers of locomotives. The following organizations 
provided representatives to serve on the Working Group:

AAR;
AASHTO;
APTA;
ASLRRA;
BLET;
BMWED;
FRA;
IBEW;
RSI;
SMW;
UTU; and
NTSB.

    The Working Group broke the task into three distinct phases. The 
first phase included review of accident data to formulate the most 
prevalent accident scenarios involving injuries and deaths. Second, the 
Volpe Center, along with contractor ADL, performed detailed analyses of 
how design improvements/additions to S-580 would affect the probable 
resulting injuries/deaths in each of five accident scenarios described 
later in this preamble.\4\ Third, the Working Group analyzed and 
deliberated the proposed costs and benefits to determine the 
effectiveness of each of the proposed changes to S-580. The Working 
Group then presented its findings to the full RSAC Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Tyrell, D., Severson, K., Marquis, B., Martinez, E., 
Mayville, R., Rancatore, R., Stringfellow, R., Hammond, R., Perlman, 
A.B., 1999, ``Locomotive Crashworthiness Design Modifications 
Study,'' Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE/ASME Joint Railroad 
Conference, April 13-15, 1999, IEEE Catalog Number 99CH36340, ASME 
RTD Volume 16; Tyrell, D.C., Martinez, E.E., Wierzbicki, T., 
``Crashworthiness Studies of Locomotive Wide Nose Short Hood 
Designs,'' Proceedings of the 8th ASME Symposium on Crashworthiness, 
Occupant Protection and Biomechanics in Transportation November 14-
19, 1999; Nashville, Tennessee; Tyrell, D., Severson, K., Marquis, 
B., Perlman, A.B., ``Simulation of an Oblique Collision of a 
Locomotive and an Intermodal Container,'' Proceedings of the 8th 
ASME Symposium on Crashworthiness, Occupant Protection and 
Biomechanics in Transportation November 14-19, 1999; Nashville, 
Tennessee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Working Group conducted its meetings on the following dates at 
the following locations:

(1) September 8-9, 1997, Washington, DC;
(2) February 2-3, 1998, Jacksonville, FL;
(3) April 9-10, 1998, Fort Pierce, FL;
(4) July 14-15, 1998, Las Vegas, NV;
(5) October 28-29, 1998, Kansas City, MO;
(6) February 25-26, 1999, Washington, DC;
(7) June 15-16, 1999, Las Vegas, NV;
(8) October 19-20, 1999, Sterling, VA;
(9) December 13-14, 1999, Jacksonville, FL;
(10) October 9-10, 2001, Washington, DC;
(11) January 17-18, 2002, Jacksonville, FL; and
(12) June 28-29, 2005, San Francisco, CA.

Minutes from the above-referenced meetings have been placed in the 
docket of this proceeding.
    The Working Group had its inaugural meeting on September 8-9, 1997, 
in Washington, DC. After reviewing its formal Task Statement to gain an 
understanding of the scope of its mission, the Working Group recognized 
that a smaller, more manageable group could more effectively consider 
the technical requirements and debate the advantages and disadvantages 
of the technical options available. Thus, the S-580/Engineering Review 
Task Force (``Engineering Task Force'') was created for this sole 
purpose. The Engineering Task Force was made up of Working Group 
members who either volunteered or named a fellow member as a 
representative. The Engineering Task Force met four times and conducted 
meetings by telephone conference on three occasions. These task force 
meetings served to progress the technical aspects of the issues and 
were open to all members of the Working Group. These meetings were 
somewhat less formal and were conducive to free exchange of technical 
information and ideas. A summary report on the Engineering Task Force's 
deliberations was made at each subsequent Working Group meeting.
    The Working Group acknowledged the three distinct elements to the 
task. First, the group would need to identify, using recent accident 
data, the most prevalent locomotive collision scenarios which involve 
injuries and deaths. To this end, the Working Group requested that FRA 
review pertinent accidents for presentation at the February 2-3, 1998 
Working Group meeting. The second element involved detailed engineering 
analysis of the effectiveness of specific crashworthiness features. To 
this end, FRA pledged the technical assistance of the Volpe Center, 
along with required support from outside contractors as needed. Third, 
the Working Group expressed interest in understanding the projected 
economic impact of any new requirements.
    FRA commenced a review of locomotive accident data from 1995 to 
1996 as a representative sampling of accidents. FRA then narrowed the 
pool of accidents to 23 and presented summaries of them to the 
Engineering Task Force at its first meeting. Collective discussion of 
these accidents with railroad and labor members of the Engineering Task 
Force helped to flesh out all the details of the locomotive types and 
designs. The Engineering Task Force then classified all 23 collisions 
into five major categories and developed a sequence of events, or 
scenario, for each accident. These five scenarios are:

[[Page 36892]]

    (1) Coupled locomotive override resulting from a head-on train-to-
train collision;
    (2) Colliding locomotive override resulting from a head-on train-
to-train collision;
    (3)\5\ Rear end/overtaking collision between a locomotive and a 
freight car;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The report from the Accident/Data Analysis and Benefits 
Assessment Task Force describes 6 scenarios. It contains 2 scenarios 
in which the window structure is impacted. In one, an overriding 
freight car impacts the window structure during a rear-end 
collision; in the other, logs impact the window structure in a grade 
crossing collision with a truck carrying logs. The Working Group 
initially considered the former, but the latter was used for the 
basis for crashworthiness evaluation of the window structure. See 
Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Oblique/raking collision between a locomotive and a freight car 
or part thereof, at a switch or upon passing a train on the adjacent 
track; and
    (5) Offset collision between locomotive and freight car.
    Once these scenarios were identified, a representative accident for 
each scenario was chosen to be studied in detail. The Engineering Task 
Force next gathered as many details as possible concerning the 
accidents and determined the crashworthiness features which were 
involved or could have had an effect in each scenario. Table 1 shows 
the scenarios, collision mode, relevant crashworthiness features, and 
representative accidents.

             Table 1.--Collision Scenario, Collision Mode, and Accident Representative of Scenario.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Accident location and
          Collision scenario                Collision mode         Modified component              date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Head-on collision between two       Coupled locomotive       Anti-climber Shelf-      Smithfield, WV, August
 freight trains.                        override.                coupler.                 20, 1996.
2. Head-on collision between two       Colliding locomotive     Collision post           West Eola, IL, January
 freight trains.                        override.                                         20, 1993.
3a. Overtaking collision, locomotive   Loading of window frame  Window frame structure.  Phoenixville, PA,
 to flat car.                           structure.                                        August 23, 1996.
3b. Grade crossing collision with      Loading of window frame  Window frame structure.  Phoenixville, PA,
 highway truck carrying logs.           structure.                                        August 23, 1996.
4. Object, such as a trailer, fouling  Corner loading of        Short hood.............  Selma, NC, May 16,
 right-of-way of locomotive.            locomotive short hood.                            1994.
5. Offset collision between a          Corner loading of        Front plate............  Madrone, NM, October
 locomotive and a freight car.          locomotive underframe.                            13, 1995.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 1 shows schematic illustrations for the inline collision 
scenarios--Scenarios 1, 2, and 3b. In Scenario 1, the principal concern 
is a trailing locomotive overriding the leading locomotive, 
consequently eliminating the operator's cab (survival space) during the 
collision. In scenario 2 the principal concern is the relatively strong 
underframe of one colliding locomotive overriding the underframe of the 
other locomotive. In this scenario, the overriding locomotive crushes 
the operator's cab of the overriden locomotive. In scenario 3, the 
principal concern is the destruction of the upper portion (window area) 
of the operator's cab.

[[Page 36893]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28JN06.002

    Figure 2 shows schematic illustrations of the oblique collision 
scenarios--Scenarios 4 and 5. The illustration for Scenario 4 shows an 
intermodal trailer fouling the right of way of an oncoming locomotive. 
The principal concern is with the trailer striking the short hood 
outboard of the collision post and consequently causing sufficient 
damage to intrude into the operator's cab. The illustration of Scenario 
5 shows a locomotive obliquely colliding with a freight car at a 
switch. The principal concern is that the freight car can intrude into 
the operator's volume by raking down the side of the locomotive.

[[Page 36894]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28JN06.003

    Each collision scenario presents a significant risk of injury or 
death to locomotive cab occupants, and the Working Group recognized 
that effective reduction of this risk is the primary goal when 
considering locomotive crashworthiness standards.
    The Working Group next examined a list of crash survival concepts 
that FRA had previously assembled. The Engineering Task Force discussed 
each concept in light of the accidents reviewed. There was general 
agreement among Task Force members about the continued need for braced 
collision posts, corner posts, and the utilization of crash energy 
management principles to minimize secondary collisions within the 
locomotive cab. The Task Force also discussed the variance of 
underframe sill heights, the frequency of locomotive roll-over 
occurrences, and the concept of crash refuges, but ultimately agreed 
with FRA's Report to Congress that these features held little promise 
as effective locomotive crashworthiness features and that further use 
of resources in pursuit of these concepts was not warranted. The Task 
Force then discussed collision post strength, wide-nose locomotive cabs 
and cab corner strength as well as locomotive front end strength up to 
the window level. The Task Force felt that these concepts required 
further development in order to further mitigate the consequences from 
the reviewed accidents, which included side/oblique collisions, coupled 
locomotive override, and shifted load collisions.
    Standard S-580 includes the use of collision posts, wide-nose cab 
configurations of greater strength, and anti-climbing means to prevent 
override. The Working Group found that the accident survey showed the 
effects of S-580 on the survivability of locomotive crews to be 
substantial. However, they also recognized that higher levels of 
protection could be achieved by enhancing the strength requirements for 
future locomotive designs and by fortifying the current design of 
locomotives where possible and economically practicable. Thus, for 
comparison purposes, the group decided to model each of the collision 
scenarios to gauge the performance of each of the crashworthiness 
features under consideration. Data from the accidents was used for 
comparison with the analytic models and, where possible, for 
information on the crashworthiness performance of the baseline S-580 
locomotive design. For Scenarios 3a and 3b, the model was compared with 
the accident that occurred in Phoenixville, PA, on August 23, 1996, but 
the grade crossing collision, also occurring on August 23, 1996 in 
Phoenixville, with logs impacting the window structure was used to 
evaluate the influences of changes in the window structure.
    The Volpe Center, locomotive manufacturers and remanufacturers, and 
manufacturers of locomotive components made presentations to the 
Working Group on the current strength of the crash-related components 
and discussed the possibility of further strengthening of these 
components to improve overall crashworthiness. In addition, all members 
of the Working Group engaged in extensive discussion of these issues. 
Thus, only enhancements which were currently feasible were modeled.

[[Page 36895]]

    In all, the Working Group considered the following locomotive 
crashworthiness features:
    --Shelf couplers: A representative of the Mechanical Committee of 
Standard Coupler Manufacturers (MCSCM) reviewed the ``shelf coupler'' 
concept with the Working Group and traced its development from concept 
to the current status. Every freight car has a bottom-shelf E head 
coupler. Double shelf (top- and bottom-shelf) couplers are mandated by 
FRA on tank cars used to haul hazardous materials. These shelves limit 
vertical motion between two coupled couplers to approximately 7\1/4\ inches (184 mm). Passenger cars are typically equipped 
with tightlock couplers which keep the coupler faces at the same 
height. These couplers have demonstrated their effectiveness in 
preventing override for their respective equipment. During the 
discussion it was pointed out that a top shelf might assist in 
preventing override in a rear-end collision although it would require 
that a coupling actually occur for the shelf to be effective. However, 
type-F couplers commonly applied to locomotives already incorporate a 
top shelf feature. After deliberations, the Working Group decided not 
to pursue the concept of double shelf couplers as effective 
crashworthiness improvements. It was further noted that the coupling of 
MU cables and the air hoses between locomotives would be made more 
difficult if shelf couplers were required on locomotives. The potential 
for such coupler designs in preventing locomotive-to-locomotive 
override in a head-on collision was nonetheless evaluated.

--Interlocking anti-climber: The anti-climber design employed by the 
Canadian National Railway Company (CN) was evaluated. This design 
incorporates thicker webs and flanges than typical North American 
designs, and also includes exposed flanges running the width of the 
anti-climber.
--Stronger collision posts: Preliminary designs of collision posts with 
strengths up to the strength of the main underframe structure of the 
locomotive were developed and evaluated. Principal modifications 
considered were the addition of flanges and tapering the collision 
post.
--Stronger window area structure: Increased cab strength above the 
short hood was evaluated. Modifications considered included the use of 
thicker sheet metal for the window frame members.
--Stronger short hood: The influence of short hood strength on 
locomotive crashworthiness in an oblique collision was evaluated. 
Modifications evaluated included thickness of the short hood and the 
material used to make the short hood.
--Front plate: Increased front plate strength was considered as a 
potential modification for increased locomotive crashworthiness in an 
oblique collision with a freight car. The modification considered 
consisted of increased front plate thickness.
    The results of the study indicate that strengthened collision posts 
and short hoods resulted in increased crashworthiness for particular 
collision scenarios. Shelf couplers were found not to be effective in 
preventing coupled locomotive override. Due to the fracture that occurs 
as the CN anti-climber design longitudinally crushes, this design was 
found to be ineffective in supporting the vertical forces that occur 
during locomotive-to-locomotive override, consequently allowing such 
overrides to occur. For an oblique collision of a locomotive with an 
empty hopper car, in which the locomotive is principally engaged below 
the underframe, modifications to the locomotive are not likely to 
influence the outcome of the collision.
    ADL and Volpe Center representatives, presented results from their 
detailed analyses of how design improvements/additions in S-580 would 
affect the probable resulting injuries/deaths in each of the five 
scenarios (a copy of the results has been placed in the docket of this 
proceeding). Then, the Working Group analyzed and considered the 
proposed costs and benefits to determine the effectiveness of each of 
the proposed changes to S-580. The group also considered a performance 
standard for locomotive crashworthiness design.
    From this point forward, the Working Group, assisted by the Task 
Force, debated the format for specifying the crashworthiness 
requirements, many issues relating to feasibility of alternative 
structures, and the economic impact of the proposed new requirements. 
Throughout, the group remained convinced that significant safety 
benefits could be achieved. The AAR members volunteered to adopt a 
specification (which would become AAR S-580-2005) meeting the 
performance criteria under discussion. This would act as a model design 
standard which satisfies the crashworthiness performance requirements. 
The group then focused its attention on the details of AAR S-580-2005 
in order to refine and optimize them.
    On November 2, 2004, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) addressing locomotive crashworthiness. In issuing the NPRM, FRA 
adopted the recommendations of the Working Group and the full RSAC. See 
69 FR 63890. The NPRM provided for a 60-day comment period and provided 
interested parties the opportunity to request a public hearing. Based 
upon a request from an interested party, FRA issued a notice on January 
12, 2005 extending the comment period from January 3, 2005 until 
February 3, 2005. See 70 FR 2105. FRA received comments from six 
interested parties.
    On June 28 and 29, 2005, the Working Group conducted a meeting to 
review and discuss the comments received in response to the NPRM. 
Minutes from this meeting have been placed in the docket of this 
proceeding. The Working Group discussed all of the issues raised in the 
comments and considered various methods by which to address the 
comments. Based on information and discussions held at this meeting, 
the Working Group developed a recommendation for a final rule.
    In July 2005, the Working Group presented its recommendations for 
resolution of the public comments to the full RSAC. On August 5, 2005, 
the RSAC voted to recommend issuance of the final rule while addressing 
the comments as proposed by the Working Group. FRA, having fully 
participated in the RSAC review, and finding that the final rule will 
improve rail safety, has accepted the recommendations of the RSAC in 
completing this final rule. FRA has also made various editorial 
corrections necessary to present in a clear, concise, and technically 
correct manner the intended final rule.
    FRA has worked closely with the RSAC in the development of its 
recommendations and believes that the RSAC effectively addressed 
locomotive crashworthiness standards. FRA has greatly benefitted from 
the open, informed exchange of information that has taken place during 
meetings. There is general consensus among labor, management, and 
manufacturers concerning the primary principles FRA sets forth in this 
final rule. FRA believes that the expertise possessed by the RSAC 
representatives enhances the value of the recommendations, and FRA has 
made every effort to incorporate them in this final rule.

IV. Major Issues

A. Promulgation of Performance Standards Where Possible

    FRA has endeavored to promulgate performance requirements in this 
final

[[Page 36896]]

rule rather than the more prescriptive design standards. FRA 
understands that this approach allows for greater flexibility in the 
design of locomotives and believes this approach has a better chance of 
encouraging innovation in locomotive design than less flexible design 
standards.
    The following discussion includes a description of performance and 
design standards, the advantages and disadvantages of each, and the 
relationship between the design and performance standards.
    Performance standards describe the behavior, or performance, of 
systems under prescribed circumstances. The principal advantage of such 
standards is that how the performance is achieved is not specified; any 
design approach can be used. The principal drawback to such standards 
for crashworthiness is that either destructive tests or detailed 
analyses (i.e., computer simulation) are required in order to assure 
that the system can achieve the desired level of performance.
    Design standards prescribe conditions which do not explicitly 
relate to the performance of the system. The principal advantage of 
such standards is that compliance can be verified with either non-
destructive tests or closed-form analyses (i.e., hand calculations). 
The principal disadvantages are that the desired level of performance 
is not guaranteed, assumptions about performance must be made when 
fashioning a particular design approach, and innovative approaches to 
achieving the regulatory objective may be precluded.
    The Working Group considered specifying crashworthiness through 
design standards and performance standards. The Working Group 
recommended that design standards be employed for industry standards, 
and that a combination of design and performance standards for the 
federal regulations. The Working Group endeavored to have the 
recommended industry standards and the recommended federal regulations 
provide equivalent levels of crashworthiness.
    This final rule includes both performance requirements and design 
requirements. The Working Group recognized that in certain cases, 
design standards are identified as presumptively responsive to 
performance requirements. This approach permits builders to use 
accepted designs without conducting costly analyses.
    While the Working Group endeavored in its recommendations to make 
both sets of requirements as equivalent as possible, because of the 
differences in their nature, it is impossible to make them completely 
equivalent. The equivalence of the design and performance standards is 
discussed in detail in: Martinez, E., Tyrell, D., ``Alternative 
Analyses of Locomotive Structural Designs for Crashworthiness,'' 
presented at the 2000 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and 
Exposition, November 6, 2000, Orlando, FL, and included in the docket 
of this proceeding as Document No. FRA 2004-17645-10. There are no 
guarantees that a locomotive built to the design specification will 
have the performance required by the performance specification. If some 
aspect of the design approach assumed in developing the design 
requirements is changed, it may be possible to meet the design 
requirements but not meet the level of desired performance. 
Nevertheless, FRA believes that this final rule will accomplish the 
intended risk reduction.
    Since performance standards are not appropriate for every 
regulation, it must first be determined whether certain factors 
preclude their use. For example, performance standards are not 
effective for regulation in areas where it is difficult to determine 
compliance (i.e., a regulation requiring safer piloting of aircraft) or 
where determination of a proper minimum level of performance cannot be 
made easily or cost-effectively (see ``Performance-Based Regulations 
Guide,'' Federal Aviation Administration, October 31, 1997, a copy of 
which has been placed in the docket of this proceeding).
    The Working Group sought to recommend locomotive crashworthiness 
performance standards where possible and identified the locomotive 
front end structure design as the best candidate for regulation through 
performance requirements. There was some concern among the Working 
Group members that if FRA issued performance requirements in this area, 
computer models would be required to show compliance with performance 
requirements for each new locomotive design. Thus, the Working Group 
decided to recommend that S-580 be incorporated by reference in its 
entirety. This concept became further refined by maintaining the 
performance requirements, yet providing a model design standard which, 
if met, would likely satisfy the performance requirements.
    The Working Group's approach encourages introduction of more 
innovative designs. As previously noted, AAR agreed to provide the 
model design standard in the form of an enhanced S-580. Thus, the 
Working Group focused its efforts on developing a model design standard 
for locomotives of conventional design, herein called AAR S-580-2005.
    Rather than requiring every design to show satisfaction of the 
performance standards here, FRA has offered AAR S-580-2005 as a 
conventional model design standard. FRA, in consultation with the RSAC 
Working Group, has performed the necessary analysis to show that AAR S-
580-2005 meets the performance standards in most instances.
    All of the subject areas covered by this final rule, other than 
locomotive front end, are presented in terms of design standards rather 
than performance requirements. This formulation required in-depth 
analysis of accident history, creation and validation of computer 
models, and comparison of various design improvements versus their 
baseline design. This was necessary to ensure that the minimum 
requirements being developed were in fact feasible and necessary. Also, 
S-580 provided a convenient and appropriate benchmark for testing of 
further improvements in this field, whereas FRA is not aware of any 
standards for subject areas such as locomotive cab interior 
configuration or locomotive cab emergency egress.
    FRA will regulate designs for anti-climbing devices and underframe 
strength through design standards, in accordance with AAR S-580-2005. 
Under this standard, underframe strength is maintained at the level 
utilized in prior construction, providing basic compatibility among old 
and new locomotives. During preparation of the proposed rule, the AAR 
revised its anti-climbing standard to make it more rigorous by 
specifying that the required load (100,000 pounds) be met as applied to 
a 12 inch width anywhere along the anti-climber perimeter, in contrast 
to 200,000 pounds applied across the full width of the anti-climber. 
The Working Group recognized that even this improved structure would be 
of limited use in a head-on collision with another locomotive, because 
of horizontal crushing that would typically occur before the device 
could engage vertically. However, the group did find evidence that 
anti-climbing devices do provide protection to cab occupants in the 
event of a collision with a highway vehicle. FRA plans additional 
research in this area in the future.
    FRA understands that these standards will not create absolutely 
crashworthy locomotives, but rather will tend to optimize 
crashworthiness design features in order to increase cab occupant 
safety under some of the most

[[Page 36897]]

common collision conditions. Since its inception in the early 1990's, 
S-580 has had a positive effect on locomotive crashworthiness design. 
This final rule is intended to capture the benefits of the industry's 
initiative and improve upon it where possible. FRA believes the RSAC 
resources were the best forum for recognizing and generating such 
improvements.
    Other efforts are being undertaken by the industry and by FRA to 
reduce the risk of locomotive collisions. For instance, on March 7, 
2005, FRA issued a rule on performance standards for the use and 
development of processor-based signal and train control systems (part 
236, subpart H). See 70 FR 11052. The implementation of positive train 
control \6\ (PTC) technology could reduce the number of train-to-train 
collisions. Current federal and state programs encourage the safety 
improvement of highway-rail at-grade crossings (including initiatives 
targeted at drivers of heavy trucks) and help reduce the risk of 
locomotive collisions. The risks associated with locomotive collisions 
with offset intermodal containers on freight cars on parallel tracks 
are being addressed by joint industry/FRA programs to promote better 
securement of trailers and containers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ PTC is a type of train control system containing modern 
processor-based technology that is defined by the protective 
functions that it provides. As a minimum, the core functions of a 
PTC system are: (1) Prevent train-to-train collisions (positive 
train separation), (2) enforce speed restrictions, including civil 
engineering restrictions (curves, bridges, etc.) and temporary slow 
orders, and (3) provide protection for roadway workers and their 
equipment operating under specific authorities. A PTC system can be 
classified into one of four levels of a system hierarchy depending 
on safety features or additional functions that it contains beyond 
the basic core functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, all of these collision avoidance strategies require time 
and resources to work, and there is significant uncertainty regarding 
their full implementation. Further, as rail operations and highway 
traffic grow, significant effort may be required to ensure that 
collision-related casualties do not grow as well. Accordingly, taking 
action to mitigate the effects of collisions remains a prudent element 
of public policy, and is likely to remain so for some years to come.

B. Application to New Locomotives (See Also Section-by-Section Analysis 
for Sec.  229.203)

    It should be emphasized that FRA is not imposing these locomotive 
crashworthiness requirements on the current locomotive fleet. At this 
time, FRA believes safety benefits resulting from crashworthiness 
improvements would be best realized through future locomotive designs, 
rather than by retrofitting the current fleet. However, what ought to 
be considered a ``new locomotive'' for purposes of this final rule 
merits discussion.
    FRA uses the locomotive build date of on or after January 1, 2009, 
for determining whether the locomotive is subject to the requirements 
of this final rule. This should give railroads and locomotive 
manufacturers adequate time to take necessary steps to ensure that 
these new locomotives will be in compliance with these requirements, 
and it corresponds with the date selected by the AAR for the revised S-
580 standard to be implemented by manufacturers.
    In the NPRM, FRA was particularly interested in whether a 
locomotive rebuilt with new components atop a previously-used 
underframe, or ``decked'' locomotive, should qualify as a new 
locomotive. These ``remanufactured'' locomotives may have a future life 
span nearly equivalent to a locomotive constructed on a new underframe. 
FRA previously defined ``new locomotive'' to include those locomotives 
rebuilt with a previously-used underframe and containing no more than 
25% previously-used parts (weighted by cost). FRA invited comment on 
this issue and whether any other distinct class of locomotive should be 
considered a ``new locomotive'' for the purposes of this rule. FRA 
received comments from three parties seeking clarification of FRA's 
definition of ``remanufactured'' locomotive. These comments are 
addressed and discussed in the section-by-section analysis of ``Section 
229.5 Definitions.''
    FRA encourages, as discussed by the Working Group, the use of sound 
consist \7\ management principles to place improved, more crashworthy 
locomotives as lead locomotives in consists. As these new locomotives 
are phased in, they will only comprise a portion of the fleet, and 
railroads will be faced with making decisions regarding their placement 
in a consist. FRA believes the benefits of this rule are maximized when 
these newer locomotives are used in the lead position to provide 
additional protection to the operating crews, and not in trailing 
positions behind older, less crashworthy locomotives, but FRA has not 
mandated the placement of the newer locomotives. The Working Group did 
not believe a requirement to mandate placement of these newer 
locomotives in the lead position would be beneficial, and further 
believed that the issue is relevant only during the phase-in period. In 
any event, in the future the entire locomotive fleet will be built to 
these or future crashworthiness standards. In the NPRM, commenters were 
invited to address this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As used in this context, ``consist'' means the composition 
of a train.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA received one comment on this issue. The commenter believed that 
since all future locomotives will be built to these new crashworthiness 
standards, a placement requirement would soon be unnecessary. In 
addition, the commenter believed that the requirement to place newer 
locomotives in the lead position would prove to be an ``operational 
nightmare'' for railroads to implement. The RSAC, through the Working 
Group, discussed this issue and agreed with the commenter that a 
placement requirement should not be implemented. As FRA has found that 
there is no current need to mandate the placement of newer locomotives 
in the lead position, FRA has adopted the RSAC's recommendation.

V. Section-by-Section Analysis

Amendments to Part 229

    In contrast to requirements for passenger-occupied cab control cars 
and multiple unit (MU) locomotives, there are no current federal 
regulations governing conventional locomotive crashworthiness design. 
These new regulations revise subpart D of part 229 to address 
locomotive crashworthiness design for conventional locomotives.

Subpart A--General

Section 229.5 Definitions
    This section contains an extensive set of definitions. FRA intends 
for these definitions to clarify the meaning of terms as they are used 
in the text of the final rule. The final rule retains all of the 
definitions proposed in the NPRM, with the exception of the definition 
of ``MU locomotive'', which will keep its existing definition as 
amended by FRA's Locomotive Event Recorder Rule, which was published 
subsequent to the NPRM. See 70 FR 37920 (June 30, 2005). FRA received 
one comment asking FRA to reconcile the potential conflict between the 
definition of ``MU locomotive'' proposed in the NPRM and the existing 
definition of ``MU locomotive'' contained in part 238. As the 
crashworthiness standards of this final rule do not apply to ``MU 
locomotives,'' FRA finds no need to further modify the existing ``MU 
locomotive'' definition. FRA will address the general issue of 
definitions related to MU locomotives in a forthcoming proposal 
originated by the Passenger Safety Working Group of the RSAC.

[[Page 36898]]

    The following terms have the same meaning as provided in part 238: 
``corner post,'' ``lateral,'' ``locomotive cab,'' ``longitudinal,'' 
``permanent deformation,'' ``power car,'' ``roof rail,'' ``semi-
permanently coupled,'' ``Tier II,'' and ``ultimate strength.''
    The term ``anti-climber'' is intended to have the same meaning as 
``anti-climbing mechanism'' as it is used in part 238. The term ``anti-
climber'' is used in place of ``anti-climbing mechanism'' to more 
accurately represent the name used in the rail industry.
    The term ``collision post'' has essentially the same meaning as it 
is used in part 238; however, the definition is modified slightly in 
this final rule to narrow its application only to locomotives.
    The term ``build date'' means the date on which the completed 
locomotive is actually shipped by the manufacturer or remanufacturer to 
the customer, or if the railroad manufactures or remanufactures the 
locomotive itself, the date on which the locomotive is released from 
the manufacture or remanufacture facility. In the NPRM, FRA asked for 
comment as to whether this definition accurately represents the 
industry's definition of ``build date.'' FRA received two comments 
addressing this issue. One commenter suggested that the Working Group 
revise the definition to reflect the date on which the locomotive is 
ready for delivery to a customer, regardless of when the customer 
actually takes delivery. However, another commenter suggested that the 
definition of ``build date'' remain unchanged. The Working Group 
discussed this issue and agreed with one of the commenters that the 
definition should remain unchanged. FRA agrees with the Working Group's 
recommendation based on the fact that the existing definition of 
``build date'' will be simpler to apply uniformly to all affected 
parties. Subsequent to the RSAC providing recommendations on this final 
rule, FRA also added language to the definition to reflect what a build 
date for a locomotive would be if a railroad manufactured or 
remanufactured a locomotive itself. This addition captures the intent 
of the ``build date'' definition proposed in the NPRM and discussed by 
the Working Group, however, it contemplates the possibility that a 
railroad may manufacture or remanufacture its own locomotives.
    The term ``designated service'' has the same meaning as provided in 
part 223.
    The term ``design standard'' means a specification for the 
crashworthiness design of locomotives. This will usually contain a set 
of design requirements which do not specify ultimate performance, yet 
are not so specific in nature that they leave little flexibility to the 
designer. The overall design of the locomotive is allowed to vary, so 
long as the specified crashworthiness design requirements are met.
    The term ``fuel tank, external'' differs slightly from the current 
part 238 definition and revises that definition by replacing the word 
``volume'' with the word ``vessel.'' FRA believes that this is a more 
accurate and grammatically correct definition. In this rulemaking, FRA 
is also revising the current part 238 definition to mirror the 
definition in part 229.
    The term ``fuel tank, internal'' differs slightly from the current 
part 238 definition and revises that definition by replacing the word 
``volume'' with the word ``vessel.'' FRA believes that this is a more 
accurate and grammatically correct definition. In this rulemaking, FRA 
is also revising the current part 238 definition to mirror the 
definition in part 229.
    FRA received one comment concerning the definitions of ``fuel tank, 
external'' and ``fuel tank, internal.'' This commenter agreed that the 
new definitions are ``more accurate and grammatically correct''; 
however, this commenter sought clarification as to what structural 
protection would be required for a fuel tank to be considered 
``internal'' or within the ``car body structure.'' In response to this 
comment, FRA provides further clarification as to what is considered an 
``internal'' fuel tank. A ``fuel tank, internal,'' as defined in this 
rule, is a fuel tank which ``does not extend outside the car body 
structure of the locomotive.'' In order to be considered ``internal,'' 
a fuel tank must be surrounded by more than just a minimally protective 
``skin.'' The fuel tank must be surrounded by a more substantial 
structure and located within the support structure of the locomotive.
    The term ``manufacture'' means the practice of producing a 
locomotive from new materials.
    The term ``monocoque design locomotive'' means a locomotive in 
which the external skin or shell of the locomotive combines with the 
support frame to jointly provide structural support and stress 
resistance.
    The term ``narrow-nose locomotive'' means a locomotive with a short 
hood which spans substantially less than the full width of the 
locomotive.
    The term ``occupied service'' means any instance in which a 
locomotive is operated with a person present in the cab.
    The term ``remanufacture'' means the practice of producing a 
``remaufactured locomotive''.
    As proposed, the term ``remanufactured locomotive'' means a 
locomotive rebuilt or refurbished from a previously used or refurbished 
underframe (``deck''), containing fewer than 25% previously used 
components (weighted by dollar value of the components). It is intended 
to capture the practice of decking a locomotive, or rebuilding it on a 
previously-used underframe. The proposed definition was intended to 
give better guidance to rebuilders of locomotives and railroads 
considering rebuilding a locomotive, and also to prevent avoidance of 
the proposed requirements by simply rebuilding a locomotive on a 
previously-used underframe containing less than 25% previously used 
components without making safety improvements.
    FRA has already codified the term ``remanufactured locomotive'' in 
Sec.  229.5, by including it as part of FRA's Locomotive Event 
Recorders Final Rule. 70 FR 37919. However, in response to the NPRM, 
three commenters requested additional clarification as to what 
constitutes a new locomotive for the purpose of determining 
applicability of the locomotive crashworthiness rulemaking. In general, 
commenters requested that FRA's locomotive crashworthiness rule provide 
more clarity and specificity to the methodology that should be used to 
calculate the 25%. One commenter noted that the definition of 25%, 
based on dollar value, does not specify the basis for comparison. Thus, 
FRA has provided further comparison requirements in the final rule's 
definition. The new definition adopted by this rule reads: 
``[r]emanufactured locomotive means a locomotive rebuilt or refurbished 
from a previously used or refurbished underframe (deck), containing 
fewer than 25% previously used components (measured by dollar value of 
the components). For calculation purposes, the percentage of previously 
used components is determined with the equivalent value of new parts 
and is calculated using dollar values from the same year as the new 
parts used to remanufacture the locomotive.''
    Another commenter noted that for all intents and purposes FRA's 
definition of a ``remanufactured locomotive'' is essentially equivalent 
to a new locomotive. This commenter also noted that this created a need 
for defining remanufactured (or rebuilt) locomotives where the 
percentage of previously used parts exceeds 25%. FRA agrees that there 
is a category or group of

[[Page 36899]]

locomotives that could be rebuilt or remanufactured that would not come 
under the requirements of this regulation. However, the regulation's 
design and/or structure does not demand that such a definition be 
added.
    The term ``semi-monocoque design locomotive'' means a locomotive in 
which the external skin or shell of the locomotive partially combines 
with the support frame to provide structural support and stress 
resistance.
    The term ``short hood'' means the part of the locomotive above the 
underframe located between the cab and the nearest end of the 
locomotive. Short hoods may vary in length and are usually, but not 
always, located toward the front-facing portion of the locomotive.
    The term ``standards body'' means an industry and/or professional 
organization or association which conducts research and develops and/or 
issues policies, criteria, principles, and standards related to the 
rail industry.
    The term ``wide-nose locomotive'' means a locomotive used in 
revenue service which is not of narrow-nose or monocoque or semi-
monocoque design.

Subpart D--Locomotive Crashworthiness Design Requirements

Section 229.201 Purpose and Scope

    Paragraph (a) provides that the purpose of the final rule is to 
help protect locomotive cab occupants in the event of a collision with 
another locomotive, on-track equipment, or with any of several types of 
objects which may foul railroad trackage. Paragraph (b) provides that 
this subpart sets forth standards for the design of crashworthy 
locomotives. It is important to note that these standards will not 
protect all occupants in all collision situations; rather, this rule 
calls for design improvements in areas which FRA believes will have the 
greatest effect on the reduction of cab crew injuries and fatalities 
associated with the most prevalent types of locomotive collisions. 
There were no comments regarding this provision and it is, therefore, 
unchanged in this final rule.
Section 229.203 Applicability
    Paragraph (a) states that the requirements of this subpart apply to 
all locomotives manufactured or remanufactured on or after January 1, 
2009. The only locomotives exempt from these requirements are those 
specifically listed in paragraphs (b) and (c). The AAR S-580-2005 
applies to locomotives manufactured after December 31, 2008. FRA 
determined that it would be prudent to coordinate implementation of the 
rule with the effective date of the AAR-S-580-2005 to avoid any 
confusion. FRA utilizes the locomotive build date in calculating the 
exemption of the current locomotive fleet from requirements of this 
final rule. The entire current locomotive fleet would therefore not be 
subject to the requirements of this final rule, other than for the 
rebuilt and remanufactured requirements discussed below. FRA believes 
that approximately three years will be sufficient to allow 
manufacturers to re-engineer and re-tool in order to comply with these 
new standards and has specified this paragraph's applicability date 
accordingly, particularly since the revised S-580 standard was 
published by the AAR by circular dated February 7, 2005.
    This paragraph further applies to remanufactured locomotives, as 
defined in Sec.  229.5. FRA believes that the practice of ``decking'' a 
locomotive (stripping a locomotive to its underframe, or deck, and 
refurbishing it with new components) essentially creates a new 
locomotive. Since the useful life of a decked locomotive is practically 
the same as a newly built locomotive, FRA believes it should be subject 
to these new requirements. However, these new requirements are not 
intended to apply to locomotives undergoing periodic maintenance or a 
major overhaul not involving ``decking.'' Most large railroads perform 
a major overhaul after about 9-12 years, replacing or servicing many 
components, but not ``decking'' it. See also Major Issue (b), 
``Application to new locomotives.''
    FRA anticipates that the calculation of the percentage of 
previously used parts should not only be performed with the equivalent 
value of new parts, but also utilizing dollars from the same year as 
the new parts. In other words, if the value of the new parts is 
calculated using parts purchased in 2008, then the value of the 
previously used components is also calculated using 2008 prices of 
equivalent new parts. If it is not possible to provide the cost of an 
equivalent new part, then the cost for the most similar part should be 
used.
    For example, if the only part being reused for the production of a 
new locomotive is the underframe and the equivalent value of a new 
underframe is 15% of the cost of the locomotive, then for purposes of 
this regulation this locomotive would be considered a 
``remanufactured'' locomotive and would be required to meet these 
crashworthiness requirements. This example's calculation would be:

[Cost of Equivalent New Underframe Comparable to Reused Underframe/ ($ 
Cost of Equivalent new Underframe Comparable to Reused Underframe + $ 
Cost of New Parts) = 0.15].

    However, if there were ten parts being reused, including the 
underframe, and the equivalent value of new parts represents 30% of the 
cost of the locomotive, then for purposes of this regulation this 
locomotive would not be considered remanufactured and would not come 
under these requirements. This example's calculation would be:

[Cost of Equivalent New Parts Comparable to the 10 Reused Parts/ (Cost 
of Equivalent New Parts Comparable to the 10 reused parts + Cost of New 
Parts) = 0.30].

    FRA believes this definition and requirement recognize that a 
locomotive comprises a number of parts, principally the chassis, prime 
mover, main generator, trucks, traction motors and electrical system. 
FRA also realizes that each railroad derives its own best method of 
determining when overhauls must be performed. Some use mileage, some 
use hours, and some use more subjective factors. While the need for 
this work on a cyclical basis is a given, the manner in which it is 
conducted varies from railroad to railroad.
    FRA recognizes that some railroads conduct the overhaul on a 
preventative basis, component by component, at the same time as routine 
repairs and maintenance are performed. Others conduct the locomotive 
overhaul on a planned cycle using the wear of the engine component as 
the determinant, and still others follow a ``run to failure'' approach.
    Paragraph (b) excludes from application of this rule passenger cab 
cars, or MU and DMU cars, and semi-permanently coupled power cars built 
for passenger service. These types of locomotives are subject to the 
requirements of part 238.
    Paragraph (c) excludes from application of most provisions of this 
rule locomotives used in designated service. This includes locomotives 
without occupant cabs and also locomotives referred to as ``slugs.'' On 
these locomotives the cab doors have been welded shut or otherwise 
secured to a similar extent so that crews cannot occupy the cab. The 
designated service classification is intended to mirror its application 
in FRA's Safety Glazing Standards at Sec.  223.5. Locomotives used in 
designated service are still subject to the fuel tank requirements in 
Sec.  229.217. FRA mandates this requirement because it has found that 
locomotive fuel tank ruptures place at risk the environment and all 
persons within the local area of the collision site. Since locomotives

[[Page 36900]]

used in designated service may still be used as power in a consist, FRA 
is concerned that any fuel tank rupture on one of these locomotives 
would pose a safety risk at least equivalent to that from other road 
locomotives. Therefore, all new locomotives are required to comply with 
this fuel tank requirement.
    There were no comments it is, therefore, unchanged in this final 
rule.
Section 229.205 General Requirements
    Paragraph (a) of this section requires the design of all 
locomotives subject to this subpart, except monocoque or semi-monocoque 
design locomotives and narrow-nose locomotives, to meet the performance 
criteria in Appendix E (hereafter referred to as ``wide-nose design 
locomotives''). All wide-nose design locomotives must comply with the 
requirements of Appendix E; however, the manufacturers or 
remanufacturers of these locomotives are given options as to how they 
demonstrate their compliance. Compliance with the performance criteria 
must be satisfied by complying with any one of the three options 
provided.
    One commenter was concerned that these three options do not provide 
the option of performing full-scale collision tests or analysis, as 
defined in Appendix E. FRA wants to clarify that these three options 
are simply a means of demonstrating that a design meets the performance 
standards in Appendix E. A manufacturer or remanufacturer could, in 
theory, also demonstrate compliance with Appendix E by conducting full-
scale collision tests for a particular locomotive design, but the three 
options in Sec.  229.205 (a) provide a less costly means of compliance.
    In paragraph (a)(1), FRA has provided a model design standard, AAR 
S-580-2005, which FRA has found to satisfy the performance standard in 
Appendix E. This paragraph references that AAR standard's criteria for 
wide-nose locomotives, which has been analyzed in cooperation with the 
RSAC and found to satisfy the intent of the performance criteria. FRA 
does not require compliance with this standard as to wide-nose 
locomotives; rather, it is being provided simply as a design standard 
that FRA has already found to satisfy the performance requirements of 
Appendix E. Providing an available design standard aids the locomotive 
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) by making it unnecessary for 
them to conduct elaborate analysis of new designs to establish 
compliance with the performance standards. Representatives of two OEMs 
that participated throughout development of the NPRM in the RSAC 
embraced this approach and found it very cost effective. Paragraph 
(a)(2) allows compliance with FRA-approved new crashworthiness design 
standards or changes to existing crashworthiness design standards. 
Finally, in paragraph (a)(3), FRA provides the option of meeting an 
FRA-approved alternative crashworthiness design. The procedures for 
seeking such approval of new or revised standards or alternative 
designs are provided in Sec. Sec.  229.207 and 229.209.
    Paragraph (b) requires that monocoque and semi-monocoque design 
locomotives comply with the elements of the new AAR standard applicable 
to those types of locomotives. Typically used in passenger service, 
monocoque/semi-monocoque locomotives provide occupant protection in a 
different manner than wide-nose locomotives. Specifically, because much 
of the longitudinal strength of the locomotive is provided by the side 
panels of the unit (and potentially the roof) as well as the 
underframe, the front of a monocoque or semi-monocoque locomotive 
performs as an integral unit and resists collapse very effectively. By 
contrast, the wide-nose locomotive, which has relatively little 
strength above the underframe, is made safer by strengthening the short 
hood and allowing it to absorb energy as it collapses when subjected to 
higher forces. Allowing a similar amount of crush in the case of the 
monocoque/semi-monocoque design would result in an almost complete loss 
of the cab volume. The RSAC Working Group reviewed the accident history 
of monocoque/semi-monocoque locomotives already in service that meet 
the new standard as built and found that they appear to be at least as 
safe as wide-nose locomotives enhanced to meet the new AAR standard and 
Appendix E of this final rule. Existing manufacturers of this type of 
locomotive have indicated that they believe the new AAR standard is 
very reasonable and should be effective in ensuring that locomotives of 
this type are built to protect cab occupants.
    As the recommended text of the NPRM was being circulated for final 
ballot within the RSAC Working Group, a supplier member of APTA, which 
builds locomotives for commuter railroads, noted the existence of the 
APTA standards, APTA SS-C & S-034, for monocoque/semi-monocoque 
passenger locomotives. A copy of this standard has been placed in the 
docket of this rulemaking as Document No. FRA-2004-17645-17. In the 
NPRM, FRA solicited comments regarding whether the final rule should 
recognize this existing APTA standard as an additional option for 
compliance.
    Two commenters responded, and both believed that this APTA standard 
provided an equivalent level of safety as the crashworthiness standard 
contained in this final rule. One commenter expressed support for 
adopting APTA SS-C & S-034 as a compliant design option. The other 
commenter, however, did not believe that adoption of this standard was 
appropriate. This commenter believed that APTA SS-C & S-034 contained 
additional requirements, not contained in this final rule, which would 
create an undue additional regulatory burden.
    The Working Group analyzed and discussed these comments and 
recommended that FRA not adopt APTA SS-C & S-034 as an equivalent 
crashworthiness standard. Through discussions at the last Working Group 
meeting, FRA learned that APTA intends to phase out its standards for 
non-passenger carrying locomotives. In light of this, and the fact that 
this APTA standard has not been fully evaluated in relation to the 
final rule's standards, FRA adopts the Working Group's recommendation.
    One commenter also suggested that Sec.  229.205(b) be modified to 
clarify that locomotives built to the structural requirements contained 
in Sec. Sec.  238.405, 238.409 and 238.411 also meet the minimum 
locomotive crashworthiness requirements for monocoque and semi-
monocoque designs. FRA agrees that the end strength provisions in part 
238 for Tier II locomotives provide equivalent safety standards for 
structural design as the basic cab car, MU or DMU design standards set 
forth in this regulation. FRA also agrees that the end strength 
provisions in part 238 for Tier II locomotives require an equivalent 
level of crashworthiness as Sec.  229.205(b). FRA is, therefore, 
providing the option of complying with the standards in Sec. Sec.  
238.405(a), 238.409 and 238.411, in lieu of complying with the end 
strength provisions for Tier I locomotives in this rule. (Tier I means 
operating at speeds not exceeding 125 mph, as defined in part 238). All 
of the cited provisions must be met in order for this alternative to 
apply, since the ``safety cage'' concept embodied in the Tier II rule 
depends on the presence of all elements.
    Paragraph (c) requires that narrow-nose design locomotives be built 
to the requirements of the new AAR standard for that type of 
locomotive. The RSAC Working Group considered the need for a suitable 
standard to address locomotives used frequently to make up trains and 
pick up and set out cars. Presently, older narrow-nose

[[Page 36901]]

locomotives are preferred for this type of work because they provide a 
better field of view for the engineer. FRA agreed that the safety of 
ground personnel, and avoidance of train accidents involving fouling 
equipment and misaligned switches, would be best served by allowing 
that narrow-nosed locomotives be built to a less stringent standard. 
Accordingly, protection of the cab under the new AAR standard will be 
significantly better than existing narrow-nose units (through 
strengthening of the short hood structure and the addition of corner 
post requirements for the cab itself), but not as robust as required 
for wide-nose locomotives.
    One commenter expressed concern that these crashworthiness 
standards are not feasible for implementation in a ``narrow cab'' 
design. Specifically, this commenter suggested that the Working Group 
eliminate the ``corner post'' requirement for narrow-nose locomotives 
intended primarily for yard and limited over-road service. The Working 
Group reviewed this comment and recommended that the ``corner post'' 
requirements remain in the final rule as they are feasible and do 
provide a safety benefit for narrow-nose locomotives. FRA agrees and 
adopts the Working Group's recommendation.
    It should be noted that the final rule (see Sec. Sec.  229.207, 
229.209) allows the qualification of monocoque/semi-monocoque and 
narrow-nose locomotives using alternative standards and approved 
designs. However, unlike the situation for all other locomotives, 
neither Appendix E nor any other portion of the rule spells out 
precisely how the case for safety equivalence would be made. This is in 
part because FRA research and RSAC Working Group attention focused on 
the principal opportunity for safety advances through the improvement 
of wide-nose design locomotives (by far the largest category of new 
locomotives built in the last decade and under order today). Further, 
as noted above, existing monocoque/semi-monocoque designs have 
performed admirably; and design choices for the narrow-nose are 
seriously limited due to functional requirements.
    At the time of the publication of the NPRM, the scope of AAR S-580-
2004 varied slightly from that of the proposed rule. Specifically, in 
section ``1.0 Scope'' of AAR S-580-2004, ``road switcher/intermediate 
service locomotives'' were exempt from meeting the AAR design standard. 
However, ``road switcher/intermediate service locomotives'' were 
required to meet the performance standards of the NPRM. One commenter 
pointed out this apparent discrepancy between the NPRM and AAR S-580-
2004. However, since the publication of the NPRM, this variation 
between the AAR standard and FRA's rule has been remedied. The new AAR 
S-580-2005, a copy of which has been placed in the docket of this 
proceeding, no longer exempts ``road switcher/intermediate service 
locomotives'' from its standard. AAR S-580-2005 and this final rule now 
both require ``road switcher/intermediate service locomotives'' to meet 
these crashworthiness standards.
Section 229.206 Design Requirements
    This section requires all locomotives subject to this subpart to 
include anti-climbers, methods of emergency egress, and emergency 
interior lighting designed in compliance with the crashworthiness 
requirements contained in AAR S-580-2005.
    AAR S-580-2005 requires that the cab end of a locomotive must 
incorporate an anticlimber of a specified width, depth, and design to 
resist an upward or downward vertical force of 100,000 pounds, applied 
over any 12 inches of the anticlimber, without exceeding the ultimate 
strength of the anticlimber or its connector. The Working Group 
understood, and FRA agrees, that the forces generated between two 
colliding locomotives are of sufficient magnitude that the anticlimber 
will most likely crush and absorb some energy. The most likely scenario 
where the anticlimber can prevent intrusion into the occupied cab area 
is in collisions at grade crossings when a highway vehicle struck by a 
locomotive may try to climb up and the motions and forces generated are 
resisted by the anticlimber. One commenter suggested that the anti-
climber requirement in the AAR S-580-2005 be changed to 100,000 pounds 
without permanent deformation for consistency with the requirements in 
Sec.  238.205(a). Section 238.205(a) actually refers to withstanding 
``an upward or downward vertical force without failure,'' so no change 
is needed to achieve consistency. The commenter also recommended 
retaining the proposed Sec.  229.206 and deleting Sec.  238.205(b). FRA 
agrees that maintaining different standards for application to 
conventional locomotives is inappropriate, and in conformity with the 
stated intention to address locomotive crashworthiness requirements in 
part 229 as much as possible, FRA has added a sentence to Sec.  
238.205(b) making it clear that anti-climbing arrangements for 
locomotives built under the new subpart D to part 229 are governed by 
Sec.  229.206, rather than by Sec.  238.205(b).
    AAR S-580-2005 requires that the locomotive cab allow for exit 
through at least one opening in any locomotive orientation. The Working 
Group faced the problem that research in this area is lacking. However, 
the problem is well-defined: when the locomotive lies on its side after 
a collision, the occupants may have trouble reaching a door that is not 
obstructed, especially if they are injured. The Working Group therefore 
made some general recommendations for the design of cabs to incorporate 
adequate means of emergency egress. FRA has adopted these 
recommendations. FRA has also funded development of three alternative 
types of egress mechanisms, any one or more of which may be used to 
satisfy the requirements. One commenter suggested that either the AAR 
S-580 or Sec.  229.206 be modified to require emergency egress for all 
locomotives, not just wide-nose locomotives. The AAR S-580-2005 has 
been updated to make emergency egress requirements applicable to all 
locomotives.
    AAR S-580-2005 requires the placement of, and specifies 
illumination levels for, locomotive cab emergency lighting. These 
requirements are similar to those required for passenger equipment in 
Sec.  238.115, except that the required duration for lighting levels in 
freight locomotive cabs is less, to reflect the design distinction 
between the two types of equipment. Passenger equipment generally has 
use of an auxiliary power source, making it more convenient to provide 
ample power when needed. Most freight locomotives have only one power 
source and its reliability is important for powering the prime mover. 
Further, FRA sees locomotive crew members as being more familiar with 
the smaller layout of a freight locomotive cab and emergency lighting 
capabilities therein than the average passenger traveling in passenger 
equipment subject to part 238.
    FRA received two comments concerning emergency lighting. One 
commenter recommended that FRA remove the locomotive cab emergency 
lighting requirement from the final rule. The commenter argued that the 
emergency lighting requirements are not necessary due to the relatively 
small size of freight locomotive cabs, the high level of familiarity of 
their occupants with emergency procedures, the location of emergency 
exits, and the non-trivial ergonomic and design challenges for 
relatively little or no increase of safety. The emergency lighting 
requirement has been researched and discussed in detail by

[[Page 36902]]

the Working Group. Providing the situational awareness following a 
serious but survivable crash may be critical to safe evacuation of the 
crew. In the interest of safety, the Working Group and FRA both believe 
that this requirement should remain a part of this final rule. The 
other commenter suggested that either the AAR S-580 or Sec.  229.206 be 
modified to require emergency lighting for all locomotives, not just 
wide-nose locomotives. The AAR S-580-2005 has been updated to make 
emergency lighting requirements applicable to all locomotives.
    AAR S-580-2005 provides general design requirements for the 
interior configuration of a locomotive cab. In order to minimize the 
chance of injury to occupants, protruding parts, sharp edges, and 
corners in the locomotive cab must be rounded, radiused, or padded. 
These requirements are similar to those covering passenger equipment in 
Sec.  238.233(e), and the language used is very similar.
    AAR S-580-2005 provides design requirements for locomotive cab 
appurtenance (including cab seat) securement. The Working Group 
formulated these requirements based on manufacturer testing and its 
collective, general experience with locomotive collisions. FRA expects 
that testing methods to determine compliance with this requirement will 
be state of the art. Testing should demonstrate that the mountings, 
including cab seat mountings, meet the strength requirements without 
permanent deformation. Localized deformation may be acceptable for 
compliance purposes with this section.
    The disparities in these cab seat securement requirements from 
those currently required by Sec. Sec.  238.233(f) and (g) for passenger 
equipment are due solely to the difference in how compliance is 
measured. In Sec.  238.233, seat mountings must withstand forces of 8.0 
g longitudinal, 4.0 g lateral, and 4.0 g vertical without ultimate 
failure of the connection. This rule requires that locomotives comply 
with the AAR S-580-2005, which requires that all appurtenances/
mountings withstand forces of 3.0 g longitudinal, 1.5 g lateral, and 
2.0 g vertical without permanent deformation, as defined in Sec.  
229.5.
    The Working Group believes that, given current designs, all 
appurtenances and mountings which comply with Sec.  238.233 
requirements would most likely meet these requirements and vice versa. 
FRA agrees. However, FRA also agrees with the commenter that suggested 
that FRA amend Sec.  238.233(f) to avoid having different requirements 
for the same issue in two different regulations for seat attachment. 
FRA has not deleted this provision, which is required to govern 
existing locomotive construction; however, FRA has clarified that Sec.  
229.206 applies to locomotives required to be built under the new 
subpart D of part 229 as it takes effect on January 1, 2009.
    One commenter also suggested that either the AAR S-580 or Sec.  
229.206 be modified to require interior configuration requirements for 
all locomotives, not just wide-nose locomotives. The AAR S-580-2005 has 
been updated to make interior configuration requirements applicable to 
all locomotives.
    FRA did not need to amend the regulatory text to this section to 
address the comments it received, therefore, this provision is 
unchanged in this final rule.
Section 229.207 New Locomotive Crashworthiness Design Standards and 
Changes to Existing FRA-Approved Locomotive Crashworthiness Design 
Standards
    This section provides procedures to be followed when seeking FRA 
approval of new locomotive crashworthiness design standards. It also 
covers procedures for obtaining FRA approval of changes to existing 
standards which FRA has already approved. These procedures are similar 
to approval procedures currently used by FRA in other contexts. See, 
for example, Sec.  238.21.
    FRA envisions the possibility that other industry groups, such as 
passenger locomotive manufacturers, might desire a separate design 
standard from AAR S-580-2005. This section outlines the procedures to 
be used to obtain FRA approval for such a design standard. FRA 
recognizes that considerable expense could be required to validate a 
new design standard with respect to the performance criteria in 
Appendix E. Thus, FRA does not expect that submission of petitions for 
new locomotive crashworthiness design standards will be an ordinary 
occurrence.
    However, FRA does foresee a need for flexibility with approved 
standards to enable industry standards bodies to suggest often highly 
technical changes to a previously-approved design standard without 
incurring delays inevitably invoked by the Federal administrative 
review process. This section sets two levels of FRA scrutiny, depending 
on the degree of change to the previously-approved standard. The lowest 
level of scrutiny is involved when non-substantive changes are 
involved. See paragraph (d) of this section. A higher level of scrutiny 
would be required when substantive changes are involved. However, since 
most of these changes are likely to be incremental in nature, FRA only 
requires evidence that the resulting standard still satisfies the 
performance criteria by showing an equivalent or better level of 
safety. See paragraph (c) of this section.
    Paragraph (a) explains the purpose of this section. This section 
provides the procedures that must be followed by parties seeking 
approval of new crashworthiness design standards and changes to 
existing FRA-approved crashworthiness design standards. This paragraph 
also limits those who may seek approval of changes to existing FRA-
approved crashworthiness design standards. Only a standards body which 
has adopted an FRA-approved design standard may request to change that 
standard. FRA has imposed this limitation in order to prevent parties 
who have no stake in a design standard from seeking to impose changes 
to it. A party seeking changes to a design standard that has not been 
approved by FRA should follow the procedures for approval of new design 
standards, paragraph (b), or the procedures for approval of alternative 
design standards provided in Sec.  229.209.
    Paragraph (b) specifies submission procedures for petitions for new 
design standards. Each petition must be submitted to the FRA Associate 
Administrator for Safety and be titled ``Petition for FRA Approval of a 
New Locomotive Crashworthiness Design Standard.'' Paragraphs (b)(1) and 
(b)(2) require the petition to contain contact information for a 
representative of the petitioner and the proposed design standard in 
detail. Along with the proposed design standard, FRA needs to 
understand the intended type of use of the locomotive sought to be 
built by a petitioner. Paragraph (b)(3) requires this information. 
Paragraph (b)(4) requires the petition to contain data and analysis 
showing how the proposed design standard satisfies the performance 
requirements in Appendix E. Examples of the types of data and analysis 
required are provided in Sec.  229.211(c)(1).
    Paragraph (c) deals with substantive changes to an FRA-approved 
design standard. Each petition must be submitted to the FRA Associate 
Administrator for Safety and be titled ``Petition for FRA Approval of 
Changes to a Locomotive Crashworthiness Design Standard.'' Paragraphs 
(c)(1) and (c)(2) require the petition to contain contact information 
for a representative of the petitioner and the proposed change in 
detail. Along with the proposed change,

[[Page 36903]]

FRA needs to understand the intended type of use of the locomotive 
sought to be built by a petitioner. Paragraph (c)(3) requires this 
information. These substantive changes, defined as all other changes 
not covered by paragraph (d) (non-substantive changes), would likely 
result in a change to the design standard which might call into 
question its compliance with the performance criteria of Appendix E or 
equivalence to the applicable technical standard. For these types of 
changes, FRA requires, in paragraph (c)(4), validation that the 
resulting standard still satisfies the requirements stated in Sec.  
229.205. Types of validation which FRA will consider appropriate are 
described in Sec.  229.211(c)(1).
    Paragraph (d) specifies procedures for obtaining FRA approval of 
non-substantive changes to existing FRA-approved design standards. Each 
petition must be submitted to the FRA Associate Administrator for 
Safety and be titled ``Petition for FRA Approval of Non-substantive 
Changes to a Locomotive Crashworthiness Design Standard.'' Paragraphs 
(d)(1) and (d)(2) require the petition to contain contact information 
for a representative of the petitioner and the proposed change in 
detail. FRA believes that these non-substantive changes will usually be 
editorial, procedural, or interpretive in nature, requiring a 
relatively low level of FRA scrutiny. FRA understands such changes 
could be necessary in order for standards bodies to effectively carry 
out their duties. Paragraph (d)(3) requires a detailed explanation of 
how the proposed change is non-substantive. FRA will make an initial 
determination whether the proposed change is non-substantive. If FRA 
determines that the proposed change is in fact substantive, FRA will 
process the petition as a substantive proposed change in accordance 
with paragraph (c) of this section. If FRA determines that the proposed 
change is non-substantive, FRA will process the petition in accordance 
with Sec.  229.211(c).
    There were no comments regarding this provision and it is, 
therefore, unchanged in this final rule.
Section 229.209 Alternative Locomotive Crashworthiness Designs
    This section provides procedures to be followed when seeking FRA 
approval of an alternative locomotive crashworthiness design. These 
procedures are similar to approval procedures currently used by FRA in 
other contexts. See, for example, Sec.  238.21.
    FRA envisions the possibility that a railroad or locomotive 
manufacturer will desire to explore innovative locomotive designs which 
do not satisfy AAR S-580-2005 or any other current FRA-approved design 
standard. In such case, FRA has provided a procedure in this section 
whereby it would assess the design directly against the performance 
criteria of Appendix E. This section outlines the procedures to be used 
to obtain FRA approval for such a design. FRA recognizes that 
considerable expense could be required to validate an alternative 
design with respect to the performance criteria in Appendix E. However, 
the state of the art of validation techniques is evolving, and FRA does 
not find it far-fetched that the expenses associated with validation 
processes today will decrease. Overall, FRA expects that submission of 
petitions for alternative locomotive crashworthiness designs will be a 
rare occurrence.
    FRA also understands that the market for locomotives is very much 
customer-driven and that railroads of all sizes require a great degree 
of operational flexibility. Thus, FRA assumes that a locomotive capable 
of performing road-haul service will at some point be called upon to 
perform such service. Since the performance criteria are objectives 
designed for road-haul service locomotives, FRA contemplates approval 
of design standards and alternative designs not meeting the performance 
criteria or applicable technical standard only under a waiver 
proceeding (see part 211, subpart c). In such a proceeding, FRA would 
expect the petitioner to demonstrate that (1) service conditions will 
not approximate assumptions used for performance criteria (i.e, 
locomotive cannot possibly be used for road-haul service), and (2) 
adequate design restrictions on use will reinforce those assumptions. 
For example, appropriate restrictions on a locomotive's horsepower 
guarantee that it cannot effectively be used as a road-haul locomotive.
    Paragraph (a) explains the purpose of this section. This section 
contains procedures which govern locomotive designs which are truly 
innovative and unconventional. Manufacturers or railroads will most 
likely use the procedures in this section to gain FRA approval, rather 
than attempt to fit within an already-established design standard or 
alter an existing design standard. FRA believes that builders/railroads 
should not necessarily be forced to work with existing standards, 
should they be willing to have validated the safety features of their 
design against the performance criteria of Appendix E (or equivalence 
to the applicable technical standard).
    Paragraph (b) specifies submission procedures for petitions for 
alternative locomotive crashworthiness designs. Each petition must be 
submitted to the FRA Associate Administrator for Safety and be titled 
``Petition for FRA Approval of Alternative Locomotive Crashworthiness 
Design.'' Paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) require the petition to contain 
contact information for a representative of the petitioner and the 
proposed design in detail. Paragraph (b)(3) requires that, along with 
the proposed alternative design, the petitioner also specify the type 
of service to which the locomotive will be put. FRA needs to understand 
the intended type of use to appreciate the probable collision risks to 
which the locomotive will be subjected. Paragraph (b)(4) requires the 
petition to contain data and analysis showing how the proposed design 
standard satisfies the performance requirements in Appendix E or is 
equivalent in protection of cab occupants (in the case of narrow-nose 
or monocoque/semi-monocoque designs) to the applicable technical 
standard. Examples of the types of data and analysis required are 
provided in Sec.  229.211(c)(1).
    There were no comments regarding this provision and it is, 
therefore, unchanged in this final rule.
Section 229.211 Processing of Petitions
    This section outlines the procedures that FRA will follow in 
reaching a decision on petitions submitted under Sec.  229.207(b) 
(petitions for approval of new design standards); Sec.  229.207(c) 
(petitions for approval of substantive changes to an approved design 
standard); and Sec.  229.209(b) (petitions for approval of alternative 
design standards).
    Paragraph (a) provides that FRA publish a notice in the Federal 
Register for each petition received seeking approval of new or 
alternative crashworthiness designs or substantive changes to existing 
crashworthiness designs. This is to notify interested parties of the 
pending FRA action.
    Paragraph (b) provides procedures for interested parties to comment 
on any petitions submitted to FRA pursuant to this section. FRA is 
aware that changes in design of conventional locomotives might impact 
the safety of locomotive crews and other railroad employees. Therefore, 
this paragraph provides such parties the opportunity to comment. 
Further, FRA welcomes comments in electronic form as well as in written 
form. If FRA determines that additional information is required to 
appropriately consider the petition, FRA will conduct

[[Page 36904]]

a hearing on the petition. Notice of such hearing will provided in the 
Federal Register. Procedures for the conduct of such hearing will be in 
accord with Sec.  211.25.
    Paragraph (c) addresses FRA action on petitions submitted for FRA 
approval pursuant to Sec. Sec.  229.207(b), 229.207(c), and 229.209.
    Paragraph (c)(1) describes the types of validation techniques 
required for FRA approval of design standards, changes to design 
standards, and alternative locomotive crashworthiness designs. FRA 
provides several validation methods which it considers satisfactory. 
FRA is aware of the basic types of modeling and testing of locomotive 
design standards, as well as the relative costs associated with these 
processes. Any validation technique considered to be state-of-the-art, 
or generally acceptable within the scientific community, should suffice 
for purposes of this paragraph, whether it be computer software 
modeling or full-scale crash testing of locomotives. FRA does realize 
that technological and market changes may make modeling and/or testing 
methods more or less cost-effective, and would thus require validation 
to such an extent as reasonably practicable. Finally, in order to 
facilitate and expedite the approval process, FRA would encourage 
effective peer review of submitted standards prior to submission.
    For locomotives subject to paragraph (a) of Sec.  229.205, where 
solely incremental changes are being introduced to a previously 
approved design standard, FRA does not require proof of satisfaction of 
all Appendix E performance requirements. In this case, FRA would 
require submission of validation material for only those areas affected 
by the changes. FRA feels that to require full satisfaction of the 
Appendix E performance criteria would be too great a burden and would 
simply result in the requirement that subsequent petitioners ``reinvent 
the wheel'' in areas where it has already been invented.
    In the event that a truly innovative alternative design is 
submitted for FRA approval (i.e., not close to satisfying a previously-
approved design standard), FRA would require full validation of its 
crashworthiness per Appendix E. However, if a proposed alternative 
design varies only slightly from a previously-approved design standard, 
FRA would require only validation of those features which are 
different, in lieu of proof of satisfaction of all Appendix E 
performance criteria. Designers ought to be able to take advantage of 
prior safety validation efforts on conventional designs (reflected in 
FRA-approved design standards). Thus, when an alternative locomotive 
design approaches that of a previously-approved design standard, FRA 
would prefer that validation efforts be focused on areas where the 
alternative design takes a different approach from the approved design 
standard. FRA envisions validation of such alternative designs to be 
demonstrated through competent engineering analysis which compares the 
new alternative design to that of an approved design or design standard 
and demonstrates an equal or better performance. As detailed in 
Appendix E, the primary performance measure to be evaluated is crush 
distance. Crush distance restrictions are utilized in order to 
determine compliance with the goal of preventing intrusion into the 
occupied cab space.
    FRA made one small change to this section by deleting the last 
sentence from paragraph (c)(1) because FRA anticipates that some of the 
petitions that will be submitted will show the petitioner's conformance 
with a relevant design standard (e.g., semi-monocoque or narrow-nosed) 
rather than conformance with Appendix E.
    In paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3), FRA establishes a 90-day goal for 
disposition of a petition under this section, due to the technical 
review which may be required. It should be noted that 90 days is only a 
target goal. FRA will take more than 90 days to reach a decision if 
warranted. FRA will grant a petition only if it finds that the proposed 
design standard or change to an existing design standard satisfies the 
performance standards specified in Appendix E or provides a level of 
safety at least equivalent to the recognized technical standard (in the 
case of narrow-nose or monocoque/semi-monocoque designs). FRA will deny 
a petition if it determines that the proposed design standard or change 
to an existing design standard does not satisfy the performance 
standards specified in Appendix E or is not equivalent in safety (as 
applicable). FRA will also deny a petition if it determines that the 
petition does not meet the procedural requirements of Sec. Sec.  
229.207 and 229.209.
    Paragraph (c)(3) also contains a provision allowing petitions which 
have been denied to be re-opened for cause. For example, FRA might re-
open consideration of a petition for an alternative locomotive 
crashworthiness design if a specific locomotive collision risk had been 
significantly affected by factors (i.e., elimination of highway-rail 
at-grade crossings or adjacent parallel track) not present during the 
initial consideration of the petition.
    Finally, paragraph (c)(4) states that FRA will send copies of its 
written decision to all parties to the petition and will also place its 
decision in the docket for that petition. FRA believes that it is more 
accurate to refer to placing the decision in the docket for the 
petition, as opposed to the docket ``of this proceeding'', as was 
proposed in the NPRM. FRA may also post its decision on its Web site, 
www.fra.dot.gov.
    There were no comments regarding this provision and it is, 
therefore, unchanged in this final rule.
Section 229.213 Locomotive Manufacturing Information
    Paragraph (a) of this section requires each railroad operating a 
railroad subject to this subpart to retain the date upon which the 
locomotive was manufactured or remanufactured, the name of the 
manufacturer or remanufacturer, and the design specifications to which 
the locomotive was manufactured or remanufactured.
    Paragraph (b) provides that the information required by paragraph 
(a) must be located permanently in the locomotive cab (i.e., a plaque 
or plate affixed to the inside of the cab) or provided within two 
business days upon request of FRA or an FRA-certified State inspector. 
This requirement would provide a means by which it can be rapidly 
determined whether a locomotive is subject to the requirements of this 
rule.
    A related issue of locomotive identification of safety features is 
communication of these features to crews. The benefits of this rule may 
not be fully realized if the occupants of the locomotive are not made 
aware of the fact that the locomotive has crashworthiness design 
features and of the specific safety features incorporated in the 
locomotive design. Consequently, FRA believes it is imperative that 
this information be communicated to locomotive cab occupants. At the 
same time FRA recognizes that the safety improvements contained in this 
rule are incremental in nature and that, ultimately, crew members faced 
with an imminent hazard will need to make their own decisions as to 
whether to remain in the locomotive. Commenters were asked to 
specifically address whether any particular method of identification 
ought be used so as to promote uniformity, or whether carriers should 
be required to simply identify the locomotive with the appropriate 
information by any reasonable means, such training of crews. One 
commenter suggested that FRA afford railroads

[[Page 36905]]

discretion as to how to train or inform their crews and that FRA not 
issue regulation to address this issue. FRA agrees with the RSAC 
Working Group that railroads and labor organizations should determine 
how best to deliver this information to employees, which could include 
articles in organization periodicals, special notices, decals, 
inclusion in training curricula, or other means of conveying the 
information.
Section 229.215 Retention and Inspection of Designs
    Paragraph (a) provides a requirement that locomotive manufacturers 
and remanufacturers maintain crashworthiness designs for those 
locomotives subject to subpart D. This requirement is designed to 
ensure that compliance with the requirements of this subpart can be 
readily determined in the event that a locomotive's compliance with its 
design or performance standard is called into question. It is also 
meant to ensure that the relevant designs are available in the event a 
locomotive subject to this subpart is modified or repaired. FRA 
believes these records should be available so that any repairs or 
modifications made to the locomotives do not compromise the 
crashworthiness features to such an extent that they are no longer in 
compliance with the final rule.
    The requirement that these records be maintained for the life of 
the locomotive is limited to a 20-year term, which approximates the 
normal period an initial owner would typically retain control of the 
unit. As further specified below, the 20-year term runs from the date 
that a locomotive is manufactured. In the case of a remanufactured 
locomotive, the 20-year term begins anew on its date of remanufacture. 
For the purposes of this regulation, the manufacture and remanufacture 
dates are determined by the date a locomotive is shipped by the 
manufacturer or remanufacturer to the customer. In concluding this 
rulemaking, FRA has noted that the retention period as proposed would 
literally expire upon the occurrence of an accident/incident leading to 
the destruction of the locomotive, perhaps making the records 
unavailable to FRA or NTSB at the very time they would be most needed. 
The final rule corrects this oversight, providing for retention of the 
records of one year following the event.
    Paragraph (b) requires that all records of repairs or modifications 
to crashworthiness features of a locomotive subject to this subpart be 
kept by the owner or lessee of the locomotive. These records must also 
be maintained for the life cycle of the locomotive, up to a period of 
20 years from the date these repairs/modifications are made. In 
concluding this rulemaking, FRA has noted that the retention period as 
proposed would literally expire upon the occurrence of an accident/
incident leading to the destruction of the locomotive, perhaps making 
the records unavailable to FRA or NTSB at the very time they would be 
most needed. The final rule corrects this oversight, providing for 
retention of the records of one year following the event. Under this 
paragraph, transfer of ownership of a locomotive does not relieve the 
transferor of responsibility to maintain the repair/modification 
records. The railroad would be relieved of its responsibility to 
maintain the repair/modification records after the earlier of a 20-year 
period or when the locomotive is permanently retired from service. In 
the NPRM, FRA invited comments from small railroads regarding this 
issue, since FRA is aware that many smaller railroads obtain 
locomotives from larger railroads, rather than purchasing new from the 
manufacturer. FRA did not receive any comments concerning this issue.
    Paragraph (c) outlines the basic procedure for inspection of 
locomotive designs. FRA, or FRA-certified State inspectors, will 
request to view designs for specified locomotives, and the railroad 
will comply by making the designs available for inspection and 
photocopying by FRA, or FRA-certified State inspectors, within 7 days. 
FRA believes that this provision is essential to its ability to ensure 
compliance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
    FRA understands that railroads may not perform the actual repairs/
modifications or possess the actual designs themselves, but rather 
would have them stored by a third party such as the AAR, the leasing 
company, or even the manufacturer. Paragraph (d) allows the records to 
be maintained by third parties; however, the manufacturers, 
remanufacturers, owners, and lessees of locomotives subject to this 
subpart will remain responsible for compliance with this section.
Section 229.217 Fuel Tank
    Paragraph (a) provides that locomotives equipped with external fuel 
tanks meet the October 1, 2001 version of AAR Standard S-5506 
requirement for external fuel tanks, with the exception of Section 4.4 
as noted below. That version of AAR S-5506 has been placed in the 
docket of this proceeding. These requirements were formerly classified 
as an AAR Recommended Practice, RP-506. RP-506 became effective on June 
1, 1995. Only preliminary observations of its effect have been made. 
Data from FRA accident records has shown that RP-506 has had a positive 
effect on the performance of fuel tanks in locomotive collisions and 
derailments. The NTSB in NTSB Report PB92-917009 on fuel tank 
integrity has accepted RP-506 as a means to mitigate fuel tank breaches 
(a copy of the report has been placed in the docket of this 
proceeding). On October 1, 2001, AAR S-5506 was adopted as an AAR 
standard.
    Section 238.223(a) requires that passenger locomotives with 
external fuel tanks comply with a similar version of S-5506. As FRA 
decided in the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards final rule (64 FR 
25651-25652 (May 12, 1999)), to omit one of the provisions of RP-506 
(now S-5506) since it does not appear to be a safety standard, but 
rather a fueling requirement; this provision is intentionally omitted 
here as well. This provision, Section 4.4 (``Fueling'') of S-5506, 
states that ``[i]nternal structures of [the] tank must not impede the 
flow of fuel through the tank while fueling at a rate of 300 gpm 
[gallons per minute].'' FRA does not consider fueling rates to be a 
safety concern, but rather an operational consideration; therefore, 
section 4.4 has not been included.
    One commenter suggested that FRA delete Appendix D to part 238 and 
that Sec.  238.223(a) require external fuel tanks comply with Sec.  
229.217(a). The commenter believed that this is necessary to avoid 
redundancy and to ensure that there is only one interpretation of the 
requirements of external fuel tanks. FRA has decided to refer this 
issue to the RSAC Passenger Safety Working Group for resolution. 
However, for the present time, FRA is clarifying that passenger 
locomotives that are subject to the requirements of Sec. Sec.  238.223 
and 238.423 are not required to comply with the provision of Sec.  
229.217(a).
    Paragraph (b) requires locomotives equipped with internal fuel 
tanks to meet the requirements of Sec.  238.223, which governs design 
of fuel tanks on passenger locomotives. Although FRA contemplates most 
locomotives equipped with internal fuel tanks will be used in passenger 
service, FRA has classified locomotives by design rather than intended 
service, in order to allow maximum operational flexibility by the 
carriers.

[[Page 36906]]

Appendix E--Performance Criteria for Structural Design

    This appendix provides performance criteria for the structural 
design of locomotives (other than monocoque/semi-monocoque design or 
narrow-nose design), comprised basically of the front end structure 
inclusive of a wide, short hood and collision posts with a cab 
structure. Demonstration that these criteria have been satisfied may be 
accomplished through any of the methods described in Sec.  229.211. In 
conventional locomotive design, these two areas cover basically all of 
the major structural support separating cab occupants from the 
impacting objects in a locomotive collision. The criteria, which were 
recommended by RSAC and adopted by FRA, were developed by the 
Engineering Task Force with support from the Volpe Center. Each 
lettered paragraph of this appendix covers a different collision 
scenario, indicating the objective of the scenario, the proxy, or 
contemplated colliding object, the conditions of the impact, and the 
allowable results. The performance standard being adopted will allow 
for the maximum level of flexibility in future locomotive design.
    The performance criteria for the locomotive crashworthiness design 
features provide a minimum level of structural safety for locomotive 
cab occupants involved in a collision. The logic behind the performance 
criteria is that locomotives designed to meet the performance criteria 
specified in this final rule will be able to preserve survivable space 
in the locomotive cab in a collision under similar conditions as 
specified in this appendix, as well as those involving lower closing 
speeds. For instance, a locomotive traveling 30 miles per hour 
colliding with a heavy highway vehicle (weighing no more than 65,000 
pounds, or 32\1/2\ tons) at a highway-rail grade crossing should 
maintain sufficient survivable space for its occupants if it is built 
to the standards required by this final rule, even if it effectively 
overrides the underframe of the locomotive. However, since actual 
collision conditions may vary greatly, these figures should only be 
used as guidelines and not relied upon as precise cutoff levels of 
locomotive crashworthiness. Whether there will be sufficient survivable 
space inside the locomotive cab depends on many unpredictable factors 
as well.
    With these considerations, FRA desires to allow for maximum 
flexibility in locomotive design by issuing performance criteria to 
protect cab occupants where possible. The criteria for the front end 
structure of the locomotive are based on specified collision scenarios 
or performance requirements.
    Paragraph (a) provides performance criteria for design of the front 
end structure where, in conventional locomotive design, collision posts 
would normally be found. This collision scenario is intended to 
simulate a collision between a locomotive and a heavy highway vehicle 
at a highway-rail grade crossing. The proxy object in this scenario is 
designed to represent the heavy highway vehicle. The intended simulated 
impact conditions are specified for the closing speed, point of impact, 
and maximum allowable crush distance along the longitudinal axis of the 
locomotive. The improvements in crashworthiness required under this 
scenario will also have the effect of reducing intrusion into the cab 
during collisions between locomotives and other rail rolling stock.
    Paragraph (b) provides performance criteria for design of the front 
end structure, where, in conventional locomotive design, the short hood 
is normally found. The objective of this scenario is to simulate an 
oblique collision with an intermodal container offset from a freight 
car on an adjacent parallel track. This collision scenario is based on 
the collision conditions, other than speed, found in the May 16, 1994 
Selma, NC, collision involving an overhanging intermodal trailer on 
northbound CSXT 176 freight train and the lead locomotive on southbound 
Amtrak passenger train 87. The closing speed between these two trains 
was estimated at about 110 mph. The proxy object in this scenario 
represents the intermodal trailer, and the intended simulated impact 
conditions are specified for the closing speed (30 mph), point of 
impact, and maximum allowable crush distance along the longitudinal 
axis of the locomotive.
    In the course of the discussions held, the Working Group also 
performed research into strengthening the window frame structure of 
wide-nose locomotives. The window frame structure for typical wide-nose 
locomotives currently in use in North America is made up of two corner 
posts and a central post all of which are tied into the roof. After 
considerable discussion at the last meeting prior to the issuance of 
the NPRM, the Working Group decided against recommending design load 
requirements as well as performance requirements for the window frame 
structure. The key argument raised by members of the Working Group was 
that a majority of the cost, approximately one-half of the total cost 
for all modifications, would be incurred by the need for extensive 
engineering re-design and fabrication re-tooling. The benefits 
associated with the modifications to the window frame structure were 
small based upon the accident review. FRA agreed with the Working 
Group's analysis and decided to postpone promulgation of proposed 
requirements for the window frame structure for wide-nose locomotives 
pending further detailed study.

AAR S-580-2005, Locomotive Crashworthiness Requirements

    FRA has approved AAR S-580-2005 as an acceptable design standard, 
for purposes of satisfying the performance criteria of Appendix E.
    AAR S-580-2005 contains design requirements for locomotive front 
end structure design, as well as other miscellaneous design 
requirements, some of which are Federal requirements as well. 
Structural requirements listed in AAR S-580-2005 are divided into three 
different subsections: one for locomotives of traditional wide-nose 
designs, one for locomotives of narrow-nose design, and one for those 
of semi-monocoque/monocoque design. There are separate requirements for 
these general classifications of designs in order to account for the 
different service conditions they typically operate under and the 
significantly different crush characteristics of the designs. For 
example, FRA mandates less stringent front end structure requirements 
for narrow-nose locomotives because they are used mainly in switching 
service. During switching operations, visibility to and from the cab is 
essential in preventing injuries and fatalities. FRA feels that 
requirements for a significantly enhanced front end structure on 
narrow-nose locomotives would be detrimental to visibility to and from 
the locomotive cab. Manufacturers have indicated that further 
strengthening would require major redesign, with structural members 
taking up more physical space in the cab. As a result, FRA has balanced 
these safety risks by increasing the strength requirements for the 
front end of narrow-nose locomotives, but only to the extent that the 
functionality of these locomotives would not be compromised.
    Requirements in AAR S-580-2005 for wide-nose locomotive front end 
structure encompass three main components: anti-climbers, collision 
posts, and short hood structure.
    Collision posts: the collision posts are the primary crash-energy 
absorbing features on a locomotive involved in an in-line train-to-
train collision or impact with a large motor vehicle. S-580, as

[[Page 36907]]

adopted in 1989, provided for a ``500,000/200,000 pound'' collision 
post. Through its efforts, the Working Group found that strengthened 
collision posts would provide additional collision protection to the 
cab occupants. Specifically, the group found that a collision post 
which can handle an application of 750,000 pounds at the point of 
attachment and 500,000 pounds of force applied at a point 30 inches 
above the top of the underframe could withstand the same damage in 
collisions occurring at a closing speed 2 mph higher than the baseline 
S-580 design. A collision post which can handle 800,000 pounds at the 
same point behaves similarly in collisions occurring at closing speeds 
8 mph faster than the baseline S-580 design. However, increasing the 
strength of the collision posts to a point beyond that of the strength 
of the underframe would serve no useful purpose, because the underframe 
would fail before the collision posts.\8\ The Working Group found it 
more desirable to have the collision posts fail before the underframe 
does, thereby reducing the possibility of override due to either the 
formation of a ramp caused by underframe deformation or catapulting. 
The Working Group ultimately recommended the ``750,000/500,000 pound'' 
collision post as a minimum standard. FRA agrees and the final rule 
reflects this recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ADL presentation at July 14-15, 1998 Working Group meeting. 
This presentation has been placed in the docket of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AAR S-580-2005 also requires collision posts to extend to a minimum 
of 24 inches above the finished floor and be located forward of the 
position of any seated crew member. The position of the collision posts 
and their required height were developed to provide the crew members a 
survivable area in the event of a frontal collision with an object 
above the underframe of the locomotive. The Working Group discussed the 
advantages of such a survivable volume in that it may help encourage 
crew members to remain in the cab rather than jumping, as they often do 
in the face of a collision. This would prevent unnecessary injuries, 
and even fatalities, resulting from jumping in these situations. FRA 
agrees with the Working Group's recommendation and the final rule 
reflects this recommendation.
    Short Hood Structure: The short hood structure is constructed 
primarily from steel sheets, and spans the width of the locomotive from 
the finished floor up to the window frame. It provides additional 
protection to occupants. Since it extends the width of the locomotive 
(unlike collision posts), it is the primary means of protection in the 
event the locomotive collides with an object at an angle or a load is 
applied longitudinally outside of the collision posts, such as in a 
collision with an offset trailer on a flatbed car.
    A short hood structure meeting the performance requirements in 
Appendix E should provide adequate protection to cab occupants in a 30-
mile per hour collision with an offset trailer on a flatcar on an 
adjacent track. Such a structure should be able to withstand a load of 
400,000 pounds. It is also intended to crush in a collision, absorbing 
some energy. Thus, the model design requirements of AAR S-580-2005 
provide guidelines for design of a short hood structure having such 
strength characteristics.
    AAR S-580-2005 also covers front end structural requirements for 
semi-monocoque locomotives in section 8.0 ``Monocoque or Semi-monocoque 
Locomotive Designs.'' This design standard was adapted from the 
performance requirements of Appendix E and through variation of the 
design standard for wide-nose locomotives. Since locomotives of 
monocoque or semi-monocoque design are more efficient in managing crash 
energy due to the load-bearing capabilities of the wall and roof 
structures, they may be designed using a slightly weaker underframe 
than the conventional wide-nose locomotives. This type of design better 
distributes loads applied to its front end by effectively transferring 
them to the walls and roof, as well as the underframe. This design 
allows it to utilize a less-resistant underframe in order to provide 
the same degree of protection. Limited data from the performance of 
semi-monocque locomotives involved in locomotive collisions has 
corroborated this theory.
    Section 7.0 ``Narrow-Nose Locomotives'' covers design requirements 
for the front-end structure of narrow-nose locomotives. Strength 
requirements for the front end structure of narrow-nose locomotives are 
less stringent than those for wide-nose locomotives. The narrow nose on 
these locomotives simply does not allow for equivalent protection at 
the widest part of the locomotive in front of the cab. Although this 
makes the wide-nose locomotive more desirable for use in road freight 
service, narrow-nose locomotives have become useful in intermediate-
haul and local switching operations because they offer cab occupants a 
much greater range of vision from the cab. During these types of 
movements, unobstructed vision is very important because railroad 
personnel are often standing on or near the right of way directing the 
movement. FRA believes that provision must be made for use of the 
narrow-nose locomotive design to maintain an appropriate level of 
safety during intermediate-haul and local switching operations. FRA 
provides a design standard for narrow-nose locomotives which maximizes 
the strength of the front corners using existing technology and 
materials without sacrificing occupant visibility from the cab.
    The most significant safety risk with respect to narrow-nose 
locomotives is their regular use in road-haul service. Since the Class 
I railroads have followed a trend of purchasing more and more wide-nose 
locomotives to be used in road freight service, the use of narrow-nose 
locomotives in a manner inconsistent with their intended service (i.e., 
over-utilization in road freight service) is unlikely. Through the 
course of its deliberations, the Working Group had discussed 
possibilities of (1) restricting service of narrow-nose locomotives to 
intermediate- and local-haul and transfer train service, (2) 
restricting them to a maximum speed limit, and (3) restricting design 
of these locomotives to a maximum horsepower limit. In its final 
recommendation, the Working Group decided not to recommend any service 
or design restrictions. FRA has no reason to believe that the trend of 
purchasing wide-nose locomotives will not continue, and thus does not 
issue any service or design restrictions on narrow-nose locomotives in 
this rule.
    One commenter requested clarification as to how crush is defined in 
the collision post and the short hood scenarios. Crush is the relative 
longitudinal distance between the centers of gravity of the impacting 
object and the locomotive. Crush is measured from the initial contact 
until maximum penetration. The centers of gravity are located on the 
undeformed bodies, and are assumed to be fixed to the bodies. This is 
the definition of crush used in the engineering studies conducted in 
support of this rule. Full or sub-scale tests, hand calculations, 
detailed numerical modeling, or some combination of these techniques 
may be used to show that the requirements of Appendix E are met.
    A maximum of 24 inches of crush of the locomotive is allowed in 
Appendix E (a) Front end structure (collision posts) and a maximum of 
60 inches of crush in Appendix E (b) Front end structure (short hood). 
These distances were chosen based on the results of the engineering 
studies conducted in

[[Page 36908]]

support of this rule. These studies show that a significant increase in 
locomotive crashworthiness can be achieved by requiring the collision 
posts or equivalent structure to crush up to 24 inches, and that it is 
difficult to create a design for such structures capable of crushing 
longer distances while still absorbing energy. These studies also show 
that the locomotive short hood structures can crush for distances up to 
60 inches while absorbing energy.
    The commenter recommended that the Working Group re-evaluate 
whether additional prescriptive requirements, such as specific 
dimensional parameters for collision post positioning, be included in 
the performance standard. The commenter also suggested that a statement 
be added clarify whether it is acceptable to have complete separation 
of the collision posts from the underframe. The commenter also 
suggested that this part specify that the proxy object must be centered 
laterally along the longitudinal centerline of the locomotive. FRA does 
not intend to prescribe methodologies for demonstrating compliance. 
Compliance with the existing requirements and proposed requirements can 
be shown using reasonable engineering methods, which include 
appropriate analyses and tests.
    It should be noted that the Working Group abandoned discussions 
over a fourth design standard, that of the yard switcher locomotive. 
Such a locomotive would be designed for use solely in the assembling 
and disassembling of trains, and could be designed to the standard of 
S-580.

AAR Standard S-5506, Performance Requirements for Diesel Electric 
Locomotive Fuel Tanks (October 1, 2001)

    This standard contains the requirements recommended by the Working 
Group and adopted by FRA for the design of external fuel tanks, with 
the exception of Section 4.4 as noted above. The full text of AAR-S-
5506 has been placed in the docket of this proceeding. This AAR 
standard was adopted from an earlier recommended practice, RP-506, 
which was first adopted in 1995.

Amendments to Part 238

    In contrast to requirements for passenger-occupied cab control cars 
and multiple unit (MU) locomotives, there are no current Federal 
regulations directed towards conventional locomotive crashworthiness 
design. In the NPRM, FRA proposed that the revisions to part 229 revise 
subpart D to address locomotive crashworthiness design for all 
locomotives covered by this rule while moving Sec.  229.141 to part 238 
as Sec.  238.224. FRA subsequently determined that moving Sec.  229.141 
to part 238 may cause more confusion than necessary, in particular due 
to draftsmanship constraints to properly state the applicability dates 
for the various equipment covered by Sec.  229.141 and part 238, in 
particular. In addition, moving Sec.  229.141 to part 238 would have no 
effect on the substantive requirements of the two regulations. 
Therefore, FRA has decided to keep Sec.  229.141 in its current 
location. However, the final rule clarifies its application in relation 
to provisions in part 238. Specifically, new paragraphs (a)(6) and 
(b)(6) of Sec.  229.141 restate what is currently provided in 
paragraphs (d) and (e) of Sec.  229.3. In addition, section 
238.201(a)(2) now cross-references Sec.  229.141 for clarity as well.
    FRA amended Sec.  229.141 as part of the May 12, 1999, Passenger 
Equipment Safety Standards final rule, so that its requirements would 
not conflict with the requirements of part 238. However, in the case of 
passenger equipment excluded from the structural requirements of 
Sec. Sec.  238.203 through 238.219, and Sec.  238.223 by operation of 
Sec.  238.201(a)(2), there is no direct conflict, and FRA intended that 
such passenger equipment remain subject to any applicable requirements 
in Sec.  229.141. Hence, paragraphs (d) and (e) were added to Sec.  
229.3 as part of the 1999 rulemaking. See 64 FR 25659-25660. FRA is 
hereby adding clarity to the relationship between these two regulations 
as best as we can with minimal addition of regulatory text, as stated 
above.
    One commenter also suggested that FRA either delete both Sec.  
238.205(b) and Sec.  238.233(f) or modify them to reference only Sec.  
229.206. FRA agrees with the commenter that both sections should be 
amended to avoid having different requirements for the same issue in 
two different regulations for anti-climbers and seat attachments. FRA 
has not deleted these provisions, which are required to govern existing 
locomotive construction; however, FRA has clarified that Sec.  229.206 
applies to locomotives required to be built under the new subpart D of 
part 229 which takes effect on January 1, 2009.

Subpart A--General

Section 238.5 Definitions
    The term ``fuel tank, external'' revises the current part 238 
definition by replacing the word ``volume'' with the word ``vessel.'' 
FRA believes that this is a more accurate and grammatically correct 
definition.
    The term ``fuel tank, internal'' revises the current part 238 
definition by replacing the word ``volume'' with the word ``vessel.'' 
FRA believes that this is a more accurate and grammatically correct 
definition.

Regulatory Impact

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of FRA's 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.

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing policies 
and procedures, and determined to be 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 analysis 
addressing the economic impact of this final rule.
    As part of the regulatory analysis FRA has assessed quantitative 
measurements of cost and benefit streams expected from the adoption of 
this final rule. For a twenty-year period the estimated quantified 
costs total $81.6 million, and have a Present Value (PV) of $43.9 
million. (In calculating the present value, FRA used a 7% percent 
discount rate and 2004 dollars.) For this period the estimated 
quantified benefits total $125.9 million, which have a PV of $52.4 
million. Over this twenty-year period, the Net Present Value (NPV) of 
this final rule is a positive $8.5 million. The major costs anticipated 
from adopting this final rule include: redesign costs for locomotive 
models; and the marginal cost increases for labor and supplies needed 
for the more crashworthy locomotives.
    The major benefits anticipated from implementing this final rule 
include: a reduction of the damages incurred by locomotives when they 
are involved in collisions; and a reduction in the severity of 
casualties resulting from locomotive collisions. In addition, there 
should be a reduction in the number of lost work days by employees who 
occupy locomotive cabs.

[[Page 36909]]

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
requires a review of proposed and final rules to assess their impact on 
small entities. FRA has prepared and placed in the docket a Small 
Entity Impact Assessment and Evaluation which assesses the necessary 
and pertinent small entity impacts.
    Executive Order No. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities 
in Agency Rulemaking,'' requires Federal agencies, among other things, 
to notify the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business 
Administration (SBA) of any of its draft rules that will have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The Executive Order also requires Federal agencies to consider any 
comments provided by the SBA and to include in the preamble to the rule 
the agency's response to any written comments by the SBA, unless the 
agency head certifies that the inclusion of such material would not 
serve the public interest. 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002).
    The SBA stipulates in its ``Size Standards'' that the largest a 
railroad business firm that is ``for-profit'' may be, and still be 
classified as a ``small entity'' is 1,500 employees for ``Line-Haul 
Operating'' Railroads, and 500 employees for ``Switching and Terminal 
Establishments.'' ``Small entity'' is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601 as a 
small business concern that is independently owned and operated, and is 
not dominant in its field of operation. SBA's ``size standards'' may be 
altered by Federal agencies on consultation with SBA and in conjunction 
with public comment. Pursuant to that authority, FRA has published a 
final policy which formally establishes ``small entities'' as being 
railroads which meet the line haulage revenue requirements of a Class 
III railroad. Currently, the revenue requirements are $20 million or 
less in annual operating revenue. The $20 million limit is based on the 
Surface Transportation Board's (STB's) threshold of a Class III 
railroad carrier, which is adjusted by applying the railroad revenue 
deflator adjustment (part 1201). The same dollar limit on revenues is 
established to determine whether a railroad shipper or contractor is a 
small entity.
    For this final rule there are over 410 railroads which could 
potentially be affected. The impacts from this regulation are primarily 
a result of increased cost to produce more crashworthy locomotives. 
These costs include re-design and engineering costs for the new 
locomotive designs/models, and for the marginal costs of the 
incremental crashworthiness improvements. All of these impacts or costs 
are passed on to customers or purchasers of new locomotives. However, 
only railroads which purchase new or original equipment will be 
impacted, and FRA is not aware of any small railroads that purchase new 
locomotives. Hence, FRA does not expect this regulation to directly 
impact any small railroads.
    FRA expects that minimal costs of re-designing a new locomotive 
will be passed through to a small entity when they purchase a used, re-
designed locomotive. Small entities will not likely be purchasing those 
used, re-designed locomotives until 15 or 20 years after this 
regulation becomes effective. FRA does not believe that in 15 or 20 
years the relative cost of a used locomotive that is in compliance with 
this regulation will change significantly from the current cost of a 
used locomotive. Therefore, FRA does not expect that this regulation 
will have any indirect impact on small railroads either.
    To determine the significance of the economic impact for this final 
rule's Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements, FRA invited comments to 
its NPRM from all interested parties concerning the potential economic 
impact on small entities caused by this rule.
    FRA received one comment from an interested party who believed that 
this rule would be detrimental to short line and regional railroads. 
The commenter believed that this rule would discourage smaller 
railroads from rebuilding locomotive diesel engines. The commenter 
suggested that the threshold used to determine whether or not a 
locomotive is considered ``remanufactured'' be modified upward so as to 
exempt smaller railroads.
    The commenter referenced Sec.  229.203--``Applicability'', of the 
NPRM. However, the commenter's reference to this section was made 
without acknowledgment of the definition of ``remanufactured'' 
locomotive. In Sec.  229.5, the definition of ``remanufactured'' 
locomotive specifies that in order to be classified as 
``remanufactured'' a locomotive must be rebuilt or refurbished from a 
previously used or refurbished underframe (deck), containing fewer than 
25% previously used components.
    FRA clearly was concerned about this issue and sought comment on it 
in the NPRM. FRA requested comment as to whether a ``remanufactured'' 
locomotive should be treated as a new locomotive. FRA intended the 
definition of ``remanufactured'' locomotive to not permit what is 
essentially a new locomotive to be excluded from the regulatory 
requirements.
    ASLRRA participated in the RSAC Working Group that developed the 
proposed rule, which was recommended to the Administrator and became 
the NPRM. The ASLRRA never registered an issue or concern with the 
definition of ``remanufactured'' locomotive. In addition, FRA has not 
received any data or evidence that shows that the level of rebuilding a 
short line railroad would perform on a locomotive would reach the 
threshold of the definition of remanufactured locomotive to be impacted 
by this rulemaking. On the contrary, FRA believes that the rebuilding 
that short line railroads perform on locomotives involves less than 75% 
new parts. FRA, therefore, disagrees with this commenter and restates 
that this rulemaking should not have an impact on the type or level or 
rebuilding that smaller railroads would perform on a locomotive.
    Based on the lack of any evidence to alter FRA's previous 
determination, FRA certifies that this final rule is not expected to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this final 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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Total      Total
                                                         Total annual    Average time per    annual      annual
     CFR Section--49 CFR        Respondent universe       responses          response        burden      burden
                                                                                              hours       cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
229.207A--Petitions For FRA    685 Railroads/4        2 petitions......  1,050 hours.....    2,100        $4,000
 Approval of New Locomotive     Locomotive
 Crashworthiness Design         Manufacturers.
 Standards.

[[Page 36910]]

 
    --Subsequent Years.......  685 Railroads/4        1 petition.......  1,050 hours.....    1,050         2,000
                                Locomotive
                                Manufacturers.
229.207B--Petitions For        685 Railroads/4        2 petitions......  1,050 hours.....    2,100       254,000
 Substantive Changes to an      Locomotive
 FRA-Approved Locomotive        Manufacturers.
 Crashworthiness Design
 Standard.
229.207C--Petitions For Non-   685 Railroads/4        4 petitions......  400 hours.......    1,600       183,000
 Substantive Changes to an      Locomotive
 FRA-Approved Locomotive        Manufacturers.
 Crashworthiness Design
 Standard.
229.209--Petitions For FRA     685 Railroads/4        1 petition.......  2,550 hours.....    2,550         2,000
 Approval of Alternative        Locomotive
 Locomotive Crashworthiness     Manufacturers.
 Designs.
229.211A--Processing of        4 Locomotive           10 comments......  16 hours........      160         6,400
 Petitions--Comment.            Manufacturers/
                                Railroad Association/
                                Labor Organizations/
                                Public.
229.211B--Additional           4 Locomotive           4 hearings.......  24 hours........       96         3,840
 Information Concerning         Manufacturers/
 Petitions.                     Railroad Association/
                                Labor Organizations/
                                Public.
229.213--Locomotive            685 Railroads........  700 records......  6 minutes.......       70         2,800
 Manufacturing information.
229.215A--Retention of         4 Locomotive           24 records.......  8 hours.........      192         7,680
 Records--Original Design.      Manufact..
229.215B--Retention of         685 Railroads/         6 records........  4 hours.........       24           960
 Records--Repair and            Locomotive Lessess.
 Modifications.
229.215C--Inspection of        6 Locomotive           10 records.......  2 minutes.......         .33         13
 Records.                       Manufacturers/
                                Rebuilders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions; 
searching existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed 
data; and reviewing the information. For information or a copy of the 
paperwork package submitted to OMB, contact Robert Brogan, Information 
Clearance Officer, at 202-493-6292.
    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of 
information requirements contained in this final rule between 30 and 60 
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
    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 this final rule. 
The OMB control number, when assigned, will be announced by separate 
notice in the Federal Register.

Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with the agency's 
``Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts'' as required by the 
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and related 
statutes and directives. The agency has determined that the final 
regulation would not have a significant impact on the human or natural 
environment and is categorically excluded from detailed environmental 
review pursuant to section 4(c)(20) of FRA's Procedures. Neither an 
environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement is 
required in this instance. The agency's review has confirmed the 
applicability of the categorical exclusion to this final regulation and 
the conclusion that the final rule would not, if implemented, have a 
significant environmental impact.

Federalism Implications

    FRA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, issued on August 4, 
1999, which directs Federal agencies to exercise great care in 
establishing policies that have federalism implications. See 64 FR 
43255. This final rule will not have a substantial effect on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
various levels of government. This final rule will not have federalism 
implications that impose any direct compliance costs on State and local 
governments.
    FRA notes that the RSAC, which reached a consensus on recommending 
this final rule to FRA, has as permanent members two organizations 
representing State and local interests: the American Association of 
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Association 
of State Rail Safety Managers (ASRSM). Both of these State 
organizations concurred with the RSAC recommendation endorsing this 
final rule. The RSAC regularly provides recommendations to the FRA 
Administrator for solutions to regulatory issues that reflect 
significant input from its State members. To date, FRA has received no 
indication of concerns about the federalism implications of this 
rulemaking from these representatives or of any other representatives 
of State government. Consequently, FRA concludes that this final rule 
has no federalism implications, other than the preemption of State laws 
covering the subject matter of this final rule, which occurs by 
operation of law under 49 U.S.C. 20106 whenever FRA issues a rule or 
order.

Compliance With the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) 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).'' Sec. 201. Section 202 of the Act further requires that 
``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. The final rule issued today does not include 
any mandates which will result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of 
$128,100,000 or more in any one year,

[[Page 36911]]

and thus preparation of a statement is not required.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 229

    Incorporation by reference, Locomotives, Railroad safety, 
Transportation.

49 CFR Part 238

    Passenger equipment, Railroad safety, Transportation.

The Final Rule

0
In consideration of the foregoing, FRA is amending parts 229 and 238 of 
chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as 
follows:

PART 229--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 229 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20103, 20107, 20133, 20137-20138, 
20143, 20701-20703, 21301-21302, 21304; 49 CFR 1.49(c), (m).


0
2. Amend Sec.  229.5 by revising the definition of ``remanufactured 
locomotive'' and adding in alphabetical order additional definitions to 
read as follows:


Sec.  229.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    AAR means the Association of American Railroads.
    Anti-climbers means the parts at the ends of adjoining rail 
vehicles in a train that are designed to engage when subjected to large 
buff loads to prevent the override of one vehicle by another.
    Associate Administrator for Safety means the Associate 
Administrator for Safety, Federal Railroad Administration, or that 
person's delegate as designated in writing.
* * * * *
    Build date means the date on which the completed locomotive is 
shipped by the manufacturer or remanufacturer to the customer, or if 
the railroad manufactures or remanufactures the locomotive itself, the 
date on which the locomotive is released from the manufacture or 
remanufacture facility.
* * * * *
    Collision posts means structural members of the end structures of a 
rail vehicle that extend vertically from the underframe to which they 
are securely attached and that provide protection to occupied 
compartments from an object penetrating the vehicle during a collision.
    Corner posts means structural members located at the intersection 
of the front or rear surface with the side surface of a rail vehicle 
and which extend vertically from the underframe to the roof.
* * * * *
    Designated service means exclusive operation of a locomotive under 
the following conditions:
    (1) The locomotive is not used as an independent unit or the 
controlling unit in a consist of locomotives except when moving for the 
purposes of servicing or repair within a single yard area;
    (2) The locomotive is not occupied by operating or deadhead crews 
outside a single yard area; and
    (3) The locomotive is stenciled ``Designated Service--DO NOT 
OCCUPY.''
    Design standard means a criterion adopted by an industry or 
voluntary consensus standards body, which addresses the design of a 
locomotive with respect to its crashworthiness and crashworthiness 
features.
* * * * *
    FRA means the Federal Railroad Administration.
    Fuel tank, external means a fuel containment vessel that extends 
outside the car body structure of a locomotive.
    Fuel tank, internal means a fuel containment vessel that does not 
extend outside the car body structure of a locomotive.
* * * * *
    Lateral means the horizontal direction perpendicular to the 
direction of travel.
* * * * *
    Locomotive cab means the compartment or space on board a locomotive 
where the control stand is located and which is normally occupied by 
the engineer when the locomotive is operated.
    Longitudinal means in a direction parallel to the normal direction 
of travel.
* * * * *
    Manufacture means the act of constructing a locomotive.
* * * * *
    Monocoque design locomotive means a locomotive design where the 
shell or skin acts as a single unit with the supporting frame to resist 
and transmit the loads acting on the locomotive.
* * * * *
    Narrow-nose locomotive means a locomotive with a short hood that 
spans substantially less than the full width of the locomotive.
    Occupied service means the operation of a locomotive when the cab 
is physically occupied by a person.
* * * * *
    Permanent deformation means the undergoing of a permanent change in 
shape of a structural member of a rail vehicle.
* * * * *
    Power car means a rail vehicle that propels a Tier II passenger 
train or is the lead vehicle in a Tier II passenger train, or both.
* * * * *
    Remanufacture means the act of constructing a remanufactured 
locomotive.
    Remanufactured locomotive means a locomotive rebuilt or refurbished 
from a previously used or refurbished underframe (``deck''), containing 
fewer than 25% previously used components (measured by dollar value of 
the components). For calculation purposes, the percentage of previously 
used components is determined with equivalent value of new parts and is 
calculated using dollar values from the same year as the new parts used 
to remanufacture the locomotive.
    Roof rail means the longitudinal structural member at the 
intersection of the side wall and the roof sheathing.
* * * * *
    Semi-monocoque design locomotive means a locomotive design where 
the skin or shell acts, to some extent, as a single unit with the 
supporting frame to resist and transmit the loads acting on the 
locomotive.
    Semi-permanently coupled means coupled by means of a drawbar or 
other coupling mechanism that requires tools to perform the uncoupling 
operation.
* * * * *
    Short hood means the part of the locomotive above the underframe 
located between the cab and the nearest end of the locomotive.
    Standards body means an industry and/or professional organization 
or association which conducts research and develops and/or issues 
policies, criteria, principles, and standards related to the rail 
industry.
* * * * *
    Tier II means operating at speeds exceeding 125 mph but not 
exceeding 150 mph.
* * * * *
    Ultimate strength means the load at which a structural member 
fractures or ceases to resist any load.
* * * * *
    Wide-nose locomotive means a locomotive with a short hood that 
spans the full width of the locomotive.

0
3. Revise the heading of subpart D of part 229 to read as follows:

[[Page 36912]]

Subpart D--Locomotive Crashworthiness Design Requirements

0
4. Amend Sec.  229.141 to add new paragraphs (a)(6) and (b)(6) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  229.141  Body structure, MU locomotives.

    (a) * * *
    (6) On or after November 8, 1999, paragraph (a)(1) of this section 
does not apply to ``passenger equipment'' as defined in Sec.  238.5 of 
this chapter, unless such equipment is excluded from the requirements 
of Sec. Sec.  238.203 through 238.219, and Sec.  238.223 of this 
chapter by operation of Sec.  238.201(a)(2) of this chapter. Paragraphs 
(a)(2) through (a)(4) of this section do not apply to ``passenger 
equipment'' as defined in Sec.  238.5 of this chapter that is placed in 
service for the first time on or after September 8, 2000, unless such 
equipment is excluded from the requirements of Sec. Sec.  238.203 
through 238.219, and Sec.  238.223 of this chapter by operation of 
Sec.  238.201(a)(2) of this chapter.
    (b) * * *
    (6) On or after November 8, 1999, paragraph (a)(1) of this section 
does not apply to ``passenger equipment'' as defined in Sec.  238.5 of 
this chapter, unless such equipment is excluded from the requirements 
of Sec. Sec.  238.203 through 238.219, and Sec.  238.223 of this 
chapter by operation of Sec.  238.201(a)(2) of this chapter. Paragraphs 
(a)(2) through (a)(4) of this section do not apply to ``passenger 
equipment'' as defined in Sec.  238.5 of this chapter that is placed in 
service for the first time on or after September 8, 2000, unless such 
equipment is excluded from the requirements of Sec. Sec.  238.203 
through 238.219, and Sec.  238.223 of this chapter by operation of 
Sec.  238.201(a)(2) of this chapter.

0
5. Add new Sec.  229.201 to Subpart D to read as follows:


Sec.  229.201  Purpose and scope.

    (a) Purpose. The purpose of this subpart is to help protect 
locomotive cab occupants in the event that a locomotive collides with 
another locomotive or piece of on-track equipment, a shifted load on a 
freight car on an adjacent parallel track, or a highway vehicle at a 
highway-rail grade crossing.
    (b) This subpart prescribes minimum crashworthiness standards for 
locomotives. It also establishes the requirements for obtaining FRA 
approval of: new locomotive crashworthiness design standards; changes 
to FRA-approved locomotive crashworthiness design standards; and 
alternative locomotive crashworthiness designs.

0
6. Add new Sec.  229.203 to Subpart D to read as follows:


Sec.  229.203  Applicability.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, 
this subpart applies to all locomotives manufactured or remanufactured 
on or after January 1, 2009.
    (b) Cab cars and power cars. The requirements of this subpart do 
not apply to cab control cars, MU locomotives, DMU locomotives, and 
semi-permanently coupled power cars that are subject to the design 
requirements for such locomotives set forth in part 238 of this 
chapter.
    (c) Locomotives used in designated service. Locomotives used in 
designated service are exempt from the requirements of this subpart, 
with the exception of Sec.  229.233 (minimum requirements for fuel tank 
design), which remains applicable to such locomotives.

0
7. Add new Sec. Sec.  229.205 through 229.207 to Subpart D to read as 
follows:


Sec.  229.205  General requirements.

    (a) Each wide-nose locomotive used in occupied service must meet 
the minimum crashworthiness performance requirements set forth in 
Appendix E of this part. Compliance with those performance criteria 
must be established by:
    (1) Meeting an FRA-approved crashworthiness design standard 
(including AAR S-580, Locomotive Crashworthiness Requirements). The 
Director of the Federal Register approves incorporation by reference of 
the AAR S-580 (revised July 2005), ``Locomotive Crashworthiness 
Requirements,'' in this section in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 
1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy of the incorporated standard from 
the Association of American Railroads, 50 F Street NW, Washington, DC 
20001. You may inspect a copy of the incorporated standard at the 
Federal Railroad Administration, Docket Clerk, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW 
Suite 7000, Washington, DC 20590 or at the National Archives and 
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of 
this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html;
    (2) Meeting new design standards and changes to existing design 
standards approved by FRA pursuant to Sec.  229.207; or
    (3) Meeting an alternative crashworthiness design approved by FRA 
pursuant to Sec.  229.209.
    (b) A monocoque or semi-monocoque design locomotive must be 
designed in accordance with the provisions of AAR S-580, applicable to 
those types of locomotives, in accordance with Sec. Sec.  238.405(a), 
238.409 and 238.411 of this chapter, or in accordance with a standard 
or design approved by FRA as providing at least equivalent safety.
    (c) A narrow-nose locomotive must be designed in accordance with 
the provisions of AAR S-580, applicable to that type of locomotive 
(notwithstanding any limitation of scope contained in that standard) or 
in accordance with a standard or design approved by FRA as providing at 
least equivalent safety.


Sec.  229.206  Design requirements.

    Each locomotive used in occupied service must meet the minimum 
anti-climber, emergency egress, emergency interior lighting, and 
interior configuration design requirements set forth in AAR S-580 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  229.205).


Sec.  229.207  New locomotive crashworthiness design standards and 
changes to existing FRA-approved locomotive crashworthiness design 
standards.

    (a) General. The following procedures govern consideration and 
action upon requests for FRA approval of new locomotive crashworthiness 
design standards and changes to existing FRA-approved locomotive 
crashworthiness design standards, including AAR S-580 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  229.205). Only a standards body which has adopted 
an FRA-approved locomotive crashworthiness design standard may initiate 
these procedures for FRA approval of changes to the standard.
    (b) Petitions for FRA approval of new locomotive crashworthiness 
design standards. Each petition for FRA approval of a locomotive 
crashworthiness design standard must be titled ``Petition for FRA 
Approval of a New Locomotive Crashworthiness Design Standard,'' must be 
submitted to the Associate Administrator for Safety, Federal Railroad 
Administration, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 
20590, and must contain the following:
    (1) The name, title, address, telephone number and e-mail address 
of the primary person to be contacted with regard to review of the 
petition;
    (2) The proposed locomotive design standard, in detail;

[[Page 36913]]

    (3) The intended type of service for locomotives designed under the 
proposed standard; and
    (4) Appropriate data and analysis showing how the proposed design 
standard either satisfies the requirements of Sec.  229.205 for the 
type of locomotive design or provides at least an equivalent level of 
safety. Types of data and analysis to be considered are described in 
Sec.  229.211(c)(1).
    (c) Petitions for FRA approval of substantive changes to an FRA-
approved locomotive crashworthiness design standard. Each petition for 
approval of a substantive change to an FRA-approved locomotive 
crashworthiness design standard must be titled ``Petition for FRA 
Approval of Changes to a Locomotive Crashworthiness Design Standard,'' 
must be submitted to the Associate Administrator for Safety, Federal 
Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW., Mail Stop 25, 
Washington, DC 20590, and must contain the following:
    (1) The name, title, address, telephone number and e-mail address 
of the primary person to be contacted with regard to review of the 
petition;
    (2) The proposed change, in detail;
    (3) The intended type of service for locomotives built with the 
proposed change; and
    (4) Appropriate data and analysis showing how the resulting 
standard either satisfies the requirements for the type of locomotive 
set forth in Sec.  229.205 or provides at least an equivalent level of 
safety. Types of data and analysis to be considered are described in 
Sec.  229.211(c)(1).
    (d) Petitions for FRA approval of non-substantive changes to the 
existing FRA-approved crashworthiness design standards. (1) Each 
petition for approval of a non-substantive change to an FRA-approved 
locomotive crashworthiness design standard must be titled ``Petition 
for FRA Approval of Non-substantive Changes to a Locomotive 
Crashworthiness Design Standard,'' must be submitted to the Associate 
Administrator for Safety, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont 
Ave., NW, Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590, and must contain the 
following:
    (i) The name, title, address, telephone number and e-mail address 
of the primary person to be contacted with regard to review of the 
petition;
    (ii) The proposed change, in detail; and
    (iii) Detailed explanation of how the proposed change results in a 
non-substantive change to the existing FRA-approved crashworthiness 
design standard.
    (2) If FRA determines that the proposed change is substantive, FRA 
will process the petition in accordance with paragraph (c) of this 
section.

0
8. Add new Sec.  229.209 to Subpart D to read as follows:


Sec.  229.209  Alternative locomotive crashworthiness designs.

    (a) General. The following procedures govern consideration and 
action upon requests for FRA approval of locomotive crashworthiness 
designs which are not consistent with any FRA-approved locomotive 
crashworthiness design standard.
    (b) Petitions for FRA approval of alternative locomotive 
crashworthiness designs. Each petition for FRA approval of an 
alternative locomotive crashworthiness design must be titled ``Petition 
for FRA Approval of Alternative Locomotive Crashworthiness Design,'' 
must be submitted to the Associate Administrator for Safety, Federal 
Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW, Mail Stop 25, 
Washington, DC 20590, and must contain the following:
    (1) The name, title, address, telephone number and e-mail address 
of the primary person to be contacted with regard to review of the 
petition;
    (2) The proposed locomotive crashworthiness design, in detail;
    (3) The intended type of service for locomotives built under the 
proposed design; and
    (4) Appropriate data and analysis showing how the design either 
satisfies the requirements of Sec.  229.205 for the type of locomotive 
or provides at least an equivalent level of safety. Types of data and 
analysis to be considered are described in Sec.  229.211(c)(1).

0
9. Add new Sec.  229.211 to Subpart D to read as follows:


Sec.  229.211  Processing of petitions.

    (a) Federal Register notice. FRA will publish in the Federal 
Register notice of receipt of each petition submitted under Sec. Sec.  
229.207(b), 229.207(c), or 229.209.
    (b) Comment. Not later than 60 days from the date of publication of 
the notice in the Federal Register concerning a petition submitted 
under Sec. Sec.  229.207(b), 229.207(c), or 229.209(b), any person may 
comment on the petition.
    (1) Each comment must 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 must be submitted to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation Central Docket Management System, Nassif Building, Room 
PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, and must contain 
the assigned docket number which appeared 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) 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.
    (c) Disposition of petitions. (1) In order to determine compliance 
with the performance criteria in Appendix E of this part, FRA will 
consider proper documentation of competent engineering analysis, or 
practical demonstrations, or both which may include validated computer 
modeling, structural crush analysis, component testing, full scale 
crash testing in a controlled environment, or any combination of the 
foregoing, together with evidence of effective peer review.
    (2) If FRA finds that the petition complies with the requirements 
of this subpart and that the proposed change or new design standard 
satisfies the requirements of Sec.  229.205 for the type of locomotive, 
the petition will be granted, normally within 90 days of its receipt. 
If the petition is neither granted nor denied within 90 days, the 
petition remains pending for decision. FRA may attach special 
conditions to the granting of the petition. Following the granting of a 
petition, FRA may reopen consideration of the petition for cause 
stated. Any decision granting or denying a petition is placed in the 
public docket for the petition.
    (3) If FRA finds that the petition does not comply with the 
requirements of this subpart, or that the proposed change or new design 
standard does not satisfy the performance criteria contained in 
Appendix E of this part (where applicable), the petition will be 
denied, normally within 90 days of its receipt. If the petition is 
neither granted nor denied within 90 days, the petition remains pending 
for decision. FRA may re-open a denial of a petition for cause stated.
    (4) When FRA grants or denies a petition, or reopens consideration 
of the petition, written notice will be sent to the petitioner and 
other interested parties and a copy of the notice will be

[[Page 36914]]

placed in the public docket of this proceeding.

0
10. Add new Sec.  229.213 to Subpart D to read as follows:


Sec.  229.213  Locomotive manufacturing information.

    (a) Each railroad operating a locomotive subject to the 
requirements of this subpart must retain the following information:
    (1) The date upon which the locomotive was manufactured or 
remanufactured;
    (2) The name of the manufacturer or remanufacturer of the 
locomotive; and
    (3) The design specification to which the locomotive was 
manufactured or remanufactured.
    (b) The information required in paragraph (a) of this section must 
be located permanently in the locomotive cab or be provided within two 
business days upon request of FRA or an FRA-certified State inspector.

0
11. Add new Sec.  229.215 to Subpart D to read as follows:


Sec.  229.215  Retention and inspection of designs.

    (a) Retention of records--original designs. Each manufacturer or 
remanufacturer of a locomotive subject to this subpart shall retain all 
records of the original locomotive designs, including supporting 
calculations and drawings, pertaining to crashworthiness features 
required by this subpart. These records must be retained for the lesser 
period of:
    (1) The life of such locomotive, except that records for a 
locomotive destroyed in a rail equipment accident/incident shall be 
retained for at least 12 months following the accident/incident; or
    (2) Twenty years after the date of manufacture or, if 
remanufactured, twenty years after the date of remanufacture.
    (b) Retention of records--repairs and modifications. Each owner or 
lessee of a locomotive subject to this subpart shall retain all records 
of repair or modification to crashworthiness features required by this 
subpart. These records must be retained for the lesser period of:
    (1) The life of such locomotive, except that records for a 
locomotive destroyed in a rail equipment accident/incident shall be 
retained for at least 12 months following the accident/incident, or
    (2) Twenty years after the date on which the repair or modification 
was performed.
    (c) Inspection of records. Each custodian of records referred to in 
paragraphs (a) and (b) shall, upon request by FRA or an FRA-certified 
State inspector, make available for inspection and duplication within 7 
days, any records referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
section.
    (d) Third party storage of records. Each custodian of records 
referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section may delegate 
storage duties to a third party; however, the custodian retains all 
responsibility for compliance with this section.

0
12. Add new Sec.  229.217 to Subpart D to read as follows:


Sec.  229.217  Fuel tank.

    (a) External fuel tanks. Locomotives equipped with external fuel 
tanks shall, at a minimum, comply with the requirements of AAR S-5506, 
``Performance Requirements for Diesel Electric Locomotive Fuel Tanks'' 
(October 1, 2001), except for section 4.4. This paragraph does not 
apply to locomotives subject to the fuel tank safety requirements of 
Sec.  238.223 or Sec.  238.423 of this chapter. The Director of the 
Federal Register approves incorporation by reference of the AAR S-5506, 
``Performance Requirements for Diesel Electric Locomotive Fuel Tanks'' 
(October 1, 2001) in this section in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) 
and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy of the incorporated standard 
from the Association of American Railroads, 50 F Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20001. You may inspect a copy of the incorporated 
standard at the Federal Railroad Administration, Docket Clerk, 1120 
Vermont Ave., NW. Suite 7000, Washington, DC 20590 or at the National 
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For more information on the 
availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to 
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (b) Internal fuel tanks. Locomotives equipped with internal fuel 
tanks shall, at a minimum, comply with the requirements of Sec.  
238.223(b) of this chapter.

0
13. Amend Appendix B to part 229 by adding the heading for Subpart D 
and by adding entries for sections 229.205, 229.206, 229.213, 229.215 
and 229.217 to read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A penalty may be assessed against an individual only for a 
willful violation. Generally, when two or more violations of these 
regulations are discovered with respect to a single locomotive that 
is used by a railroad, the appropriate penalties set forth above are 
aggregated up to a maximum of $10,000 per day. However, a failure to 
perform, with respect to a particular locomotive, any of the 
inspections and tests required under subpart B of this part will be 
treated as a violation separate and distinct from, and in addition 
to, any substantive violative conditions found on that locomotive. 
Moreover, the Administrator reserves the right to assess a penalty 
of up to $27,000 for any violation where circumstances warrant. See 
49 CFR part 209, appendix A. Failure to observe any condition for 
movement set forth in Sec.  229.9 will deprive the railroad of the 
benefit of the movement-for-repair provision and make the railroad 
and any responsible individuals liable for penalty under the 
particular regulatory section(s) concerning substantive defect(s) 
present on the locomotive at the time of movement. Failure to comply 
with Sec.  229.19 will result in a lapse of any affected waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix B to Part 229--Schedule of Civil Penalties \1\

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Willful
                 Section                     Violation       violation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subpart D--Locomotive Crashworthiness Design Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
229.205 General requirements:
    (a)(1) Wide-nose locomotive not               $5,000          $7,500
     designed in compliance with AAR S-
     580-2005...........................
        (2) Wide-nose locomotive not               5,000           7,500
         designed in compliance with new
         approved design standard.......
        (3) Wide-nose locomotive not               5,000           7,500
         designed in compliance with
         alternate approved design
         standard.......................
    (b) Monocoque or semi-monocoque                5,000           7,500
     locomotive not in compliance with
     design requirements................
    (c) Narrow-nose not in compliance              5,000           7,500
     with design requirements...........
229.206 Design requirements:
    Locomotive fails to meet--
        (1) Emergency egress                       2,500           5,000
         requirements...................
        (2) Emergency interior lighting            2,500           5,000
         requirements...................

[[Page 36915]]

 
        (3) Interior configuration                 2,500           5,000
         requirements...................
229.213 Locomotive manufacturing
 information:
    (a) Failure to retain required                 2,500           5,000
     information........................
    (b) Failure to produce required                2,500           5,000
     information........................
229.215 Retention and inspection of
 designs:
    (a) Failure to retain required                 2,500           5,000
     design records.....................
    (b) Failure to retain required                 2,500           5,000
     repair or modification records.....
    (c) Failure to make records                    2,500           5,000
     available when requested...........
229.217 Fuel tank:
    (a) External fuel tank..............           5,000           7,500
    (b) Internal fuel tank..............           5,000           7,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
14. Add Appendix E to part 229 to read as follows:

Appendix E to Part 229--Performance Criteria for Locomotive 
Crashworthiness

    This appendix provides performance criteria for the 
crashworthiness evaluation of alternative locomotive designs, and 
design standards for wide-nosed locomotives and any for other 
locomotive, except monocoque/semi-monocoque design locomotives and 
narrow-nose design locomotives. Each of the following criteria 
describes a collision scenario and a given performance measure for 
protection provided to cab occupants, normally through structural 
design. Demonstration that these performance criteria have been 
satisfied may be accomplished through any of the methods described 
in Sec.  229.205. This performance criteria is intended to prevent 
intrusion into the cab seating area occupied by crews. This excludes 
inner and outer vestibule areas.
    (a) Front end structure (collision posts).--(1) Objective. The 
front end structure of the locomotive must withstand a frontal 
impact with a proxy object which is intended to simulate lading 
carried by a heavy highway vehicle (see figure 1).
    (2) Proxy object characteristics and orientation. The proxy 
object must have the following characteristics: Cylindrical shape; 
48-inch diameter; 126-inch length; 65,000 pound minimum weight; and 
uniform density. The longitudinal axis of the proxy object must be 
oriented horizontally perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the 
locomotive.
    (3) Impact and result. The front end structure of the locomotive 
must withstand a 30-mph impact with the proxy object resulting in no 
more than 24 inches of crush along the longitudinal axis of the 
locomotive, measured from the foremost point on the collision post, 
and with no more than 12 inches of intrusion into the cab. The 
center of impact must be 30 inches above the top of the locomotive 
underframe along the longitudinal centerline of the locomotive.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28JN06.004


[[Page 36916]]


    (b) Front end structure (short hood)
    (1) Objective. The front end structure of the locomotive must 
withstand an oblique impact with a proxy object intended to simulate 
an intermodal container offset from a freight car on an adjacent 
parallel track (see figure 2).
    (2) Proxy object characteristics and orientation. The proxy 
object must have the following characteristics: Block shape; 36-inch 
width; 60-inch height; 108-inch length; corners having 3-inch radii 
corners; 65,000 pound minimum weight; and uniform density. The 
longitudinal axis of the proxy object must be oriented parallel to 
the longitudinal axis of the locomotive. At impact, the proxy object 
must be oriented such that there are 12 inches of lateral overlap 
and 30 inches from the bottom of the proxy object to the top of the 
locomotive underframe.
    (3) Impact and results. The front end structure of the 
locomotive must withstand a 30-mph impact with the proxy object 
resulting in no more than 60 inches of crush along the longitudinal 
axis of the locomotive, measured from the first point of contact on 
the short hood post, and with no more than 12 inches of intrusion 
into the cab.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28JN06.005

PART 238--[AMENDED]

0
15. The authority citation for part 238 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20133, 20141, 20302-20303, 
20306, 20701-20702, 21301-21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; 49 CFR 
1.49.


0
16. Amend Sec.  238.5 by revising the definitions of ``fuel tank, 
external'' and ``fuel tank, internal'' to read as follows:


Sec.  238.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Fuel tank, external means a fuel containment vessel that extends 
outside the car body structure of a locomotive.
    Fuel tank, internal means a fuel containment vessel that does not 
extend outside the car body structure of a locomotive.
* * * * *

0
17. Amend Sec.  238.201 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  238.201  Scope/alternative compliance.

    (a) * * *
    (2) The structural standards of this subpart (Sec.  238.203--static 
end strength; Sec.  238.205--anti-climbing mechanism; Sec.  238.207--
link between coupling mechanism and car body; Sec.  238.209--forward-
facing end structure of locomotives; Sec.  238.211--collision posts; 
Sec.  238.213--corner posts; Sec.  238.215--rollover strength; Sec.  
238.217--side structure; Sec.  238.219--truck-to-car-body attachment; 
and Sec.  238.223--locomotive fuel tanks) do not apply to passenger 
equipment if used exclusively on a rail line:
    (i) With no public highway-rail grade crossings;
    (ii) On which no freight operations occur at any time;
    (iii) On which only passenger equipment of compatible design is 
utilized; and
    (iv) On which trains operate at speeds not exceeding 79 mph. Any 
such passenger equipment remains subject to the requirements of Sec.  
229.141 of this chapter, as applicable.
* * * * *

0
18. Amend paragraph (b) of Sec.  238.205 by adding the following 
sentence at the end of the paragraph to read as follows:

[[Page 36917]]

Sec.  238.205  Anti-climbing mechanism.

* * * * *
    (b) * * * Locomotives required to be constructed in accordance with 
subpart D of part 229 of this chapter shall have an anti-climbing 
mechanism in compliance with Sec.  229.206 of this chapter, in lieu of 
the requirements of this paragraph.

0
19. Amend paragraph (f) of Sec.  238.233 by adding the following 
sentence at the beginning of the paragraph to read as follows:


Sec.  238.233  Interior fitting and surfaces.

* * * * *
    (f) Locomotives required to be constructed in accordance with 
subpart D of part 229 of this chapter shall have cab seat attachment in 
compliance with Sec.  229.206 of this chapter, in lieu of the following 
requirements of this paragraph. * * *
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 12, 2006.
Joseph H. Boardman,
Federal Railroad Administrator.
[FR Doc. 06-5667 Filed 6-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P