Tuesday, November 2, 2004

Part IV

Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Parts 229 and 238 Locomotive Crashworthiness; Proposed Rule

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:50 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\02NOP3.SGM 02NOP3 63890 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, confers all powers necessary to detect Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590– and penalize violations of any rail safety Federal Railroad Administration 001. law. This authority was subsequently • Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on delegated to the FRA Administrator (49 49 CFR Parts 229 and 238 the plaza level of the Nassif Building, CFR 1.49). (Until July 5, 1994, the [Docket No. FRA–2004–17645, Notice No. 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, Federal railroad safety statutes existed 1] DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday as separate acts found primarily in title through Friday, except Federal 45 of the United States Code. On that RIN 2130–AB23 Holidays. date, all of the acts were repealed, and Instructions: All submissions must Locomotive Crashworthiness their provisions were recodified into include the agency name and docket title 49.) AGENCY: Federal Railroad number or Regulatory Identification The term ‘‘railroad’’ is defined in the Administration (FRA), Department of Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Note Safety Act to include: Transportation (DOT). that all comments received will be posted without change to http:// All forms of non-highway ground ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking transportation that runs on rails or (NPRM). dms.dot.gov, including any personal electromagnetic guideways, * * * other than information provided. Please see the rapid transit operations within an urban area SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to establish Privacy Act heading under Regulatory that are not connected to the general railroad comprehensive, minimum standards for Notices. system of transportation. Docket: For access to the docket to locomotive crashworthiness. This definition makes clear that FRA read background documents or Locomotive crashworthiness protection has jurisdiction over (1) rapid transit comments received, go to http:// is necessary because locomotive operations within an urban area that are dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL– collisions can result in crew injuries connected to the general railroad system 401 on the plaza level of the Nassif and fatalities. These proposed of transportation, and (2) all freight, Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., performance standards are intended to intercity, passenger, and commuter rail Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 help protect locomotive cab occupants passenger operations regardless of their p.m., Monday through Friday, except in the event of a locomotive collision. connection to the general railroad Federal holidays. Examples of locomotive collision system of transportation or their status scenarios considered include collisions FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John as a common carrier engaged in with another locomotive, the rear of Punwani, Office of Research and interstate commerce. FRA has issued a another train, a piece of on-track Development, Federal Railroad policy statement describing how it equipment, a shifted load on a freight Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, determines whether particular rail car on an adjacent parallel track, or a NW., Mail Stop 20, Washington, DC passenger operations are subject to highway vehicle at a rail-highway grade 20590 (telephone: 202–493–6369); FRA’s jurisdiction (65 FR 42529 (July 2, crossing. These proposed Charles L. Bielitz, Mechanical Engineer, 2000)); the policy statement can be crashworthiness standards must be met Office of Safety Assurance and found in Appendix A to parts 209 and by demonstrating compliance with Compliance, Federal Railroad 211. either the proposed rule’s performance Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, Pursuant to its statutory authority, standards or an FRA-approved design NW., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC FRA promulgates and enforces a standard. 20590 (telephone: 202–493–6314); or comprehensive regulatory program to Darrell L. Tardiff, Trial Attorney, Office DATES: Written Comments: Comments address railroad track; signal systems; on the proposed rule must be received of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad railroad communications; rolling stock; on or before January 3, 2005. Comments Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, rear-end marking devices; safety glazing; received after that date will be NW., Mail Stop 10, Washington, DC railroad accident/incident reporting; considered to the extent possible 20590 (telephone: 202–493–6038). locational requirements for dispatching without incurring additional expense or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: of U.S. rail operations; safety integration delay. I. Statutory and Regulatory Background plans governing railroad consolidations; Public Hearing: Upon specific request, merger and acquisitions of control; FRA will hold public hearings as A. FRA Regulatory Authority operating practices; passenger train appropriate to receive oral comments FRA has broad statutory authority to emergency preparedness; alcohol and from any interested party. Written regulate railroad safety. The Locomotive drug testing; locomotive engineer request for hearing must be received on Inspection Act (LIA) (formerly 45 U.S.C. certification; and workplace safety. or before January 3, 2005. 22–34, now 49 U.S.C. 20701–20703) was In part 229 of title 49 of the Code of ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, enacted in 1911. It prohibits the use of Federal Regulations (hereinafter, all identified by DOT DMS Docket Number unsafe locomotives and authorizes FRA references to CFR parts will refer to FRA–2004–17645, by any of the to issue standards for locomotive parts in title 49 of the Code of Federal following methods: maintenance and testing. In order to Regulations), FRA established minimum • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to further FRA’s ability to respond federal safety standards for locomotives. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the effectively to contemporary safety These regulations prescribe inspection online instructions for submitting problems and hazards as they arise in and testing requirements for locomotive comments. the railroad industry, Congress enacted components and systems, minimum • Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 locomotive cab safety requirements, and Follow instructions for submitting (Safety Act) (formerly 45 U.S.C. 421, 431 even basic crashworthiness design comments on the DOT electronic docket et seq., now found primarily in chapter requirements for electric multiple-unit site. 201 of Title 49). The Safety Act grants type locomotives. On May 12, 1999, • Fax: 1–202–493–2251. the Secretary of Transportation FRA issued regulations addressing the • Mail: Docket Management Facility, rulemaking authority over all areas of safety of passenger rail equipment, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 railroad safety (49 U.S.C. 20103(a)) and including passenger-occupied

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:50 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP3.SGM 02NOP3 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 63891

locomotives (i.e., cab control cars, built to this specification are of wide- performance standards for the use and powered multiple-unit passenger cars). nose cab design, often referred to as the development of processor-based signal These are found in part 238. However, North American cab design. It is and train control systems. The issue of FRA’s existing locomotive safety generally held throughout the industry collision avoidance is more fully standards do not address that S–580 represented a significant step discussed in section IV of the preamble crashworthiness of conventional on the part of the railroad industry to to this proposed rule. locomotives, which comprise the improve the crashworthiness of Several participants in the public majority of locomotives in use today. locomotives. meeting expressed an opinion that a B. Rail Safety Enforcement and Review II. FRA’s Response to Section 10 of series of smaller, informal meetings Act RSERA with the separate segments of the rail industry would provide more detailed In 1992, Congress enacted The Rail In response to the mandate of Section information regarding locomotive Safety Enforcement and Review Act 10 of RSERA, FRA conducted the crashworthiness. As a result, FRA held (RSERA). Pub. L. 102–365, September 3, necessary research and analysis. FRA a number of such meetings which 1992. In response to concerns raised by undertook steps to determine the health included the following organizations: employee organizations, members of and safety effects of locomotive cab American Public Transportation Congress, and recommendations of the working conditions and evaluated the Association (APTA); National Transportation Safety Board effectiveness of S–580, along with the American Short Line and Regional (NTSB) concerning locomotive crew benefits and costs of the specified Railroad Association (ASLRRA); safety, Congress included mandates locomotive crashworthiness features. In Amtrak; concerning locomotive crashworthiness an effort to fully address the broad range AAR; and cab working conditions in the of issues presented in the RSERA, FRA Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers legislation. Section 10 of RSERA, (1) conducted an industry-wide public (BLE); entitled ‘‘Locomotive Crashworthiness meeting to gather information regarding Burlington Northern (now Burlington and Working Conditions,’’ required FRA the areas of concern identified in the Northern Santa Fe Railway) (BNSF); ‘‘to complete a rulemaking proceeding RSERA, (2) established a locomotive DuPont (glazing); to consider prescribing regulations to collision database based on detailed General Electric Transportation Systems improve the safety and working accident information gathered from (GE); conditions of locomotive cabs.’’ In order actual collisions, (3) established a General Motors-Electro-Motive Division to determine whether crashworthiness research contract to develop and verify (GM/EMD); a computer model capable of predicting regulations would be necessary, Morrison Knudsen (MK); how each of the crashworthiness Congress tasked FRA with assessing: NTSB; features in S–580 and in the RSERA The adequacy of Locomotive Sierracin (glazing); and affect the collision dynamics and Crashworthiness Requirements Standard S– United Transportation Union (UTU). 580, or any successor standard thereto, probability of crew injury, and (4) adopted by the Association of American conducted a detailed survey of These meetings generated Railroads in 1989, in improving the safety of locomotive crews’ cab working considerable discussion about the topics locomotive cabs. conditions and environment. FRA listed in section 10 of the RSERA. Furthermore, Congress specifically detailed the results of these actions in During the meetings, FRA requested mandated that the Secretary, in support ‘‘Locomotive Crashworthiness and Cab specific cost or test data to support the of the rulemaking proceeding, consider Working Conditions Report to positions taken by the various the costs and benefits associated with Congress,’’ dated September 18, 1996. A organizations. Some supply industry equipping locomotives with each of a copy of this report has been placed in organizations were forthcoming with number of specified design features. the docket of this rulemaking. Actions this data, while other organizations FRA agrees that locomotive taken to gather information for that were apparently unable or unwilling to crashworthiness protection is necessary report are described below. respond. because train collisions and derailments First, meetings with all segments of Second, FRA proceeded with the cause crew fatalities and injuries. In the the railroad industry formed an understanding that earlier locomotive period from 1995 to 1997, 26 locomotive essential part of FRA’s plan to meet the collision accident reports did not cab occupants were killed and 289 were requirements of the RSERA. FRA held contain the data necessary to support injured in freight and passenger train an industry-wide public meeting on crash modeling. Thus, in 1992, FRA accidents in the United States, a yearly June 23, 1993, to gather information instructed field inspectors to investigate average of 105 casualties.1 from the industry on each of the areas all accidents, regardless of monetary Adopted in 1989, Association of of concern identified in Section 10 of damage thresholds and locomotive American Railroads (AAR) Specification the RSERA and to inform the industry design, involving either a collision of S–580 (‘‘S–580’’) has served as the of FRA’s approach. This meeting was two trains or a collision of one train industry standard for crashworthiness well attended by all segments of the rail with an object weighing ten tons or design specifications of new road freight industry, including rail labor, freight more. This accident data provided locomotives. At the time of its railroads, locomotive builders, the information which FRA used to development, S–580 provided basic National Railroad Passenger Corporation determine the possible benefits of a enhancements to the crashworthiness of (Amtrak), and commuter railroads. crashworthiness regulation. road locomotives. Many of the units At this initial meeting, some of the Third, with the support of the Volpe railroads urged that improvements in National Transportation Systems Center 1 Regulatory Impact Analysis, p. iii of Appendix crash avoidance technology should be (‘‘Volpe Center’’), FRA contracted with B of the Analysis. These statistics were taken from pursued in lieu of improved Arthur D. Little, Inc. (ADL) to predict the data set of injuries/fatalities that may have been crashworthiness features. FRA is the benefit, if any, of each of the prevented by the proposed crashworthiness standards. Thus, this set does not include the total currently pursuing crash avoidance locomotive crashworthiness features number of all locomotive cab occupant fatalities/ technology and is in the process of listed in section 10 of the RSERA. Using injuries that occurred during this time period. completing a separate rule on the collision data collected by FRA,

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:50 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP3.SGM 02NOP3 63892 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules

ADL performed a series of analyses features, including rollover protection, Association of Railway Museums using computer models to evaluate the uniform sill heights, and deflection (ARM); effectiveness of specific crashworthiness plates did not warrant further action. Association of State Rail Safety design features.2 Rollover protection costs would be Managers (ASRSM); Lastly, FRA’s approach to the research substantial, and no material need for BLE; and analysis tasks focused on the cost such protection was demonstrated by Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way and benefits of design changes to the accident data. Design limitations of Employees (BMWE); conventional locomotives operating at multi-use freight locomotives all but Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen speeds of less than 80 mph. The work preclude practical design possibilities (BRS); done to meet the requirements of the for deflection plates, and FRA found Federal Transit Administration (FTA) RSERA was not intended to address that a successful deflection device (associate member); safety concerns unique to high speed would cause collateral safety problems. High Speed Ground Transportation rail transportation. FRA addresses high Uniform sill heights were found not to Association; speed rail safety concerns, including significantly reduce life-threatening Hotel Employees & Restaurant crashworthiness design, in part 238. collision damage, would have a high Employees International Union; FRA’s Report to Congress contained cost, and any benefit would accrue only International Association of Machinists an implementation strategy to address after an extended period over which and Aerospace Workers; each of the issues raised by the RSERA.3 older standard locomotives would be International Brotherhood of FRA determined that S–580, which phased out of service. The perceived Boilermakers and Blacksmiths; provided for improvements in collision benefits of uniform sill height might be International Brotherhood of Electrical posts, anti-climbing arrangements and more reliably achieved by improved Workers (IBEW); the short hood structure, represented a anti-climbing arrangements, and the Labor Council for Latin American significant step on the part of the report proposed that development and Advancement (LCLAA) (associate railroad industry to improve locomotive evaluation of a design concept be member); crashworthiness. The research and explored. League of Railway Industry Women analysis conducted in response to the Many of the proposed measures were (associate member); RSERA showed that S–580 can be practical for application only to newly National Association of Railroad further improved to reduce casualties constructed locomotives. Further, Passengers (NARP); without significantly impacting additional information and research National Association of Railway locomotive design. FRA also found that were required to determine the cost- Business Women (non-voting); (1) modified front-end structural designs effective basis of these concepts, and to National Conference of Firemen & incorporating stronger collision posts, assure the acceptance of these measures Oilers; (2) full-height corner posts with by locomotive crews. In order for National Railroad Construction and increased strength, and (3) utilization of protective features to be effective, crew Maintenance Association; roof longitudinal strength to support members must have confidence that NTSB (associate member); structural members from crushing may they will function as intended. Crew Railway Progress Institute (RPI); provide opportunities for additional members who lack confidence in the Safe Travel America; protection for locomotive cab safety measures employed may be Secretaria de Communicaciones y occupants. FRA even evaluated the inclined to jump from a locomotive Transporte (associate member); potential to create a designated crash prior to a collision, resulting in a high Sheet Metal Workers International refuge within the space that these probability of serious injury or death. Association (SMW); measures would help to protect. FRA determined that it would use its Tourist Railway Association Inc.; Furthermore, based on accident/ Railroad Safety Advisory Committee to Transport Canada (associate member); incident experience and recent further develop these safety issues Transportation Communications advances in fuel tank design being thereby tapping the knowledge and International Union/BRC (TCIU/BRC); undertaken by the industry, FRA energies of a wide range of interested Transport Workers Union of America concluded that fuel tank design could parties. (TWUA); and be significantly improved to minimize III. Railroad Safety Advisory UTU. the risk and severity of future fuel spills. Committee (RSAC) Recommendations When appropriate, FRA assigns a task Finally, FRA identified locomotive cab In March 1996, FRA established the to RSAC, and after consideration and emergency lighting and more reliable debate, RSAC may accept or reject the means of rapid egress during RSAC, which provides a forum for consensual rulemaking and program task. If the task is accepted, RSAC derailments and collisions as additional establishes a working group that subject areas which appeared to warrant development. The Committee includes representation from all of the agency’s possesses the appropriate expertise and further exploration. representation of interests to develop While the study findings clearly major customer groups, including railroads, labor organizations, suppliers recommendations to FRA for action on indicate that several crashworthiness the task. The working group develops features warranted further exploration, and manufacturers, and other interested parties. A list of member groups follows: the recommendations by consensus. The the findings also indicated that several working group may establish one or AAR; more task forces to develop the facts and 2 American Association of Private Mayville, R.A., Stringfellow, R.G., Rancatore, options on a particular aspect of a given R.J., Hosmer, T.P., 1995, ‘‘Locomotive Railroad Car Owners (AARPCO); Crashworthiness Research, Volumes 1 through 5,’’ American Association of State Highway task. The task force reports to the DOT/FRA/ORD–95/8.1√8.5. a copy of each cited & Transportation Officials (AASHTO); working group. If a working group report has been placed in the docket of this American Train Dispatchers comes to unanimous consensus on rulemaking. recommendations for action, the 3 ‘‘Locomotive Crashworthiness and Cab Working Department/BLE (ATDD/BLE); Conditions Report to Congress’’, Office of Safety Amtrak; working group presents the package to Assurance and Compliance, Federal Railroad APTA; the RSAC for a vote. If a simple majority Administration, 1996. ASLRRA; of the RSAC accepts the proposal, the

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:50 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP3.SGM 02NOP3 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 63893

RSAC formally recommends the To accomplish the above goals, RSAC (6) February 25–26, 1999, Washington proposal to FRA. created the Locomotive Crashworthiness DC; FRA then determines what action to Working Group (‘‘Working Group’’). (7) June 15–16, 1999, Las Vegas, NV; take on the recommendation. Because Created on June 24, 1997, this group of (8) October 19–20, 1999, Sterling, VA; FRA staff has played an active role at about 40 members consisted of FRA (9) December 13–14, 1999, Jacksonville, the working group level in discussing personnel and representatives from FL; the issues and options and in drafting railroad labor and management, and two (10) October 9–10, 2001, Washington, the language of the consensus proposal, major manufacturers of locomotives. DC; and and because the RSAC recommendation The following organizations provided (11) January 17–18, 2002, Jacksonville, constitutes the consensus of some of the representatives to serve on the Working FL. industry’s leading experts on a given Group: Minutes from the above-referenced subject, FRA is often favorably inclined AAR; meetings have been placed in the docket toward the RSAC recommendation. AASHTO; of this proceeding. However, FRA is in no way bound to APTA; The Working Group had its inaugural follow the recommendation, and the ASLRA; meeting on September 8–9, 1997, in agency exercises its independent BLE; Washington DC. After reviewing its judgement on whether the BMWE; formal Task Statement to gain an recommended rule achieves the FRA; understanding of the scope of its agency’s regulatory goal, is soundly IBEW; mission, the Working Group recognized supported, and is in accordance with RPI; that a smaller, more manageable group policy and legal requirements. Often, SMW; could more effectively consider the FRA varies in some respects from the UTU; and technical requirements and debate the RSAC recommendation in developing NTSB. advantages and disadvantages of the the actual regulatory proposal. If the The Working Group broke the task technical options available. Thus, the S– working group or RSAC is unable to into three distinct phases. The first 580/Engineering Review Task Force reach consensus on recommendations phase included review of accident data (‘‘Engineering Task Force’’) was created for action, FRA moves ahead to resolve to formulate the most prevalent accident for this sole purpose. The Engineering the issue through traditional rulemaking scenarios involving injuries and deaths. Task Force was made up of Working proceedings. Second, the Volpe Center, along with Group members who either volunteered On June 24, 1997, FRA tasked RSAC contractor ADL, performed detailed or named a fellow member as a with the responsibility of making analyses of how design improvements/ representative. The Engineering Task recommendations concerning standards additions to S–580 would affect the Force met four times and conducted for locomotive crashworthiness. probable resulting injuries/deaths in meetings by telephone conference on Specifically, RSAC was charged with each of five accident scenarios three occasions. These task force the investigation and development, if described later in this preamble.4 Third, meetings served to progress the necessary, of crashworthiness standards the Working Group analyzed and technical aspects of the issues and were to ensure the integrity of locomotive deliberated the proposed costs and open to all members of the Working cabs in collisions, thereby minimizing benefits to determine the effectiveness Group. These meetings were somewhat fatalities and injuries to train crews. of each of the proposed changes to S– less formal and were conducive to free This task was to be performed in three 580. The Working Group then presented exchange of technical information and phases. RSAC would first review its findings to the full RSAC Committee. ideas. A summary report on the relevant accident data and existing The Working Group conducted its Engineering Task Force’s deliberations industry standards to determine which, meetings on the following dates at the was made at each subsequent Working if any, appropriate modifications to the following locations: Group meeting. cab structure are required to provide (1) September 8–9, 1997, Washington The Working Group acknowledged additional protection above that DC; the three distinct elements to the task. provided by S–580. In particular, RSAC (2) February 2–3, 1998, Jacksonville, FL; First, the group would need to identify, was to specifically consider the (3) April 9–10, 1998, Fort Pierce, FL; using recent accident data, the most following features: Full-height corner (4) July 14–15, 1998, Las Vegas, NV; prevalent locomotive collision scenarios posts; improved glazing design and (5) October 28–29, 1998, Kansas City, which involve injuries and deaths. To support structure; equipment to prevent MO; this end, the Working Group requested the post-collision entry of flammable that FRA review pertinent accidents for liquids; and improved fuel tank design. 4 Tyrell, D., Severson, K., Marquis, B., Martinez, presentation at the February 2–3, 1998 E., Mayville, R., Rancatore, R., Stringfellow, R., Second, RSAC would examine to what Hammond, R., Perlman, A.B., 1999, ‘‘Locomotive Working Group meeting. The second extent improved anticlimber designs Crashworthiness Design Modifications Study,’’ element involved detailed engineering and/or incorporation of shelf couplers, Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE/ASME Joint Railroad analysis of the effectiveness of specific used to complement the existing S–580 Conference, April 13–15, 1999, IEEE Catalog crashworthiness features. To this end, Number 99CH36340, ASME RTD Volume 16; standards, serve to mitigate the effects of Tyrell, D.C., Martinez, E.E., Wierzbicki, T., FRA pledged the technical assistance of the above-listed collision scenarios. ‘‘Crashworthiness Studies of Locomotive Wide the Volpe Center, along with required Third, RSAC would examine past and Nose Short Hood Designs,’’ Proceedings of the 8th support from outside contractors as present methods of cab egress, along ASME Symposium on Crashworthiness, Occupant needed. Third, the Working Group Protection and Biomechanics in Transportation with the benefits of emergency lighting November 14–19, 1999; Nashivlle, Tennessee; expressed interest in understanding the in the event of a collision. Based on a Tyrell, D., Severson, K., Marquis, B., Perlman, A.B., projected economic impact of any new review of relevant accident data, ‘‘Simulation of an Oblique Collision of a requirements. available technology, implementation Locomotive and an Intermodal Container,’’ FRA commenced a review of Proceedings of the 8th ASME Symposium on costs, and other applicable factors, Crashworthiness, Occupant Protection and locomotive accident data from 1995 to RSAC would then develop appropriate Biomechanics in Transportation November 14–19, 1996 as a representative sampling of recommendations. 1999; Nashville, Tennessee. accidents. FRA then narrowed the pool

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:50 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP3.SGM 02NOP3 63894 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules

of accidents to 23 and presented (1) Coupled locomotive override Once these scenarios were identified, summaries of them to the Engineering resulting from a head-on train-to-train a representative accident for each Task Force at its first meeting. collision; scenario was chosen to be studied in Collective discussion of these accidents (2) Colliding locomotive override detail. The Engineering Task Force next with railroad and labor members of the resulting from a head-on train-to-train gathered as many details as possible Engineering Task Force helped to flesh collision; concerning the accidents and 5 out all the details of the locomotive (3) Rear end/overtaking collision determined the crashworthiness features between a locomotive and a freight car; types and designs. The Engineering which were involved or could have had (4) Oblique/raking collision between a Task Force then classified all 23 locomotive and a freight car or part an effect in each scenario. Table 1 collisions into five major categories and thereof, at a switch or upon passing a shows the scenarios, collision mode, developed a sequence of events, or train on the adjacent track; and relevant crashworthiness features, and scenario, for each accident. These five (5) Offset collision between representative accidents. scenarios are: locomotive and freight car.

TABLE 1.—COLLISION SCENARIO, COLLISION MODE, AND ACCIDENT REPRESENTATIVE OF SCENARIO

Collision scenario Collision mode Modified component Accident location and date

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

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

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

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:50 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP3.SGM 02NOP3 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 63895

bottom-shelf E head coupler. Double modification considered consisted of having full participation on the RSAC shelf (top- and bottom-shelf) couplers increased front plate thickness. Committee, and finding that the are mandated by FRA on tank cars The results of the study indicate that recommendation will improve rail used to haul hazardous materials. strengthened collision posts and short safety, has accepted it in finalizing this These shelves limit vertical motion hoods resulted in increased NPRM. RSAC’s recommendation forms between two coupled couplers to crashworthiness for particular collision the basis for this proposed rule; ± 1 approximately 7 ⁄4 inches (184 mm). scenarios. Shelf couplers were found however, FRA has included in this Passenger cars are typically equipped not to be effective in preventing coupled preamble reference to comments with tightlock couplers which keep locomotive override. Due to the fracture submitted with ballots on the rule the coupler faces at the same height. that occurs as the CN anti-climber (which may be viewed in full text in the These couplers have demonstrated design longitudinally crushes, this docket). FRA has also made various their effectiveness in preventing design was found to be ineffective in editorial corrections necessary to override for their respective supporting the vertical forces that occur present in a clear, concise, and equipment. During the discussion it during locomotive-to-locomotive technically correct manner the intended was pointed out that a top shelf might override, consequently allowing such proposal. assist in preventing override in a rear- overrides to occur. For an oblique FRA has worked closely with the end collision although it would collision of a locomotive with an empty RSAC in the development of its require that a coupling actually occur hopper car, in which the locomotive is recommendations and believes that the for the shelf to be effective. However, principally engaged below the RSAC effectively addressed locomotive type-F couplers commonly applied to underframe, modifications to the crashworthiness standards. FRA has locomotives already incorporate a top locomotive are not likely to influence greatly benefitted from the open, shelf feature. After deliberations, the the outcome of the collision. informed exchange of information that Working Group decided not to pursue ADL and Volpe Center has taken place during meetings. There the concept of double shelf couplers representatives, presented results from is general consensus among labor, as effective crashworthiness their detailed analyses of how design management, and manufacturers improvements. It was further noted improvements/additions in S–580 concerning the primary principles FRA that the coupling of MU cables and would affect the probable resulting sets forth in this NPRM. FRA believes the air hoses between locomotives injuries/deaths in each of the five that the expertise possessed by the would be made more difficult if shelf scenarios (a copy of the results has been RSAC representatives enhances the couplers were required on placed in the docket of this proceeding). value of the recommendations, and FRA locomotives. The potential for such Then, the Working Group analyzed and has made every effort to incorporate coupler designs in preventing considered the proposed costs and them in this proposal. locomotive-to-locomotive override in benefits to determine the effectiveness The Working Group will reassemble a head-on collision was nonetheless of each of the proposed changes to S– after the comment period for this NPRM evaluated. 580. The group also considered a closes and will consider all comments —Interlocking anti-climber: The anti- performance standard for locomotive received. Based on any climber design employed by the crashworthiness design. recommendations RSAC receives from Canadian National Railway Company From this point forward, the Working the Working Group, RSAC will then be (CN) was evaluated. This design Group, assisted by the Task Force, in position to make recommendations to incorporates thicker webs and flanges debated the format for specifying the FRA concerning the development of a than typical North American designs, crashworthiness requirements, many final standard. and also includes exposed flanges issues relating to feasibility of IV. Major Issues running the width of the anti-climber. alternative structures, and the economic —Stronger collision posts: Preliminary impact of the proposed new A. Promulgation of Performance designs of collision posts with requirements. Throughout, the group Standards Where Possible strengths up to the strength of the remained convinced that significant FRA has endeavored to promulgate main underframe structure of the safety benefits could be achieved. The performance requirements in this NPRM locomotive were developed and AAR members volunteered to adopt a rather than the more prescriptive design evaluated. Principal modifications specification (which would become standards. FRA understands that this were the addition of flanges and AAR S–580–2004) meeting the approach allows for greater flexibility in tapering the collision post. performance criteria under discussion. the design of locomotives and believes —Stronger window area structure: This would act as a model design this approach has a better chance of Increased cab strength above the short standard which satisfies the encouraging innovation in locomotive hood was evaluated. Modification crashworthiness performance design than stricter design standards. included the use of thicker sheet requirements. The group then focused The following discussion includes a metal for the window frame members. its attention on the details of AAR S– description of performance and design —Stronger short hood: The influence of 580–2004 in order to refine and standards, the advantages and short hood strength on locomotive optimize them. FRA notes that the disadvantages of each, and the crashworthiness in an oblique designation of AAR S–580–2004 may be relationship between the proposed collision was evaluated. changed; however FRA is identifying design and performance standards. Modifications evaluated included the standard as AAR S–580–2004 for Performance standards describe the thickness of the short hood and the purposes of this NPRM. behavior, or performance, of systems material used to make the short hood. On March 19, 2004, the Working under prescribed circumstances. The —Front plate: Increased front plate Group presented its findings to the full principal advantage of such standards is strength was considered as a potential RSAC, in the form of a draft notice of that how the performance is achieved is modification for increased locomotive proposed rulemaking (NPRM). On April not specified; any design approach can crashworthiness in an oblique 14, 2004, RSAC voted to recommend the be used. The principal drawback to such collision with a freight car. The issuance of this proposed rule; and FRA, standards for crashworthiness is that

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:50 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP3.SGM 02NOP3 63896 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules

either destructive tests or detailed cannot be made easily or cost-effectively strength through design standards, in analyses (i.e., computer simulation) are (see ‘‘Performance-Based Regulations accordance with AAR S–580–2004. The required in order to assure that the Guide,’’ Federal Aviation Working Group was not able to find any system can achieve the desired level of Administration, October 31, 1997, a improvements to the industry standards performance. copy of which has been placed in the for these two subject areas that would be Design standards prescribe conditions docket of this proceeding). both cost effective and have a significant which do not explicitly relate to the The Working Group sought to impact on safety. However, the group performance of the system. The recommend locomotive crashworthiness did find evidence that anti-climbing principal advantage of such standards is performance standards where possible devices do provide some secondary that compliance can be verified with and identified the locomotive front end protection to cab occupants in the event either non-destructive tests or closed- structure design as the best candidate form analyses (i.e., hand calculations). for regulation through performance of a collision with a highway vehicle. The principal disadvantages are that the requirements. There was some concern FRA plans additional research in this desired level of performance is not among the Working Group members that area in the future. guaranteed, assumptions about if FRA issued performance requirements FRA understands that the proposed performance must be made when in this area, computer models would be standards will not create absolutely fashioning a particular design approach, required to show compliance with crashworthy locomotives, but rather and innovative approaches to achieving performance requirements for each new will tend to optimize crashworthiness the regulatory objective may be locomotive design. Thus, the Working design features in order to increase cab precluded. Group decided to recommend that occupant safety under some of the most This NPRM includes performance S–580 be incorporated by reference in common collision conditions. Since its requirements found to be feasible and its entirety. This concept became further inception in the early 1990’s, S–580 has certain requirements that use the more refined by maintaining the performance had a positive effect on locomotive traditional design standards approach. requirements, yet providing a model crashworthiness design. This proposed In certain cases, design standards are design standard which, if met, would rule is intended to capture the benefits identified as presumptively responsive likely satisfy the performance to performance requirements. This requirements. of the industry’s initiative and improve approach permits builders to use The Working Group’s approach upon it where possible. FRA believes accepted designs without conducting encourages introduction of more the RSAC resources were the best forum costly analyses that could still be innovative designs. As previously for recognizing and generating such challenged in later litigation. noted, AAR agreed to provide the model improvements. While the Working Group endeavored design standard in the form of an Other efforts are being undertaken by in its recommendations to make both enhanced S–580. Thus, the Working the industry and by FRA to reduce the sets of requirements as equivalent as Group focused its efforts on developing risk of locomotive collisions. For possible, because of the differences in a model design standard for locomotives instance, FRA is finalizing a rule on their nature, it is impossible to make of conventional design, herein called performance standards for the use and them completely equivalent. The AAR S–580–2004. development of processor-based signal equivalence of the design and Rather than requiring every design to performance standards is discussed in show satisfaction of the performance and train control systems. The detail in: Martinez, E., Tyrell, D., standards proposed here, FRA has implementation of positive train control ‘‘Alternative Analyses of Locomotive offered AAR S–580–2004 as a (PTC) technology could reduce the Structural Designs for conventional model design standard. number of train-to-train collisions. Crashworthiness,’’ presented at the 2000 FRA, in consultation with the RSAC Current federal and state programs International Mechanical Engineering Working Group, has performed the encourage the safety improvement of Congress and Exposition, November 6, necessary analysis to show that AAR highway-rail at-grade crossings 2000, Orlando, FL, and included in the –580–2004 meets the proposed (including initiatives targeted at drivers docket of this proceeding. There are no performance standards in most of heavy trucks) and help reduce the guarantees that a locomotive built to the instances. risk of locomotive collisions. The risks design specification will have the All of the subject areas covered by associated with locomotive collisions performance required by the this NPRM, other than locomotive front with offset intermodal containers on performance specification. If some end, are proposed in terms of design freight cars on parallel tracks are being aspect of the design approach assumed standards rather than performance addressed by joint industry/FRA in developing the design requirements requirements. This formulation required programs to promote better securement is changed, it may be possible to meet in-depth analysis of accident history, of trailers and containers. the design requirements but not meet creation and validation of computer the level of desired performance. models, and comparison of various However, all of these collision Nevertheless, FRA believes that the design improvements versus their avoidance strategies require time and proposed rule will accomplish the baseline design. This was necessary to resources to work, and there is intended risk reduction. ensure that the minimum requirements significant uncertainty regarding their Since performance standards are not being developed were in fact feasible full implementation. Further, as rail appropriate for every regulation, it must and necessary. Also, S–580 provided a operations and highway traffic grow, first be determined whether certain convenient and appropriate benchmark significant effort may be required to factors preclude their use. For example, for testing of further improvements in ensure that collision-related casualties performance standards are not effective this field, whereas FRA is not aware of do not grow as well. Accordingly, taking for regulation in areas where it is any standards for subject areas such as action to mitigate the effects of difficult to determine compliance (i.e., a locomotive cab interior configuration or collisions remains a prudent element of regulation requiring safer piloting of locomotive cab emergency egress. public policy, and is likely to remain so aircraft) or where determination of a FRA proposes to regulate designs for for some years to come. proper minimum level of performance anti-climbing devices and underframe

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:50 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP3.SGM 02NOP3 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 63897

B. Application to New Locomotives (See the issue is relevant only during the word ‘‘vessel.’’ FRA believes that this is Also Section-by-Section Analysis for phase-in period. In any event, in the a more accurate and grammatically § 229.203) future the entire locomotive fleet will be correct definition. It should be emphasized that FRA built to these or future crashworthiness The term ‘‘fuel tank, internal’’ revises does not seek to impose locomotive standards. Commenters are invited to the current part 238 definition by crashworthiness requirements on the address this issue. replacing the word ‘‘volume’’ with the word ‘‘vessel.’’ FRA believes that this is current locomotive fleet. At this time, V. Section-by-Section Analysis FRA feels safety benefits resulting from a more accurate and grammatically crashworthiness improvements would Amendments to 49 CFR Part 229 correct definition. The term ‘‘manufacture’’ means the be best realized through future In contrast to requirements for practice of producing a locomotive from locomotive designs, rather than by passenger-occupied cab control cars and new materials. retrofitting the current fleet. However, multiple unit (MU) locomotives, there The term ‘‘monocoque design what ought to be considered a ‘‘new are no current federal regulations locomotive’’ means a locomotive in locomotive’’ for purposes of this governing conventional locomotive which the external skin or shell of the proposed rule merits discussion. crashworthiness design. The proposed locomotive combines with the support FRA proposes using the locomotive revisions to part 229 would revise frame to jointly provide structural build date of (a date three years after subpart D to address locomotive support and stress resistance. publication of the final rule) for crashworthiness design for all The term ‘‘MU locomotive’’ revises determining whether the locomotive is locomotives covered by this rule while the current part 229 definition to more subject to the requirements of this moving § 229.141 to part 238 as clearly describe the types of equipment proposed rule. This should give § 238.224. included in the definition of MU railroads and locomotive manufacturers Subpart A—General locomotives. adequate time to take necessary steps to The term ‘‘narrow-nose locomotive’’ ensure that these new locomotives will Section 229.5 Definitions means a locomotive with a short hood be in compliance with these proposed The following terms have the same which spans substantially less than the requirements. meaning as provided in part 238: full width of the locomotive. FRA is particularly interested in ‘‘corner post,’’ ‘‘lateral,’’ ‘‘locomotive The term ‘‘occupied service’’ means whether a locomotive rebuilt with new cab,’’ ‘‘longitudinal,’’ ‘‘permanent any instance in which a locomotive is components atop a previously-used deformation,’’ ‘‘power car,’’ ‘‘roof rail,’’ operated with a person present in the underframe, or ‘‘decked’’ locomotive, ‘‘semi-permanently coupled,’’ ‘‘Tier II,’’ cab. should qualify as a new locomotive. and ‘‘ultimate strength.’’ The term ‘‘remanufacture’’ means the These ‘‘remanufactured’’ locomotives The term ‘‘anti-climber’’ is intended practice of producing a may have a future life span nearly to have the same meaning as ‘‘anti- ‘‘remanufactured locomotive’’. equivalent to a locomotive constructed climbing mechanism’’ as it is used in The term ‘‘remanufactured on a new underframe. FRA has defined part 238. The term ‘‘anti-climber’’ is locomotive’’ means a locomotive rebuilt ‘‘new locomotive’’ to include those used in place of ‘‘anti-climbing or refurbished from a previously used or locomotives rebuilt with a previously- mechanism’’ to more accurately refurbished underframe (‘‘deck’’), used underframe and containing no represent the name used in the rail containing fewer than 25% previously more than 25% previously-used parts industry. used components (weighted by dollar (weighted by cost). Commenters are The term ‘‘collision post’’ has value of the components). It is intended invited to address this issue specifically, essentially the same meaning as it is to capture the practice of decking a and also whether any other distinct used in part 238; however, the locomotive, or rebuilding it on a class of locomotives should be definition is modified slightly in this previously used underframe. The considered a ‘‘new locomotive’’ for proposed rule to narrow its application proposed definition is intended to give purposes of this rule. only to locomotives. better guidance to rebuilders of FRA encourages, as discussed by the The term ‘‘build date’’ means the date locomotives and railroads considering Working Group, the use of sound on which the completed locomotive is rebuilding a locomotive, and also to consist management principles to place actually shipped by the manufacturer or prevent avoidance of the proposed improved, more crashworthy remanufacturer to the customer. FRA requirements by simply rebuilding a locomotives as lead locomotives in asks for comment as to whether this locomotive on a previously used consists. As these new locomotives are definition accurately represents the underframe containing 25% or more phased in, they will only comprise a industry’s definition of ‘‘build date.’’ previously used components without portion of the fleet, and railroads will be The term ‘‘designated service’’ has the making safety improvements. faced with making decisions regarding same meaning as provided in part 223. The term ‘‘semi-monocoque design their placement in a consist. FRA The term ‘‘design standard’’ means a locomotive’’ means a locomotive in believes the benefits of this rule are specification for the crashworthiness which the external skin or shell of the maximized when these newer design of locomotives. This will usually locomotive partially combines with the locomotives are used in the lead contain a set of design requirements support frame to provide structural position to provide additional which do not specify ultimate support and stress resistance. protection to the operating crews, and performance, yet are not so specific in The term ‘‘short hood’’ means the part not in trailing positions behind older, nature that they leave little flexibility to of the locomotive above the underframe less crashworthy locomotives, but FRA the designer. The overall design of the located between the cab and the nearest has not mandated the placement of the locomotive is allowed to vary, so long end of the locomotive. Short hoods may newer locomotives. The Working Group as the specified crashworthiness design vary in length and are usually, but not did not believe a requirement to requirements are met. always, located toward the front-facing mandate placement of these newer The term ‘‘fuel tank, external’’ revises portion of the locomotive. locomotives in the lead position would the current part 238 definition by The term ‘‘standards body’’ means an be beneficial, and further believed that replacing the word ‘‘volume’’ with the industry and/or professional

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:50 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP3.SGM 02NOP3 63898 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules

organization or association which maintenance or a major overhaul not and found to satisfy the intent of the conducts research and develops and/or involving ‘‘decking.’’ Most large performance criteria. FRA does not issues policies, criteria, principles, and railroads perform a major overhaul after require compliance with this standard; standards related to the rail industry. about 9–12 years, replacing or servicing rather, it is being provided simply as an The term ‘‘wide-nose locomotive’’ many components, but not ‘‘decking’’ it. example of a design standard that FRA means a locomotive used in revenue See also Major Issue (b) ‘‘Application to has already found to satisfy the service which is not of narrow-nose or new locomotives.’’ performance requirements of Appendix monocoque or semi-monocoque design. Paragraph (b) would exclude from D. Providing an available design application of this rule passenger cab standard aids the locomotive original Subpart D—Locomotive cars, or MU cars, and semi-permanently equipment manufacturers (OEMs) by Crashworthiness Design Requirements coupled power cars built for passenger making it unnecessary for them to Section 229.201 Purpose and Scope service. These types of locomotives are conduct elaborate analysis of new subject to the requirements of part 238. designs to establish compliance with the Paragraph (a) provides that the Paragraph (c) would exclude from purpose of the proposed rule is to help performance standards. Representatives application of most provisions of this of two OEMs that participated protect locomotive cab occupants in the rule locomotives used in designated event of a collision with another throughout development of this service. This includes locomotives proposed rule in the RSAC embraced locomotive, on-track equipment, or with without occupant cabs and also any of several types of objects which this approach and found it very cost locomotives referred to as ‘‘slugs.’’ On effective. Paragraph (a)(2) allows may foul railroad trackage. Paragraph (b) these locomotives the cab doors have provides that this subpart sets forth compliance with FRA approved new been welded shut or otherwise secured crashworthiness design standards or standards for the design of crashworthy to a similar extent so that crews cannot locomotives. It is important to note that changes to existing crashworthiness occupy the cab. The designated service design standards. Finally, in paragraph these requirements are not designed to classification is intended to mirror its protect all occupants in all collision (a)(3), FRA provides the option of application in FRA’s Safety Glazing meeting an FRA approved alternative situations; rather this rule calls for Standards at § 223.5. Locomotives used design improvements in areas which crashworthiness design. The procedures in designated service would still be for seeking such approval of new or FRA believes will have the greatest subject to the fuel tank requirements effect on the reduction of cab crew revised standards or alternative designs proposed in § 229.217. FRA proposes are provided in §§ 229.207 and 229.209. injuries and fatalities associated with this requirement because it has found the most prevalent types of locomotive that locomotive fuel tank ruptures place Paragraph (b) requires that collisions. at risk the environment and all persons monocoque and semi-monocoque design locomotives comply with the Section 229.203 Applicability within the local area of the collision site. Since locomotives used in elements of the new AAR standard Paragraph (a) proposes that the designated service may still be used as applicable to those types of locomotives. requirements of this subpart would power in a consist, FRA feels that any Typically used in passenger service, apply to all locomotives manufactured fuel tank rupture on one of these monocoque/semi-monocoque or remanufactured on or after a date locomotives would pose a safety risk at locomotives provide occupant three years after publication of the final least equivalent to that from other road protection in a different manner than rule. The only locomotives exempt from locomotives. Therefore, all new wide-nose locomotives. Specifically, these requirements are those specifically locomotives would be required to because much of the longitudinal listed in paragraphs (b) and (c). FRA comply with this fuel tank requirement. strength of the locomotive is provided proposes using the locomotive build by the side panels of the unit (and date to exempt the current locomotive Section 229.205 General Requirements potentially the roof) as well as the fleet from requirements of this proposed Paragraph (a) of this section would underframe, the front of a monocoque or rule. The entire current locomotive fleet require the design of all locomotives semi-monocoque locomotive performs would therefore not be subject to the subject to this subpart, except as an integral unit and resists collapse requirements of this proposed rule, monocoque or semi-monocoque design very effectively. By contrast, the wide- other than for the rebuilt and locomotives, to meet the performance nose locomotive, which has relatively remanufactured requirements discussed criteria in Appendix D (hereafter little strength above the underframe, is below. FRA estimates that three years referred to as ‘‘wide-nose design made safer by strengthening the short would be sufficient to allow locomotives’’). All wide-nose design hood and allowing it absorb energy as manufacturers to re-engineer and re-tool locomotives must comply with the it collapses when subjected to higher in order to comply with these new requirements of Appendix D; however, forces. Allowing a similar amount of standards. the manufacturers or remanufacturers of crush in the case of the monocoque/ This paragraph would further apply to these locomotives are given options as semi-monocoque design would result in remanufactured locomotives, as defined to how they demonstrate their an almost complete loss of the cab in § 229.5. FRA feels that the practice of compliance. Compliance with the volume. The RSAC Working Group ‘‘decking’’ a locomotive (stripping a performance criteria must be satisfied reviewed the accident history of locomotive to its underframe, or deck, by complying with any one of the three monocoque/semi-monocoque and refurbishing it with new options provided. locomotives already in service that meet components) essentially creates a new In paragraph (a) (1), FRA has provided the new standard as built and found that locomotive. Since the useful life of a a model design standard, AAR S–580– they appear to be at least as safe as decked locomotive is practically the 2004, which FRA has found to satisfy wide-nose locomotives enhanced to same as a newly built locomotive, FRA the proposed performance standard in meet the new AAR standard and believes it should be subject to these Appendix D. This paragraph references Appendix D of this proposed rule. new requirements. However, these new that AAR standard’s criteria for wide- Existing manufacturers of this type of requirements are not intended to apply nose locomotives, which has been locomotive have indicated that the new to locomotives undergoing periodic analyzed in cooperation with the RSAC AAR standard is very reasonable and

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:50 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP3.SGM 02NOP3 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 63899

should be effective in ensuring that seriously limited due to functional recommendations. FRA envisions locomotives of this type are built to requirements. However FRA welcomes proposing more specific design protect cab occupants. suggestions for performance criteria that requirements on this subject in future As the recommended text of this would provide guidance for establishing rulemakings once reliable research has proposed rule was being circulated for equivalence with the approved design been performed. final ballot within the RSAC Working standard. AAR S–580–2004 requires the Group, a supplier member of APTA, It should be noted that the scope of placement of and specifies illumination which builds locomotives for commuter AAR S–580–2004 varies slightly from levels for locomotive cab emergency railroads, noted the existence of the that of this proposed rule. Specifically, lighting. These requirements are similar APTA standards, APTA SS–C & S–034, in section ‘‘1.0 Scope’’ of AAR S–580– to those required for passenger for monocoque/semi-monocoque 2004, ‘‘road switcher/intermediate equipment in § 238.115, except that the passenger locomotives. This standard service locomotives’’ are exempt from required duration for lighting levels in appears to be at least equivalent in every meeting the AAR design standard. freight locomotive cabs is less to reflect material respect to the new AAR However, ‘‘road switcher/intermediate the design distinction between the two standard. FRA solicits comments service locomotives’’ are required to types of equipment. Passenger regarding whether the final rule should meet the performance standards of this equipment generally has use of an recognize this existing APTA standard proposed rule. Manufacturers and/or auxiliary power source, making it more as an additional option for compliance. remanufacturers of ‘‘road switcher/ convenient to provide ample power A copy of this standard has been placed intermediate service locomotives’’ may when needed. Most freight locomotives in the docket of this rulemaking. still utilize AAR S–580–2004 to satisfy have only one power source and its Paragraph (c) requires that narrow- the requirements of § 229.205. reliability is important for powering the nose design locomotives be built to the prime mover. Further, FRA sees Section 229.206 Design Requirements requirements of the new AAR standard locomotive crew members as being more for that type of locomotive. The RSAC This section would require all familiar with the smaller layout of a Working Group considered the need for locomotives subject to this subpart to freight locomotive cab and emergency a suitable standard to address include anti-climbers, methods of lighting capabilities therein than the locomotives used frequently to make up emergency egress, and emergency average passenger traveling in passenger trains and pick up and set out cars. interior lighting designed in compliance equipment subject to part 238. FRA Presently, older narrow-nose with the crashworthiness requirements specifically invites comments on this locomotives are preferred for this type contained in AAR S–580–2004, a copy issue. of work because they provide a better of which has been placed in the docket AAR S–580–2004 provides general field of view for the engineer. FRA of this proceeding. design requirements for the interior agreed that the safety of ground AAR S–580–2004 requires that the configuration of a locomotive cab. In personnel, and avoidance of train cab end of a locomotive must order to minimize the chance of injury accidents involving fouling equipment incorporate an anticlimber of a specified to occupants, protruding parts, sharp and misaligned switches, would be best width, depth, and design to resist an edges, and corners in the locomotive cab served by allowing that narrow-nosed upward or downward vertical force of must be rounded, radiused, or padded. locomotives be built to a less stringent 100,000 pounds, applied over any 12 These requirements are similar to those standard. Accordingly, protection of the inches of the anticlimber, without covering passenger equipment in cab under the new AAR standard will exceeding the ultimate strength of the § 238.233(e)–(f). be significantly better than existing anticlimber or its connector. The AAR S–580–2004 provides design narrow-nose units (through Working Group understood, and FRA requirements for locomotive cab strengthening of the short hood agrees, that the forces generated appurtenance (including cab seat) structure and the addition of corner post between two colliding locomotives are securement. The Working Group requirements for the cab itself), but not of sufficient magnitude that the formulated these requirements based on as robust as required for wide-nose anticlimber will most likely crush and manufacturer testing and their collective locomotives. absorb some energy. The most likely general experience with locomotive It should be noted that the proposed scenario where the anticlimber can collisions. FRA expects that testing rule (see §§ 229.207, 229.209) allows the prevent intrusion into the occupied cab methods to determine compliance with qualification of monocoque/semi- area is in collisions at grade crossing this requirement be state of the art. monocoque and narrow-nose where a highway vehicle struck by the Testing should demonstrate that the locomotives using alternative standards locomotive may try to climb up but such mountings, including cab seat and approved designs. However, unlike motions and forces generated are mountings, meet the strength the situation for all other locomotives, resisted by the anticlimber. requirements without permanent neither Appendix D nor any other AAR S–580–2004 requires that the deformation. Localized deformation portion of the rule spells out precisely locomotive cab allow for exit through at may be acceptable for compliance how the case for safety equivalence least one opening in any locomotive purposes with this section. would be made. This is in part because orientation. The Working Group faced The disparities in these cab seat FRA research and RSAC Working Group the problem that research in this area is securement requirements from those attention focused on the principal lacking. However, the problem is well- currently required by § 238.233(f)–(g) for opportunity for safety advances through defined: when the locomotive lies on its passenger equipment are due solely to the improvement of wide-nose design side after a collision, the occupants may the difference in how compliance is locomotives (by far the largest category have trouble reaching a door that is not measured. In § 238.233, seat mountings of new locomotives built in the last obstructed, especially if they are must withstand forces of 8.0 g decade and under order today). Further, injured. The Working Group therefore longitudinal, 4.0 g lateral, and 4.0 g as noted above, existing monocoque/ made some general recommendations vertical without ultimate failure of the semi-monocoque designs have for the design of cabs to incorporate connection. This proposal requires that performed admirably; and design adequate means of emergency egress. all appurtenances/mountings withstand choices for the narrow-nose are FRA has adopted these forces of 3.0 g longitudinal, 1.5 g lateral,

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:50 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP3.SGM 02NOP3 63900 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules

and 2.0 g vertical without permanent crashworthiness design standards and these types of changes, FRA requires, in deformation, as defined in § 229.5. The changes to existing FRA-approved subparagraph (c)(4), validation that the Working Group felt that, given current crashworthiness design standards. This resulting standard still satisfies the designs, all appurtenances and paragraph also limits those who may requirements stated in § 229.205. Types mountings which comply with seek approval of changes to existing of validation which FRA will consider § 238.233 requirements would most FRA-approved crashworthiness design appropriate are described in likely meet the proposed requirements standards. Only a standards body which § 229.211(c)(1). and vice versa. FRA agrees. has adopted an FRA-approved design Paragraph (d) specifies procedures for standard may request to change that obtaining FRA approval of non- Section 229.207 New Locomotive standard. FRA has proposed this substantive changes to existing FRA- Crashworthiness Design Standards and limitation in order to prevent parties approved design standards. Each Changes to Existing FRA-Approved who have no stake in a design standard petition must be submitted to the FRA Locomotive Crashworthiness Design from seeking to impose changes to it. A Associate Administrator for Safety and Standards party seeking changes to a design be titled ‘‘Petition for FRA Approval of This section proposes procedures to standard that has not been approved by Non-substantive Changes to a be followed when seeking FRA approval FRA should follow the procedures for Locomotive Crashworthiness Design of new locomotive crashworthiness approval of new design standards, Standard.’’ Subparagraphs (d)(1) and design standards. It also covers paragraph (b), or the procedures for (d)(2) require the petition to contain procedures for obtaining FRA approval approval of alternative design standards contact information for a representative of changes to existing standards which provided in § 229.209. of the petitioner and the proposed FRA has already approved. These Paragraph (b) specifies submission change in detail. FRA believes that these procedures are similar to approval procedures for petitions for new design non-substantive changes will usually be procedures currently used by FRA in standards. Each petition must be editorial, procedural, or interpretive in other contexts. See, for example, submitted to the FRA Associate nature, requiring a relatively low level § 238.21. Administrator for Safety and be titled of FRA scrutiny. FRA understands such FRA envisions the possibility that ‘‘Petition for FRA Approval of a New changes could be necessary in order for other industry groups, such as passenger Locomotive Crashworthiness Design standards bodies to effectively carry out locomotive manufacturers, might desire Standard.’’ Subparagraphs (b)(1) and their duties. Subparagraph (d)(3) a separate design standard from AAR S– (b)(2) require the petition to contain requires a detailed explanation of how 580–2004. This section outlines the contact information for a representative the proposed change is non-substantive. procedures to be used to obtain FRA of the petitioner and the proposed FRA will make an initial determination approval for such a design standard. design standard in detail. Along with whether the proposed change is non- FRA recognizes that considerable the proposed design standard, FRA substantive. If FRA determines that the expense could be required to validate a needs to understand the intended type proposed change is in fact substantive, new design standard with respect to the of use of the locomotive sought to be FRA will process the petition as a performance criteria in Appendix D. built by a petitioner. Subparagraph substantive proposed change in Thus, FRA does not expect that (b)(3) requires this information. accordance with paragraph (c) of this submission of petitions for new Subparagraph (b)(4) requires the section. If FRA determines that the locomotive crashworthiness design petition to contain data and analysis proposed change is non-substantive, standards will be an ordinary showing how the proposed design FRA will process the petition in occurrence. standard satisfies the performance accordance with § 229.211(c). However, FRA does foresee a need for requirements in Appendix D. Examples Section 229.209 Alternative flexibility with approved standards to of the types of data and analysis Locomotive Crashworthiness Designs enable industry standards bodies to required are provided in § 229.211(c)(1). suggest often highly technical changes Paragraph (c) deals with substantive This section proposes procedures to to a previously-approved design changes to an FRA-approved design be followed when seeking FRA approval standard without incurring delays standard. Each petition must be of an alternative locomotive inevitably invoked by the Federal submitted to the FRA Associate crashworthiness design. These administrative review process. This Administrator for Safety and be titled procedures are similar to approval section would set two levels of FRA ‘‘Petition for FRA Approval of Changes procedures currently used by FRA in scrutiny, depending on the degree of to a Locomotive Crashworthiness Design other contexts. See, for example, change to the previously-approved Standard.’’ Subparagraphs (c)(1) and § 238.21. standard. The lowest level of scrutiny is (c)(2) require the petition to contain FRA envisions the possibility that a involved when non-substantive changes contact information for a representative railroad or locomotive manufacturer are involved. See paragraph (d) of this of the petitioner and the proposed will desire to explore innovative section. A higher level of scrutiny change in detail. Along with the locomotive designs which do not satisfy would be required when substantive proposed change, FRA needs to AAR S–580–2004 or any other current changes are involved. However, since understand the intended type of use of FRA-approved design standard. In such most of these changes are likely to be the locomotive sought to be built by a case, FRA has provided a procedure in incremental in nature, FRA would only petitioner. Subparagraph (c)(3) requires this section whereby it would assess the require evidence that the resulting this information. These substantive design directly against the performance standard still satisfies the performance changes, defined as all other changes criteria of Appendix D. This section criteria by showing an equivalent or not covered by paragraph (d) (non- outlines the procedures to be used to better level of safety. See paragraph (c) substantive changes), would likely obtain FRA approval for such a design. of this section. result in a change to the design standard FRA recognizes that considerable Paragraph (a) explains the purpose of which might call into question its expense could be required to validate an this section. This section provides the compliance with the performance alternative design with respect to the procedures that must be followed by criteria of Appendix D or equivalence to performance criteria in Appendix D. parties seeking approval of new the applicable technical standard. For However, the state of the art of

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:50 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP3.SGM 02NOP3 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 63901

validation techniques is evolving, and information for a representative of the designs. FRA proposes several FRA does not find it far-fetched that the petitioner and the proposed design in validation methods which it considers expenses associated with validation detail. Subparagraph (b)(3) requires that, satisfactory. FRA is aware of the basic processes today will decrease. Overall, along with the proposed alternative types of modeling and testing of FRA expects that submission of design, the petitioner also submit the locomotive design standards, as well as petitions for alternative locomotive type of service to which the locomotive the relative costs associated with these crashworthiness designs will be a rare will be put. FRA needs to understand processes. Any validation technique occurrence. the intended type of use to appreciate considered to be state-of-the-art, or FRA also understands that the market the probable collision risks to which it generally acceptable within the for locomotives is very much customer- will be subjected. Subparagraph (b)(4) scientific community, should suffice for driven and that railroads of all sizes requires the petition to contain data and purposes of this subparagraph, whether require a great degree of operational analysis showing how the proposed it be computer software modeling or flexibility. Thus, FRA assumes that a design standard satisfies the full-scale crash testing of locomotives. locomotive capable of performing road- performance requirements in Appendix FRA does realize that technological and haul service will at some point be called D or is equivalent in protection of cab market changes may make modeling upon to perform such service. Since the occupants (in the case of narrow-nose or and/or testing methods more or less performance criteria are objectives monocoque/semi-monocoque designs) cost-effective, and would thus require designed for road-haul service to the applicable technical standard. validation to such an extent as locomotives, FRA contemplates Examples of the types of data and reasonably practicable. Finally, in order approval of design standards and analysis required are provided in to facilitate and expedite the approval alternative designs not meeting the § 229.211(c)(1). process, FRA would encourage effective performance criteria or applicable peer review of submitted standards Section 229.211 Processing of Petitions technical standard only under a waiver prior to submission. FRA is not aware proceeding (see part 211, subpart c). In This section outlines the procedures how this requirement would affect small such a proceeding, FRA would expect that FRA will follow in reaching a entities, but invites comments the petitioner to demonstrate that (1) decision on petitions submitted under addressing this issue. service conditions will not approximate § 229.207(b) (petitions for approval of For locomotives subject to paragraph assumptions used for performance new design standards); § 229.207(c) (a) of § 229.205, where solely criteria (i.e, locomotive cannot possibly (petitions for approval of substantive incremental changes are being be used for road-haul service), and (2) changes to an approved design introduced to a previously approved adequate design restrictions on use will standard); and § 229.209(b) (petitions for design standard, FRA would not require reinforce those assumptions. For approval of alternative design proof of satisfaction of all Appendix D example, appropriate restrictions on a standards). performance requirements. In this case, locomotive’s horsepower guarantee that Paragraph (a) proposes that FRA FRA would require submission of it cannot effectively be used as a road- publish a notice in the Federal Register validation material for only those areas haul locomotive. However, FRA is for each petition received seeking affected by the changes. FRA feels that willing to consider the option of approval of new or alternative to require full satisfaction of the building such an approval mechanism crashworthiness designs or substantive Appendix D performance criteria would into this rule, and FRA welcomes changes to existing crashworthiness be too great a burden and would simply comments regarding how that might be designs. This is to notify interested result in the requirement that done. parties of the pending FRA action. subsequent petitioners ‘‘reinvent the Paragraph (a) explains the purpose of Paragraph (b) provides procedures for wheel’’ in areas where it has already this section. This section contains interested parties to comment on any been invented. procedures which govern locomotive petitions submitted to FRA pursuant to In the event that a truly innovative designs which are truly innovative and this section. FRA is aware that changes alternative design is submitted for FRA unconventional. Manufacturers or in design of conventional locomotives approval (i.e., not close to satisfying a railroads will most likely use the might impact the safety of locomotive previously-approved design standard), procedures in this section to gain FRA crews and others railroad employees. FRA would require full validation of its approval, rather than attempt to fit Therefore, this paragraph provides such crashworthiness per Appendix D. within an already-established design parties the opportunity to comment. However, if a proposed alternative standard or alter an existing design Further, FRA welcomes comments in design varies only slightly from a standard. FRA feels that builders/ electronic form as well as in written previously-approved design standard, railroads should not necessarily be form. If FRA determines that additional FRA would require only validation of forced to work with existing standards, information is required to appropriately those features which are different, in should they be willing to have validated consider the petition, FRA will conduct lieu of proof of satisfaction of all the safety features of their design against a hearing on the petition. Notice of such Appendix D performance criteria. the performance criteria of Appendix D hearing will provided in the Federal Designers ought to be able to take (or equivalence to the applicable Register. Procedures for the conduct of advantage of prior safety validation technical standard). such hearing will be in accord with efforts on conventional designs Paragraph (b) specifies submission § 211.25. (reflected in FRA-approved design procedures for petitions for alternative Paragraph (c) addresses FRA action on standards). Thus, when an alternative locomotive crashworthiness designs. petitions submitted for FRA approval locomotive design approaches that of a Each petition must be submitted to the pursuant to §§ 229.207(b), 229.207(c), previously-approved design standard, FRA Associate Administrator for Safety and 229.209. FRA would prefer that validation efforts and be titled ‘‘Petition for FRA Subparagraph (c)(1) describes the be focused on areas where the Approval of Alternative Locomotive types of validation techniques required alternative design takes a different Crashworthiness Design.’’ for FRA approval of design standards, approach from the approved design Subparagraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) require changes to design standards, and standard. FRA envisions validation of the petition to contain contact alternative locomotive crashworthiness such alternative designs to be

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:50 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP3.SGM 02NOP3 63902 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules

demonstrated through competent Paragraph (b) provides that the and remanufacture date is determined engineering analysis which compares information required by paragraph (a) by the date the locomotive is shipped by the new alternative design to that of an must be located permanently in the the manufacturer or remanufacturer to approved design or design standard and locomotive cab (i.e., a plaque or plate the customer. demonstrates an equal or better affixed to the inside of the cab) or Paragraph (b) requires all records of performance. As detailed in Appendix provided within two business days repairs or modifications to D, the primary performance measure to upon request of FRA or an FRA certified crashworthiness features of a be evaluated is crush distance. Crush state inspector. This requirement would locomotive subject to this subpart be distance restrictions are utilized in provide a means by which it can be kept by the owner or lessee of the order to determine compliance with the rapidly determined whether a locomotive. These records must also be goal of preventing intrusion into the locomotive is subject to the maintained for the life cycle of the occupied cab space. requirements of this rule. locomotive, up to a period of 20 years In subparagraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3), A related issue of locomotive from the date these repairs/ FRA proposes a 90-day goal for identification of safety features is modifications are made. Under this disposition of a petition under this communication of these features to paragraph, transfer of ownership of a section, due to the technical review crews. The benefits of this rule may not locomotive does not relieve the which may be required. It should be be fully realized if the occupants of the transferor of responsibility to maintain noted that 90 days is only a target goal. locomotive are not made aware of the the repair/modification records. The FRA will take more than 90 days to fact that the locomotive has railroad would be relieved of its reach a decision if warranted. FRA will crashworthiness design features and of responsibility to maintain the repair/ grant a petition only if it finds that the the specific safety features incorporated modification records after the earlier of proposed design standard or change to in the locomotive design. Consequently, a 20-year period or when the locomotive an existing design standard satisfies the FRA feels it is imperative that this is permanently retired from service. performance standards specified in information be communicated to FRA invites comments from small Appendix D or provides a level of safety locomotive cab occupants. Commenters railroads regarding this issue, since FRA equivalent to the recognized technical are asked to specifically address is aware that many smaller railroads standard (in the case of narrow-nose or whether any particular method of obtain locomotives from larger railroads, monocoque/semi-monocoque designs). identification ought be used so as to rather than purchasing new from the FRA will deny a petition if it determines promote uniformity, or whether carriers manufacturer. that the proposed design standard or should be required to simply identify Paragraph (c) outlines the basic change to an existing design standard the locomotive with the appropriate procedure FRA proposes for inspection does not satisfy the performance information by any reasonable means, of locomotive designs. FRA, or FRA- standards specified in Appendix D or is such as training of crews. certified state inspectors, will request to not equivalent in safety (as applicable). view designs for specified locomotives, Section 229.215 Retention and FRA will also deny a petition if it and the railroad will comply by making Inspection of Designs determines that the petition does not the designs available for inspection and meet the procedural requirements of Paragraph (a) proposes a requirement photocopying by FRA, or FRA-certified §§ 229.207 and 229.209. that locomotive manufacturers and state inspectors, within 7 days. FRA Subparagraph (c)(3) also contains a remanufacturers maintain feels this provision is essential to its provision allowing petitions which have crashworthiness designs for those ability to ensure compliance with been denied to be re-opened for cause. locomotives subject to subpart D. This paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. For example, FRA might re-open requirement is designed to ensure that FRA understands that railroads may consideration of a petition for an compliance with the requirements of not perform the actual repairs/ alternative locomotive crashworthiness this subpart can be readily determined modifications or possess the actual design if a specific locomotive collision in the event that a locomotive’s designs themselves, but rather would risk had been significantly affected by compliance with its design or have them stored by a third party such factors (i.e., elimination of highway-rail performance standard is called into as the AAR, the leasing company, or at-grade crossings or adjacent parallel question. It is also meant to ensure that even the manufacturer. Paragraph (d) track) not present during the initial the relevant designs are available in the allows the records to be maintained by consideration of the petition. event a locomotive subject to this third parties; however, the Finally, subparagraph (c)(4) states that subpart is modified or repaired. FRA manufacturers, remanufacturers, FRA will send copies of its written believes these records should be owners, and lessees of locomotives decision to all parties to the petition and available so that any repairs or subject to this subpart will remain will also place its decision in the docket modifications made to the locomotives responsible for compliance with this for that proceeding. FRA may also post do not compromise the crashworthiness section. its decision on its Web site, http:// features to such an extent that they are Section 229.217 Fuel Tank www.fra.dot.gov. no longer in compliance with the proposed rule. Paragraph (a) proposes that Section 229.213 Locomotive The requirement that these records be locomotives equipped with external fuel Manufacturing Information maintained for the life of the locomotive tanks meet the October 1, 2001 version Paragraph (a) of this section requires is limited to a twenty-year term, which of AAR Standard S–5506 requirement each railroad operating a railroad approximates the normal period an for external fuel tanks, with the subject to this subpart to retain the date initial owner would typically retain exception of Section 4.4 as noted below. upon which the locomotive was control of the unit. The twenty-year That version of AAR S–5506 has been manufactured or remanufactured, the term runs from the date that a placed in the docket of this proceeding. name of the manufacturer or locomotive is manufactured. In the case These requirements were formerly remanufacturer, and the design of a remanufactured locomotive, the classified as an AAR Recommended specifications to which the locomotive twenty-year term begins anew on its Practice, RP–506. RP–506 became was manufactured or remanufactured. date of remanufacture. The manufacture effective on June 1, 1995. Only

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:50 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP3.SGM 02NOP3 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 63903

preliminary observations of its effect the objective of the scenario, the proxy, Paragraph (b) proposes performance have been made. Data from FRA or contemplated colliding object, the criteria for design of the front end accident records has shown that RP–506 conditions of the impact, and the structure, where, in conventional has had a positive effect on the allowable results. The performance locomotive design, the short hood is performance of fuel tanks in locomotive standard being adopted will allow for normally found. The objective of this collisions and derailments. The NTSB the maximum level of flexibility in scenario is to simulate an oblique in NTSB Report # PB92–917009 on fuel future locomotive design. collision with an intermodal container tank integrity has accepted RP–506 as a The proposed performance criteria for offset from a freight car on an adjacent means to mitigate fuel tank breaches (a the locomotive crashworthiness design parallel track. This collision scenario is copy of the report has been placed in features guarantee a minimum level of based on the collision conditions, other the docket of this proceeding). On safety for locomotive cab occupants than speed, found in the May 16, 1994, October 1, 2001, AAR S–5506 was involved in a collision. The logic behind Selma, NC, collision involving an adopted as an AAR standard. the performance criteria is that overhanging intermodal trailer on the Section 238.223(a) requires that locomotives designed to meet the northbound CSXT 176 freight train and passenger locomotives with external performance criteria specified in this the lead locomotive on the southbound fuel tanks comply with a similar version proposed rule will be able to preserve Amtrak passenger train 87. The closing of S–5506. As FRA decided in the survivable space in the locomotive cab speed between these two trains was Passenger Equipment Safety Standards in a collision under similar conditions estimated at about 110 mph. The proxy final rule (64 FR 25651–25652 (May 12, as specified in this appendix, as well as object in this scenario represents the 1999)), to omit one of the provisions of those involving lower closing speeds. intermodal trailer, and the intended RP–506 (now S–5506) since it does not For instance, a locomotive traveling 30 simulated impact conditions are appear to be a safety standard, but rather miles per hour colliding with a heavy specified for the closing speed (30 mph), a fueling requirement; this provision is highway vehicle (weighing no more point of impact, and maximum intentionally omitted here as well. This than 65,000 pounds, or 321⁄2 tons) at a allowable crush distance along the provision, Section 4.4 (‘‘Fueling’’) of S– highway-rail grade crossing should longitudinal axis of the locomotive. 5506, states ‘‘[i]nternal structures of maintain sufficient survivable space for In the course of the discussions held, [the] tank must not impede the flow of its occupants if it is built to the the Working Group also performed fuel through the tank while fueling at a standards required by this proposed research into strengthening the window rate of 300 gpm [gallons per minute].’’ rule, even if it effectively overrides the frame structure of wide-nose FRA does not consider fueling rates to underframe of the locomotive. However, locomotives. The window frame be a safety concern, but rather an since actual collision conditions may structure for typical wide-nose locomotives currently in use in North operational consideration. vary greatly, these figures should only Paragraph (b) requires locomotives America is made up of two corner posts be used as guidelines and not relied equipped with internal fuel tanks to and a central post all of which are tied upon as precise cutoff levels of meet the requirements of § 238.223, into the roof. After considerable locomotive crashworthiness. Whether which governs design of fuel tanks on discussion at the last meeting, the there will be sufficient survivable space passenger locomotives. Although FRA Working Group decided against inside the locomotive cab depends on contemplates most locomotives recommending design load many unpredictable factors as well. equipped with internal fuel tanks will requirements as well as the performance be used in passenger service, FRA has With these considerations, FRA requirements for the window frame classified locomotives by design rather desires to allow for maximum flexibility structure. The key argument raised by than intended service, in order to allow in locomotive design by proposing members of the Working Group was that maximum operational flexibility by the performance criteria to protect cab a majority of the cost, approximately carriers. occupants where possible. The criteria one-half of the total cost for all for the front end structure of the modifications, would be incurred by the Appendix D—Performance Criteria for locomotive are based on specified Structural Design need for extensive engineering re-design collision scenarios or performance and fabrication re-tooling. The benefits This appendix proposes performance requirements. associated with the modifications to the criteria for the structural design of Paragraph (a) proposes performance window frame structure were small locomotives (other than monocoque/ criteria for design of the front end based upon the accident review. FRA semi-monocoque design or narrow-nose structure where, in conventional agrees with the Working Group’s design), comprised basically of the front locomotive design, collision posts analysis and has decided to postpone end structure inclusive of a short hood would normally be found. This collision promulgation of requirements for the and collision posts with a cab structure. scenario is intended to simulate a window frame structure for wide-nose Demonstration that these criteria have collision between a locomotive and a locomotives pending further detailed been satisfied may be accomplished heavy highway vehicle at a highway-rail study. through any of the methods described in grade crossing. The proxy object in this § 229.211. In conventional locomotive scenario is designed to represent the AAR S–580–2004, Locomotive design, these two areas cover basically heavy highway vehicle. The intended Crashworthiness Requirements all of the major structural support simulated impact conditions are FRA has approved AAR S–580–2004 separating cab occupants from the specified for the closing speed, point of as an acceptable design standard, for impacting objects in a locomotive impact, and maximum allowable crush purposes of satisfying the performance collision. The criteria, which were distance along the longitudinal axis of criteria of Appendix D. recommended by RSAC and adopted by the locomotive. The improvements in AAR S–580–2004 contains design FRA, were developed by the crashworthiness required under this requirements for locomotive front end Engineering Task Force with support scenario will also have the effect of structure design, as well as other from the Volpe Center. Each lettered reducing intrusion into the cab during miscellaneous design requirements, paragraph of this appendix covers a collisions between locomotives and some of which are Federal requirements different collision scenario, indicating other rail rolling stock. as well. Structural requirements listed

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:50 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP3.SGM 02NOP3 63904 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules

in AAR S–580–2004 are divided into underframe would fail before the requirements for semi-monocoque three different subsections: one for collision posts.6 The Working Group locomotives in section 8.0 ‘‘Monocoque locomotives of traditional wide-nose found it more desirable to have the or Semi-monocoque Locomotive designs, one for locomotives of narrow- collision posts fail before the Designs.’’ This design standard was nose design, and one for those of semi- underframe does, thereby reducing the adapted from the performance monocoque/monocoque design. There possibility of override due to either the requirements of Appendix D and are separate requirements for these formation of a ramp caused by through variation of the design standard general classifications of designs in underframe deformation or catapulting. for wide-nose locomotives. Since order to account for the different service The Working Group ultimately locomotives of monocoque or semi- conditions they typically operate under recommended the ‘‘750,000/500,000 monocoque design are more efficient in and the significantly different crush pound’’ collision post as a minimum managing crash energy due to the load- characteristics of the designs. For standard. FRA agrees and the proposed bearing capabilities of the wall and roof example, FRA proposes less stringent rule reflects this recommendation. structures, they may be designed using front end structure requirements for AAR S–580–2004 also requires a slightly weaker underframe than the narrow-nose locomotives because they collision posts to extend to a minimum conventional wide-nose locomotives. are used mainly in switching service. of 24 inches above the finished floor This type of design better distributes During switching operations, visibility and be located forward of the position loads applied to its front end by to and from the cab is essential in of any seated crew member. The effectively transferring them to the walls preventing injuries and fatalities. FRA position of the collision posts and their and roof, as well as the underframe. feels that requirements for a required height were developed to This design allows it to utilize a less- significantly enhanced front end provide the crew members a survivable resistant underframe in order to provide structure on narrow-nose locomotives area in the event of a frontal collision the same degree of protection. Limited would be detrimental to visibility to and with an object above the underframe of data from the performance of semi- from the locomotive cab. Manufacturers the locomotive. The Working Group monocoque locomotives involved in have indicated that further discussed the advantages of such a locomotive collisions has corroborated strengthening would require major survivable volume in that it may help this theory. redesign, with structural members encourage crew members to remain in Section 7.0 ‘‘Narrow-Nose taking up more physical space in the the cab rather than jumping, as they Locomotives’’ covers design cab. As a result, FRA has balanced these often do in the face of a collision. This requirements for the front-end structure safety risks by increasing the strength would prevent unnecessary injuries, of narrow-nose locomotives. Strength requirements for the front end of and even fatalities, resulting from requirements for the front end structure narrow-nose locomotives, but only to jumping in these situations. FRA agrees of narrow-nose locomotives are less the extent that the functionality of these with the Working Group’s stringent than those for wide-nose locomotives would not be recommendation and the proposed rule locomotives. The narrow nose on these compromised. reflects this recommendation. locomotives simply does not allow for Requirements in AAR S–580–2004 for Short Hood Structure: The short hood equivalent protection at the widest part wide-nose locomotive front end structure is constructed primarily from of the locomotive in front of the cab. structure encompass three main steel sheets, and spans the width of the Although this makes the wide-nose components: anti-climbers, collision locomotive from the finished floor up to locomotive more desirable for use in posts, and short hood structure. the window frame. It provides road freight service, narrow-nose Collision posts: the collision posts are additional protection to occupants. locomotives have become useful in the primary crash-energy absorbing Since it extends the width of the intermediate-haul and local switching features on a locomotive involved in an locomotive (unlike collision posts), it is operations because they offer cab in-line train-to-train collision or impact the primary means of protection in the occupants a much greater range of with a large motor vehicle. S–580, as event the locomotive collides with an vision from the cab. During these types adopted in 1989, provided for a object at an angle or a load is applied of movements, unobstructed vision is ‘‘500,000/200,000 pound’’ collision longitudinally outside of the collision very important because railroad post. Through its efforts, the Working posts, such as in a collision with an personnel are often standing on or near Group found that strengthened collision offset trailer on a flatbed car. the right of way directing the posts would provide additional A short hood structure meeting the movement. FRA believes that provision collision protection to the cab performance requirements in Appendix must be made for use of the narrow-nose occupants. Specifically, the group found D should provide adequate protection to locomotive design to maintain an that a collision post which can handle cab occupants in a 30-mile per hour appropriate level of safety during an application of 750,000 pounds at the collision with an offset trailer on a intermediate-haul and local switching point of attachment and 500,000 pounds flatcar on an adjacent track. Such a operations. FRA proposes a design of force applied at a point 30 inches structure should be able to withstand a standard for narrow-nose locomotives above the top of the underframe could load of 400,000 pounds. It is also which maximizes the strength of the withstand the same damage in collisions intended to crush in a collision, front corners under existing technology occurring at a closing speed 2 mph absorbing some energy. Thus, the model and materials without sacrificing higher than the baseline S–580 design. design requirements of AAR S–580– occupant visibility from the cab. A collision post which can handle The most significant safety risk with 2004 provide guidelines for design of a 800,000 pounds at the same point respect to narrow-nose locomotives is short hood structure having such behaves similar in collisions occurring their regular use in road-haul service. strength characteristics. at closing speeds 8 mph faster than the AAR S–580–2004 also covers Since the Class I railroads have followed baseline S–580 design. However, proposed front end structural a trend of purchasing more and more increasing the strength of the collision wide-nose locomotives to be used in posts to a point beyond that of the 6 ADL presentation at July 14–15, 1998, Working road freight service, the use of narrow- strength of the underframe would serve Group meeting. This presentation has been placed nose locomotives in a manner no useful purpose, because the in the docket of this rulemaking. inconsistent with their intended service

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:50 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP3.SGM 02NOP3 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 63905

(i.e., over-utilization in road freight multiple unit (MU) locomotives, there $52.4 million. Over a twenty-year service) is unlikely. Through the course are no current Federal regulations period, the Net Present Value (NPV) of of its deliberations, the Working Group governing conventional locomotive this proposal is a positive $8.5 million. had discussed possibilities of (1) crashworthiness design. The proposed The major costs anticipated from Restricting service of narrow-nose revisions to part 229 would revise adopting this proposed rule include: locomotives to intermediate- and local- subpart D to address locomotive redesign costs for locomotive models; haul and transfer train service, (2) crashworthiness design for all and the marginal cost increases for labor restricting them to a maximum speed locomotives covered by this rule while and supplies needed for the more limit, and (3) restricting design of these moving § 229.141 to part 238 as crashworthy locomotives. locomotives to a maximum horsepower § 238.224. The major benefits anticipated from limit. In its final recommendation, the implementing this final rule include: a Working Group decided not to Subpart A—General reduction of the damages on recommend any service or design Section 238.5 Definitions locomotives when they are involved in restrictions. FRA has no reason to collisions; and a reduction in the The term ‘‘fuel tank, external’’ revises believe that the trend of purchasing severity of casualties incurred in the current part 238 definition by wide-nose locomotives will not locomotive collisions. In addition there replacing the word ‘‘volume’’ with the continue, and thus does not propose any should be a reduction in the number of word ‘‘vessel.’’ FRA believes that this is service or design restrictions on narrow- lost work days by locomotive cab a more accurate and grammatically nose locomotives in this rule. FRA employees. correct definition. invites public comment on whether The term ‘‘fuel tank, internal’’ revises Regulatory Flexibility Act service or design restrictions should be the current part 238 definition by imposed on narrow-nose locomotives; The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 replacing the word ‘‘volume’’ with the and, commenters supporting restrictions (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires a review word ‘‘vessel.’’ FRA believes that this is should specify the restrictions they of proposed and final rules to assess a more accurate and grammatically support. their impact on small entities. FRA has It should be noted that the Working correct definition. prepared and placed in the docket a Group abandoned discussions over a Section 238.224 MU Locomotive Body Small Entity Impact Assessment and fourth design standard, that of the yard Structure Evaluation which assesses the necessary switcher locomotive. Such a locomotive and pertinent small entity impacts. This section is moved from part 229 Executive Order No. 13272, ‘‘Proper would be designed for use solely in the to part 238 and is redesignated from assembling and disassembling of trains, Consideration of Small Entities in § 229.141 to § 238.224. This section is and could be designed to the standard Agency Rulemaking,’’ requires federal being relocated to part 238 because MU of S–580. FRA invites comments agencies, among other things, to notify locomotives are normally associated addressing whether such a design or the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the with passenger trains. performance standard ought to be U.S. Small Business Administration included in this proposed rule rather Regulatory Impact (SBA) of any of its draft rules that will than require designs for this type of have a significant economic impact on Privacy Act locomotive to be submitted to FRA a substantial number of small entities. through the approval process outlined Anyone is able to search the The Executive Order also requires in § 229.209 (in which case it would electronic form of all comments federal agencies to consider any have to be evaluated against the received into any of FRA’s dockets by comments provided by the SBA and to performance criteria in Appendix D). If the name of the individual submitting include in the preamble to the rule the so, what should such a standard the comment (or signing the comment, agency’s response to any written contain; and how should compliance if submitted on behalf of an association, comments by the SBA, unless the with the standard be established? business, labor union, etc.). You may agency head certifies that the inclusion Commenters supporting inclusion of a review DOT’s complete Privacy Act of such material would not serve the design standard in the rule are Statement in the Federal Register public interest. 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, requested to specify the design published on April 11, 2000 (volume 65, 2002). standards they support. number 70; pages 19477–78), or you The SBA stipulates in its ‘‘Size may visit http://dms.dot.gov. Standards’’ that the largest a railroad AAR Standard S–5506, Performance business firm that is ‘‘for-profit’’ may be, Requirements for Diesel Electric Executive Order 12866 and DOT and still be classified as a ‘‘small entity’’ Locomotive Fuel Tanks (October 1, Regulatory Policies and Procedures is 1,500 employees for ‘‘Line-Haul 2001) OMB has determined that this Operating’’ Railroads, and 500 This standard contains the proposed rule is ‘‘significant—other’’ employees for ‘‘Switching and Terminal requirements recommended by the under Executive Order 12866. FRA has Establishments.’’ ‘‘Small entity,’’ is Working Group and adopted by FRA for prepared and placed in the docket a defined in 5 U.S.C. 601 as a small the design of external fuel tanks, with regulatory analysis addressing the business concern that is independently the exception of Section 4.4 as noted economic impact of this proposed rule. owned and operated, and is not above. The full text of AAR–S–5506 has As part of the regulatory analysis FRA dominant in its field of operation. SBA’s been placed in the docket of this has assessed quantitative measurements ‘‘size standards’’ may be altered by proceeding. This AAR standard was of cost and benefit streams expected Federal agencies on consultation with adopted from an earlier recommended from the adoption of this proposed rule. SBA and in conjunction with public practice, RP–506, which was first For the twenty-year period the comment. Pursuant to that authority, adopted in 1995. estimated quantified costs total $81.6 FRA has published a final policy which million, and have a Present Value (PV) formally establishes ‘‘small entities’’ as Amendments to 49 CFR Part 238 of $43.9 million. For this period the being railroads which meet the line In contrast to requirements for estimated quantified benefits total haulage revenue requirements of a Class passenger-occupied cab control cars and $125.9 million, which have a PV of III railroad. Currently, the revenue

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:50 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP3.SGM 02NOP3 63906 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules

requirements are $20 million or less in increased cost to produce more Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements, annual operating revenue. The $20 crashworthy locomotives. These costs FRA invites comments from all million limit is based on the Surface include re-design and engineering costs interested parties concerning the Transportation Board’s (STB’s) for the new locomotive designs/models, potential economic impact on small threshold of a Class III railroad carrier, and for the marginal costs of the entities caused by this proposed rule. which is adjusted by applying the incremental crashworthiness The Agency will consider the comments railroad revenue deflator adjustment (49 improvements. All of these impacts or and data it receives—or lack of CFR part 1201). The same dollar limit costs are passed on to customers or comments and data—in making a on revenues is established to determine purchasers of new locomotives. Again, decision on the small entity impact for whether a railroad shipper or contractor since no small railroads purchase new the final rule. is a small entity. locomotives these impacts are not Paperwork Reduction Act For this proposed rulemaking there anticipated to impact any small entities. are over 410 railroads which could potentially be affected. However, only FRA’s Small Entity Impact The information collection railroads which purchase new or Assessment and Evaluation concludes requirements in this proposed rule have original equipment will be impacted, that this proposed rule would not have been submitted for approval to the and FRA is not aware of any small an economic impact on any small Office of Management and Budget railroads that purchase new entities. Thus, the FRA certifies that this (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction locomotives. Hence, FRA does not proposed rule is not expected to have a Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The expect this proposed regulation to ‘‘significant’’ economic impact on a sections that contain the new impact any small railroads. ‘‘substantial’’ number of small entities. information collection requirements and The impacts from this proposed In order to determine the significance of the estimated time to fulfill each regulation are primarily a result of the economic impact for the final rule’s requirement are as follows:

Total annual Average time Total annual Total annual CFR section—49 CFR Respondent universe responses per response burden hours burden cost

229.207A—Petitions For FRA 685 Railroads/4 Locomotive 2 petitions ...... 1,000 2,000 $241,200 Approval of New Locomotive Manufacturers. Crashworthiness Design Standards. —Subsequent Years...... 685 Railroads/4 Locomotive 1 petition ...... 1,000 1,000 120,600 Manufacturers. 229.207B—Petitions For Sub- 685 Railroads/4 Locomotive 1 petition ...... 1,000 1,000 120,600 stantive Changes to an FRA- Manufacturers. Approved Locomotive Crash- worthiness Design Standard. 229.207C—Petitions For Non- 685 Railroads/4 Locomotive 2 petitions ...... 100 200 16,200 Substantive Changes to an Manufacturers. FRA-Approved Locomotive Crashworthiness Design Standard. 229.209—Petitions For FRA Ap- 685 Railroads/4 Locomotive 1 petition ...... 2,500 2,500 308,100 proval of Alternative Loco- Manufacturers. motive Crashworthiness De- signs. 229.211A—Processing of Peti- 4 Locomotive Manufacturers/ 10 comments ...... 16 160 4,640 tions—Comment. Railroad Association/Labor Or- ganizations/Public. 229.211B—Additional Information 4 Locomotive Manufacturers/ 1 hearing ...... 80 80 2,320 Concerning Petitions. Railroad Association/Labor Or- ganizations/Public. 229.213—Locomotive Manufac- 685 Railroads ...... 700 records ...... *6 70 2,590 turing Information. 229.215A—Retention of 4 Locomotive Manufact...... 28 records ...... 1 28 1,036 Records—Original Design. 229.215B—Retention of 685 Railroads/Locomotive Les- 140 records ...... 1 140 5,180 Records—Repair and Modi- sees. fications. * Minutes

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

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:50 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP3.SGM 02NOP3 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 63907

Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, responsibilities among various levels of Request for Public Comments NW., Mail Stop 17, Washington, DC government. This proposed rule will not FRA proposes to amend part 229 of 20590. Comments may also be have federalism implications that title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as submitted via e-mail to Mr. Brogan at impose any direct compliance costs on set forth below. FRA solicits comments the following address: State and local governments. on all aspects of the proposed rule [email protected]. FRA notes that the RSAC, which whether through written submissions, OMB is required to make a decision endorsed and recommended this participation in a public hearing if one concerning the collection of information proposed rule to FRA, has as permanent is held, or both. FRA may make changes requirements contained in this proposed members two organizations representing in the final rule based on comments rule between 30 and 60 days after received in response to this proposed publication of this document in the State and local interests: The American rule. Federal Register. Therefore, a comment Association of State Highway and to OMB is best assured of having its full Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and List of Subjects effect if OMB receives it within 30 days the Association of State Rail Safety of publication. The final rule will Managers (ASRSM). Both of these State 49 CFR Part 229 respond to any OMB or public organizations concurred with the RSAC Transportation, Railroad safety, comments on the information collection recommendation endorsing this Locomotives. requirements contained in this proposal. proposed rule. The RSAC regularly 49 CFR Part 238 FRA is not authorized to impose a provides recommendations to the FRA penalty on persons for violating Administrator for solutions to regulatory Transportation, Railroad safety, information collection requirements issues that reflect significant input from Passenger equipment. its State members. To date, FRA has which do not display a current OMB The Proposed Rule control number, if required. FRA received no indication of concerns intends to obtain current OMB control about the Federalism implications of In consideration of the foregoing, FRA numbers for any new information this rulemaking from these proposes to amend parts 229 and 238 of collection requirements resulting from representatives or of any other chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of this rulemaking action prior to the representatives of State government. Federal Regulations, as follows: effective date of a final rule. The OMB Consequently, FRA concludes that this control number, when assigned, will be proposed rule has no federalism PART 229—[AMENDED] announced by separate notice in the implications, other than the preemption 1. The authority citation for part 229 Federal Register. of state laws covering the subject matter continues to read as follows: of this proposed rule, which occurs by Environmental Impact Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20103, 20107, operation of law under 49 U.S.C. 20106 FRA has evaluated this proposed rule 20133, 20137–20138, 20143, 20701–20703, whenever FRA issues a rule or order. 21301–21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. note; and 49 in accordance with the agency’s CFR 1.49(c), (m). ‘‘Procedures for Considering Compliance With the Unfunded Environmental Impacts’’ as required by Mandates Reform Act of 1995 2. Amend § 229.5 by removing the National Environmental Policy Act paragraph (l), removing the paragraph Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and related designations from the remaining Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) each statutes and directives. The agency has paragraphs, placing the existing determined that the proposed regulation federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise definiton of ‘‘electronic air brake’’ in would not have a significant impact on prohibited by law, assess the effects of alphabetical order, and adding in the human or natural environment and Federal Regulatory actions on State, alphabetical order the following is categorically excluded from detailed local, and tribal governments, and the definitions to read as follows: private sector (other than to the extent environmental review pursuant to § 229.5 Definitions. section 4(c)(20) of FRA’s Procedures. that such regulations incorporate Neither an environmental assessment or requirements specifically set forth in As used in this part— AAR means the Association of an environmental impact statement is law).’’ Sec. 201. Section 202 of the Act American Railroads. required in this instance. The agency’s further requires that ‘‘before Anti-climbers means the parts at the review has confirmed the applicability promulgating any general notice of ends of adjoining rail vehicles in a train of the categorical exclusion to this proposed rulemaking that is likely to that are designed to engage when proposed regulation and the conclusion result in promulgation of any rule that subjected to large buff loads to prevent that the proposed rule would not, if includes any Federal mandate that may the override of one vehicle by another. implemented, have a significant result in the expenditure by State, local, Associate Administrator for Safety environmental impact. and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $120,700,000 means the Associate Administrator for Federalism Implications or more in any 1 year, and before Safety, Federal Railroad Administration, FRA has analyzed this proposed rule promulgating any final rule for which a or that person’s delegate as designated in accordance with the principles and general notice of proposed rulemaking in writing. criteria contained in Executive Order was published, the agency shall prepare * * * * * 13132, issued on August 4, 1999, which a written statement * * * ’’ detailing the Build date means the date on which directs Federal agencies to exercise great effect on State, local and tribal the completed locomotive is shipped by care in establishing policies that have governments and the private sector. The the manufacturer or remanufacturer to federalism implications. See 64 FR proposed rules issued today do not the customer. 43255. This proposed rule will not have include any mandates which will result * * * * * a substantial effect on the States, on the in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of Collision posts means structural relationship between the national $120,700,000 or more in any one year, members of the end structures of a rail government and the States, or on the and thus preparation of a statement is vehicle that extend vertically from the distribution of power and not required. underframe to which they are securely

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:50 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP3.SGM 02NOP3 63908 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules

attached and that provide protection to (1) With one or more propelling Wide-nose locomotive means a occupied compartments from an object motors designed to carry freight or locomotive with a short hood that spans penetrating the vehicle during a passenger traffic or both; or the full width of the locomotive. collision. (2) Without propelling motors but 3. Revise the heading of subpart D of * * * * * with one or more control stands. part 229 to read as follows: Corner posts means structural Narrow-nose locomotive means a members located at the intersection of locomotive with a short hood that spans Subpart D—Locomotive the front or rear surface with the side substantially less than the full width of Crashworthiness Design Requirements the locomotive. surface of a rail vehicle and which § 229.141 [Redesignated] extends vertically from the underframe Occupied service means the operation 4. Redesignate section 229.141 as to the roof. of a locomotive when the cab is physically occupied by a person. section 238.224. * * * * * 5. Add §229.201 to read as follows: Designated service means exclusive * * * * * operation of a locomotive under the Permanent deformation means the § 229.201 Purpose and scope. following conditions: undergoing of a permanent change in (a) Purpose. The purpose of this (1) The locomotive is not used as an shape of a structural member of a rail subpart is to help protect locomotive independent unit or the controlling unit vehicle. cab occupants in the event that the in a consist of locomotives except when * * * * * locomotive collides with another moving for the purposes of servicing or Power car means a rail vehicle that locomotive or piece of on-track repair within a single yard area; propels a Tier II passenger train or is the equipment, a shifted load on a freight (2) The locomotive is not occupied by lead vehicle in a Tier II passenger train, car on an adjacent parallel track, or a operating or deadhead crews outside a or both. highway vehicle at a highway-rail grade single yard area; and * * * * * crossing. (3) The locomotive is stenciled Remanufacture means the act of (b) This subpart prescribes minimum ‘‘Designated Service—DO NOT constructing a remanufactured crashworthiness standards for OCCUPY.’’ locomotive. locomotives. It also establishes the Design standard means a criterion Remanufactured locomotive means a requirements for obtaining FRA adopted by an industry or voluntary locomotive rebuilt or refurbished from a approval of: New locomotive consensus standards body, which previously used or refurbished crashworthiness design standards; addresses the design of a locomotive underframe (‘‘deck’’), containing fewer changes to FRA-approved locomotive with respect to its crashworthiness and than 25% previously used components crashworthiness design standards; and crashworthiness features. (measured by dollar value of the alternative locomotive crashworthiness * * * * * components). designs. FRA means the Federal Railroad Roof rail means the longitudinal 6. Add §229.203 to read as follows: Administration. structural member at the intersection of Fuel tank, external means a fuel the side wall and the roof sheathing. § 229.203 Applicability. containment vessel that extends outside * * * * * (a) Except as provided in paragraphs the car body structure of a locomotive. Semi-monocoque design locomotive (b) and (c) of this section, this subpart Fuel tank, internal means a fuel applies to all locomotives manufactured containment vessel that does not extend means a locomotive design where the skin or shell acts, to some extent, as a or remanufactured on or after [DATE 3 outside the car body structure of a YEARS AFTER DATE OF locomotive. single unit with the supporting frame to resist and transmit the loads acting on PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN * * * * * the locomotive. THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Lateral means the horizontal direction Semi-permanently coupled means (b) Cab cars and power cars. The perpendicular to the direction of travel. coupled by means of a drawbar or other requirements of this subpart do not * * * * * coupling mechanism that requires tools apply to cab control cars, MU Locomotive cab means the to perform the uncoupling operation. locomotives, and semi-permanently compartment or space on board a * * * * * coupled power cars that are subject to locomotive where the control stand is Short hood means the part of the the design requirements for such located and which is normally occupied locomotive above the underframe locomotives set forth in 49 CFR part by the engineer when the locomotive is located between the cab and the nearest 238. operated. end of the locomotive. (c) Locomotives used in designated Longitudinal means in a direction Standards body means an industry service. Locomotives used in designated parallel to the normal direction of and/or professional organization or service are exempt from the travel. association which conducts research requirements of this subpart, with the Manufacture means the act of and develops and/or issues policies, exception of § 229.233 (minimum constructing a locomotive. criteria, principles, and standards requirements for fuel tank design), * * * * * related to the rail industry. which remains applicable to such Monocoque design locomotive means locomotives. a locomotive design where the shell or * * * * * Tier II means operating at speeds 7. Add §§229.205, 229.206, and skin acts as a single unit with the 229.207 to read as follows: supporting frame to resist and transmit exceeding 125 mph but not exceeding the loads acting on the locomotive. 150 mph. § 229.205 General requirements. MU locomotive means a multiple * * * * * (a) Each wide-nose locomotive used operated piece of on-track equipment Ultimate strength means the load at in occupied service must meet the other than hi-rail, specialized which a structural member fractures or minimum crashworthiness performance maintenance, or other similar ceases to resist any load. requirements set forth in Appendix D of equipment— * * * * * this part. Compliance with those

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:50 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP3.SGM 02NOP3 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 63909

performance criteria must be established Design Standard,’’ must be submitted to DC 20590, and must contain the by: the Associate Administrator for Safety, following: (1) Meeting an FRA-approved Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 (1) The name, title, address, and crashworthiness design standard Vermont Ave., NW., Mail Stop 25, telephone number of the primary person (including AAR S–580–2004, Washington, DC 20590, and must to be contacted with regard to review of Locomotive Crashworthiness contain the following: the petition; Requirements); (1) The name, title, address, and (2) The proposed change, in detail; (2) Meeting new design standards and telephone number of the primary person and changes to existing design standards to be contacted with regard to review of (3) Detailed explanation of how the approved by FRA pursuant to § 229.207; the petition; proposed change results in a non- or (2) The proposed locomotive design substantive change to the existing FRA- (3) Meeting an alternate standard, in detail; approved crashworthiness design crashworthiness design approved by (3) The intended type of service for standard. If FRA determines that the FRA pursuant to § 229.209. locomotives designed under the proposed change is substantive, FRA (b) A monocoque or semi-monocoque proposed standard; and will process the petition in accordance design locomotive must be designed in (4) Appropriate data and analysis with paragraph (c) of this section. accordance with the provisions of AAR showing how the proposed design 8. Add §229.209 to read as follows: S–580–2004, Locomotive standard either satisfies the requirements of § 229.205 for the type of § 229.209 Alternative locomotive Crashworthiness Requirements, crashworthiness designs. applicable to those types of locomotives locomotive design or provides at least or in accordance with a standard or an equivalent level of safety. Types of (a) General. The following procedures design approved by FRA as providing data and analysis to be considered are govern consideration and action upon equivalent safety. described in § 229.211(c)(1). requests for FRA approval of locomotive (c) A narrow-nose locomotive must be (c) Petitions for FRA approval of crashworthiness designs which are not designed in accordance with the substantive changes to an FRA- consistent with any FRA-approved provisions of AAR S–580–2004, approved locomotive crashworthiness locomotive crashworthiness design Locomotive Crashworthiness design standard. Each petition for standard. (b) Petitions for FRA approval of Requirements, applicable to that type of approval of a substantive change to an alternative locomotive crashworthiness locomotive (notwithstanding any FRA-approved locomotive designs. Each petition for FRA approval limitation of scope contained in that crashworthiness design standard must of an alternative locomotive standard) or in accordance with a be titled ‘‘Petition for FRA Approval of crashworthiness design must be titled standard or design approved by FRA as Changes to a Locomotive ‘‘Petition for FRA Approval of providing equivalent safety. Crashworthiness Design Standard,’’ must be submitted to the Associate Alternative Locomotive § 229.206 Design requirements. Administrator for Safety, Federal Crashworthiness Design,’’ must be Each locomotive used in occupied Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont submitted to the Associate service must meet the minimum anti- Ave., NW., Mail Stop 25, Washington, Administrator for Safety, Federal climber, emergency egress, emergency DC 20590, and must contain the Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont interior lighting, and interior following: Ave., NW., Mail Stop 25, Washington, configuration design requirements set (1) The name, title, address, and DC 20590, and must contain the forth in AAR S–580–2004, Locomotive telephone number of the primary person following: Crashworthiness Requirements. to be contacted with regard to review of (1) The name, title, address, and the petition; telephone number of the primary person § 229.207 New locomotive (2) The proposed change, in detail; to be contacted with regard to review of crashworthiness design standards and (3) The intended type of service for the petition; changes to existing FRA-approved locomotives built with the proposed (2) The proposed locomotive locomotive crashworthiness design change; and crashworthiness design, in detail; standards. (4) Appropriate data and analysis (3) The intended type of service for (a) General. The following procedures showing how the resulting standard locomotives built under the proposed govern consideration and action upon either satisfies the requirements for the design; and requests for FRA approval of new type of locomotive set forth in § 229.205 (4) Appropriate data and analysis locomotive crashworthiness design or provides at least an equivalent level showing how the design either satisfies standards and changes to existing FRA- of safety. Types of data and analysis to the requirements of § 229.205 for the approved locomotive crashworthiness be considered are described in type of locomotive or provides at least design standards, including AAR S– § 229.211(c)(1). an equivalent level of safety. Types of 580–2004, Locomotive Crashworthiness (d) Petitions for FRA approval of non- data and analysis to be considered are Requirements. Only a standards body substantive changes to the existing FRA- described in § 229.211(c)(1). which has adopted an FRA-approved approved crashworthiness design 9. Add §229.211 to read as follows: locomotive crashworthiness design standards. Each petition for approval of standard may initiate these procedures a non-substantive change to an FRA- § 229.211 Processing of petitions. for FRA approval of changes to the approved locomotive crashworthiness (a) Federal Register notice. FRA will standard. design standard must be titled ‘‘Petition publish in the Federal Register notice of (b) Petitions for FRA approval of new for FRA Approval of Non-substantive receipt of each petition submitted under locomotive crashworthiness design Changes to a Locomotive §§ 229.207(b), 229.207(c), or 229.209. standards. Each petition for FRA Crashworthiness Design Standard,’’ (b) Comment. Not later than 60 days approval of a locomotive must be submitted to the Associate from the date of publication of the crashworthiness design standard must Administrator for Safety, Federal notice in the Federal Register be titled ‘‘Petition for FRA Approval of Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont concerning a petition submitted under a New Locomotive Crashworthiness Ave., NW., Mail Stop 25, Washington, §§ 229.207(b), 229.207(c), or 229.209(b),

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:50 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP3.SGM 02NOP3 63910 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules

any person may comment on the denied, normally within 90 days of its shall, upon request by FRA or an FRA- petition. receipt. If the petition is neither granted certified state inspector, make available (1) Each comment must set forth nor denied within 90 days, the petition for inspection and duplication within 7 specifically the basis upon which it is remains pending for decision. FRA may days, any records referred to in made, and contain a concise statement re-open a denial of a petition for cause paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. of the interest of the commenter in the stated. (d) Third party storage of records. proceeding. (4) When FRA grants or denies a Each custodian of records referred to in (2) Each comment must be submitted petition, or reopens consideration of the paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section to the U.S. Department of petition, written notice will be sent to may delegate storage duties to a third Transportation Central Docket the petitioner and other interested party, however, the custodian retains all Management System, Nassif Building, parties and a copy of the notice will be responsibility for compliance with this Room P1–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., placed in the public docket of this section. Washington, DC 20590, and must proceeding. 12. Add § 229.217 to read as follows: contain the assigned docket number 10. Add §229.213 to read as follows: which appeared in the Federal Register § 229.217 Fuel tank. for that proceeding. The form of such § 229.213 Locomotive manufacturing (a) External fuel tanks. Locomotives submission may be in written or information. equipped with external fuel tanks shall, electronic form consistent with the (a) Each railroad operating a at a minimum, comply with the standards and requirements established locomotive subject to the requirements requirements of AAR S–5506, by the Central Docket Management of this subpart must retain the following Performance Requirements for Diesel System and posted on its Web site at information: Electric Locomotive Fuel Tanks http://dms.dot.gov. (1) The date upon which the (October 1, 2001), except for section 4.4. (3) In the event FRA requires locomotive was manufactured or (b) Internal fuel tanks. Locomotives additional information to appropriately remanufactured; equipped with internal fuel tanks shall, consider the petition, FRA will conduct (2) The name of the manufacturer or at a minimum, comply with the a hearing on the petition in accordance remanufacturer of the locomotive; and requirements of 49 CFR 238.223(b). with the procedures provided in (3) The design specification to which 13. Add new Appendix D to part 229 § 211.25 of this chapter. the locomotive was manufactured or to read as follows: (c) Disposition of petitions. (1) In remanufactured. Appendix D to Part 229—Performance order to determine compliance with the (b) The information required in Criteria for Locomotive performance criteria in Appendix D, paragraph (a) of this section must be Crashworthiness FRA will consider proper located permanently in the locomotive documentation of competent cab or be provided within two business This appendix provides performance engineering analysis, and/or practical days upon request of FRA or an FRA- criteria for the crashworthiness demonstrations, which may include certified state inspector. evaluation of alternative locomotive validated computer modeling, structural 11. Add § 229.215 to read as follows: designs and of design standards for crush analysis, component testing, full wide-nosed locomotives and for any scale crash testing in a controlled § 229.215 Retention and inspection of other locomotive, except monocoque/ environment, or any combination of the designs. semi-monocoque design locomotives foregoing, together with evidence of (a) Retention of records—original and narrow-nose design locomotives. effective peer review. Compliance with designs. Each manufacturer or Each of the following criteria describes the appropriate performance criteria remanufacturer of a locomotive subject a collision scenario and a given must be demonstrated for any part of the to this subpart shall retain all records of performance measure for protection locomotive which does not conform to the original locomotive designs, provided to cab occupants, normally an FRA-approved design standard. including supporting calculations and through structural design. (2) If FRA finds that the petition drawings, pertaining to crashworthiness Demonstration that these performance complies with the requirements of this features required by this subpart. These criteria have been satisfied may be subpart and that the proposed change or records must be retained for the lesser accomplished through any of the new design standard satisfies the period of: methods described in § 229.205. requirements of § 229.205 for the type of (1) The life of such locomotive, or (a) Front end structure (collision locomotive, the petition will be granted, (2) Twenty years after the date of posts). normally within 90 days of its receipt. manufacture or, if remanufactured, (1) Objective. The front end structure If the petition is neither granted nor twenty years after the date of of the locomotive must withstand a denied within 90 days, the petition remanufacture. frontal impact with a proxy object remains pending for decision. FRA may (b) Retention of records—repairs and which is intended to simulate lading attach special conditions to the granting modifications. Each owner or lessee of carried by a heavy highway vehicle (see of the petition. Following the granting of a locomotive subject to this subpart figure 1). a petition, FRA may reopen shall retain all records of repair or (2) Proxy object characteristics and consideration of the petition for cause modification to crashworthiness orientation. The proxy object must have stated. Petitions which FRA has granted features required by this subpart. These the following characteristics: will be placed in the public docket of records must be retained for the lesser Cylindrical shape; 48-inch diameter; this proceeding. period of: 126 inches in length; 65,000 pounds in (3) If FRA finds that the petition does (1) The life of such locomotive, or weight; and uniform density. The not comply with the requirements of (2) Twenty years after the date on longitudinal axis of the proxy object this subpart, or that the proposed which the repair/modification was must be oriented horizontally change or new design standard does not performed. perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of satisfy the performance criteria (c) Inspection of records. Each the locomotive. contained in Appendix D of this part custodian of records referred to in (3) Impact and result. The front end (where applicable), the petition will be paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section structure of the locomotive must

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:50 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP3.SGM 02NOP3 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 63911

withstand a 30-mph impact resulting in measured from the foremost point on locomotive underframe along the no more than 24 inches of crush along the collision post. The center of impact longitudinal centerline of the the longitudinal axis of the locomotive, must be 30 inches above the top of the locomotive.

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

PART 238—[AMENDED] 21301–21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; 49 § 238.5 Definitions CFR 1.49. * * * * * 14. The authority citation for part 238 15. Amend section 238.5 by revising Fuel tank, external means a fuel continues to read as follows: the definitions of ‘‘fuel tank, external’’ containment vessel that extends outside Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20133, and ‘‘fuel tank, internal’’ to read as the car body structure of a locomotive. 20141, 20302–20303, 20306, 20701–20702, follows:

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:50 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP3.SGM 02NOP3 EP02no04.103 EP02no04.102 63912 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules

Fuel tank, internal means a fuel outside the car body structure of a Issued in Washington, DC on October 22, containment vessel that does not extend locomotive. 2004. * * * * * Betty Monro, Acting Federal Railroad Administrator. [FR Doc. 04–24148 Filed 11–1–04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:50 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP3.SGM 02NOP3