[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