[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 235 (Thursday, December 8, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73070-73095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23672]
[[Page 73069]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Railroad Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
49 CFR Parts 229 and 238
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards; Miscellaneous Amendments and
Attachments of Safety Appliances on Passenger Equipment; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 73070]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Parts 229 and 238
[Docket No. FRA-2005-23080, Notice No. 1]
RIN 2130-AB67
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards; Miscellaneous Amendments
and Attachments of Safety Appliances on Passenger Equipment
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to clarify and amend its existing regulations
in an effort to address various mechanical issues relevant to the
manufacture, efficient utilization, and safe operation of passenger
equipment and trains that have arisen since FRA's original issuance of
the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards. FRA proposes miscellaneous
amendments to its existing regulations in five areas by: Clarifying the
terminology related to piston travel indicators; providing alternative
design and additional inspection criteria for new passenger equipment
not designed to allow inspection of the application and release of the
brakes from outside the equipment; permitting some latitude in the use
of passenger equipment with redundant air compressors when a limited
number of the compressors become inoperative; recognizing current
locomotive manufacturing techniques by permitting an alternative
pneumatic pressure test for main reservoirs; and adding provisions to
ensure the proper securement of unattended equipment. FRA is also
clarifying the existing regulatory requirements related to the
attachment of safety appliances and is proposing an identification and
inspection protocol to address passenger equipment containing welded
safety appliances or welded safety appliance brackets or supports.
Finally, FRA is proposing to permit railroads the ability to apply out-
of-service credit to certain periodic maintenance requirements.
DATES: (1) Written comments must be received by February 17, 2006.
Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent
possible without incurring additional expenses or delays.
(2) FRA anticipates being able to resolve this rulemaking without a
public, oral hearing. However, if FRA receives a specific request for a
public, oral hearing prior to January 17, 2006, one will be scheduled
and FRA will publish a supplemental notice in the Federal Register to
inform interested parties of the date, time, and location of any such
hearing.
ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2005-23080, may
be submitted by any of the following methods:
Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://dms.dot.gov including any personal information. Please
see the Privacy Act heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document for Privacy Act information related to any submitted
comments or materials.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to PL-401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Scerbo, Office of Safety
Assurance and Compliance, Motive Power & Equipment Division, RRS-14,
Mail Stop 25, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-6247), or Thomas J.
Herrmann, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, Mail Stop 10,
Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-6036).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Statutory Background
In September of 1994, the Secretary of Transportation convened a
meeting of representatives from all sectors of the rail industry with
the goal of enhancing rail safety. As one of the initiatives arising
from this Rail Safety Summit, the Secretary announced that DOT would
begin developing safety standards for rail passenger equipment over a
five-year period. In November of 1994, Congress adopted the Secretary's
schedule for implementing rail passenger equipment regulations and
included it in the Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994
(the Act), Public Law 103-440, 108 Stat. 4619, 4623-4624 (November 2,
1994). Section 215 of the Act, is now codified at 49 U.S.C. 20133.
The Secretary of Transportation has delegated these rulemaking
responsibilities to the Federal Railroad Administrator. See 49 CFR
1.49(m).
II. Proceedings to Date
On June 17, 1996, FRA published an advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning the establishment of comprehensive safety
standards for railroad passenger equipment. See 61 FR 30672. The ANPRM
provided background information on the need for such standards, offered
preliminary ideas on approaching passenger safety issues, and presented
questions on various passenger safety topics. Following consideration
of comments received on the ANPRM and advice from FRA's Passenger
Equipment Working Group, FRA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) on September 23, 1997, to establish comprehensive safety
standards for railroad passenger equipment. See 62 FR 49728. In
addition to requesting written comment on the NPRM, FRA also solicited
oral comment at a public hearing held on November 21, 1997. FRA
considered the comments received on the NPRM and prepared a final rule
establishing safety standards for passenger equipment, which was
published on May 12, 1999. See 64 FR 25540.
After publication of the final rule, interested parties filed
petitions seeking FRA's reconsideration of some of the requirements
contained in the final rule. These petitions generally related to the
following subject areas: Structural design; fire safety; training;
inspection, testing, and maintenance; and movement of defective
equipment. On July 3, 2000, FRA issued a response to the petitions for
reconsideration relating to the inspection, testing, and maintenance of
passenger equipment,
[[Page 73071]]
the movement of defective passenger equipment, and other miscellaneous
mechanical-related provisions contained in the final rule. See 65 FR
41284. On April 23, 2002 and June 25, 2002, FRA published two
additional responses to the petitions for reconsideration addressing
the remaining issues raised in the petitions. See 67 FR 19970, and 67
FR 42892.
Subsequent to the issuance of these responses, FRA and interested
industry members began identifying various issues related to the new
passenger equipment safety standards with the intent that FRA would
address the issues through FRA's Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
(RSAC). On May 20, 2003, FRA presented, and the RSAC accepted, the task
of reviewing existing passenger equipment safety needs and programs and
recommending consideration of specific actions useful to advance the
safety of rail passenger service. The RSAC established the Passenger
Equipment Working Group (Working Group) to handle this task and develop
recommendations for the full RSAC to consider. Due to the variety of
issues involved the Working Group established a number of smaller task
forces, with specific expertise, to develop recommendations on various
subject-specific issues. One of these task forces, the Mechanical
Issues Task Force (Task Force), was assigned the job of identifying and
developing issues and recommendations specifically related to the
inspection, testing, and operation of passenger equipment as well as
concerns related to the attachment of safety appliances on passenger
equipment.
This proposal is the result of FRA's review and consideration of
the recommendations of the Working Group and the full RSAC. With the
exception of the proposed provisions related to the attachment of
safety appliances on passenger equipment and the proposed provision
involving out-of-service credit, FRA has accepted and now proposes the
consensus recommendations made by the Working Group and adopted by the
full RSAC as its recommendation to FRA. At the October 26-27, 2004,
meeting of the full Working Group, FRA withdrew the task related to the
consideration of handling the attachment of safety appliances on
passenger equipment from the RSAC. FRA determined that consensus on
this issue could not be reached in the RSAC process and determined that
it would have to proceed with a proposal on its own. Therefore, FRA
developed the proposed provisions related to the attachment of safety
appliances unilaterally based on its own expertise in the area and
based on discussions and information developed by the Working Group and
Task Force. FRA also did not seek consensus in the RSAC process for the
proposed provision related to out-of service credit. This issue is
being addressed on FRA's own accord in response to the American Public
Transportation Association's petition for rulemaking dated March 28,
2005. Consequently, FRA did not and will not seek RSAC consensus on
these issues nor will it discuss any comments received on these
proposed provisions with the Working Group or RSAC when developing a
final rule on those matters. In order to conserve agency resources and
prevent duplicative production of rulemaking documents, FRA has
included its proposed provisions related to safety appliances on
passenger equipment and out-of-service credit in this notice.
III. RSAC Overview
In March 1996, FRA established the RSAC, which provides a forum for
developing consensus recommendations on rulemakings and other safety
program issues. The Committee includes representation from all of the
agency's major customer groups, including railroads, labor
organizations, suppliers and manufacturers, and other interested
parties. A list of member groups follows:
American Association of Private Railroad Car Owners (AARPCO).
American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials
(AASHTO).
American Public Transportation Association (APTA).
American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA).
American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA).
Association of American Railroads (AAR).
Association of Railway Museums (ARM).
Association of State Rail Safety Managers (ASRSM).
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET).
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division (BMWED).
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS).
Federal Transit Administration (FTA).*
High Speed Ground Transportation Association (HSGTA).
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW).
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA).*
League of Railway Industry Women.*
National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP).
National Association of Railway Business Women.*
National Conference of Firemen & Oilers.
National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association.
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak).
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).*
Railway Supply Institute (RSI).
Safe Travel America (STA).
Secretaria de Communicaciones y Transporte.*
Sheet Metal Workers International Association (SMWIA).
Tourist Railway Association Inc.
Transport Canada.*
Transport Workers Union of America (TWU).
Transportation Communications International Union/BRC (TCIU/BRC).
United Transportation Union (UTU).
*Indicates associate membership.
When appropriate, FRA assigns a task to the RSAC, and after
consideration and debate, RSAC may accept or reject the task. If
accepted, the RSAC establishes a working group that possesses the
appropriate expertise and representation of interests to develop
recommendations to FRA for action on the task. These recommendations
are developed by consensus. A working group may establish one or more
task forces to develop facts and options on a particular aspect of a
given task. The task force then provides that information to the
working group for consideration. If a working group comes to unanimous
consensus on recommendations for action, the package is presented to
the RSAC for a vote. If the proposal is accepted by a simple majority
of the RSAC, the proposal is formally recommended to FRA. FRA then
determines what action to take on the recommendation. Because FRA staff
has played an active role at the working group level in discussing the
issues and options and in drafting the language of the consensus
proposal, FRA is often favorably inclined toward the RSAC
recommendation. However, FRA is in no way bound to follow the
recommendation and the agency exercises its independent judgment on
whether the recommended rule achieves the agency's regulatory goal, is
soundly supported, and is in accordance with policy and legal
requirements. Often, FRA varies in some respects from the RSAC
recommendation in developing the actual regulatory proposal. If the
working group or the RSAC is unable to
[[Page 73072]]
reach consensus on recommendations for action, FRA moves ahead to
resolve the issue through traditional rulemaking proceedings.
On May 20, 2003, FRA presented, and the RSAC accepted, the task of
reviewing existing passenger equipment safety needs and programs and
recommending consideration of specific actions useful to advance the
safety of rail passenger service. The Working Group was established to
handle this task and develop recommendations for the full RSAC to
consider. Members of the Working Group, in addition to FRA, included
the following:
AAR, including members from BNSF Railway Company (BNSF);
CSX Transportation, Incorporated (CSX); and Union Pacific Railroad
Company (UP);
APTA, including members from Illinois Commuter Rail
Corporation (METRA); Long Island Rail Road (LIRR); Metro-North Railroad
(MNR); Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA);
Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA); Saint Gobian Sully
NA; LDK Engineering; and Herzog Transit Services, Incorporated;
Amtrak; AAPRCO; AASHTO; BLET; BRS; HSGTA; IBEW; NARP; RSI;
SMWIA; STA; TCIU/BRC; TWU; and UTU.
The NTSB met with the Working Group and provided staff advisors
when possible. In addition, staff from the U.S. DOT Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center (Volpe) attended many of the meetings and
contributed to the technical discussions. Due to the variety of issues
involved, the Working Group established a number of smaller task
forces, with specific expertise, to develop recommendations on various
subject-specific issues. Members of the task forces included various
representatives from various organizations that were part of the larger
Working Group. One of these task forces, the Mechanical Issues Task
Force (Task Force), was assigned the job of identifying and developing
issues and recommendations specifically related to the inspection,
testing, and operation of passenger equipment as well as concerns
related to the attachment of safety appliances on passenger equipment.
The Working Group and the related Task Force created by the Working
Group conducted a number of meetings and discussed each of the matters
proposed in this NPRM. Minutes of these meetings have been made part of
the docket in this proceeding. As discussed above, FRA withdrew the
task related to the consideration of handling the attachment of safety
appliances on passenger equipment from the RSAC on October 27, 2004.
FRA also did not seek consensus in the RSAC process for the proposed
provision related to out-of-service credit. This issue is being
addressed on FRA's own motion in this proceeding in response to APTA's
petition for rulemaking dated March 28, 2005. Thus, the Working Group
did not reach consensus on the proposed provisions related to these
issues, and no recommendation was provided to the full RSAC. FRA
unilaterally developed the proposed language related to the attachment
of safety appliances and safety appliance arrangements on new and
existing passenger equipment and did not seek Working Group or full
RSAC consensus. The Working Group did reach full consensus on the
proposed regulatory provisions addressing the other mechanical issues
contained in this proposal on October 26 and 27, 2004, and on September
7, 2005. The Working Group presented its recommendations to the full
RSAC for its concurrence on January 26, 2005 and October 11, 2005. All
of the members of the full RSAC in attendance at those meetings
accepted the regulatory recommendations submitted by the Working Group.
Thus, the Working Group's recommendation became the full RSAC's
recommendation to FRA in this matter. After reviewing the full RSAC's
recommendation, FRA adopted the recommendation with minor changes for
purposes of clarity. FRA subsequently completed the development and
drafting of this proposal based on the broad regulatory recommendations
made by the full RSAC.
Throughout the preamble discussion of this proposal, FRA refers to
comments, views, suggestions, or recommendations made by members of the
Working Group or related Task Force. When using this terminology, FRA
is referring to views, statements, discussions or positions identified
or contained in either the minutes of the Working Group and Task Force
meetings. These documents have been made part of the docket in this
proceeding and are available for public inspection as discussed in the
preceding ADDRESSES portion of this document. These points are
discussed to show the origin of certain issues and the course of
discussions on those issues at the task force or working group level.
We believe this helps illuminate factors FRA has weighed in making its
regulatory decisions, and the logic behind those decisions. The reader
should keep in mind, of course, that only the full RSAC makes
recommendations to FRA, and it is the consensus recommendation of the
full RSAC on which FRA is acting.
IV. Technical Background
A. Redundancy of Air Compressors
One of the issues identified for consideration by the Working Group
related to recognition of redundant systems or components on certain
types of passenger equipment and providing potential relief when these
redundant systems or components become inoperative or ineffective. The
LIRR through APTA initially requested a rule change concerning electric
multiple unit (MU) locomotives operated in train sets that by design
have redundancy of systems or components such as air compressors and
auxiliary power inverters. These parties recommended that if one of
these types of redundant components or systems was found inoperative or
ineffective during a calendar day exterior mechanical inspection, it
should be permitted to remain in service until the next calendar day
exterior mechanical inspection; provided, the safety and integrity of
the train set is not compromised as verified by a qualified mechanical
person. The Task Force discussed the issue in detail and determined
that the only redundant components that should be provided some leeway
when found defective were air compressors on MU passenger locomotives
operated in train sets. At the May 11 and 12, 2004, meeting, the
Working Group approved the Task Force's substantive approach and agreed
to have the Task Force draft a recommendation for its approval. The
Task Force developed a proposed recommendation which was approved by
the Working Group on October 26, 2004 and by the full RSAC on January
26, 2005. FRA reviewed and agrees with the recommendation and has
included it in this proposal.
MU passenger locomotives are generally operated as married pairs,
but in some cases they can be operated as single or triple units. In
the case of the married pairs, each pair of MU locomotives share a
single air compressor. When operated in triple units, the three MU
locomotives generally share two air compressors, and single-unit MU
locomotives are equipped with their own air compressor. The amount of
air required to be produced by the air compressors is based on the size
of the brake pipe and the brake cylinder reservoirs, the size of which
is based on the calculated number of brake application-and-release
cycles the train will encounter. In addition, the compressed air
produced by the air compressors is shared within
[[Page 73073]]
the consist either by utilizing a main reservoir equalizing pipe or, in
single pipe systems, by utilizing the brake pipe which is then diverted
to the brake cylinder supply reservoir and other air-operated devices
by use of a governor arrangement. Therefore, a passenger train set
consisting of numerous MU locomotives will have multiple air
compressors providing the train consist with the necessary compressed
air. FRA agrees with the determinations of the Task Force that a loss
of compressed air from a limited number of air compressors in such a
train will not adversely effect the operation of the train's brakes or
other air-operated components on the train.
At the Task Force meetings, the railroads and air brake
manufacturers provided information demonstrating that the safety of a
train set is not compromised when a pre-determined number of
inoperative air compressors are allowed to continue to operate in
service on a MU train set. On such train sets, the air compressors are
applied by technical specification to a certain number of cars such as
one per married pair, two per triplet, and so on. The technical
specifications for these air compressors generally allow for a duty
cycle (percentage of operating capacity) for each air compressor that
is something less than 50 percent. In fact, some technical
specifications limit the air compressor duty cycle to 33 percent. This
means that on MU train sets the available air compressors are required
to operate at only 33 to 50 percent of their operational capacity. One
of the major reasons for imposing these low duty cycles is to ensure
that adequate air pressure is available if one or more of the other air
compressors in the train set is not operating properly. Thus, these
systems are currently designed to function properly even in the event
that a limited number of air compressors become inoperative while the
train is in service. Moreover, even in the unlikely event that an MU
passenger train set would lose all of its air compressors, then the air
brakes would apply and would remain applied until sufficient compressed
air is restored to the system. Consequently, FRA does not see any
adverse impact on the operational safety of these types of trains if
they are permitted to operate for a relatively short period of time
with a limited number of air compressors being inoperative or
ineffective.
This NPRM proposes to permit the continued operation of MU train
sets with a limited number of inoperative or ineffective air
compressors to continue to be used in passenger service until the next
exterior calendar day mechanical inspection when found at such an
inspection. The proposal would require a railroad to determine through
data, analysis, or actual testing the number of inoperative or
ineffective air compressors that could be in an MU train set without
compromising the integrity or safety of the train set based on the size
and type of train and the train's operating profile. The railroad would
be required to submit the maximum number of air compressors permitted
to be inoperative or ineffective on its various trains to FRA before it
could begin operation under the proposed provision and would be
required to retain and make available to FRA any data or analysis
relied on to make those determinations. The proposal would also require
a qualified maintenance person (QMP) to verify the safety and integrity
of any train operating with inoperative or ineffective air compressors
before the equipment continues in passenger service. In addition, the
proposal requires notification to the train crew of any inoperative or
ineffective air compressors and requires that a record be maintained of
the defective condition. FRA believes these proposed provision will
ensure the safety of passenger operations while providing the railroads
additional flexibility in handling defective or inoperative equipment.
FRA seeks comment from interested parties regarding any safety
concerns related to the proposed flexibility for continuing to operate
MU train sets with a minimal number of inoperative air compressors for
an additional calendar day.
B. Pneumatic Testing of Locomotive Main Reservoirs
The current regulations contained at 49 CFR 229.31(a) relating to
main reservoir tests requires that a hydrostatic (water) test of a main
reservoir be conducted before it is originally placed in service or
before an existing main reservoir is placed back in service after being
drilled as provided for in Sec. 229.31(c). At the Working Group and
Task Force meetings, the manufacturers of main reservoirs requested the
ability to conduct a pneumatic (air) test of the reservoirs in lieu of
the currently required hydrostatic test. The request was limited to
providing relief only for those tests required before a main reservoir
is originally placed in service and after an existing main reservoir is
drilled.
The companies that manufacture reservoirs for the rail industry,
whether the reservoir is utilized as a main reservoir or reservoir(s)
utilized for other purposes, must have an American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) certification. The reservoirs, both main
and other, manufactured by these companies are designed and certified
to meet the requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
In addition, reservoirs utilized as main reservoirs on locomotives are
also manufactured and certified to meet the requirements for such
contained in part 229 of the Federal regulations. Currently, all
passenger car reservoirs are pneumatically tested after fabrication and
before the application of an interior protective coating. This process
is utilized so that reservoirs may be repaired if the reservoir does
not pass the initial test requirements. If the interior protective
coating is applied prior to testing, any weld repairs cannot be
performed, as the interior coating would be damaged.
The rationale for originally requiring that the main reservoirs be
tested hydrostatically was based on the safety concerns should a main
reservoir catastrophically fail during the testing. The likelihood of
injury is minimized by having the reservoir filled with a liquid rather
than air. However, since the original drafting of the locomotive
regulations, manufacturers of reservoirs have implemented and developed
both equipment and procedures to ensure that test personnel are
adequately shielded when conducting the testing. The manufacturers have
been performing pneumatic testing on reservoir for years and FRA is not
aware of any injury related to such testing in manufacturer-controlled
facilities. Thus, the safety concerns originally attached to pneumatic
testing have been minimized, if not eliminated, when conducted at
properly equipped manufacturer facilities.
The ASME code currently utilized by all manufacturers of main
reservoirs allows for the pneumatic testing of the reservoirs when the
introduction of liquid cannot be tolerated. The introduction of water
to perform hydrostatic testing on main reservoirs creates a problem
because if the liquid is not completely removed and the reservoir
interior completely dried, the moisture results in poor adhesion or a
lower coating of film than required. This condition has the potential
of causing interior corrosion and premature failure of the reservoir.
Thus, rather than creating this potential, FRA agrees with the
recommendation of the RSAC that it would be both safer and more
efficient to permit the manufacturers of main reservoirs to utilize
pneumatic testing to meet the requirements contained in 49 CFR 229.31.
Consequently, FRA is
[[Page 73074]]
proposing to permit pneumatic testing of newly manufactured main
reservoirs and reservoirs that are newly drilled and tested at a
manufacturer's facility.
It should be noted that FRA is limiting the ability to conduct
pneumatic testing of the main reservoirs at only those facilities with
appropriate safeguards in place to ensure the safety of the personnel
conducting the testing. After a reservoir is installed on a locomotive,
FRA believes that hydrostatic testing would be the only testing method
that adequately ensures the safety and protection of the personnel that
are performing the test or working near the installed reservoir. In
order to make this intent clear, FRA has modified the language of the
recommendation made by the RSAC. FRA has added language to at the end
of proposed paragraph (c) of Sec. 229.31 to make clear that pneumatic
testing of a reservoir currently in use and newly drilled may only be
conducted by a manufacturer of main reservoirs in a safe environment.
In other circumstances, the proposal makes clear a hydrostatic test of
the reservoir must be conducted.
FRA seeks comment and information from interested parties regarding
the proposal to permit the manufacturers of main reservoirs to
pneumatically test the reservoirs to meet the requirements of 49 CFR
part 229. Specifically, FRA seeks comment or information on the
following:
1. Are there any safety hazards or any known injuries or accidents
related to conducting pneumatic testing as proposed in this notice?
2. Are there any additional restrictions or requirements that
should be imposed when conducting pneumatic testing of main reservoirs
as proposed in this notice?
3. Are the estimated economic costs and benefits associated with
proposed flexibility accurate?
C. Design of New Passenger Equipment.
The manufacturers and railroad representative on the Working Group
and Task Force sought clarification of the provision contained in 49
CFR 238.231(b). This section requires the brake systems on equipment
ordered on or after September 8, 2000, or placed in service on or after
September 9, 2002, to be designed so as not to require an inspector to
go on, under, or between the equipment to observe the brake actuation
or release. At the Task Force meetings, FRA made clear that this
requirement is a design standard and was not intended to prohibit or
limit the conduct of brake or mechanical inspections required to be
conducted in part 238. FRA realizes that in order to perform many of
the brake and mechanical inspections required by the regulations an
inspector will have to go on, under, or between the equipment. FRA has
acknowledged this practice and railroads have effectively conducted
these types of inspections in this manner for decades.
The plain language of Sec. 238.231(b) requires new equipment to be
designed to allow direct observation of the brake actuation and release
without fouling the equipment. The preamble to the final rule discusses
alternative design approaches using some type of piston travel
indicator or piston cylinder pressure indicator on equipment whose
design makes it impossible to meet this requirement. See 64 FR 25612
(May 12, 1999). FRA's intent was that this piston travel indicator
could be a device similar to the definition of ``actuator'' contained
in Sec. 238.5 or some sort of piston cylinder pressure indicator. The
rule text and related preamble make clear that the actuation and
release of the brake (or a direct indication of such) be able to be
observed without an inspector going on, under, or between the
equipment. FRA does not believe that truck pressure indicators (which
provide no information on piston travel or piston cylinder pressure)
meet this requirement. FRA recognized that the envisioned
``indicators'' discussed in the preamble to Sec. 238.231(b) may be
ahead of the technological curve for passenger equipment currently
being delivered and that which may be delivered in the near future.
Thus, FRA noted its willingness to discuss interim inspection protocols
in lieu of applying piston travel indicators on such equipment.
The Task Force discussed the issue in detail as a number of
railroads were in the process of receiving new equipment, such as bi-
level coaches and other low-slung equipment, the design of which does
not allow observation of the brake actuation and release of the brake
without going on, under, or between the equipment. Several railroads
and manufacturers noted that the type of piston travel indicators
envisioned by FRA to meet the Sec. 238.231(b) requirement were not
currently available and even if they could be developed in the near
future, they would likely be a maintenance problem and unreliable.
Representatives of rail labor also questioned the viability and need
for the type of piston travel indicators discussed in the preamble to
the final rule. These participants did not believe that any type of
mechanical indicator should take the place of direct visual inspection
of the brake system components. Consequently, the members of the Task
Force believed that the best approach to the issue was to provide
additional inspection protocols for new equipment that are designed in
a manner that makes observation of the actuation and release of the
brakes impossible from outside the plane of the equipment rather than
mandating the use of untested and potentially unreliable piston travel
indicators.
FRA and the Task Force believe that the brake system and mechanical
components on bi-level and other low-slung passenger equipment can be
adequately inspected through the daily brake and mechanical inspections
currently required in the Federal regulations; provided, appropriate
blue signal protections are established for the personnel required to
perform such inspections. These daily inspections permit a visual
inspection of a large percentage of the brake and mechanical components
and over a period of a few days all portions of the brake system and
mechanical components will be visually observed. However, because the
necessary design of some new equipment makes the daily inspections of
the equipment more difficult, does not permit visual observation of the
brake actuation and release from outside the plane of the vehicle, and
because no reliable mechanical device is currently available to provide
a direct indication of such, FRA and the Task Force believe it is
necessary to adopt additional inspection protocols for this type of
equipment.
The inspection regimen being proposed in this notice will be
applicable to equipment placed in service on or after September 9,
2002, the design of which does not permit actual visual observation of
the brake actuation and release. The proposed requirements related to
this type of equipment are similar to those contained in a FRA Safety
Board letter dated October 19, 2004, granting that portion of the
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's (MBTA) waiver petition
seeking relief from the requirements of Sec. 238.231(b) for 28
Kawasaki bi-level coaches. See Docket Number FRA-2004-18063. The
proposed provisions would require such equipment to be equipped with
either piston travel indicators or brake indicators as defined in Sec.
238.5. The equipment would also be required to receive a periodic brake
inspection by a QMP at intervals not to exceed five in-service days and
the proposed inspection would have to be performed while the equipment
is over an inspection pit or on a raised track. In addition, the
railroad performing the
[[Page 73075]]
proposed inspection would be required to maintain a record of the
inspection consistent with the existing record requirements related to
Class I brake tests. FRA believes that these proposed inspection
requirements will ensure the safety and proper operation of the brake
system on equipment which does not permit actual visual observation of
the brake actuation and release without fouling the vehicle.
D. Safety Appliances
Several issues regarding the attachment of safety appliances on
passenger equipment have arisen over the last decade. These issues
generally involve the method by which safety appliances on existing
passenger equipment are required to be attached, either directly to the
car or locomotive body or by use of a bracket or support. It has come
to FRA's attention, due to the investigation of these issues, that a
significant number of existing passenger cars and locomotives contain
some safety appliances that are attached to the equipment by some form
of welding, typically the welding of a bracket or plate to which the
safety appliance is then mechanically fastened. In the last two
decades, manufacturers of certain passenger equipment have used welding
on some of the safety appliance arrangements of newly built equipment.
Some segments of the passenger industry believe welding of these
arrangements is acceptable and have sought a review of FRA's historical
prohibition on the welding of safety appliance arrangements. These
parties believe that new and improved welding technology, the
implementation of new tracking standards, proper quality control, and
historical documentation support the use of welding on safety appliance
arrangements.
Historically, FRA has required that safety appliances be
mechanically fastened to the car structure. FRA has also historically
required that any brackets or supports applied to a car structure
solely for the purpose of securing a safety appliance must be
mechanically fastened to the car body. See MP&E Technical Bulletin 98-
14 (June 15, 1998). FRA's prohibition on the weldment of safety
appliances and their supports is based on its longstanding
administrative interpretation of the regulatory ``manner of
application'' provisions contained in 49 CFR part 231 which require
that safety appliances be ``securely fastened'' with a specified
mechanical fastener. See e.g., 49 CFR Sec. Sec. 231.12(c)(4);
231.13(b)(4); 231.14(b)(4) and (f)(4)). FRA's prohibition on the
welding of safety appliances is based on its belief that welds are not
uniform, are subject to failure, and are very difficult to inspect to
determine if the weld is broken or cracked. Mechanical fasteners, by
contrast, are generally easy to inspect and tend to become noticeably
loose prior to failure.
Generally, FRA's longstanding interpretation of the regulation
prohibiting the welding of safety appliances has not been seriously
questioned or opposed since its inception. Virtually all railcars
manufactured for use in the United States have their safety appliances
and their safety appliance brackets and supports mechanically fastened
to the car body, unless a specific exception has been provided by FRA
or the regulations. FRA acknowledges that it has permitted limited
welding of certain safety appliances or their brackets and supports on
locomotives and tanks cars. See MP&E Technical Bulletins 98-48 and 00-
06 (June 15, 1998 and August 7, 2000, respectively). These exceptions
were provided because there were no other alternative methods available
for mechanically fastening these safety appliance arrangements.
Currently, freight railroad equipment complies with the existing
regulations and FRA's interpretation of those provisions.
Traditionally, FRA has not permitted welding of safety appliance
arrangements on freight equipment. In addition, the AAR does not permit
the welding of safety appliance arrangements. FRA continues to believe
that, except in limited circumstances, the safety appliances on freight
equipment should not be attached with welding under any condition. This
is primarily due to the extreme differences in use and inspection
between passenger and freight equipment. Thus, FRA does not intend to
permit welded safety appliances or their attachment in that segment of
the industry. Consequently, FRA is limiting any relief being proposed
in this proceeding to safety appliance arrangements on passenger
equipment.
Although FRA has remained consistent in its prohibition on the
weldment of safety appliances and their supports, a significant amount
of passenger equipment has been manufactured and used in revenue
service for a number of years with safety appliances being attached to
the car body using some form of welding. Currently, FRA is aware of
approximately 3,000 passenger cars or locomotives that have safety
appliances or safety appliance brackets or supports welded to the body
of the equipment. Some units of this equipment were introduced into
service within the last few years; others have been in service for more
than a decade. Some of the 3,000 units noted above have been the
subject of formal waiver requests pursuant to the provisions contained
in 49 CFR part 211. See Docket Numbers FRA-2000-8588 and FRA-2000-8044.
In an effort to fully develop the issues relating to the welding of
safety appliances on existing passenger equipment, FRA conducted an
informal safety inquiry and subsequently submitted the issue to RSAC in
this proceeding. On June 17, 2003, a informal safety inquiry was held
in Washington, DC, where all interested parties were permitted to
express their concerns relating to FRA's long-standing interpretation
prohibiting welded of safety appliance arrangements. Representatives
from APTA, AAR, consultants, manufacturers, and union representatives
gave presentations or provided comments expressing their points of
interests or concerns. FRA also referred the issue to the RSAC process
in this proceeding, which in turn assigned the issue to the mechanical
Task Force, to aid in developing and determining if there is a
practical application where welding may be suitable and to consider
methods by which FRA could revise or clarify its position for future
guidance and regulatory standards. Although the Task Force engaged in
productive discussions and developed considerable information relating
to the issue, the Task Force could not reach a consensus on any
recommendation. Consequently, on October 27, 2004, FRA withdrew the
task related to the consideration of handling the attachment of safety
appliances on passenger equipment from the RSAC and decided to proceed
with the development of a regulatory proposal unilaterally.
At the safety inquiry and the discussions within the Task Force,
ATPA and its primary members all indicated that FRA needs to provide
clarity and guidance to the industry relating to passenger car safety
appliance arrangements, particularly in the area of attaching brackets
and supports. FRA has always believed that the industry knew exactly
what was intended by FRA's interpretation of the regulations related to
``mechanical fastening.'' FRA believes that in all instances where it
has permitted welding, the allowance was the direct result of not
having any another available option for attaching the required safety
appliances. Examples, such as tank cars, locomotives, and other
situations mentioned above, indicate that FRA has allowed or
[[Page 73076]]
permitted the use of welding in certain very limited circumstances.
FRA considered issues ranging from the initial manufacturing stage
to the actual expected life cycle of a weld and the environment in
which the equipment operates. FRA is cognizant of the fact that the
inspection of welds is at best difficult and potentially costly
depending on the type of inspection that might be required. Moreover,
the failure mode of welds is very difficult to detect visually and the
effects of stress and fatigue may cause welded applications to have
higher failure rates towards the end of the life cycle of the
equipment. FRA acknowledges that freight and passenger operations
involve significantly different environments from a safety appliance
standpoint, and likely justifies an allowance for welded safety
appliance brackets and supports, at least on existing equipment, and in
other instances where the design of a vehicle necessitates such use. In
most cases, passenger equipment is inspected on a more regular basis,
generally used in captive type service, and experiences far less
coupling and uncoupling associated with switching moves inherent in
freight operations. FRA also recognizes that it would be extremely
costly to the passenger industry to require existing equipment to be
retrofitted with new safety appliances when the existing welded
attachments have not shown a proclivity for failure at this time.
At the informal safety inquiry and during the Task Force meetings,
FRA received information and engaged in discussions relating to the
following issues:
The safety implications related to the continued use of
existing passenger equipment with welded safety appliances or welded
safety appliance brackets or supports;
Criteria for determining when an existing piece of
passenger equipment with a welded appliance or welded bracket or
support is defective or unsafe or both;
Alternative approaches to mandatory modification of
existing equipment (e.g., inspection protocols) and the economic
implication of any suggested approach;
Clarification of existing regulatory requirements as they
relate to the welding of safety appliances and their brackets or
supports;
The safety implications and standards that should or could
be addressed, were FRA to consider some latitude in allowing existing
passenger equipment with welded safety appliances or welded safety
appliance supports or brackets, such as:
What part or parts of an appliance should FRA allow to be
welded?
What quality control standards should apply to the welding
process (e.g., industry recognized welding standards)?
What qualifications/training should the individual
performing the welding or inspecting a weld need to possess?
How should field or shop repairs or both be conducted on
equipment with welded safety appliances or supports?
When should a weld be considered defective?
What visual and non-destructive inspection techniques or
industry recognized standards are appropriate for welds?
At what interval should welds be inspected?
What records, if any, should be maintained of these
inspections?
Based on the information and views provided at both the informal
safety inquiry and through the RSAC process, FRA continues to believe
that mechanical fastening provides the best method of attaching safety
appliance arrangements and ensures that the safety of railroad
employees and the public is not compromised. For this reason, FRA will
continue to require the mechanical fastening of safety appliance
arrangement wherever possible and proposes to provide alternative
solutions for use of welding only on existing passenger equipment and
in circumstances when mechanically fastening is not practical due to
the design of the vehicle. However, FRA does agree that there may have
been some misunderstanding within the passenger rail industry with
regard to safety appliance application and that some leeway needs to be
provided for existing passenger equipment with welded safety appliance
brackets or supports in lieu of retrofitting nearly one-third of the
fleet. Thus, in this NPRM, FRA is proposing to provide clarification of
the requirements related to the attachment of safety appliance under 49
CFR part 231. In addition, FRA is proposing to permit the continued use
of existing passenger equipment with welded safety appliance brackets
or supports provided such equipment is identified, inspected, and
handled in accordance with the proposed requirements. In developing
this proposal, FRA weighed and considered many different factors and
concerns, as noted above, relating to welding safety appliances and
their brackets or supports.
An additional issue raised by APTA and its member railroads relates
to the ability of the industry to develop standards relating to the
safety appliance arrangements on new cars of special construction.
Throughout the Railroad Safety Appliance Standards, currently contained
in 49 CFR part 231; specifically, Sec. 231.12--Passenger-train cars
with wide vestibules; Sec. 231.13--Passenger-train cars with open-end
platforms; Sec. 231.14--Passenger-train cars without end platforms;
and Sec. 231.23--Unidirectional passenger-train cars adaptable to van-
type semi-trailer use, there may be inconsistencies and/or
opportunities for clarification in the construction of newly built
passenger equipment. Many times, it is necessary to reference two or
more sections of 49 CFR part 231 to determine if a newly constructed
passenger vehicle meets the minimum requirements of the Federal
regulations. However, criteria for most of today's new types of
passenger car construction are found within 49 CFR 231.18--Cars of
special construction. This results from the fact that modern technology
in construction of car-building often does not lend itself to ready
application of the current 49 CFR 231 requirements. Rather, the
designer must adapt several different requirements to meet as closely
as possible construction of specific safety appliance arrangements in
order to obtain compliance.
Most passenger cars today are constructed outside the United
States, and this has exacerbated the problem of varying interpretations
of regulations and resulting safety appliance arrangements. At times,
different requirements are applied to cars of similar design where both
could have been constructed in the same manner. Substantial resources
are spent on a regular basis by all parties concerned in review
sessions to determine if a car is in compliance prior to construction;
and even when the cars are delivered, problems have arisen.
In an attempt to limit these problems, FRA is proposing a method by
which the industry may request approval of safety appliance
arrangements on new equipment considered to be cars of special
construction under 49 CFR part 231. The proposal would permit the
industry to develop standards to address many of the new types of
passenger equipment introduced into service. The proposal would require
these standards, and supporting documentation to be submitted to FRA
for agency approval pursuant to the special approval process already
contained in the regulation. The proposal makes clear that any approved
standard would be enforceable against any person who violates or causes
the violation of the approved standards and that the penalty schedule
contained in Appendix A to 49 CFR part 231 would
[[Page 73077]]
be used as guidance in assessing any applicable civil penalty. The goal
of this proposal is to develop consistent safety appliance standards
for each new type of passenger car not currently identified in the
Federal regulations that ensures the construction of suitable safety
appliance arrangements in compliance with 49 CFR part 231. FRA believes
the proposal will reduce or eliminate reliance upon criteria for cars
of special construction, will improve communication of safety appliance
requirements to the industry, and will facilitate regulatory compliance
where clarification or guidance is necessary.
Portions of the proposal relating to new passenger equipment are
already progressing. By letter dated September 2, 2005, FRA requested
APTA to determine if it is feasible to form a group to specifically
develop potential safety appliance standards for newly manufactured
passenger equipment and provide guidance where existing Federal
regulations are not specific to the design of a passenger car or
locomotive. On October 11, 2005, APTA informed FRA that it is willing
to undertake this effort and is tentatively planning its initial
meeting in the beginning of 2006. FRA believes this approach provides
an excellent avenue to take advantage of the knowledge and expertise
possessed by rail operators and equipment manufacturers when
considering safety appliance arrangements on new passenger equipment of
unique design. Under the provisions proposed in this NPRM, the
standards and guidance developed by this group would need to be
submitted to and approved by FRA pursuant to the special approval
provisions contained at Sec. 238.21.
FRA seeks comments and views from interested parties relating to
the proposed handling of safety appliances on both existing and new
passenger equipment. Specifically, FRA seeks information and comment on
the following:
Are there other industry recognized standards relating to
welding or the qualifications of persons conducting such welding that
should be considered by FRA?
Are the welding standards referenced by FRA accurately
identified and are they the most recent version of the standards?
Can a standard be developed for determining when a safety
appliance bracket or support to which a safety appliance is
mechanically attached becomes part of the car body?
Should it be based on the linear amount of weld?
To what must the support or bracket be welded?
Is there a particular type of weld that should be used?
Are there specific qualifications or standards related to
performing such welds?
Are the cost estimates associated with FRA's proposal
relating to existing equipment accurate?
Is there any other relevant information that should be
considered by FRA?
E. Securement of Unattended Equipment
At FRA's suggestion, the Task Force considered issues related to
the securement of unattended equipment. FRA noted its concern that
existing part 238 failed to adequately address either the inspection of
hand or parking brakes or the issues related to the securement of
unattended equipment. FRA believes that the rationale for addressing
these issues on freight operations is equally applicable to passenger
operations. The preamble to the final rule related to 49 CFR part 232
contains an in-depth discussion of the need to address these issues.
See 66 FR 4156-58 (January 17, 2001). The approach proposed in this
proceeding is also consistent with the guidance contained in FRA Safety
Advisory 97-1. See 62 FR 49046 (September 15, 1997). Further, FRA is
aware of several incidents on passenger and commuter operation
involving the running away or inadvertent movement of unattended
equipment.
Using the provisions contained in the freight power brake
regulations at 49 CFR part 232 as a guideline, the Task Force developed
a recommendation to address these outstanding issues raised by FRA. As
passenger train consists are much shorter and do not possess the
tonnage associated with freight trains, the Task Force's recommendation
modified the provisions contained in 49 CFR part 232 to make them more
readily applicable to passenger operations. The recommendations
developed by the Task Force and submitted by the full RSAC are
consistent with and based directly on current passenger industry
practice. Thus, in FRA's view, they will have no economic or
operational impact on passenger operations but will ensure that these
best practices currently adopted by the industry are followed and
complied with by making them part of the Federal regulations.
The Task Force presented its recommendation on these issues to the
full Working Group on September 7, 2005. The Working Group reached
consensus on the recommendation and presented the recommendation to the
full RSAC and received unanimous concurrence from such on October 11,
2005. FRA has reviewed the recommendations of the full RSAC and has
adopted them without change in this proposal.
In this NPRM, FRA proposes a set of requirements to address the
securement of unattended equipment. The proposed provisions will
require that unattended equipment be secured by applying a sufficient
number of hand or parking brakes to hold the equipment and will require
railroads to develop and implement a process or procedure to verify
that the applied hand or parking brakes will hold the equipment. The
proposal will also prohibit a practice known as ``bottling the air'' in
a standing cut of cars. The practice of ``bottling the air'' occurs
when a train crew sets out cars from a train with the air brakes
applied and the angle cocks on both ends of the train closed, thus
trapping the existing compressed air and conserving the brake pipe
pressure in the cut of cars they intend to leave behind. This practice
has the potential of causing, first, an unintentional release of the
brakes on these cars and, ultimately, a runaway. A full discussion of
the hazards related to this practice is contained in the preamble to
the final rule related to freight power brakes. See 66 FR 4156-57.
Virtually all railroads prohibit this practice in their operating
rules, thus FRA does not believe any burden is being imposed on the
railroads by including it in this proposal.
The NPRM also proposes a minimum number of hand or parking brakes
that must be applied on an unattended locomotive consist or train. Due
to the relatively short length and low tonnage associated with
passenger trains, FRA does not believe that the more stringent
provisions contained in Sec. 232.103(n)(3) are necessary in a
passenger train context. Thus, the proposal would require that at least
one hand or parking brake be applied in these circumstances; however,
the number of applied hand or parking brakes will vary depending on the
process or procedures developed and implemented by each covered
railroad. In addition, this proposal also contains provisions requiring
railroads to develop and implement procedures for securing locomotives
not equipped with a hand or parking brake and instructions for securing
any locomotive left unattended. As noted previously, FRA is not aware
of any railroad which does not already have the proposed procedures or
processes in place. Thus, FRA believes that these proposed requirements
will impose no burden on
[[Page 73078]]
passenger operations covered by 49 CFR part 238.
In addition to addressing specific issues relating to securing
unattended equipment, this NPRM also incorporates and adopts the
industry's best practices related to the inspection and testing of hand
and parking brakes. FRA proposes to require that the hand or parking on
other than MU locomotives be inspected no less frequently than every
368 days and that a record (either stencil, blue card, or electronic)
be maintained and provided to FRA upon request. The proposal would also
require the application and release of the hand or parking brake at
each periodic mechanical inspection of passenger cars and unpowered
vehicles under Sec. 238.307 and would require a complete inspection of
these components every 368 days, with a record being maintained of this
annual inspection. The inspection and testing intervals as well as the
stenciling and record keeping requirements proposed in this document
are consistent with the current practices in the industry and will
impose no additional burden on the industry.
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part 229
Section 229.5 Definitions
FRA is proposing a technical clarification to the definition of
``MU locomotive'' contained in this section. Existing Sec. 229.5
contains a number of definitions to define different types of
locomotives covered by the various provisions contained in part 229.
These include the general definition of ``locomotive'' as well as
various types of locomotives including: ``control cab locomotive,''
``DMU locomotive,'' and ``MU locomotive.'' At the Task Force meetings
representatives of various railroads and equipment manufacturers
expressed concern over these definitions, contending that they were
confusing and contained some overlap making it difficult to determine
which category a particular locomotive fell within. Of particular
concern was the current definition of ``MU locomotive.''
The definition of ``MU locomotive'' was recently reissued in its
full length when the final rule on Locomotive Event Recorders was
published on June 30, 2005. See 70 FR 37939. Subparagraph (2) of the
current definition identifies an MU locomotive as ``a multiple unit
operated electric locomotive * * * (2) without propelling motors but
with one or more control stands.'' This portion of the MU locomotive
definition is identical to the definition of ``control cab
locomotive.'' In an effort to add clarity and to definitively
distinguish an MU locomotive from a control cab locomotive, FRA
proposes to add some limiting language to the definition of what
constitutes an MU locomotive. Historically, FRA has only considered a
locomotive without propelling motors to be an MU locomotive if it has
the ability to pick up primary power from a third rail or a pantograph.
Consequently, FRA is proposing to add this language to the existing
definition of MU locomotive as it is consistent with FRA's historical
enforcement and interpretation of the regulation.
Section 229.31 Main Reservoir Tests
FRA is proposing to amend paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section to
provide the manufacturers of main reservoirs the option to test main
reservoirs pneumatically rather than hydrostatically as currently
mandated. The proposed modification would permit a main reservoir to
receive a pneumatic test before it is originally placed in service or
before an existing main reservoir is placed back in service after being
drilled. As discussed in detail in section B of the Technical
Background portion of this document, the ASME code currently utilized
by all manufacturers of main reservoirs allows for the pneumatic
testing of the reservoirs when the introduction of liquid cannot be
tolerated. The introduction of water to perform hydrostatic testing on
main reservoirs creates a problem because if the liquid is not
completely removed and the reservoir interior completely dried, the
moisture results in poor adhesion or a lower coating of film than
required. This condition has the potential of causing interior
corrosion and premature failure of the reservoir.
The rationale for originally requiring that the main reservoirs be
tested hydrostatically was based on the safety concerns should a main
reservoir catastrophically fail during the testing. The likelihood of
injury is minimized by having the reservoir filled with a liquid rather
than air. However, since the original drafting of the locomotive
regulations, manufacturers of reservoirs have implemented and developed
both equipment and procedures to ensure that test personnel are
adequately shielded when conducting the testing. The manufacturers have
been performing pneumatic testing on reservoirs for years and FRA is
not aware of any injury related to such testing in manufacturer-
controlled facilities. Thus, the safety concerns originally attached to
pneumatic testing have been minimized, if not eliminated, when
conducted at properly equipped manufacturer facilities.
In addition to the safety benefits related to pneumatic testing,
FRA recognizes that all passenger car main reservoirs are pneumatically
tested after fabrication and before the application of an interior
protective coating. This process is utilized so that reservoirs may be
repaired if the reservoir does not pass the initial test requirements.
If the interior protective coating were to be applied prior to testing,
any weld repairs could not be performed, as the interior coating would
be damaged. Thus, in recognition of current industry practice and in an
effort to provide compliance options that are beneficial from a safety
perspective, FRA agrees with the recommendation of the RSAC that it
would be both safer and more efficient to permit the manufacturers of
main reservoirs to utilize pneumatic testing to meet the requirements
contained in paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section. Consequently, FRA
is proposing to permit pneumatic testing of newly manufactured main
reservoirs and reservoirs that are newly drilled and tested at a
manufacturer's facility.
It should be noted that FRA is limiting the ability to conduct
pneumatic testing of the main reservoirs to only those facilities with
appropriate safeguards in place to ensure the safety of the personnel
conducting the testing. After a reservoir is installed on a locomotive,
FRA believes that hydrostatic testing would be the only testing method
that adequately ensures the safety and protection of the personnel that
are performing the test or working near the installed reservoir. In
order to make this intent clear, FRA has modified the language of the
recommendation submitted to FRA from the RSAC. FRA has added language
to the end of proposed paragraph (c) to make clear that pneumatic
testing of a reservoir currently in use and newly drilled may only be
conducted by a manufacturer of main reservoirs in a suitably safe
environment. In other circumstances, the proposal makes clear a
hydrostatic test of the reservoir must be conducted.
As noted previously, FRA seeks comment and information from
interested parties regarding the proposal to permit the manufacturers
of main reservoirs to pneumatically test the reservoirs to meet the
requirements of 49 CFR part 229. Specifically, FRA seeks comment or
information on the following:
1. Are there any safety hazards or any known injuries or accidents
related to
[[Page 73079]]
conducting pneumatic testing as proposed in this notice?
2. Are there any additional restrictions or requirements that
should be imposed when conducting pneumatic testing of main reservoirs
as proposed in this notice?
3. Are the estimated economic costs and benefits associated with
proposed flexibility accurate?
Section 229.47 Emergency Brake Valve
Section 229.137 Sanitation, General Requirements
FRA is proposing to make a technical clarification to paragraph (b)
of Sec. 229.47 and paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of Sec. 229.137 in order to
make these sections consistent with the new definition of ``DMU
locomotive.'' The recently published final rule on Locomotive Event
Recorders added the definition of ``DMU locomotive'' to 49 CFR part
229. See 70 FR 37920 (June 30, 2005). This definition was added to part
229 in order to specifically identify diesel-powered multiple unit
locomotives. These types of locomotives are just starting to be used by
a small number of passenger railroads and FRA wants to be sure that
they are adequately addressed by the safety standards contained in part
229. As these types of locomotives are fairly unique, they do not fit
cleanly within the regulations as they pertain to traditional
locomotives and MU locomotives. In some instances they are treated as
traditional locomotives and in others they are treated as MU
locomotives. In an effort to clarify the applicability of various
provisions contained in part 229, FRA is proposing to amend Sec. Sec.
229.47 and 229.137 to specifically state that DMU locomotives are
covered by these provisions. These proposed clarifications are
consistent with FRA's historical application of the regulations to DMU
locomotives.
Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part 238
Section 238.5 Definitions
FRA is proposing to make two clarifying amendments to the
definitions section contained in part 238 by revising the definition of
``actuator'' currently contained in regulation and by adding a new
definition for ``piston travel indicator.'' Based on discussions of the
Task Force and concerns raised by other parties it appears the term
``actuator'' used by FRA in the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards
final rule is a term that many members of the passenger industry
associate and use to identify a specific self-contained brake system
component that typically consists of a cylinder, piston, and piston
rod. FRA was not intending to identify this brake system component when
it included the term in Sec. 238.313(g)(3) of the original regulation.
FRA notes that the term actuator is used in the definition of ``piston
travel'' in this section to refer to the brake system component
described above.
In order to prevent and limit any confusion on the part of the
regulated community, FRA agrees with the RSAC's recommendation to
modify the definition of ``actuator'' to describe the brake system
component to which the term has traditionally been attached and which
is what the term refers to in the definition of ``piston travel.'' In
addition, FRA accepts the RSAC's recommendation to add a new term to
part 238 to describe the device originally defined as an ``actuator.''
Therefore, FRA is proposing to add the term ``piston travel indicator''
to describe a device directly activated by the movement of the brake
cylinder piston, the disc actuator, or the tread brake unit cylinder
piston that provides an indication of piston travel. FRA further
proposes for the term ``piston travel indicator'' to replace the term
``actuator'' in Sec. 238.313(g)(3).
Section 238.17 Movement of Passenger Equipment With Other Than Power
Brake Defects
FRA is proposing to make a conforming change in paragraph (b) of
this section to acknowledge the flexibility being proposed in Sec.
238.303(e)(17) of this NPRM relating to inoperative or ineffective air
compressors on MU passenger equipment. As discussed in detail above in
the Technical Background portion of the preamble and in the section-by-
section discussion related to Sec. 238.303 below, FRA is proposing to
permit certain MU passenger equipment to continue to be used in
passenger service until the next exterior calendar day mechanical
inspection.
Section 238.21 Special Approval Procedures
FRA is proposing conforming changes to paragraphs (a) and (c) of
this section to recognize the requirements in the proposed provisions
relating to safety appliances on both existing and new passenger
equipment contained in Sec. Sec. 238.229 and 238.230 of this notice.
These conforming changes recognize the provisions of those sections
that require a railroad to obtain FRA approval of welded safety
appliance attachment or of an industry-wide standard relating to safety
appliance arrangements on new passenger equipment of unique design.
Section 238.229 Safety Appliances--General
In this section, FRA is proposing incorporation and clarification
of its long-standing administrative interpretations regarding the
attachment of safety appliances and safety appliance brackets and
supports. FRA is also proposing an inspection program for permitting
existing passenger equipment to remain in service in lieu of requiring
retro-fitting of the equipment to eliminate welded brackets or
supports. FRA is proposing these provisions unilaterally and did not
seek a recommendation or concurrence from RSAC. These issues were
discussed above in the Technical Background section of the preamble to
the proposed rule. As FRA sees no benefit in reproducing the entire
discussion here, interested parties should refer to that discussion
when considering the provisions proposed in this section.
Historically, FRA has required that safety appliances be
mechanically fastened to the car structure. FRA has also historically
required that any brackets or supports applied to a car structure
solely for the purpose of securing a safety appliance must be
mechanically fastened to the car body. See MP&E Technical Bulletin 98-
14 (June 15, 1998). FRA's prohibition on the weldment of safety
appliances and their supports is based on its longstanding
administrative interpretation of the regulatory ``manner of
application'' provisions contained in 49 CFR part 231 which require
that safety appliances be ``securely fastened'' with a specified
mechanical fastener. See e.g., 49 CFR Sec. Sec. 231.12(c)(4);
231.13(b)(4); 231.14(b)(4) and (f)(4)). FRA's prohibition on the
welding of safety appliances is based on its belief that welds are not
uniform, are subject to failure, and are very difficult to inspect to
determine if the weld is broken or cracked. Mechanical fasteners, by
contrast, are generally easy to inspect and tend to become noticeably
loose prior to failure.
Generally, FRA's longstanding interpretation of the regulation
prohibiting the welding of safety appliances has not been seriously
questioned or opposed since its inception. Virtually all railcars
manufactured for use in the United States have their safety appliances
and their safety appliance brackets and supports mechanically fastened
to the car body, unless a specific exception has been provided by FRA
or the regulations. FRA acknowledges that it has permitted limited
welding of certain safety appliances or their brackets and
[[Page 73080]]
supports on locomotives and tanks cars. See MP&E Technical Bulletins
98-48 and 00-06 (June 15, 1998 and August 7, 2000, respectively). These
exceptions were provided because there were no other alternative
methods available for mechanically fastening these safety appliance
arrangements.
Although FRA has remained consistent in its prohibition on the
weldment of safety appliances and their supports, a significant amount
of passenger equipment has been manufactured and used in revenue
service for a number of years with safety appliances being attached to
the car body using some form of welding. Currently, FRA is aware of
approximately 3,000 passenger cars or locomotives that have safety
appliances or safety appliance brackets or supports welded to the body
of the equipment. Some units of this equipment were introduced into
service within the last few years; others have been in service for more
than a decade. Some of the 3,000 units noted above have been the
subject of formal waiver requests pursuant to the provisions contained
in 49 CFR part 211. See Docket Numbers FRA-2000-8588 and FRA-2000-8044.
FRA considered issues ranging from the initial manufacturing stage
to the actual expected life cycle of a weld and the environment in
which the equipment operates. FRA is cognizant of the fact that the
inspection of welds is at best difficult and potentially costly
depending on the type of inspection that might be required. Moreover,
the failure mode of welds is very difficult to detect visually and the
effects of stress and fatigue may cause welded applications to have
higher failure rates towards the end of the life cycle of the
equipment. FRA acknowledges that freight and passenger operations
involve significantly different environments from a safety appliances
standpoint, and likely justifies an allowance for welded safety
appliance brackets and supports, at least on existing equipment, and in
other instances where the design of a vehicle necessitates such use. In
most cases, passenger equipment is inspected on a more regular basis,
generally used in captive type service, and experiences far less
coupling and uncoupling associated with switching moves inherent in
freight operations. FRA also recognizes that it would be extremely
costly to the passenger industry to require existing equipment to be
retrofitted with new safety appliances when the existing welded
attachments have not shown a proclivity for failure at this time.
Based on the information and views provided at both the special
safety inquiry and through the RSAC process, FRA continues to believe
that mechanical fastening provides the best method of attaching safety
appliance arrangements and ensures that the safety of railroad
employees and the public are not compromised. For this reason, FRA will
continue to require the mechanical fastening of safety appliance
arrangement wherever possible and proposes to provide alternative
solutions for use of welding only on existing passenger equipment and
in circumstances when mechanically fastening is not practical due to
the design of the vehicle. However, FRA does agree that there may have
been some misunderstanding within the passenger rail industry with
regard to safety appliance application and that some leeway needs to be
provided for existing passenger equipment with welded safety appliance
brackets or supports in lieu of the costly option of retrofitting
nearly one-third of the fleet. With these thoughts in mind and based on
information and discussions provided at the informal safety inquiry and
the Task Force meeting, FRA is proposing both clarification of the
existing requirements related to safety appliance attachment and is
providing a method to safely handle the inspection and continued
operation of existing passenger equipment with welded safety appliances
or welded safety appliance brackets or supports.
Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this proposed section contain FRA's long-
standing administrative interpretations prohibiting the use of welding
as a means of attaching either a safety appliance or a safety appliance
bracket or support. Proposed paragraph (a) makes clear that all
passenger equipment continues to be subject to the statutory provisions
contained in 49 U.S.C. chapter 203 as well as the regulatory provisions
contained in 49 CFR part 231. Proposed paragraph (b) incorporates FRA's
long-standing administrative interpretations regarding the welding of
safety appliances and their supports. This paragraph makes clear that
safety appliances and their brackets or supports are to be mechanically
fastened to the car body and specifically states that welding as a
method of attachment is generally prohibited. This proposed paragraph
also explains that FRA permits the welding of a brace or stiffener used
in connection with mechanically fastened safety appliance and provides
a definition of what constitutes a ``brace'' or ``stiffener'' in these
arrangements.
Paragraph (c) contains proposed exceptions to FRA's general
prohibition related to welding safety appliances. Proposed paragraph
(c)(1) provides an exception for passenger equipment placed in service
prior to January 1, 2007, equipped with a safety appliance that is
mechanically fastened to a bracket or support which is welded to the
vehicle. Rather than require the retrofitting of existing equipment
that currently contain safety appliance brackets or supports that are
attached to the equipment by welding, FRA proposes to permit the
equipment to remain in service provided that the equipment is
identified, inspected, and handled for repair in accordance with the
provisions proposed in paragraphs (e) through (k) of this section. FRA
believes the proposed identification and inspection plan will ensure
the safe operation of equipment currently in service.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) acknowledges the fact that in some
instances, due to the design of a vehicle, safety appliances are
required to be directly attached to a piece of equipment by welding.
The proposed requirements in this paragraph would be applicable to both
existing equipment (i.e. equipment placed in service prior to January
1, 2007) and to newly manufactured equipment. The proposed provisions
would require railroads to identify each piece of passenger equipment
outfitted with a safety appliance welded directly to the vehicle and
would require the railroad to provide a detailed rationale explaining
how the design of the vehicle or placement of the safety appliance
requires the direct welding of the appliance to the equipment on
passenger equipment placed in service for the first time on or after
January 1, 2007. This paragraph would require that any such safety
appliances be inspected and handled in accordance with the proposed
inspection and repair provisions contained in paragraphs (g) through
(k). FRA notes that only the specifically identified safety appliances
would be required to be so inspected and handled.
Proposed paragraph (d) contains standards to clarify when a weld on
a safety appliance is to be considered defective. This proposed section
makes clear that a weld will be considered defective if it contains any
anomaly, regardless of size, that affects the designed strength of the
weld. This section also states that weld will be defective if it
contains a crack and defines a crack as a fracture of any visibly
discernible length or width. Further, this paragraph would require that
any repairs made to a defective or cracked weld would have to be made
in accordance with the inspection plans
[[Page 73081]]
and remedial action provisions proposed in paragraph (g) and (j) of
this section.
Paragraphs (e) and (f) contain the proposed provisions relating to
the railroad's identification of all existing passenger equipment that
contains a welded safety appliance bracket or support. This listing
would be required to be submitted to FRA by no later than December 31,
2006, and permits railroads to update the list if they identify
equipment after that date. These paragraphs would permit railroads to
exclude certain safety appliances from the proposed inspection
provisions provided the railroad fully explains the basis for any such
exclusion. FRA envisions such exclusions to be limited to situations
where inspection of the weld is impossible or in situations where the
size and quality of a weld are such to make inspection unnecessary
(i.e. where the bracket or support is in essence part of the car body).
Paragraph (f) makes clear that FRA reserves the right to disapprove any
exclusion proffered by a railroad by providing written notification to
the railroad of any such decision.
Paragraphs (g) through (j) contain the proposed inspection and
repair criteria for any equipment identified with a welded safety
appliance or welded safety appliance bracket or support. These proposed
requirements contain provisions concerning when visual inspections of
the involved safety appliances would be required to be performed and
address the qualifications of the individuals required to perform the
inspections as well as the procedures to be utilized when performing
the inspections. FRA considered various methods for inspecting the
welds on the involved equipment including various types of non-
destructive testing on smaller numbers of the involved welds. However,
FRA believes that periodic visual inspections of all the identified
welds is the most effective and cost-efficient method of ensuring the
proper condition of the attachments. FRA seeks comments and views of
interested parties relating to any portion of the proposed inspection
procedures or to any alternative methods of inspecting the welds on
exiting passenger equipment.
Proposed paragraph (h) identifies a number of different types of
individuals that could be utilized by a railroad to perform the
proposed visual inspections. FRA believes that these inspectors must be
properly trained and qualified to identify defective weld conditions.
Rather than limit a railroad's ability to utilize a number of its
available personnel, FRA attempted to list a number of different types
of persons that would have the ability to conduct the required visual
inspections based on railroad provided training or due to being
certified under an existing industry-recognized welding standard. FRA
expects that most railroads will utilize a qualified maintenance person
(QMP) to conduct the inspections as they are the individuals recognized
to conduct most of the other brake and mechanical inspections required
under part 238. FRA notes that a QMP would be required to receive at
least four hours of training specific to weld defect identification and
weld inspection procedures to be deemed qualified to perform the
proposed visual inspections. FRA seeks comments from interested parties
regarding the following:
Are there other types of qualified individuals capable of
performing the proposed visual inspections?
Is the proposed training requirement for QMP's sufficient?
Are the industry standards cited in this portion of the
proposal accurate and readily available?
Paragraph (j) contains proposed remedial actions that are required
to be utilized in situations where a welded safety appliance or safety
appliance bracket or support is found defective or cracked either
during the periodic visual inspections or while otherwise in service.
Unless the defect or crack is known to be the result of crash damage,
the railroad would be required to conduct a failure and engineering
analysis to determine the cause of the defective condition. The
proposed remedial action provisions would permit a defective, cracked,
or broken welded safety appliance or safety appliance bracket or
support to be reattached to a vehicle by either mechanical fastening or
welding if the defective condition is due to crash damage or improper
construction. Any welded repair would be required to be conducted in
accordance with APTA's Standard for Passenger Rail Vehicle Structural
Repair, SS-C&S-020-03 (September 2003). In instances where the
defective condition is due to inadequate design, such as unanticipated
stresses or loads during service, FRA proposes to require that the
safety appliance be mechanically attached, if possible, and for
railroads to develop a plan for submission to FRA detailing a schedule
for mechanically fastening the safety appliances of safety appliance
brackets or supports on all cars in that series of cars. FRA proposes
these strict provisions because where inadequate design causes failure
of the safety appliances it is an indication that there is likely a
systemic problem for all cars similarly constructed.
Paragraph (k) contains the proposed requirement related to
maintaining records of both the inspections and any repairs made to
welded safety appliances or welded safety appliance brackets or
supports. These records will not only aid FRA's enforcement of the
proposed provisions but will also provide invaluable information
regarding the longevity and integrity of weld appliances and brackets
or supports. The records proposed in this paragraph may be maintained
in any format (written, electronic, etc.) but must be made available to
FRA upon request.
Section 238.230 Safety Appliances--New Equipment
This section contains proposed requirements related to passenger
equipment placed into service after January 1, 2007. This section
reiterates FRA's long-standing prohibition on welding of safety
appliance brackets or supports. FRA has carefully considered
suggestions that would allow unrestricted use of welding to attach
safety appliances on new passenger equipment. FRA appreciates that
through proper design, careful quality control of welding practice, and
selective verification of welds that it should be possible to achieve
safety equivalent to or better than use of mechanical fasteners.
However, in the past FRA has encountered poor weld quality on intercity
passenger equipment safety appliance attachments, and FRA continues to
encounter instances of poor welding in other aspects of rail passenger
equipment construction. Since determination of weld quality outside of
the manufacturing facility is extremely difficult, since FRA will not
have routine access to manufacturing facilities to determine proper
welding practice, and since the rail passenger industry does not have
in place a rigorous quality control program for its suppliers, FRA has
not been able to ascertain the conditions that would provide sufficient
assurance of safety for equipment that has no service history.
Nevertheless, FRA welcomes comments describing processes that are
capable of efficient implementation that would provide the requisite
confidence.
In an effort to remain realistic and practical, paragraphs (b) and
(c) of this section acknowledge that there may be instances where the
design of a vehicle makes it impracticable to mechanically attach a
safety appliance bracket or
[[Page 73082]]
support and necessitates the need to weld the bracket or support. FRA
intends to make clear that the flexibility to utilize welding in these
applications will be narrowly construed and will only be permitted in
instances where a clear nexus between the equipment design and the need
to weld a safety appliance bracket or support exists. FRA proposes that
a railroad identify any such equipment prior to placing it in service
and that it clearly describe the necessity to weld the bracket or
support as well as describe the industry standard followed when making
such an attachment. Proposed paragraph (c) makes clear that any new
equipment containing welded safety appliance brackets or supports would
be required to be inspected and handled in accordance with the
provisions proposed in Sec. 238.229(g) through (k).
Paragraph (d) of this section contains proposed requirements which
would permit the submission of industry-wide safety appliance
arrangement standards to FRA for its approval. As discussed in detail
in the section D of the Technical Background portion of the preamble,
the Railroad Safety Appliance Standards currently contained in 49 CFR
part 231 address a very limited number of different types of passenger
equipment. The criteria for most of today's new types of passenger car
construction are found within 49 CFR 231.18--Cars of special
construction. This results from the fact that modern technology in
construction of car-building often does not lend itself to ready
application of the existing 49 CFR part 231 requirements. Rather, the
designer must adapt several different requirements to meet as closely
as possible construction of specific safety appliance arrangements in
order to obtain compliance. Most passenger cars today are constructed
outside the United States, and this has exacerbated the problem of
varying interpretations of regulations and resulting safety appliance
arrangements. At times, different requirements are applied to cars of
similar design where both could have been constructed in the same
manner. Substantial resources are spent on a regular basis by all
parties concerned in review sessions to determine if a car is in
compliance prior to construction; and even when the cars are delivered,
problems have arisen.
In attempt to limit these problems, paragraph (d) proposes a
process by which the industry may request approval of safety appliance
arrangements on new equipment considered to be cars of special
construction under 49 CFR part 231. This paragraph would permit the
industry to develop standards to address many of the new types of
passenger equipment introduced into service. The proposal would require
these standards, and supporting documentation to be submitted to FRA
for FRA approval pursuant to the special approval process already
contained in Sec. 238.21 of the regulation. The proposal makes clear
that any approved standard would be enforceable against any person who
violates or causes the violation of the approved standards and that the
penalty schedule contained in Appendix A to 49 CFR part 231 would be
used as guidance in assessing any applicable civil penalty. The goal of
this proposal is to develop consistent safety appliance standards for
each new type of passenger car not currently identified in the Federal
regulations that ensure the construction of suitable safety appliance
arrangements in compliance with 49 CFR part 231. FRA believes the
proposal will reduce or eliminate reliance upon criteria for cars of
special construction, will improve communication of safety appliance
requirements to the industry, and will facilitate regulatory compliance
where clarification or guidance is necessary.
Section 238.231 Brake System
Paragraph (b) contains proposed language relating to the design of
passenger equipment placed in service for the first time on or after
September 9, 2002 and contains additional inspection criteria for such
equipment if it is not designed to permit visual observation of the
brake actuation and release from outside the plane of the equipment.
The plain language of existing paragraph (b) requires new equipment to
be designed to allow direct observation of the brake actuation and
release without fouling the equipment. The preamble to the final rule
discusses alternative design approaches using some type of piston
travel indicator or piston cylinder pressure indicator on equipment
whose design makes it impossible to meet this requirement. See 64 FR
25612 (May 12, 1999). FRA's intent was that this piston travel
indicator could be a device similar to the definition of ``actuator''
contained in Sec. 238.5 or some sort of piston cylinder pressure
indicator. The rule text and related preamble make clear that the
actuation and release of the brake (or a direct indication of such) be
able to be observed without an inspector going on, under, or between
the equipment. FRA does not believe that truck pressure indicators
(which provide no information on piston travel or piston cylinder
pressure) meet this requirement.
FRA recognizes that the envisioned ``indicators'' discussed in the
preamble of the final rule may be ahead of the technological curve for
passenger equipment currently being delivered and that which may be
delivered in the near future. Thus, FRA noted its willingness to the
RSAC and the Task Force to consider alternatives to requiring piston
travel indicators on such equipment. The Task Force discussed the issue
in detail as a number of railroads were in the process of receiving new
equipment, such as bi-level coaches and other low-slung equipment, the
design of which does not allow observation of the brake actuation and
release of the brake without going on, under, or between the equipment.
Several railroads and manufacturers noted that the type of piston
travel indicator envisioned by FRA to meet the Sec. 238.231(b)
requirement was not currently available and even if it could be
developed in the near future it would likely be a maintenance problem
and unreliable. Representatives of rail labor also questioned the
viability and need for the type of piston travel indicators discussed
in the preamble to the final rule. These participants did not believe
that any type of mechanical indicator should take the place of direct
visual inspection of the brake system components. Consequently, the
members of the Task Force believed that the best approach to the issue
was to provide additional inspection protocols for new equipment
designed in a manner that makes observation of the actuation and
release of the brakes impossible from outside the plane of the
equipment in lieu of mandating the use of untested and potentially
unreliable piston travel indicators. The Task Force submitted this
recommendation to the full RSAC which in turn submitted the
recommendation to FRA.
FRA and the Task Force believe that the brake system and mechanical
components on bi-level and other low-slung passenger equipment can be
adequately inspected through the daily brake and mechanical inspections
currently required in the Federal regulations; provided, appropriate
blue signal protections are established for the personnel required to
perform such inspections. These daily inspections permit a visual
inspection of a large percentage of the brake and mechanical components
and over a period of a few days all portions of the brake system and
mechanical components will be visually observed. However, because the
necessary design of some new equipment makes the daily inspections
[[Page 73083]]
of the equipment more difficult, does not permit visual observation of
the brake actuation and release from outside the plane of the vehicle
and because no reliable mechanical device is currently available to
provide a direct indication of such, FRA agrees with the Task Force and
RSAC recommendation that it is necessary to adopt additional inspection
protocols for this type of equipment.
The inspection regiment being proposed in paragraph (b) will be
applicable to equipment placed in service on or after September 9,
2002, the design of which does not permit actual visual observation of
the brake actuation and release. The proposed requirements related to
this type of equipment are similar to those contained in a FRA Safety
Board letter dated October 19, 2004, granting that portion of the
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's (MBTA) waiver petition
seeking relief from the requirements of Sec. 238.231(b) for 28
Kawasaki bi-level coaches. See Docket Number FRA-2004-18063. The
proposed provisions would require such equipment to be equipped with
either piston travel indicators or brake indicators as defined in Sec.
238.5. The equipment would also be required to receive a periodic brake
inspection by a QMP at intervals not to exceed five in-service days and
the proposed inspection would have to be performed while the equipment
is over an inspection pit or on a raised track. In addition, the
railroad performing the proposed inspection would be required to
maintain a record of the inspection consistent with the existing record
requirements related to Class I brake tests. The specific inspection
criteria are discussed in more detail in the section-by-section
analysis related to Sec. 238.313. FRA believes that these proposed
inspection requirements will ensure the safety and proper operation of
the brake system on equipment which does not permit actual visual
observation of the brake actuation and release without fouling the
vehicle.
Paragraph (h) contains proposed provisions related to the
inspection of locomotive hand or parking brakes as well as proposed
provisions addressing the securement of unattended equipment. FRA
proposes to modify paragraph (h)(3) to require that the hand or parking
brake on other than MU locomotives be inspected no less frequently that
every 368 days and that a record (either stencil, blue card, or
electronic) be maintained and provided to FRA upon request. Similar
provisions were previously contained in 49 CFR part at Sec. 232.10,
prior to part 232's revision in January of 2001. However, FRA
inadvertently failed to include hand brake inspection provisions in its
original issuance of the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards.
Therefore, FRA raised the issue with the RSAC and it recommended that
provisions regarding the inspection of hand and parking brakes on
passenger equipment be added to part 238. FRA agrees with this
recommendation. The inspection and testing intervals as well as the
stenciling and record keeping requirements proposed in paragraph (b)(3)
are consistent with the current industry practices and will impose no
additional burden on the industry.
FRA also proposes the addition of a new paragraph (h)(4) that would
contain specific requirements related to the securement of unattended
equipment. A detailed discussion regarding the development of this
proposal is contained in Section E of the Technical Background portion
of the preamble. At FRA's suggestion, the Task Force considered issues
related to the securement of unattended equipment. FRA noted its
concern that existing part 238 failed to adequately address either the
inspection of hand or parking brakes or the issues related to the
securement of unattended equipment. FRA believes that the rational for
addressing these issues on freight operations is equally applicable to
passenger operations. The preamble to the final rule related to 49 CFR
part 232 contains an in-depth discussion of the need to address these
issues. See 66 FR 4156-58 (January 17, 2001). The approach proposed in
this proceeding is also consistent with the guidance contained in FRA
Safety Advisory 97-1. See 62 FR 49046 (September 15, 1997). The
requirements proposed in this paragraph are consistent with and based
directly on current passenger industry practice. Thus, in FRA's view,
the proposed provisions will have no economic or operational impact on
passenger operations but will ensure that these best practices
currently adopted by the industry are followed and complied with by
making them part of the Federal regulations.
Paragraph (h)(4) contains proposed provisions that would require
that unattended equipment be secured by applying a sufficient number of
hand or parking brakes to hold the equipment and would require
railroads to develop and implement a process or procedure to verify
that the applied hand or parking brakes will hold the equipment. The
proposal would also prohibit a practice known as ``bottling the air''
in a standing cut of cars. A full discussion of the hazards related to
this practice is contained in the preamble of the final rule related to
freight power brakes. See 66 FR 4156-57. Virtually all railroads
prohibit this practice in their operating rules, thus FRA does not
believe any burden is being imposed on the railroads by including it in
this proposal.
Paragraph (h)(4) also contains proposed provisions to require a
minimum number of hand or parking brakes that must be applied on an
unattended locomotive consist or train. Due to the relatively short
length and low tonnage associated with passenger trains, FRA does not
believe that the more stringent provisions contained in Sec.
232.103(n)(3) are necessary in a passenger train context. Thus, this
paragraph proposes to require that at least one hand or parking brake
be fully applied on an unattended passenger locomotive consist or
passenger train; however, the number of applied hand or parking brakes
will vary depending on the process or procedures developed and
implemented by each covered railroad.
Members of the Task Force sought clarification as to the meaning of
the term ``fully applied'' as it relates to certain passenger equipment
equipped with parking brakes. With the introduction of the spring
applied parking brake, the parking brake can be ``conditioned to
apply'' but may not be fully applied. Many spring applied parking brake
arrangements usually incorporate an anti-compounding feature so the
service brake application and parking brake application are not
simultaneously applied. This arrangement is utilized to limit the
thermal input that may occur if the forces from the service brake
application and parking brake application are applied simultaneously.
When the train is left unattended, the operator would ``condition'' the
parking brake for application through a cab switch push button or by
simply deactivating the cab through normal shutdown procedures. The
brake equipment is either placed in an emergency brake condition or the
brake pipe is vented to zero pressure at a service reduction rate. This
brake equipment operation would result in brake cylinder pressure being
applied to the brake units. The brake cylinder pressure provides
sufficient force to create an equivalent force to that of the parking
brake. If the equipment is not left on a source of compressed air, the
brake cylinder pressure may be slowly depleted. When the brake cylinder
pressure is gradually reduced, the parking brake gradually applies so
that below a prescribed brake cylinder pressure, the parking brake is
fully applied. In light of the preceding
[[Page 73084]]
discussion, FRA intends to make clear that a spring applied parking
brake will be considered ``fully applied'' under paragraph (h)(4) if
all steps have been take to permit its full application (i.e.,
``conditioned to apply'').
In addition, paragraph (h)(4) contains proposed provisions
requiring railroads to develop and implement procedures for securing
locomotives not equipped with a hand or parking brake and develop,
implement, and adopt instructions for securing any locomotive left
unattended. As noted previously, FRA is not aware of any railroad which
does not already have the proposed procedures or processes in place.
Thus, FRA believes that these requirements proposed in paragraph (h)(4)
will impose no burden on passenger operations covered by 49 CFR part
238.
Section 238.303 Exterior Calendar Day Mechanical Inspection of
Passenger Equipment
Paragraph (e)(17) contains proposed provisions requiring that air
compressors, on passenger equipment so equipped, be in effective and
operative condition. The proposed provision also provides flexibility
to permit certain equipment found with ineffective or inoperative air
compressors at its exterior calendar day mechanical inspection to
continue in service until its next such inspection if various
conditions are met by the railroad. A full discussion regarding the
development of these proposed provisions is contained in Section A of
the Technical Background portion of the preamble.
MU passenger locomotives are generally operated as married pairs
but in some cases they can be operated as single or triple units. In
the case of the married pairs, each pair of MU locomotives share a
single air compressor. When operated in triple units, the three MU
locomotives generally share two air compressors and single-unit MU
locomotives are equipped with their own air compressor. The amount of
air required to be produced by the air compressors is based on the size
of the brake pipe and the brake cylinder reservoirs, the size of which
are based on the calculated number of brake application and release
cycles the train will encounter. In addition, the compressed air
produced by the air compressors is shared within the consist by
utilizing a main reservoir equalizing pipe or, in single pipe systems,
through the brake pipe which is then diverted to the brake cylinder
supply reservoir and other air operated devices by use of a governor
arrangement. Therefore, a passenger train set consisting of numerous MU
locomotives will have multiple air compressors providing the train
consist with the necessary compressed air. FRA agrees with the
determinations of the Task Force and the full RSAC that a loss of
compressed air from a limited number of air compressors in such a train
will not adversely effect the operation of the train's brakes or other
air-operated components on the train.
Paragraph (e)(17) proposes to permit the continued operation of MU
train sets with a limited number of inoperative or ineffective air
compressors to continue to be used in passenger service until the next
exterior calendar day mechanical inspection when found at such an
inspection. This paragraph would require a railroad to determine
through data, analysis, or actual testing the maximum number of
inoperative or ineffective air compressors that could be in an MU train
set without compromising the integrity or safety of the train set based
on the size and type of train and the train's operating profile. The
railroad would be required to submit the maximum number of air
compressors permitted to be inoperative or ineffective on its various
trains to FRA before it could begin operation under the proposed
provision and would be required to retain and make available to FRA any
data or analysis relied on to make those determinations.
Proposed paragraph (e)(17) would also require a qualified
maintenance person (QMP) to verify the safety and integrity of any
train operating with inoperative or ineffective air compressors before
the equipment continues in passenger service. In addition, the proposal
requires notification to the train crew of any inoperative or
ineffective air compressors and requires that a record be maintained of
the defective condition. FRA notes that the proposal provides FRA with
the authority to revoke a railroad's ability to utilize the flexibility
proposed in this paragraph if the railroad fails to comply with the
maximum limits established for continued operation of inoperative air
compressors or the maximum limits are not supported by credible and
accurate data. FRA believes that the provisions proposed in this
paragraph will ensure the safety of passenger operations while
providing the railroads additional flexibility in handling defective or
inoperative equipment.
Section 238.307 Periodic Mechanical Inspection of Passenger Cars and
Unpowered Vehicles Used in Passenger Trains
Proposed paragraphs (c)(13) and (d) contain requirements related to
the periodic inspection of hand or parking brakes on passenger cars and
other unpowered vehicles. As noted previously, FRA inadvertently failed
to include any hand brake inspection provisions in its original
issuance of the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards. Thus, FRA raised
the issue with the RSAC and the Task Force and they recommended
inclusion of various provisions regarding the inspection of hand and
parking brakes on passenger equipment in this proposal. FRA agrees with
this recommendation. Paragraph (c)(13) proposes to require that the
hand or parking brake on passenger cars and unpowered vehicles used in
passenger trains be applied and released at each periodic mechanical
inspection. No record of this inspection would need to be prepared or
retained. Based on information provided at the Task Force and Working
Group meetings, all passenger operations currently conduct the proposed
inspection of the hand and parking brakes at each periodic mechanical
inspection. Paragraph (d) is modified and proposes to require a
complete inspection of the hand or parking brake as well as their parts
and connections on passenger cars and unpowered vehicles no less
frequently than every 368 days. Paragraph (d) also proposes to require
that a record (either stencil, blue card, or electronic) be maintained
and provided to FRA upon request. The inspection and testing intervals
as well as the stenciling and record keeping requirements proposed in
this paragraph are consistent with the current practices in the
industry and will impose no additional burden on the industry.
Section 238.313 Class I Brake Tests
Paragraph (g)(3) contains a proposed conforming change to make this
paragraph consistent with the definition changes being proposed in
Sec. 238.5 relating to the terms ``actuator'' and ``piston travel
indicator.'' In order to prevent and limit any confusion on the part of
the regulated community, FRA agrees with the RSAC's recommendation to
modify the definition of ``actuator'' to describe the brake system
component to which the term has traditionally been attached and which
is what the term refers to in the definition of ``piston travel.'' In
addition, FRA accepts the RSAC's recommendation to add a new term to
[[Page 73085]]
part 238 to describe the device originally defined as an ``actuator.''
Therefore, FRA is proposing to add the term ``piston travel indicator''
to describe a device directly activated by the movement of the brake
cylinder piston, the disc actuator, or the tread brake unit cylinder
piston that provides an indication of piston travel. In paragraph
(g)(3) of this section, FRA is replacing the term ``actuator'' with the
term ``piston travel indicator'' in order to add clarity to the
regulatory provision.
Paragraph (j) contains the proposed requirements related to the
periodic inspection of passenger equipment placed in service for the
first time on or after September 9, 2002, the design of which does not
permit actual visual observation of the brake actuation and release as
required in Sec. 238.231(b). A detailed discussion related to the
development and need for these proposed provisions is contained in
section C of the Technical Background portion of the preamble and in
the section-by-section analysis related to paragraph (b) of Sec.
238.231. As previously noted, the periodic inspection requirements
proposed in this paragraph are similar to those contained in a FRA
Safety Board letter dated October 19, 2004, granting that portion of
the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's (MBTA) waiver petition
seeking relief from the requirements of Sec. 238.231(b) for 28
Kawasaki bi-level coaches. See Docket Number FRA-2004-18063.
Proposed paragraph (j) makes clear that the periodic inspection
provisions for the identified types of equipment are in addition to all
of the other inspection provisions contained in paragraphs (a) through
(i) of this section and must be performed by a QMP. The proposed
provisions would require equipment not meeting the design requirements
contained in Sec. 238.231(b)(1) to receive a periodic brake inspection
at intervals not to exceed five in-service days and the proposed
inspection would have to be performed while the equipment is over an
inspection pit or on a raised track. Any day or portion of a day that a
piece of passenger equipment is actually used in passenger service
would constitute an ``in-service day.'' FRA agrees with the
recommendations of the RSAC and Task Force that five in-service days is
appropriate and would permit the proposed inspection to be performed
during weekends or on other days when the equipment is not being used.
Thus, the operational and economic impact of the proposed inspection
requirement is significantly minimized. The periodic inspection would
include all of the items and components identified in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (g)(15) of this section. In addition, the railroad performing
the proposed inspection would be required to maintain a record of the
inspection consistent with the existing record requirements related to
Class I brake tests. FRA believes that these proposed inspection
requirements will ensure the safety and proper operation of the brake
system on equipment which does not permit actual visual observation of
the brake actuation and release without fouling the vehicle.
Section 238.321 Out-of-Service Credit
As discussed previously, FRA did not seek consensus in the RSAC
process for the proposed provision related to out-of service credit
contained in this section. This issue is being addressed on FRA's own
motion in this proceeding in response to APTA's petition for rulemaking
dated March 28, 2005. Thus, the Working Group did not reach consensus
on the proposed provision related to this issue and no recommendation
was provided to or comment sought from the full RSAC.
The proposed provision contained in this section is modeled
directly on the ``out-of-use credit'' provision contained in the
Locomotive Safety Standards at 49 CFR 229.33. The locomotive out-of-use
credit has been effectively and safely utilized by the railroad
industry for decades. As passenger equipment is generally captive
service equipment, is generally less mechanically complex than
locomotives, and because the provisions for which the proposed credit
will be utilized are time-based, FRA believes it is appropriate to
permit passenger and commuter operations to receive credit for extended
periods of time when equipment is not being used. The proposed
provision will permit railroads to extend the dates for conducting
periodic mechanical inspections and periodic brake maintenance required
by Sec. Sec. 238.307 and 238.309 for equipment that is out of service
for periods of at least 30 days. The proposal will require railroads to
maintain records of any out of service days on the records related to
the periodic attention. FRA does not see a safety concern with
permitting this flexibility. In fact, the regulation already provides
assurances that the brake systems on all passenger cars and unpowered
vehicles are in proper condition after being out of service for 30 days
or more by requiring that a single car test pursuant to Sec. 238.311
is performed on the vehicle before being placed back in service. See 49
CFR 238.311(e)(1). FRA seeks comment and information from all
interested parties regarding any safety or operating concerns related
to this proposed provision.
VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This proposed rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing
policies and procedures, and determined to be non-significant under
both Executive Order 12866 and DOT policies and procedures (44 FR
11034; Feb. 26, 1979). FRA has prepared and placed in the docket two
regulatory evaluations addressing the economic impact of this proposed
rule. Document inspection and copying facilities are available at the
Department of Transportation Central Docket Management Facility located
in Room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Access to the docket may also be
obtained electronically through the Web site for the DOT Docket
Management System at http://dms.dot.gov. Photocopies may also be
obtained by submitting a written request to the FRA Docket Clerk at
Office of Chief Counsel, Stop 10, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590; please refer to Docket No.
FRA-2005-23080. FRA invites comments on these regulatory evaluations.
FRA conducted two separate regulatory evaluations addressing the
economic impact of this proposed rule. One regulatory evaluation
addresses the economic impact of the proposed provisions related to the
safety appliance arrangements on passenger equipment. The other
analysis addresses the economic impact of all of the other proposed
provisions contained in this NPRM. As FRA developed the proposed
requirements related to safety appliance arrangements on passenger
equipment unilaterally, FRA believes it is appropriate to provide a
separate regulatory analysis regarding the economic impact of those
proposed provisions. As the analyses indicate, this proposed rule
provides an overall economic savings to the industry due to the
flexibility provided for in many of the proposed provisions and because
many of the proposed requirements incorporate existing industry
practice or provide an alternative means of compliance to what is
presently mandated.
The following table presents the estimated twenty-year monetary
impacts associated with the proposed provisions contained in this NPRM.
The table
[[Page 73086]]
contains the estimated costs and benefits associated with this NPRM and
provides the total 20-year value as well as the 20-year net present
value (NPV) for each indicated item. The dollar amounts presented in
this table have been rounded to the nearest thousand. For exact
estimates, interested parties should consult the Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) that has been made part of the docket in this
proceeding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20-year total 20-year NPV
Description ($) ($)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs:
Periodic Brake Inspection of Low- 4,350,000 1,957,000
Slung Equipment....................
Periodic Inspection of Welded Safety 3,831,000 2,335,000
Appliances.........................
Air Compressor Records.............. 250,000 132,000
-----------------
Total Costs..................... 8,381,000 4,424,000
=================
Benefits:
Pneumatic Testing of Main Reservoirs 5,940,000 3,147,000
Avoided Cost of Piston Travel 2,550,000 1,275,000
Indicators.........................
Air Compressor--Equipment 17,000,000 9,005,000
Utilization........................
Avoided Cost of Safety Appliance 9,000,000 8,370,000
Retrofit...........................
Out-of-Service Credit--Equipment 1,020,000 542,000
Utilization........................
-----------------
Total Benefits.................. 35,510,000 22,339,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The economic benefits to the industry related to this proposed rule
outweigh the economic costs by a ratio in excess of 4 to 1. FRA did not
quantify the safety benefits for most of the provisions contained in
this proposal as many of the proposed provisions are based on improved
manufacturing techniques, equipment reliability, or are the result of
additional regulatory flexibility. However, with regard to the proposed
provision related to the attachment of safety appliances on passenger
equipment, FRA did consider the potential safety benefits related to
the proposal. In addition to the potential avoided cost of retrofitting
equipment containing welded safety appliances or welded safety
appliance brackets or supports estimated at $9 million, FRA also
believes there are potential safety benefits to be derived from the
reduced risk of weld failure resulting from the proposed inspection
protocols of welded safety appliance attachments. The RIA notes two
accidents that were the result of failed safety appliances and although
FRA's database did not contain these accidents, there is no reason to
believe that safety appliances in passenger operations are immune from
failure. The lack of an accident record may be due to low risks
involved in passenger operations, but also weld failure accidents are
not generally reported in FRA systems that are geared more for
accidents that stop rail operations. The FRA believes that reducing the
risk of weld failures would benefit passenger operations. FRA notes
that if just 2 or 3 critical accidents are avoided over the 20-year
period cover by the RIA, the proposal would be cost-justified by the
safety benefits alone.
FRA further notes that it did not estimate a cost for the proposed
provisions related to the securement of unattended equipment and the
inspection of hand or parking brakes. The proposed provisions related
to these issues are merely an incorporation of current industry
practice. FRA is not aware of any passenger or commuter railroad that
does not already conduct the proposed inspections, maintain the
proposed records, and have the proposed procedures in place. FRA seeks
comments and input from all interested parties regarding the estimates
contained in the RIAs developed in connection with this NPRM.
Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and Executive
Order 13272 require a review of proposed and final rules to assess
their impact on small entities. FRA has prepared and placed in the
docket an Analysis of Impact on Small Entities (AISE) that assesses the
small entity impact of this proposal. Document inspection and copying
facilities are available at the Department of Transportation Central
Docket Management Facility located in Room PL-401 on the Plaza level of
the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Docket material is also available for inspection on the Internet at
http://dms.dot.gov. Photocopies may also be obtained by submitting a
written request to the FRA Docket Clerk at Office of Chief Counsel,
Stop 10, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20590; please refer to Docket No. FRA-2005-23080.
``Small entity'' is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601 as a small business
concern that is independently owned and operated, and is not dominant
in its field of operation. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA)
has authority to regulate issues related to small businesses, and
stipulates in its size standards that a ``small entity'' in the
railroad industry is a railroad business ``line-haul operation'' that
has fewer than 1,500 employees and a ``switching and terminal''
establishment with fewer than 500 employees. SBA's ``size standards''
may be altered by Federal agencies, in consultation with SBA and in
conjunction with public comment.
Pursuant to that authority FRA has published a final statement of
agency policy that formally establishes ``small entities'' as being
railroads that meet the line-haulage revenue requirements of a Class
III railroad. See 68 FR 24891 (May 9, 2003). Currently, the revenue
requirements are $20 million or less in annual operating revenue. The
$20 million limit is based on the Surface Transportation Board's
threshold of a Class III railroad carrier, which is adjusted by
applying the railroad revenue deflator adjustment (49 CFR part 1201).
The same dollar limit on revenues is established to determine whether a
railroad, shipper, or contractor is a small entity. FRA uses this
alternative definition of ``small entity'' for this rulemaking.
The AISE developed in connection with this NPRM concludes that this
proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Thus, FRA certifies that this proposed rule
is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small
[[Page 73087]]
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act or Executive Order 13272.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The sections that
contain the new information collection requirements and the estimated
time to fulfill each requirement are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
CFR section Respondent Total annual Average time Total annual annual
universe responses per reponse burden hours burden cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
216.14--Special notice for 22 railroads... 9 forms........ 5 minutes...... 1 hour......... $38
repairs--passenger equipment.
229.47--Emergency Brake Valve-- 22 railroads... 5 markings..... 1 minute....... .08 hour....... 3
Marking Brake Pipe Valve as
such.
--DMU, MU, Control Cab 22 railroads... 5 markings..... 1 minute....... .08 hour....... 3
Locomotives--Marking
Emergency Brake Valve as
such.
238.7--Waivers................. 22 railroads... 9 waivers...... 2 hours/25 hrs. 64 hours....... 2,432
238.15--Movement of passenger 22 railroads... 1,000 cards/ 3 minutes...... 50 hours....... 2,350
equipment with power brake tags.
defects, and.
--Movement of passenger 22 railroads... 288 cards/tags. 3 minutes...... 14 hours....... 658
equpment that becomes
defective en route.
Conditional requirement-- 22 railroads... 144 notices.... 3 minutes...... 7 hours........ 329
Notifications.
238.17--Limitations on movement 22 railroads... 200 cards/tags. 3 minutes...... 10 hours....... 330
of passenger equipment
containing defects found at
calendar day inspection and on
movement of passenger
equipment that develops
defects en route.
--Special requisites for 22 railroads... 76 tags........ 3 minutes...... 4 hours........ 132
movement of passenger
equipment with safety
appliance defects.
--Crew member notification. 22 railroads... 38 30 seconds..... 32 hour........ 11
notifications.
238.21--Petitions for special 22 railroads... 1 petition..... 16 hours....... 16 hours....... 608
approval of alternative
standards.
--Petitions for special 22 railroads... 1 petition..... 120 hours...... 120 hours...... 4,560
approval of alternative
compliance.
--Petitions for special 22 railroads... 2 petitions.... 40 hours....... 80 hours....... 3,040
approval of pre-revenue
service acceptance testing
plan.
--Comments on petitions.... Public/RR 4 comments..... 1 hour......... 4 hours........ 256
Industry.
238.103--Fire Safety:
--Procuring new passenger 5 equipment 4 equip. 540 hours...... 2,160 hours.... 128,000
equipment. manuf. designs.
--Subsequent orders........ 5 equipment 4 equip. 60 hours....... 240 hours...... 43,200
manuf. designs.
--Existing equipment--fire 5 manuf./22 10 analyses.... 30 hours....... 300 hours...... 36,000
safety analysis. railroads.
--Transferring passenger 22 railroads/ 1 analysis..... 20 hours....... 20 hours....... 2,400
cars/locomotives. AAR.
238.107--Inspection/testing/ 22 railroads... 7 reviews...... 60 hours....... 420 hours...... 15,960
maintenance plans--Review by
railroads.
238.109--Employee/contractor 22 railroads... 2 notifications 15 minutes..... 1 hour......... 38
training.
--Training employees: 7,500 employees 2,500 indiv/100 1.33 hours..... 3,458 hours.... 114,114
Mechanical Insp. trainers.
238.109--Recordkeeping......... 22 railroads... 2,500 records.. 3 minutes...... 125 hours...... 4,750
238.111--Pre-revenue service 9 equipment 2 plans........ 16 hours....... 32 hours....... 2,208
acceptance testing plan: manuf.
Passenger equipment that has
previously been used in
service in the U.S.
--Passenger equipment that 9 equipment 2 plans........ 192 hours...... 384 hours...... 38,400
has not been previously manuf.
used in revenue service in
the U.S.
--Subsequent Order......... 9 equipment 2 plans........ 60 hours....... 120 hours...... 9,520
manuf.
238.229--Safety Appliances (New
Rqmnts):
--Welded safety appliances 22 railroads... 22 lists....... 1 hour......... 22 hours....... 836
considered defective:
lists.
--Inspection plans......... 22 railroads... 22 plans....... 16 hours....... 352 hours...... 17,952
--Remedial action: Defect/ 22 railroads... 1 record....... 2.25 hours..... 2 hours........ 66
crack in weld--record.
--Petitions for special 22 railroads... 15 petitions... 4 hours........ 60 hours....... 7,200
approval of alternative
compliance when design of
equipment makes it
impractical to
mechanically fasten safety
appliance/safety appliance
bracket/support to
equipment.
--Records of inspection/ 22 railroads... 3,044 records.. 4.5 hours/12 798 hours...... 27,324
repair of welded safety minutes.
appliance brackets/
supports.
238.230--Safety Appliances--New
Equipment (New Requirement):
[[Page 73088]]
--Welded safety appliances: 22 railroads... 15 documents... 4 hours........ 60 hours....... 2,280
Documentation for
equipment impractically
designed to mechanically
fasten safety appliance
support.
238.231--Brake System (New
Requirement):
--Inspection and repair of 22 railroads... 2,500 forms.... 21 minutes..... 875 hours...... 28,875
hand/parking brake:
Records.
238.237--Automated monitoring:
--Documentation for alerter/ 22 railroads... 3 documents.... 2 hours........ 6 hours........ 228
deadman control timing.
--Defective alerter/deadman 22 railroads... 25 tags........ 3 minutes...... 1 hour......... 47
control: Tagging.
238.303--Exterior calendar day 22 railroads... 25 notices..... 1 minute....... 1 hour......... 47
mechanical inspection of
passenger equipment: Notice of
previous inspection.
--Dynamic brakes not in 22 railroads... 50 tags/cards.. 3 minutes...... 3 hours........ 141
operating mode: Tag.
--Conventional locomotives 22 railroads... 50 tags/cards.. 3 minutes...... 3 hours........ 141
equipped with inoperative
dynamic brakes: Tagging
(New Requirements).
--MU passenger equipment 22 railroads... 6 documents.... 2 hours........ 12 hours....... 768
found with inoperative/
ineffective air
compressors at exterior
calendar day inspection:
Documents.
--Written notice to train 22 railroads... 100 messages or 3 minutes...... 5 hours........ 165
crew about inoperative/ notices.
ineffective air
compressors.
--Records of inoperative 22 railroads... 100 records.... 2 minutes...... 3 hours........ 99
air compressors.
--Record of exterior 22 railroads... 2,376,920 10 minutes + 1 435,769 hours.. 14,578,452
calendar day mechanical records. minute.
inspection (Old
Requirement).
238.305--Interior calendar day
mechanical inspection of
passenger cars:
--Tagging of defective end/ 22 railroads... 540 tags....... 1 minute....... 9 hours........ 297
side doors.
--Records of interior 22 railroads... 1,968,980 5 minutes + 1 196,898 hours.. 6,661,714
calendar day inspection. records. minute.
238.307--Periodic mechanical
inspection of passenger cars
and unpowered vehicles:
--Alternative inspection 22 railroads... 2 notifications 5 hours........ 10 hours....... 380
intervals: Notice.
--Notice of seats/seat 22 railroads... 200 notices.... 2 minutes...... 7 hours........ 266
attachments broken or
loose.
--Records of each periodic 22 railroads... 19,284 records. 200 hrs. + 2 3,857,443 hours 71,516
mechanical inspection. minutes.
--Detailed documentation of 22 railroads... 5 documents.... 100 hours...... 5 hours........ 19,000
reliability assessments as
basis for alternative
inspection interval.
238.311--Single car test:
--Tagging to indicate need 22 railroads... 25 tags........ 3 minutes...... 1 hour......... 33
for single car test.
238.313--Class I brake test:
--Record for additional 22 railroads... 15,600 records. 30 minutes..... 7,800 hours.... 257,400
inspection for passenger
equipment that does not
comply with Sec.
238.231(b)(1) (New
Requirement).
238.315--Class IA brake test:
--Notice to train crew that 22 railroads... 18,250 verbal 5 seconds...... 25 hours....... 825
test has been performed. notices.
--Communicating signal: 22 railroads... 365,000 tests.. 15 seconds..... 1,521 hours.... 57,798
Tested and two-way radio
system.
238.317--Class II brake test:
--Communicating signal: 22 railroads... 365,000 tests.. 15 seconds..... 1,521 hours.... 57,798
Tested and two-way radio
system.
238.321--Out-of-service credit
(New Requirement):
--Passenger Car: Out-of-use 22 railroads... 1,250 notations 2 minutes...... 42 hours....... 1,386
notation.
238.445--Automated monitoring:
--Performance monitoring: 1 railroad..... 10,000 alerts.. 10 seconds..... 28 hours....... 0
Alerters/alarms.
--Monitoring system: Self- 1 railroad..... 21,900 20 seconds..... 122 hours...... 0
test feature: notifications.
Notifications.
238.503--Inspection, testing,
and maintenance requirements:
238.505--Program approval
procedures:
--Submission of program.... 1 railroad..... 1 program...... 1,200 hours.... 1,200 hours.... 76,800
--Comments on programs..... Rail Industry.. 3 comments..... 3 hours........ 9 hours........ 342
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions;
searching existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed
data; and reviewing the information. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits comments concerning: Whether these
information collection requirements are necessary for the proper
performance of
[[Page 73089]]
the functions of FRA, including whether the information has practical
utility; the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of the
information collection requirements; the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected; and whether the burden of
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, may be minimized. For information or a copy of
the paperwork package submitted to OMB, contact Mr. Robert Brogan at
202-493-6292.
Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
collection of information requirements should direct them to Mr. Robert
Brogan, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Mail
Stop 17, Washington DC 20590.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information requirements contained in this NPRM between 30 and 60 days
after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore,
a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication. The final rule will respond
to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
FRA is not authorized to impose a penalty on persons for violating
information collection requirements which do not display a current OMB
control number, if required. FRA intends to obtain current OMB control
numbers for any new information collection requirements resulting from
this rulemaking action prior to the effective date of a final rule. The
OMB control number, when assigned, will be announced by separate notice
in the Federal Register.
Federalism Implications
FRA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, issued on
August 4, 1999, which directs Federal agencies to exercise great care
in establishing policies that have federalism implications. See 64 FR
43255. This proposed rule will not have a substantial effect on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
various levels of government. This proposed rule will not have
federalism implications that impose any direct compliance costs on
State and local governments.
FRA notes that the RSAC, which endorsed and recommended the
majority of this proposed rule to FRA, has as permanent members two
organizations representing State and local interests: AASHTO and the
Association of State Rail Safety Managers (ASRSM). Both of these State
organizations concurred with the RSAC recommendation endorsing this
proposed rule. The RSAC regularly provides recommendations to the FRA
Administrator for solutions to regulatory issues that reflect
significant input from its State members. To date, FRA has received no
indication of concerns about the Federalism implications of this
rulemaking from these representatives or of any other representatives
of State government. Consequently, FRA concludes that this proposed
rule has no federalism implications, other than the preemption of state
laws covering the subject matter of this proposed rule, which occurs by
operation of law under 49 U.S.C. 20106 whenever FRA issues a rule or
order.
Elements of the proposed rule dealing with safety appliances affect
an area of safety that has been pervasively regulated at the Federal
level for over a century. Accordingly, the proposed amendments will
involve no impacts on Federal relationships.
Environmental Impact
FRA has evaluated this proposed regulation in accordance with its
``Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts'' (FRA's Procedures)
(64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999) as required by the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental statutes,
Executive Orders, and related regulatory requirements. FRA has
determined that this proposed regulation is not a major FRA action
(requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement or
environmental assessment) because it is categorically excluded from
detailed environmental review pursuant to section 4(c)(20) of FRA's
Procedures. 64 FR 28547, May 26, 1999. Section 4(c)(20) reads as
follows:
(c) Actions categorically excluded. Certain classes of FRA
actions have been determined to be categorically excluded from the
requirements of these Procedures as they do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. * *
* The following classes of FRA actions are categorically excluded: *
* *
(20) Promulgation of railroad safety rules and policy statements
that do not result in significantly increased emissions or air or
water pollutants or noise or increased traffic congestion in any
mode of transportation.
In accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of FRA's Procedures, the
agency has further concluded that no extraordinary circumstances exist
with respect to this regulation that might trigger the need for a more
detailed environmental review. As a result, FRA finds that this
proposed regulation is not a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Pursuant to section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency ``shall, unless
otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory
actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector
(other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in law).'' Section 202 of the Act
(2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that ``before promulgating any general
notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the
promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may
result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted
annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and before promulgating any
final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was
published, the agency shall prepare a written statement'' detailing the
effect on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector.
The proposed rule would not result in the expenditure, in the
aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and thus
preparation of such a statement is not required.
Energy Impact
Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a
Statement of Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' 66
FR 28355 ( May 22, 2001). Under the Executive Order, a ``significant
energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency (normally
published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to
lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including
notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices
of proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or
use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy
action. FRA has evaluated this NPRM in accordance with Executive Order
13211. FRA has determined that this NPRM is not likely
[[Page 73090]]
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or
use of energy. Consequently, FRA has determined that this regulatory
action is not a ``significant energy action'' within the meaning of
Executive Order 13211.
Privacy Act
FRA wishes to inform all potential commenters that anyone is able
to search the electronic form of all comments received into any agency
docket by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing
the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70;
Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 229
Locomotives, Main reservoirs, Penalties, Railroads, Railroad
safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 238
Passenger equipment, Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Safety appliances.
The Proposed Rule
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA proposes to amend
parts 229 and 238 of chapter II, subtitle B of Title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 229--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 229 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-03, 20107, 20133, 20137-38, 20143,
20701-03, 21301-02, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2401, note; and 49 CFR 1.49(c),
(m).
2. Section 229.5 is amended by revising the definition of ``MU
locomotive'' to read as follows:
Sec. 229.5 Definitions.
* * * * *
MU locomotive means a multiple unit operated electric locomotive--
(1) With one or more propelling motors designed to carry freight or
passenger traffic or both; or
(2) Without propelling motors but with one or more control stands
and a means of picking-up primary power such as a pantograph or third
rail.
* * * * *
3. Section 229.31 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to
read as follows:
Sec. 229.31 Main reservoir tests.
(a) Before it is placed in service, each main reservoir other than
an aluminum reservoir shall be subjected to a pneumatic or hydrostatic
pressure of at least 25 percent more than the maximum working pressure
fixed by the chief mechanical officer. The test date, place, and
pressure shall be recorded on Form FRA F 6180-49A, block eighteen.
Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, at intervals that
do not exceed 736 calendar days, each main reservoir other than an
aluminum reservoir shall be subjected to a hydrostatic pressure of at
least 25 percent more than the maximum working pressure fixed by the
chief mechanical officer. The test date, place, and pressure shall be
recorded on Form FRA F 6180-49A, and the person performing the test and
that person's supervisor shall sign the form.
* * * * *
(c) Each welded main reservoir originally constructed to withstand
at least five times the maximum working pressure fixed by the chief
mechanical officer may be drilled over its entire surface with telltale
holes that are three-sixteenths of an inch in diameter. The holes shall
be spaced not more than 12 inches apart, measured both longitudinally
and circumferentially, and drilled from the outer surface to an extreme
depth determined by the formula--
D = (.6PR/S-0.6P)
Where:
D = Extreme depth of telltale holes in inches but in no case less than
one-sixteenth inch;
P = Certified working pressure in pounds per square inch;
S = One-fifth of the minimum specified tensile strength of the material
in pounds per square inch; and
R = Inside radius of the reservoir in inches.
One row of holes shall be drilled lengthwise of the reservoir on a
line intersecting the drain opening. A reservoir so drilled does not
have to meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section, except the requirement for a pneumatic or hydrostatic test
before it is placed in use. Whenever any such telltale hole shall have
penetrated the interior of any reservoir, the reservoir shall be
permanently withdrawn from service. A reservoir now in use may be
drilled in lieu of the tests provided for by paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section, but shall receive a hydrostatic test before it is
returned to use or may receive a pneumatic test if conducted by the
manufacturer in an appropriately safe environment.
* * * * *
4. Section 229.47 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 229.47 Emergency brake valve.
* * * * *
(b) DMU, MU, and control cab locomotives operated in road service
shall be equipped with an emergency brake valve that is accessible to
another crew member in the passenger compartment or vestibule. The
words ``Emergency Brake Valve'' shall be legibly stenciled or marked
near each valve or shall be shown on an adjacent badge plate.
5. Section 229.137 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1)(vi) to
read as follows:
Sec. 229.137 Sanitation, general requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) Except as provided in Sec. 229.14 of this part, DMU, MU, and
control cab locomotives designed for passenger occupancy and used in
intercity push-pull service that are not equipped with sanitation
facilities, where employees have ready access to railroad-provided
sanitation in other passenger cars on the train at frequent intervals
during the course of their work shift.
* * * * *
PART 238--[AMENDED]
6. The authority citation for part 238 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20133, 20141, 20302-20303,
20306, 20701-20702, 21301-21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49
CFR 1.49.
7. Section 238.5 is amended by revising the definition of
``actuator'' and adding a definition of ``piston travel indicator'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 238.5 Definitions.
* * * * *
Actuator means a self-contained brake system component that
generates the force to apply the brake shoe or brake pad to the wheel
or disc. An actuator typically consists of a cylinder, piston, and
piston rod.
* * * * *
Piston Travel Indicator means a device directly activated by the
movement of the brake cylinder piston, the disc brake actuator, or the
tread brake unit cylinder piston that provides an indication of the
piston travel.
* * * * *
[[Page 73091]]
8. Section 238.17 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 238.17 Movement of passenger equipment with other than power
brake defects.
* * * * *
(b) Limitations on movement of passenger equipment containing
defects found at time of calendar day inspection: Except as provided in
Sec. Sec. 238.303(e)(15) and (e)(17), 238.305(c) and (d), and
238.307(c)(1), passenger equipment containing a condition not in
conformity with this part at the time of its calendar day mechanical
inspection may be moved from that location for repair if all of the
following conditions are satisfied:
* * * * *
9. Section 238.21 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c)(2)
to read as follows:
Sec. 238.21 Special approval procedures.
(a) General. The following procedures govern consideration and
action upon requests for special approval of alternative standards
under Sec. Sec. 238.103, 238.223, 238.229, 238.309, 238.311, 238.405,
or 238.427; for approval of alternative compliance under Sec. Sec.
238.201, 238.229, or 238.230; and for special approval of pre-revenue
service acceptance testing plans as required by Sec. 238.111.
(Requests for approval of programs for the inspection, testing, and
maintenance of Tier II passenger equipment are governed by Sec.
238.505.)
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) The elements prescribed in Sec. Sec. 238.201(b),
238.229(j)(2), and 238.230(d); and
* * * * *
10. Section 238.229 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 238.229 Safety appliances--general.
(a) Except as provided in this part, all passenger equipment
continues to be subject to the safety appliance requirements contained
in Federal statute at 49 U.S.C. chapter 203 and in Federal regulations
at part 231 of this chapter.
(b) Except as provided in this part, FRA interprets the provisions
in part 231 of this chapter that expressly mandate that the manner of
application of a safety appliance be a bolt, rivet, or screw to mean
that the safety appliance and any related bracket or support used to
attach that safety appliance to the equipment shall be so affixed to
the equipment. Specifically, FRA prohibits the use of welding as a
method of attachment of any such safety appliance or related bracket or
support. For purposes of this section and part 231 of this chapter, a
``safety appliance bracket or support'' means a component or part
attached to the equipment for the sole purpose of securing or attaching
of the safety appliance. FRA does allow the welded attachment of a
brace or stiffener used in connection with a mechanically fastened
safety appliance. In order to be considered a ``brace'' or
``stiffener,'' the component or part shall not be necessary for the
attachment of the safety appliance to the equipment and is used solely
to provide extra strength or steadiness to the safety appliance.
(c) Welded Safety Appliances. (1) Passenger equipment placed in
service prior to January 1, 2007, that is equipped with a safety
appliance, required by the ``manner of application'' provisions in part
231 of this chapter to be attached by a mechanical fastener (i.e.,
bolts, rivets, or screws), and the safety appliance is mechanically
fastened to a bracket or support that is attached to the equipment by
welding may continue to be used in service provided all of the
requirements in paragraphs (e) through (k) of this section are met.
(2) Passenger equipment that is equipped with a safety appliance
that is directly attached to the equipment by welding (i.e., no
mechanical fastening of any kind) shall be considered defective and
immediately handled for repair pursuant to the requirements contained
in Sec. 238.17(e) unless the railroad meets the following:
(i) The railroad submits a written list to FRA that identifies each
piece of passenger equipment equipped with a welded safety appliance as
described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and provides a
description of the specific safety appliance;
(ii) For passenger equipment placed in service for the first time
on or after January 1, 2007, the railroad provides a detailed basis as
to why the design of the vehicle or placement of the safety appliance
requires that the safety appliance be directly welded to the equipment;
and
(iii) The involved safety appliance(s) on such equipment are
inspected and handled pursuant to the requirements contained in
paragraphs (g) through (k) of this section.
(d) General. Passenger equipment with a welded safety appliance or
a welded safety appliance bracket or support will be considered
defective and shall be handled in accordance with Sec. 238.17(e) if
any part or portion of the weld is defective or contains a crack. Any
repairs made to such equipment shall be in accordance with the
inspection plan required in paragraph (g) of this section and the
remedial actions identified in paragraph (j) of this section. A defect
for the purposes of this section means any anomaly, regardless of size,
that affects the designed strength of the weld. A crack for purposes of
this section means a fracture of any visibly discernible length or
width.
(e) Identification of equipment. The railroad shall submit a
written list to FRA that identifies each piece of passenger equipment
equipped with a welded safety appliance bracket or support by January
1, 2007. Passenger equipment placed in service prior to January 1,
2007, but not discovered until after January 1, 2007, shall be
immediately added to the railroad's written list and shall be
immediately inspected in accordance with paragraph (g) through (k) of
this section. The written list submitted by the railroad shall contain
the following:
(1) The equipment number;
(2) The equipment type;
(3) The safety appliance bracket(s) or support(s) affected;
(4) Any equipment and any specific safety appliance bracket(s) or
supports(s) on the equipment that will not be subject to the inspection
plan required in paragraph (g) of this section;
(5) A detailed explanation for any such exclusion recommended in
paragraph (e)(4) of this section;
(f) FRA's Associate Administrator for Safety reserves the right to
disapprove any exclusion recommended by the railroad in paragraphs
(c)(2)(i) and (d)(4) of this section and will provide written
notification to the railroad of any such determination.
(g) Inspection Plans. The railroad shall adopt and comply with and
submit to FRA a written safety appliance inspection plan. At a minimum,
the plan shall include the following:
(1) An initial visual inspection (within 1 year of date of
publication) and periodic re-inspections (at intervals not to exceed 6
years) of each welded safety appliance bracket or support identified in
paragraph (e) of this section. If significant disassembly of a car is
necessary to visually inspect the involved safety appliance bracket or
support, the initial visual inspection may be conducted at the
equipment's first periodic brake equipment maintenance interval
pursuant to Sec. 238.309 occurring after January 1, 2006.
(2) Identify the personnel that will conduct the initial and
periodic inspections and any training those individuals are required to
receive in
[[Page 73092]]
accordance with the criteria contained in paragraph (h) of this
section.
(3) Identify the specific procedures and criteria for conducting
the initial and periodic safety appliance inspections in accordance
with the requirements and criteria contained in paragraph (i) of this
section. This may include the adoption and compliance with any date
specific industry accepted and developed procedure and criteria.
(4) Identify when and what type of potential repairs or potential
remedial action will be required for any defective welded safety
appliance bracket or support discovered during the initial or periodic
safety appliance inspection in accordance with paragraph (j) of this
section.
(5) Identify the records that will be maintained that are related
to the initial and periodic safety appliance inspections in accordance
with the requirements contained in paragraph (k) of this section.
(h) Inspection Personnel. The initial and periodic safety appliance
inspections shall be performed by individuals properly trained and
qualified to identify defective weld conditions. At a minimum, these
personnel include the following:
(1) A qualified maintenance person (QMP) with at least 4 hours of
training specific to the identification of weld defects and the
railroad's weld inspection procedures;
(2) A current certified welding inspector (CWI) pursuant to
American Welding Society Standard--AWS QC-1, Standard for AWS
Certification of Welding Inspectors (1996);
(3) A person possessing a current Canadian Welding Bureau (CWB)
certification pursuant to the Canadian Standards Association Standard
W59 (2003); or
(4) A person possessing a current level II or level III visual
inspector certification from the American Society for Non-destructive
Testing pursuant to Recommended Practice SNT-TC-1A--Personnel
Qualification and Certification in Nondestructive Testing (2001).
(i) Inspection Procedures. The initial and periodic safety
appliance inspections shall be conducted in accordance with the
procedures and criteria established in the railroad's inspection plan.
At a minimum these procedures and criteria shall include:
(1) A complete visual inspection of the entire welded surface of
any safety appliance bracket or support identified in paragraph (e) of
this section.
(2) The visual inspection shall occur after the complete removal of
any dirt, grease, rust, or any other foreign matter from the welded
portion of the involved safety appliance bracket or support. Removal of
paint is not required.
(3) The railroad shall disassemble any equipment necessary to
permit full visual inspection of the involved weld.
(4) Any materials necessary to conduct a complete inspection must
be made available to the inspection personnel throughout the inspection
process. These include but are not limited to such items as mirrors,
magnifying glasses, or other location specific inspection aids. Remote
viewing aids possessing equivalent sensitivity are permissible for
restricted areas.
(5) Any weld found with a potential defect or crack as defined in
paragraph (d) of this section during the initial or periodic safety
appliance inspection shall be inspected by either a certified weld
inspector identified in paragraph (h)(2) and (h)(3) of this section, a
certified level II or III inspector identified in paragraph (h)(4) of
this section, or a welding or materials engineer possessing a
professional engineer's license for a final determination. No car with
a potential defect or crack in the weld of a safety appliance or its
attachment may continue in use until a final determination as to the
existence of a defect or crack is made by the personnel identified in
this paragraph.
(6) A weld finally determined to contain a defect or crack shall be
handled for repair in accordance with Sec. 238.17(e) and repaired in
accordance with the remedial action criteria contained in paragraph (j)
of this section.
(j) Remedial Action. Unless a defect or crack in a weld is known to
have been caused by crash damage, the railroad shall conduct a failure
and engineering analysis of any weld identified in paragraph (e) of
this section determined to have a break or crack either during the
initial or periodic safety appliance inspection or while otherwise in
service to determine if the break or crack is the result of crash
damage, improper construction, or inadequate design. Based on the
results of the analysis, the repair of the involved safety appliance
bracket or support shall be handled as follows:
(1) A defect or crack in a weld due to crash damage (i.e., impact
of the safety appliance by an outside force during service or an
accident) or improper construction (i.e., the weld did not conform to
the engineered design) shall be reattached by either mechanically
fastening the safety appliance or the safety appliance bracket or
support to the equipment, or welding the safety appliance bracket or
support to the equipment in a manner that is at least as strong as the
original design or at least twice the strength of a bolted mechanical
attachment, whichever is greater. If welding is used to repair the
damaged appliance, bracket, or support, the following requirements
shall be met:
(i) The repair shall be conducted in accordance with the welding
procedures contained in APTA Standard SS-C&S-020-03--Standard for
Passenger Rail Vehicle Structural Repair (September 2003);
(ii) A qualified individual under paragraph (h) of this section
shall inspect the weld to ensure it is free of any cracks prior to the
equipment being placed in-service;
(iii) The welded safety appliance bracket or support shall receive
a periodic safety appliance inspection pursuant to the requirements
contained in paragraphs (g) through (i) of this section; and
(iv) A record of the welded repair pursuant to the requirements of
paragraph (k) of this section shall be maintained by the railroad.
(2) A defect or crack in the weld that is due to inadequate design
(i.e., unanticipated stresses or loads during service) shall be handled
in accordance with the following:
(i) The railroad must immediately notify FRA's Associate
Administrator for Safety in writing of its discovery of a cracked or
defective weld that is due to inadequate design;
(ii) The involved safety appliance or the safety appliance bracket
or support shall be reattached to the equipment by mechanically
fastening the safety appliance or the safety appliance bracket or
support to the equipment unless such mechanical fastening is
impractical due to the design of the equipment;
(iii) The railroad shall develop and comply with a written plan
submitted to and approved by FRA's Associate Administrator for Safety
detailing a schedule for all passenger equipment in that series of cars
with a similar welded safety appliance bracket or support to have the
involved safety appliance or the safety appliance bracket or support
mechanically fastened to the equipment; and
(iv) If a railroad determines that the design of the equipment
makes it impractical to mechanically fasten the safety appliance or the
safety appliance bracket or support to the equipment, then the railroad
shall submit a request to FRA for special approval of alternative
compliance pursuant to Sec. 238.21. Such a request shall explain the
necessity for any relief sought and
[[Page 73093]]
shall contain appropriate data and analysis supporting its
determination that any alternative method of attachment provides at
least an equivalent level of safety.
(k) Records. Railroads shall maintain written or electronic records
of the inspection and repair of the welded safety appliance brackets or
supports on any equipment identified in paragraph (e) of this section.
The records shall be made available to FRA upon request. At a minimum,
these records shall include all of the following:
(1) Training or certification records for any person performing any
of the inspections or repairs required in this section.
(2) The date, time, location, and identification of the person
performing the initial and periodic safety appliance inspections for
each piece of equipment identified in paragraph (e) of this section.
This includes the identification of the person making any final
determination as to the existence of a defect or crack under paragraph
(i)(5) of this section.
(3) A record of all passenger equipment found with a safety
appliance weldment that is defective or cracked either during the
initial or periodic safety appliance inspection or while the equipment
is in-service. This record shall also identify the cause of the crack
or break.
(4) The date, time, location, identification of the person making
the repair, and the nature of the repair to any welded safety appliance
bracket or support identified in paragraph (e) of this section.
11. Section 238.230 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 238.230 Safety appliances--new equipment.
(a) Applicability. This section applies to passenger equipment
placed in service on or after January 1, 2007.
(b) Welded Safety Appliances. Except as provided in Sec.
238.229(c)(2), all passenger equipment placed into service on or after
January 1, 2007, that is equipped with a safety appliance, required by
the ``manner of application'' provisions in part 231 of this chapter to
be attached by a mechanical fastener (i.e., bolts, rivets, or screws),
shall have any bracket or support necessary to attach the safety
appliance to the piece of equipment mechanically fastened to the piece
of equipment. Safety appliance brackets or supports shall not be welded
to the car body unless the design of the equipment makes it impractical
to mechanically fasten the safety appliance bracket or support and
prior to placing a piece of equipment in service with a safety
appliance bracket or support attached by welding, the railroad submits
documentation to FRA, for FRA's review and approval, containing all of
the following information:
(1) Identification of the equipment by number, type, series,
operating railroad, and other pertinent data;
(2) Identification of the safety appliance bracket(s) or support(s)
not mechanically fastened to the equipment;
(3) A detailed analysis describing the necessity to attach the
safety appliance bracket or support to the equipment by a means other
than mechanical fastening; and
(4) A copy and description of the consensus or other appropriate
industry standard used to ensure the effectiveness and strength of the
attachment;
(c) Any safety appliance bracket or support approved by FRA
pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section shall be inspected and
handled in accordance with the requirements contained in Sec.
238.229(g) through (k).
(d) Passenger Cars of Special Construction. A railroad or a
railroad's recognized representative may submit a request for special
approval of alternative compliance pursuant to Sec. 238.21 relating to
the safety appliance arrangements on any passenger car considered a car
of special construction under Sec. 231.18 of this chapter. Any such
petition shall be in the form of an industry-wide standard and at a
minimum shall:
(1) Identify the type(s) of car to which the standard would be
applicable;
(2) As nearly as possible, based upon the design of the equipment,
ensure that the standard provides for the same complement of handholds,
sill steps, ladders, hand or parking brakes, running boards, and other
safety appliances as are required for a piece of equipment of the
nearest approximate type already identified in part 231 of this
chapter;
(3) Comply with all statutory requirements relating to safety
appliances contained at 49 U.S.C. 20301 and 20302;
(4) Specifically address the number, dimension, location, and
manner of application of each safety appliance contained in the
standard;
(5) Provide specific analysis regarding why and how the standard
was developed and specifically discuss the need or benefit of the
safety appliance arrangement contained in the standard;
(6) Include drawings, sketches, or other visual aids that provide
detailed information relating to the design, location, placement, and
attachment of the safety appliances; and
(7) Demonstrate the ergonomic suitability of the proposed
arrangements in normal use.
(e) Any industry standard approved pursuant to Sec. 238.21 will be
enforced against any person who violates any provision of the approved
standard or causes the violation of any such provision. Civil penalties
will be assessed under part 231 of this chapter by using the applicable
defect code contained in Appendix A to part 231 of this chapter.
12. Section 238.231 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and
paragraph (h)(3) and by adding paragraph (h)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 238.231 Brake system.
* * * * *
(b) The design of passenger equipment ordered on or after September
8, 2000, or placed in service for the first time on or after September
9, 2002, shall not require an inspector to place himself or herself on,
under, or between components of the equipment to observe brake
actuation or release. This requirement will be met if the passenger
equipment is designed or equipped and handled in accordance with any of
the following:
(1) Designed to permit actual visual observation of the brake
actuation and release without the inspector going on, under, or between
the equipment;
(2) Equipped with piston travel indicators as defined in Sec.
238.5 or devices of similar design and the equipment is inspected
pursuant to the requirements contained in Sec. 238.313 (j); or
(3) Equipped with brake indicators as defined in Sec. 238.5,
designed so that the pressure sensor is placed in a location so that
nothing may interfere with the air flow to brake cylinder and the
equipment is inspected pursuant to the requirements contained in Sec.
238.313 (j).
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(3) Except for MU locomotives, on locomotives so equipped, the hand
or parking brake as well as its parts and connections shall be
inspected, and necessary repairs made, as often as service requires but
no less frequently than every 368 days. The date of the last inspection
shall be either entered on Form FRA F 6180-49A, suitably stenciled or
tagged on the equipment, or maintained electronically provided FRA has
access to the record upon request.
(4) A train's air brake shall not be depended upon to hold
unattended equipment (including a locomotive, a car, or a train whether
or not locomotive
[[Page 73094]]
is attached). For purposes of this section, ``unattended equipment''
means equipment left standing and unmanned in such a manner that the
brake system of the equipment cannot be readily controlled by a
qualified person. Unattended equipment shall be secured in accordance
with the following requirements:
(i) A sufficient number of hand or parking brakes shall be applied
to hold the equipment. Railroads shall develop and implement a process
or procedure to verify that the applied hand or parking brakes will
sufficiently hold the equipment with the air brakes released;
(ii) Except for equipment connected to a source of compressed air
(e.g., locomotive or ground air source), prior to leaving equipment
unattended, the brake pipe shall be reduced to zero at a rate that is
no less than a service rate reduction;
(iii) At a minimum, the hand or parking brake shall be fully
applied on at least one locomotive or vehicle in an unattended
locomotive consist or train;
(iv) A railroad shall develop, adopt, and comply with procedures
for securing any unattended locomotive required to have a hand or
parking brake applied when the locomotive is not equipped with an
operative hand or parking brake;
(v) A railroad shall adopt and comply with instructions to address
throttle position, status of the reverser lever, position of the
generator field switch, status of the independent brakes, position of
the isolation switch, and position of the automatic brake valve, or the
functional equivalent of these items, on all unattended locomotives.
The procedures and instruction shall take into account weather
conditions as they relate to throttle position and reverser handle; and
(vi) Any hand or parking brakes applied to hold unattended
equipment shall not be released until it is known that the air brake
system is properly charged.
* * * * *
13. Section 238.303 is amended by adding a new paragraph (e)(17) to
read as follows:
Sec. 238.303 Exterior calendar day mechanical inspection of passenger
equipment.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(17) Each air compressor, on passenger equipment so equipped, shall
be in effective and operative condition. MU passenger equipment found
with an inoperative or ineffective air compressor at the time of its
exterior calendar day mechanical inspection may remain in passenger
service until the equipment's next exterior calendar day mechanical
inspection where it must be repaired or removed from passenger service;
provided, all of the following requirements are met:
(i) The equipment has an inherent redundancy of air compressors,
due to either the make-up of the train consist or the design of the
equipment;
(ii) The railroad demonstrates through verifiable data, analysis,
or actual testing that the safety and integrity of a train is not
compromised in any manner by the inoperative or ineffective air
compressor. The data, analysis, or test shall establish the maximum
number of air compressors that may be inoperative based on size of the
train consist, the type of passenger equipment in the train, and the
number of service and emergency brake applications typically expected
in the run profile for the involved train;
(iii) The involved train does not exceed the maximum number of
inoperative or ineffective air compressors established in accordance
with paragraph (e)(17)(ii) of this section;
(iv) A qualified maintenance person determines and verifies that
the inoperative or ineffective air compressor does not compromise the
safety or integrity of the train and that it is safe to move the
equipment in passenger service;
(v) The train crew is informed in writing of the number of units in
the train consist with inoperative or ineffective air compressors at
the location where the train crew first takes charge of the train;
(vi) A record is maintained of the inoperative or ineffective air
compressor pursuant to the requirements contained in Sec.
238.17(c)(4); and
(vii) Prior to operating equipment under the provisions contained
in this paragraph, the railroad shall provide in writing to FRA's
Associate Administrator for Safety the maximum number of inoperative or
ineffective air compressors identified in accordance with paragraph
(e)(17)(ii) of this section.
(viii) The data, analysis, or testing developed and conducted under
paragraph (e)(17)(ii) of this section shall be made available to FRA
upon request. FRA's Associate Administrator for Safety may revoke a
railroad's ability to utilize the flexibility provided in this
paragraph if the railroad fails to comply with the maximum limits
established under paragraph (e)(17)(ii) or if such maximum limits are
not supported by credible data or do not provide adequate safety
assurances.
* * * * *
14. Section 238.307 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(13) and by
revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 238.307 Periodic mechanical inspection of passenger cars and
unpowered vehicles used in passenger trains.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(13) The hand or parking brake shall be applied and released to
determine that it functions as intended.
(d) At intervals not to exceed 368 days, the periodic mechanical
inspection shall specifically include the following:
(1) Inspection of the manual door releases to determine that all
manual door releases operate as intended; and
(2) Inspection of the hand or parking brake as well as its parts
and connections to determine that they are in proper condition and
operate as intended. The date of the last inspection shall be either
entered on Form FRA F 6180-49A, suitably stenciled or tagged on the
equipment, or maintained electronically provided FRA has access to the
record upon request.
* * * * *
15. Section 238.313 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (g)(3) and by adding a new paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 238.313 Class I brake test.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(3) Piston travel is within prescribed limits, either by direct
observation, observation of a piston travel indicator, or in the case
of tread or disc brakes by determining that the brake shoe or pad
provides pressure to the wheel. * * *
* * * * *
(j) In addition to complying with all the Class I brake test
requirements performed by a qualified maintenance person as contained
in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section, railroads operating
passenger equipment that does not comply with the design requirement of
Sec. 238.231(b)(1) shall perform an additional inspection. At a
minimum, the additional inspection requirement for equipment so
designed shall include all of the following:
(1) An additional inspection by a qualified maintenance person of
all items and components contained in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(15)
of this section;
(2) The additional inspection shall be conducted at an interval not
to exceed five (5) in-service days and shall be conducted while the
equipment is over an inspection pit or on a raised inspection track;
and
[[Page 73095]]
(3) A record of the additional inspection shall be maintained
pursuant to the requirements contained in paragraph (h) of this
section. This record can be combined with the Class I brake test
record.
16. Section 238.321 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 238.321 Out-of-service credit.
When a passenger car is out of service for 30 or more consecutive
days or is out of service when it is due for any test or inspection
required by Sec. 238.307 or Sec. 238.309 an out of use notation
showing the number of out of service days shall be made in the records
required under Sec. 238.307(e) and Sec. 238.309(f). If the passenger
car is out of service for one or more periods of at least 30
consecutive days, the interval prescribed for any test or inspection
required by Sec. 238.307 and Sec. 238.309 may be extended by the
number of days in each period the passenger car is out of service since
the last test or inspection in question. A movement made in accordance
with Sec. 229.9 of this chapter or Sec. 238.17 is not considered
service for the purposes of determining the out-of-service credit.
Issued in Washington, DC, on November 30, 2005.
Joseph H. Boardman,
Federal Railroad Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-23672 Filed 12-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P