[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 2, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63890-63912]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24148]



[[Page 63889]]

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

Part IV





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Railroad Administration



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



49 CFR Parts 229 and 238



Locomotive Crashworthiness; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 63890]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Parts 229 and 238

[Docket No. FRA-2004-17645, Notice No. 1]
RIN 2130-AB23


Locomotive Crashworthiness

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to establish comprehensive, minimum standards 
for locomotive crashworthiness. Locomotive crashworthiness protection 
is necessary because locomotive collisions can result in crew injuries 
and fatalities. These proposed performance standards are intended to 
help protect locomotive cab occupants in the event of a locomotive 
collision. Examples of locomotive collision scenarios considered 
include collisions with another locomotive, the rear of another train, 
a piece of on-track equipment, a shifted load on a freight car on an 
adjacent parallel track, or a highway vehicle at a rail-highway grade 
crossing. These proposed crashworthiness standards must be met by 
demonstrating compliance with either the proposed rule's performance 
standards or an FRA-approved design standard.

DATES: Written Comments: Comments on the proposed rule must be received 
on or before January 3, 2005. Comments received after that date will be 
considered to the extent possible without incurring additional expense 
or delay.
    Public Hearing: Upon specific request, FRA will hold public 
hearings as appropriate to receive oral comments from any interested 
party. Written request for hearing must be received on or before 
January 3, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DOT DMS Docket Number 
FRA-2004-17645, by any of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    <bullet> Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
    <bullet> Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    <bullet> Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-001.
    <bullet> 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.
    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 
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory Notices.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Punwani, Office of Research and 
Development, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., 
Mail Stop 20, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6369); Charles 
L. Bielitz, Mechanical Engineer, Office of Safety Assurance and 
Compliance, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., 
Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6314); or 
Darrell L. Tardiff, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal 
Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Mail Stop 10, 
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6038).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Statutory and Regulatory Background

A. FRA Regulatory Authority

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

    All forms of non-highway ground transportation that runs on 
rails or electromagnetic guideways, * * * other than rapid transit 
operations within an urban area that are not connected to the 
general railroad system of transportation.

This definition makes clear that FRA has jurisdiction over (1) rapid 
transit operations within an urban area that are connected to the 
general railroad system of transportation, and (2) all freight, 
intercity, passenger, and commuter rail passenger operations regardless 
of their connection to the general railroad system of transportation or 
their status as a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce. FRA 
has issued a policy statement describing how it determines whether 
particular rail passenger operations are subject to FRA's jurisdiction 
(65 FR 42529 (July 2, 2000)); the policy statement can be found in 
Appendix A to parts 209 and 211.
    Pursuant to its statutory authority, FRA promulgates and enforces a 
comprehensive regulatory program to address railroad track; signal 
systems; railroad communications; rolling stock; rear-end marking 
devices; safety glazing; railroad accident/incident reporting; 
locational requirements for dispatching of U.S. rail operations; safety 
integration plans governing railroad consolidations; merger and 
acquisitions of control; operating practices; passenger train emergency 
preparedness; alcohol and drug testing; locomotive engineer 
certification; and workplace safety.
    In part 229 of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(hereinafter, all references to CFR parts will refer to parts in title 
49 of the Code of Federal Regulations), FRA established minimum federal 
safety standards for locomotives. These regulations prescribe 
inspection and testing requirements for locomotive components and 
systems, minimum locomotive cab safety requirements, and even basic 
crashworthiness design requirements for electric multiple-unit type 
locomotives. On May 12, 1999, FRA issued regulations addressing the 
safety of passenger rail equipment, including passenger-occupied

[[Page 63891]]

locomotives (i.e., cab control cars, powered multiple-unit passenger 
cars). These are found in part 238. However, FRA's existing locomotive 
safety standards do not address crashworthiness of conventional 
locomotives, which comprise the majority of locomotives in use today.

B. Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act

    In 1992, Congress enacted The Rail Safety Enforcement and Review 
Act (RSERA). Pub. L. 102-365, September 3, 1992. In response to 
concerns raised by employee organizations, members of Congress, and 
recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 
concerning locomotive crew safety, Congress included mandates 
concerning locomotive crashworthiness and cab working conditions in the 
legislation. Section 10 of RSERA, entitled ``Locomotive Crashworthiness 
and Working Conditions,'' required FRA ``to complete a rulemaking 
proceeding to consider prescribing regulations to improve the safety 
and working conditions of locomotive cabs.'' In order to determine 
whether crashworthiness regulations would be necessary, Congress tasked 
FRA with assessing:

    The adequacy of Locomotive Crashworthiness Requirements Standard 
S-580, or any successor standard thereto, adopted by the Association 
of American Railroads in 1989, in improving the safety of locomotive 
cabs.

Furthermore, Congress specifically mandated that the Secretary, in 
support of the rulemaking proceeding, consider the costs and benefits 
associated with equipping locomotives with each of a number of 
specified design features.
    FRA agrees that locomotive crashworthiness protection is necessary 
because train collisions and derailments cause crew fatalities and 
injuries. In the period from 1995 to 1997, 26 locomotive cab occupants 
were killed and 289 were injured in freight and passenger train 
accidents in the United States, a yearly average of 105 casualties.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

II. FRA's Response to Section 10 of RSERA

    In response to the mandate of Section 10 of RSERA, FRA conducted 
the necessary research and analysis. FRA undertook steps to determine 
the health and safety effects of locomotive cab working conditions and 
evaluated the effectiveness of S-580, along with the benefits and costs 
of the specified locomotive crashworthiness features. In an effort to 
fully address the broad range of issues presented in the RSERA, FRA (1) 
conducted an industry-wide public meeting to gather information 
regarding the areas of concern identified in the RSERA, (2) established 
a locomotive collision database based on detailed accident information 
gathered from actual collisions, (3) established a research contract to 
develop and verify a computer model capable of predicting how each of 
the crashworthiness features in S-580 and in the RSERA affect the 
collision dynamics and probability of crew injury, and (4) conducted a 
detailed survey of locomotive crews' cab working conditions and 
environment. FRA detailed the results of these actions in ``Locomotive 
Crashworthiness and Cab Working Conditions Report to Congress,'' dated 
September 18, 1996. A copy of this report has been placed in the docket 
of this rulemaking. Actions taken to gather information for that report 
are described below.
    First, meetings with all segments of the railroad industry formed 
an essential part of FRA's plan to meet the requirements of the RSERA. 
FRA held an industry-wide public meeting on June 23, 1993, to gather 
information from the industry on each of the areas of concern 
identified in Section 10 of the RSERA and to inform the industry of 
FRA's approach. This meeting was well attended by all segments of the 
rail industry, including rail labor, freight railroads, locomotive 
builders, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), and 
commuter railroads.
    At this initial meeting, some of the railroads urged that 
improvements in crash avoidance technology should be pursued in lieu of 
improved crashworthiness features. FRA is currently pursuing crash 
avoidance technology and is in the process of completing a separate 
rule on performance standards for the use and development of processor-
based signal and train control systems. The issue of collision 
avoidance is more fully discussed in section IV of the preamble to this 
proposed rule.
    Several participants in the public meeting expressed an opinion 
that a series of smaller, informal meetings with the separate segments 
of the rail industry would provide more detailed information regarding 
locomotive crashworthiness. As a result, FRA held a number of such 
meetings which included the following organizations:

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

    These meetings generated considerable discussion about the topics 
listed in section 10 of the RSERA. During the meetings, FRA requested 
specific cost or test data to support the positions taken by the 
various organizations. Some supply industry organizations were 
forthcoming with this data, while other organizations were apparently 
unable or unwilling to respond.
    Second, FRA proceeded with the understanding that earlier 
locomotive collision accident reports did not contain the data 
necessary to support crash modeling. Thus, in 1992, FRA instructed 
field inspectors to investigate all accidents, regardless of monetary 
damage thresholds and locomotive design, involving either a collision 
of two trains or a collision of one train with an object weighing ten 
tons or more. This accident data provided information which FRA used to 
determine the possible benefits of a crashworthiness regulation.
    Third, with the support of the Volpe National Transportation 
Systems Center (``Volpe Center''), FRA contracted with Arthur D. 
Little, Inc. (ADL) to predict the benefit, if any, of each of the 
locomotive crashworthiness features listed in section 10 of the RSERA. 
Using the collision data collected by FRA,

[[Page 63892]]

ADL performed a series of analyses using computer models to evaluate 
the effectiveness of specific crashworthiness design features.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Mayville, R.A., Stringfellow, R.G., Rancatore, R.J., Hosmer, 
T.P., 1995, ``Locomotive Crashworthiness Research, Volumes 1 through 
5,'' DOT/FRA/ORD-95/8.1<radical>8.5. a copy of each cited report has 
been placed in the docket of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, FRA's approach to the research and analysis tasks focused 
on the cost and benefits of design changes to conventional locomotives 
operating at speeds of less than 80 mph. The work done to meet the 
requirements of the RSERA was not intended to address safety concerns 
unique to high speed rail transportation. FRA addresses high speed rail 
safety concerns, including crashworthiness design, in part 238.
    FRA's Report to Congress contained an implementation strategy to 
address each of the issues raised by the RSERA.\3\ FRA determined that 
S-580, which provided for improvements in collision posts, anti-
climbing arrangements and the short hood structure, represented a 
significant step on the part of the railroad industry to improve 
locomotive crashworthiness. The research and analysis conducted in 
response to the RSERA showed that S-580 can be further improved to 
reduce casualties without significantly impacting locomotive design. 
FRA also found that (1) modified front-end structural designs 
incorporating stronger collision posts, (2) full-height corner posts 
with increased strength, and (3) utilization of roof longitudinal 
strength to support structural members from crushing may provide 
opportunities for additional protection for locomotive cab occupants. 
FRA even evaluated the potential to create a designated crash refuge 
within the space that these measures would help to protect. 
Furthermore, based on accident/incident experience and recent advances 
in fuel tank design being undertaken by the industry, FRA concluded 
that fuel tank design could be significantly improved to minimize the 
risk and severity of future fuel spills. Finally, FRA identified 
locomotive cab emergency lighting and more reliable means of rapid 
egress during derailments and collisions as additional subject areas 
which appeared to warrant further exploration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

III. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) Recommendations

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

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

    When appropriate, FRA assigns a task to RSAC, and after 
consideration and debate, RSAC may accept or reject the task. If the 
task is accepted, RSAC establishes a working group that possesses the 
appropriate expertise and representation of interests to develop 
recommendations to FRA for action on the task. The working group 
develops the recommendations by consensus. The working group may 
establish one or more task forces to develop the facts and options on a 
particular aspect of a given task. The task force reports to the 
working group. If a working group comes to unanimous consensus on 
recommendations for action, the working group presents the package to 
the RSAC for a vote. If a simple majority of the RSAC accepts the 
proposal, the

[[Page 63893]]

RSAC formally recommends the proposal to FRA.
    FRA then determines what action to take on the recommendation. 
Because FRA staff has played an active role at the working group level 
in discussing the issues and options and in drafting the language of 
the consensus proposal, and because the RSAC recommendation constitutes 
the consensus of some of the industry's leading experts on a given 
subject, FRA is often favorably inclined toward the RSAC 
recommendation. However, FRA is in no way bound to follow the 
recommendation, and the agency exercises its independent judgement on 
whether the recommended rule achieves the agency's regulatory goal, is 
soundly supported, and is in accordance with policy and legal 
requirements. Often, FRA varies in some respects from the RSAC 
recommendation in developing the actual regulatory proposal. If the 
working group or RSAC is unable to reach consensus on recommendations 
for action, FRA moves ahead to resolve the issue through traditional 
rulemaking proceedings.
    On June 24, 1997, FRA tasked RSAC with the responsibility of making 
recommendations concerning standards for locomotive crashworthiness. 
Specifically, RSAC was charged with the investigation and development, 
if necessary, of crashworthiness standards to ensure the integrity of 
locomotive cabs in collisions, thereby minimizing fatalities and 
injuries to train crews. This task was to be performed in three phases. 
RSAC would first review relevant accident data and existing industry 
standards to determine which, if any, appropriate modifications to the 
cab structure are required to provide additional protection above that 
provided by S-580. In particular, RSAC was to specifically consider the 
following features: Full-height corner posts; improved glazing design 
and support structure; equipment to prevent the post-collision entry of 
flammable liquids; and improved fuel tank design. Second, RSAC would 
examine to what extent improved anticlimber designs and/or 
incorporation of shelf couplers, used to complement the existing S-580 
standards, serve to mitigate the effects of the above-listed collision 
scenarios. Third, RSAC would examine past and present methods of cab 
egress, along with the benefits of emergency lighting in the event of a 
collision. Based on a review of relevant accident data, available 
technology, implementation costs, and other applicable factors, RSAC 
would then develop appropriate recommendations.
    To accomplish the above goals, RSAC created the Locomotive 
Crashworthiness Working Group (``Working Group''). Created on June 24, 
1997, this group of about 40 members consisted of FRA personnel and 
representatives from railroad labor and management, and two major 
manufacturers of locomotives. The following organizations provided 
representatives to serve on the Working Group:

AAR;
AASHTO;
APTA;
ASLRA;
BLE;
BMWE;
FRA;
IBEW;
RPI;
SMW;
UTU; and
NTSB.

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 63894]]

of accidents to 23 and presented summaries of them to the Engineering 
Task Force at its first meeting. Collective discussion of these 
accidents with railroad and labor members of the Engineering Task Force 
helped to flesh out all the details of the locomotive types and 
designs. The Engineering Task Force then classified all 23 collisions 
into five major categories and developed a sequence of events, or 
scenario, for each accident. These five scenarios are:
    (1) Coupled locomotive override resulting from a head-on train-to-
train collision;
    (2) Colliding locomotive override resulting from a head-on train-
to-train collision;
    (3) \5\ Rear end/overtaking collision between a locomotive and a 
freight car;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

--Shelf couplers: A representative of the Mechanical Committee of 
Standard Coupler Manufacturers (MCSCM) reviewed the ``shelf coupler'' 
concept with the Working Group and traced its development from concept 
to the current status. Every freight car has a

[[Page 63895]]

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

--Interlocking anti-climber: The anti-climber design employed by the 
Canadian National Railway Company (CN) was evaluated. This design 
incorporates thicker webs and flanges than typical North American 
designs, and also includes exposed flanges running the width of the 
anti-climber.
--Stronger collision posts: Preliminary designs of collision posts with 
strengths up to the strength of the main underframe structure of the 
locomotive were developed and evaluated. Principal modifications were 
the addition of flanges and tapering the collision post.
--Stronger window area structure: Increased cab strength above the 
short hood was evaluated. Modification included the use of thicker 
sheet metal for the window frame members.
--Stronger short hood: The influence of short hood strength on 
locomotive crashworthiness in an oblique collision was evaluated. 
Modifications evaluated included thickness of the short hood and the 
material used to make the short hood.
--Front plate: Increased front plate strength was considered as a 
potential modification for increased locomotive crashworthiness in an 
oblique collision with a freight car. The modification considered 
consisted of increased front plate thickness.

    The results of the study indicate that strengthened collision posts 
and short hoods resulted in increased crashworthiness for particular 
collision scenarios. Shelf couplers were found not to be effective in 
preventing coupled locomotive override. Due to the fracture that occurs 
as the CN anti-climber design longitudinally crushes, this design was 
found to be ineffective in supporting the vertical forces that occur 
during locomotive-to-locomotive override, consequently allowing such 
overrides to occur. For an oblique collision of a locomotive with an 
empty hopper car, in which the locomotive is principally engaged below 
the underframe, modifications to the locomotive are not likely to 
influence the outcome of the collision.
    ADL and Volpe Center representatives, presented results from their 
detailed analyses of how design improvements/additions in S-580 would 
affect the probable resulting injuries/deaths in each of the five 
scenarios (a copy of the results has been placed in the docket of this 
proceeding). Then, the Working Group analyzed and considered the 
proposed costs and benefits to determine the effectiveness of each of 
the proposed changes to S-580. The group also considered a performance 
standard for locomotive crashworthiness design.
    From this point forward, the Working Group, assisted by the Task 
Force, debated the format for specifying the crashworthiness 
requirements, many issues relating to feasibility of alternative 
structures, and the economic impact of the proposed new requirements. 
Throughout, the group remained convinced that significant safety 
benefits could be achieved. The AAR members volunteered to adopt a 
specification (which would become AAR S-580-2004) meeting the 
performance criteria under discussion. This would act as a model design 
standard which satisfies the crashworthiness performance requirements. 
The group then focused its attention on the details of AAR S-580-2004 
in order to refine and optimize them. FRA notes that the designation of 
AAR S-580-2004 may be changed; however FRA is identifying the standard 
as AAR S-580-2004 for purposes of this NPRM.
    On March 19, 2004, the Working Group presented its findings to the 
full RSAC, in the form of a draft notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). 
On April 14, 2004, RSAC voted to recommend the issuance of this 
proposed rule; and FRA, having full participation on the RSAC 
Committee, and finding that the recommendation will improve rail 
safety, has accepted it in finalizing this NPRM. RSAC's recommendation 
forms the basis for this proposed rule; however, FRA has included in 
this preamble reference to comments submitted with ballots on the rule 
(which may be viewed in full text in the docket). FRA has also made 
various editorial corrections necessary to present in a clear, concise, 
and technically correct manner the intended proposal.
    FRA has worked closely with the RSAC in the development of its 
recommendations and believes that the RSAC effectively addressed 
locomotive crashworthiness standards. FRA has greatly benefitted from 
the open, informed exchange of information that has taken place during 
meetings. There is general consensus among labor, management, and 
manufacturers concerning the primary principles FRA sets forth in this 
NPRM. FRA believes that the expertise possessed by the RSAC 
representatives enhances the value of the recommendations, and FRA has 
made every effort to incorporate them in this proposal.
    The Working Group will reassemble after the comment period for this 
NPRM closes and will consider all comments received. Based on any 
recommendations RSAC receives from the Working Group, RSAC will then be 
in position to make recommendations to FRA concerning the development 
of a final standard.

IV. Major Issues

A. Promulgation of Performance Standards Where Possible

    FRA has endeavored to promulgate performance requirements in this 
NPRM rather than the more prescriptive design standards. FRA 
understands that this approach allows for greater flexibility in the 
design of locomotives and believes this approach has a better chance of 
encouraging innovation in locomotive design than stricter design 
standards. The following discussion includes a description of 
performance and design standards, the advantages and disadvantages of 
each, and the relationship between the proposed design and performance 
standards.
    Performance standards describe the behavior, or performance, of 
systems under prescribed circumstances. The principal advantage of such 
standards is that how the performance is achieved is not specified; any 
design approach can be used. The principal drawback to such standards 
for crashworthiness is that

[[Page 63896]]

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

[[Page 63897]]

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

    It should be emphasized that FRA does not seek to impose locomotive 
crashworthiness requirements on the current locomotive fleet. At this 
time, FRA feels safety benefits resulting from crashworthiness 
improvements would be best realized through future locomotive designs, 
rather than by retrofitting the current fleet. However, what ought to 
be considered a ``new locomotive'' for purposes of this proposed rule 
merits discussion.
    FRA proposes using the locomotive build date of (a date three years 
after publication of the final rule) for determining whether the 
locomotive is subject to the requirements of this proposed rule. This 
should give railroads and locomotive manufacturers adequate time to 
take necessary steps to ensure that these new locomotives will be in 
compliance with these proposed requirements.
    FRA is particularly interested in whether a locomotive rebuilt with 
new components atop a previously-used underframe, or ``decked'' 
locomotive, should qualify as a new locomotive. These 
``remanufactured'' locomotives may have a future life span nearly 
equivalent to a locomotive constructed on a new underframe. FRA has 
defined ``new locomotive'' to include those locomotives rebuilt with a 
previously-used underframe and containing no more than 25% previously-
used parts (weighted by cost). Commenters are invited to address this 
issue specifically, and also whether any other distinct class of 
locomotives should be considered a ``new locomotive'' for purposes of 
this rule.
    FRA encourages, as discussed by the Working Group, the use of sound 
consist management principles to place improved, more crashworthy 
locomotives as lead locomotives in consists. As these new locomotives 
are phased in, they will only comprise a portion of the fleet, and 
railroads will be faced with making decisions regarding their placement 
in a consist. FRA believes the benefits of this rule are maximized when 
these newer locomotives are used in the lead position to provide 
additional protection to the operating crews, and not in trailing 
positions behind older, less crashworthy locomotives, but FRA has not 
mandated the placement of the newer locomotives. The Working Group did 
not believe a requirement to mandate placement of these newer 
locomotives in the lead position would be beneficial, and further 
believed that the issue is relevant only during the phase-in period. In 
any event, in the future the entire locomotive fleet will be built to 
these or future crashworthiness standards. Commenters are invited to 
address this issue.

V. Section-by-Section Analysis

Amendments to 49 CFR Part 229

    In contrast to requirements for passenger-occupied cab control cars 
and multiple unit (MU) locomotives, there are no current federal 
regulations governing conventional locomotive crashworthiness design. 
The proposed revisions to part 229 would revise subpart D to address 
locomotive crashworthiness design for all locomotives covered by this 
rule while moving Sec.  229.141 to part 238 as Sec.  238.224.

Subpart A--General

Section 229.5 Definitions

    The following terms have the same meaning as provided in part 238: 
``corner post,'' ``lateral,'' ``locomotive cab,'' ``longitudinal,'' 
``permanent deformation,'' ``power car,'' ``roof rail,'' ``semi-
permanently coupled,'' ``Tier II,'' and ``ultimate strength.''
    The term ``anti-climber'' is intended to have the same meaning as 
``anti-climbing mechanism'' as it is used in part 238. The term ``anti-
climber'' is used in place of ``anti-climbing mechanism'' to more 
accurately represent the name used in the rail industry.
    The term ``collision post'' has essentially the same meaning as it 
is used in part 238; however, the definition is modified slightly in 
this proposed rule to narrow its application only to locomotives.
    The term ``build date'' means the date on which the completed 
locomotive is actually shipped by the manufacturer or remanufacturer to 
the customer. FRA asks for comment as to whether this definition 
accurately represents the industry's definition of ``build date.''
    The term ``designated service'' has the same meaning as provided in 
part 223.
    The term ``design standard'' means a specification for the 
crashworthiness design of locomotives. This will usually contain a set 
of design requirements which do not specify ultimate performance, yet 
are not so specific in nature that they leave little flexibility to the 
designer. The overall design of the locomotive is allowed to vary, so 
long as the specified crashworthiness design requirements are met.
    The term ``fuel tank, external'' revises the current part 238 
definition by replacing the word ``volume'' with the word ``vessel.'' 
FRA believes that this is a more accurate and grammatically correct 
definition.
    The term ``fuel tank, internal'' revises the current part 238 
definition by replacing the word ``volume'' with the word ``vessel.'' 
FRA believes that this is a more accurate and grammatically correct 
definition.
    The term ``manufacture'' means the practice of producing a 
locomotive from new materials.
    The term ``monocoque design locomotive'' means a locomotive in 
which the external skin or shell of the locomotive combines with the 
support frame to jointly provide structural support and stress 
resistance.
    The term ``MU locomotive'' revises the current part 229 definition 
to more clearly describe the types of equipment included in the 
definition of MU locomotives.
    The term ``narrow-nose locomotive'' means a locomotive with a short 
hood which spans substantially less than the full width of the 
locomotive.
    The term ``occupied service'' means any instance in which a 
locomotive is operated with a person present in the cab.
    The term ``remanufacture'' means the practice of producing a 
``remanufactured locomotive''.
    The term ``remanufactured locomotive'' means a locomotive rebuilt 
or refurbished from a previously used or refurbished underframe 
(``deck''), containing fewer than 25% previously used components 
(weighted by dollar value of the components). It is intended to capture 
the practice of decking a locomotive, or rebuilding it on a previously 
used underframe. The proposed definition is intended to give better 
guidance to rebuilders of locomotives and railroads considering 
rebuilding a locomotive, and also to prevent avoidance of the proposed 
requirements by simply rebuilding a locomotive on a previously used 
underframe containing 25% or more previously used components without 
making safety improvements.
    The term ``semi-monocoque design locomotive'' means a locomotive in 
which the external skin or shell of the locomotive partially combines 
with the support frame to provide structural support and stress 
resistance.
    The term ``short hood'' means the part of the locomotive above the 
underframe located between the cab and the nearest end of the 
locomotive. Short hoods may vary in length and are usually, but not 
always, located toward the front-facing portion of the locomotive.
    The term ``standards body'' means an industry and/or professional

[[Page 63898]]

organization or association which conducts research and develops and/or 
issues policies, criteria, principles, and standards related to the 
rail industry.
    The term ``wide-nose locomotive'' means a locomotive used in 
revenue service which is not of narrow-nose or monocoque or semi-
monocoque design.

Subpart D--Locomotive Crashworthiness Design Requirements

Section 229.201 Purpose and Scope

    Paragraph (a) provides that the purpose of the proposed rule is to 
help protect locomotive cab occupants in the event of a collision with 
another locomotive, on-track equipment, or with any of several types of 
objects which may foul railroad trackage. Paragraph (b) provides that 
this subpart sets forth standards for the design of crashworthy 
locomotives. It is important to note that these requirements are not 
designed to protect all occupants in all collision situations; rather 
this rule calls for design improvements in areas which FRA believes 
will have the greatest effect on the reduction of cab crew injuries and 
fatalities associated with the most prevalent types of locomotive 
collisions.

Section 229.203 Applicability

    Paragraph (a) proposes that the requirements of this subpart would 
apply to all locomotives manufactured or remanufactured on or after a 
date three years after publication of the final rule. The only 
locomotives exempt from these requirements are those specifically 
listed in paragraphs (b) and (c). FRA proposes using the locomotive 
build date to exempt the current locomotive fleet from requirements of 
this proposed rule. The entire current locomotive fleet would therefore 
not be subject to the requirements of this proposed rule, other than 
for the rebuilt and remanufactured requirements discussed below. FRA 
estimates that three years would be sufficient to allow manufacturers 
to re-engineer and re-tool in order to comply with these new standards.
    This paragraph would further apply to remanufactured locomotives, 
as defined in Sec.  229.5. FRA feels that the practice of ``decking'' a 
locomotive (stripping a locomotive to its underframe, or deck, and 
refurbishing it with new components) essentially creates a new 
locomotive. Since the useful life of a decked locomotive is practically 
the same as a newly built locomotive, FRA believes it should be subject 
to these new requirements. However, these new requirements are not 
intended to apply to locomotives undergoing periodic maintenance or a 
major overhaul not involving ``decking.'' Most large railroads perform 
a major overhaul after about 9-12 years, replacing or servicing many 
components, but not ``decking'' it. See also Major Issue (b) 
``Application to new locomotives.''
    Paragraph (b) would exclude from application of this rule passenger 
cab cars, or MU cars, and semi-permanently coupled power cars built for 
passenger service. These types of locomotives are subject to the 
requirements of part 238.
    Paragraph (c) would exclude from application of most provisions of 
this rule locomotives used in designated service. This includes 
locomotives without occupant cabs and also locomotives referred to as 
``slugs.'' On these locomotives the cab doors have been welded shut or 
otherwise secured to a similar extent so that crews cannot occupy the 
cab. The designated service classification is intended to mirror its 
application in FRA's Safety Glazing Standards at Sec.  223.5. 
Locomotives used in designated service would still be subject to the 
fuel tank requirements proposed in Sec.  229.217. FRA proposes this 
requirement because it has found that locomotive fuel tank ruptures 
place at risk the environment and all persons within the local area of 
the collision site. Since locomotives used in designated service may 
still be used as power in a consist, FRA feels that any fuel tank 
rupture on one of these locomotives would pose a safety risk at least 
equivalent to that from other road locomotives. Therefore, all new 
locomotives would be required to comply with this fuel tank 
requirement.

Section 229.205 General Requirements

    Paragraph (a) of this section would require the design of all 
locomotives subject to this subpart, except monocoque or semi-monocoque 
design locomotives, to meet the performance criteria in Appendix D 
(hereafter referred to as ``wide-nose design locomotives''). All wide-
nose design locomotives must comply with the requirements of Appendix 
D; however, the manufacturers or remanufacturers of these locomotives 
are given options as to how they demonstrate their compliance. 
Compliance with the performance criteria must be satisfied by complying 
with any one of the three options provided.
    In paragraph (a) (1), FRA has provided a model design standard, AAR 
S-580-2004, which FRA has found to satisfy the proposed performance 
standard in Appendix D. This paragraph references that AAR standard's 
criteria for wide-nose locomotives, which has been analyzed in 
cooperation with the RSAC and found to satisfy the intent of the 
performance criteria. FRA does not require compliance with this 
standard; rather, it is being provided simply as an example of a design 
standard that FRA has already found to satisfy the performance 
requirements of Appendix D. Providing an available design standard aids 
the locomotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) by making it 
unnecessary for them to conduct elaborate analysis of new designs to 
establish compliance with the performance standards. Representatives of 
two OEMs that participated throughout development of this proposed rule 
in the RSAC embraced this approach and found it very cost effective. 
Paragraph (a)(2) allows compliance with FRA approved new 
crashworthiness design standards or changes to existing crashworthiness 
design standards. Finally, in paragraph (a)(3), FRA provides the option 
of meeting an FRA approved alternative crashworthiness design. The 
procedures for seeking such approval of new or revised standards or 
alternative designs are provided in Sec. Sec.  229.207 and 229.209.
    Paragraph (b) requires that monocoque and semi-monocoque design 
locomotives comply with the elements of the new AAR standard applicable 
to those types of locomotives. Typically used in passenger service, 
monocoque/semi-monocoque locomotives provide occupant protection in a 
different manner than wide-nose locomotives. Specifically, because much 
of the longitudinal strength of the locomotive is provided by the side 
panels of the unit (and potentially the roof) as well as the 
underframe, the front of a monocoque or semi-monocoque locomotive 
performs as an integral unit and resists collapse very effectively. By 
contrast, the wide-nose locomotive, which has relatively little 
strength above the underframe, is made safer by strengthening the short 
hood and allowing it absorb energy as it collapses when subjected to 
higher forces. Allowing a similar amount of crush in the case of the 
monocoque/semi-monocoque design would result in an almost complete loss 
of the cab volume. The RSAC Working Group reviewed the accident history 
of monocoque/semi-monocoque locomotives already in service that meet 
the new standard as built and found that they appear to be at least as 
safe as wide-nose locomotives enhanced to meet the new AAR standard and 
Appendix D of this proposed rule. Existing manufacturers of this type 
of locomotive have indicated that the new AAR standard is very 
reasonable and

[[Page 63899]]

should be effective in ensuring that locomotives of this type are built 
to protect cab occupants.
    As the recommended text of this proposed rule was being circulated 
for final ballot within the RSAC Working Group, a supplier member of 
APTA, which builds locomotives for commuter railroads, noted the 
existence of the APTA standards, APTA SS-C & S-034, for monocoque/semi-
monocoque passenger locomotives. This standard appears to be at least 
equivalent in every material respect to the new AAR standard. FRA 
solicits comments regarding whether the final rule should recognize 
this existing APTA standard as an additional option for compliance. A 
copy of this standard has been placed in the docket of this rulemaking.
    Paragraph (c) requires that narrow-nose design locomotives be built 
to the requirements of the new AAR standard for that type of 
locomotive. The RSAC Working Group considered the need for a suitable 
standard to address locomotives used frequently to make up trains and 
pick up and set out cars. Presently, older narrow-nose locomotives are 
preferred for this type of work because they provide a better field of 
view for the engineer. FRA agreed that the safety of ground personnel, 
and avoidance of train accidents involving fouling equipment and 
misaligned switches, would be best served by allowing that narrow-nosed 
locomotives be built to a less stringent standard. Accordingly, 
protection of the cab under the new AAR standard will be significantly 
better than existing narrow-nose units (through strengthening of the 
short hood structure and the addition of corner post requirements for 
the cab itself), but not as robust as required for wide-nose 
locomotives.
    It should be noted that the proposed rule (see Sec. Sec.  229.207, 
229.209) allows the qualification of monocoque/semi-monocoque and 
narrow-nose locomotives using alternative standards and approved 
designs. However, unlike the situation for all other locomotives, 
neither Appendix D nor any other portion of the rule spells out 
precisely how the case for safety equivalence would be made. This is in 
part because FRA research and RSAC Working Group attention focused on 
the principal opportunity for safety advances through the improvement 
of wide-nose design locomotives (by far the largest category of new 
locomotives built in the last decade and under order today). Further, 
as noted above, existing monocoque/semi-monocoque designs have 
performed admirably; and design choices for the narrow-nose are 
seriously limited due to functional requirements. However FRA welcomes 
suggestions for performance criteria that would provide guidance for 
establishing equivalence with the approved design standard.
    It should be noted that the scope of AAR S-580-2004 varies slightly 
from that of this proposed rule. Specifically, in section ``1.0 Scope'' 
of AAR S-580-2004, ``road switcher/intermediate service locomotives'' 
are exempt from meeting the AAR design standard. However, ``road 
switcher/intermediate service locomotives'' are required to meet the 
performance standards of this proposed rule. Manufacturers and/or 
remanufacturers of ``road switcher/intermediate service locomotives'' 
may still utilize AAR S-580-2004 to satisfy the requirements of Sec.  
229.205.

Section 229.206 Design Requirements

    This section would require all locomotives subject to this subpart 
to include anti-climbers, methods of emergency egress, and emergency 
interior lighting designed in compliance with the crashworthiness 
requirements contained in AAR S-580-2004, a copy of which has been 
placed in the docket of this proceeding.
    AAR S-580-2004 requires that the cab end of a locomotive must 
incorporate an anticlimber of a specified width, depth, and design to 
resist an upward or downward vertical force of 100,000 pounds, applied 
over any 12 inches of the anticlimber, without exceeding the ultimate 
strength of the anticlimber or its connector. The Working Group 
understood, and FRA agrees, that the forces generated between two 
colliding locomotives are of sufficient magnitude that the anticlimber 
will most likely crush and absorb some energy. The most likely scenario 
where the anticlimber can prevent intrusion into the occupied cab area 
is in collisions at grade crossing where a highway vehicle struck by 
the locomotive may try to climb up but such motions and forces 
generated are resisted by the anticlimber.
    AAR S-580-2004 requires that the locomotive cab allow for exit 
through at least one opening in any locomotive orientation. The Working 
Group faced the problem that research in this area is lacking. However, 
the problem is well-defined: when the locomotive lies on its side after 
a collision, the occupants may have trouble reaching a door that is not 
obstructed, especially if they are injured. The Working Group therefore 
made some general recommendations for the design of cabs to incorporate 
adequate means of emergency egress. FRA has adopted these 
recommendations. FRA envisions proposing more specific design 
requirements on this subject in future rulemakings once reliable 
research has been performed.
    AAR S-580-2004 requires the placement of and specifies illumination 
levels for locomotive cab emergency lighting. These requirements are 
similar to those required for passenger equipment in Sec.  238.115, 
except that the required duration for lighting levels in freight 
locomotive cabs is less to reflect the design distinction between the 
two types of equipment. Passenger equipment generally has use of an 
auxiliary power source, making it more convenient to provide ample 
power when needed. Most freight locomotives have only one power source 
and its reliability is important for powering the prime mover. Further, 
FRA sees locomotive crew members as being more familiar with the 
smaller layout of a freight locomotive cab and emergency lighting 
capabilities therein than the average passenger traveling in passenger 
equipment subject to part 238. FRA specifically invites comments on 
this issue.
    AAR S-580-2004 provides general design requirements for the 
interior configuration of a locomotive cab. In order to minimize the 
chance of injury to occupants, protruding parts, sharp edges, and 
corners in the locomotive cab must be rounded, radiused, or padded. 
These requirements are similar to those covering passenger equipment in 
Sec.  238.233(e)-(f).
    AAR S-580-2004 provides design requirements for locomotive cab 
appurtenance (including cab seat) securement. The Working Group 
formulated these requirements based on manufacturer testing and their 
collective general experience with locomotive collisions. FRA expects 
that testing methods to determine compliance with this requirement be 
state of the art. Testing should demonstrate that the mountings, 
including cab seat mountings, meet the strength requirements without 
permanent deformation. Localized deformation may be acceptable for 
compliance purposes with this section.
    The disparities in these cab seat securement requirements from 
those currently required by Sec.  238.233(f)-(g) for passenger 
equipment are due solely to the difference in how compliance is 
measured. In Sec.  238.233, seat mountings must withstand forces of 8.0 
g longitudinal, 4.0 g lateral, and 4.0 g vertical without ultimate 
failure of the connection. This proposal requires that all 
appurtenances/mountings withstand forces of 3.0 g longitudinal, 1.5 g 
lateral,

[[Page 63900]]

and 2.0 g vertical without permanent deformation, as defined in Sec.  
229.5. The Working Group felt that, given current designs, all 
appurtenances and mountings which comply with Sec.  238.233 
requirements would most likely meet the proposed requirements and vice 
versa. FRA agrees.

Section 229.207 New Locomotive Crashworthiness Design Standards and 
Changes to Existing FRA-Approved Locomotive Crashworthiness Design 
Standards

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

Section 229.209 Alternative Locomotive Crashworthiness Designs

    This section proposes procedures to be followed when seeking FRA 
approval of an alternative locomotive crashworthiness design. These 
procedures are similar to approval procedures currently used by FRA in 
other contexts. See, for example, Sec.  238.21.
    FRA envisions the possibility that a railroad or locomotive 
manufacturer will desire to explore innovative locomotive designs which 
do not satisfy AAR S-580-2004 or any other current FRA-approved design 
standard. In such case, FRA has provided a procedure in this section 
whereby it would assess the design directly against the performance 
criteria of Appendix D. This section outlines the procedures to be used 
to obtain FRA approval for such a design. FRA recognizes that 
considerable expense could be required to validate an alternative 
design with respect to the performance criteria in Appendix D. However, 
the state of the art of

[[Page 63901]]

validation techniques is evolving, and FRA does not find it far-fetched 
that the expenses associated with validation processes today will 
decrease. Overall, FRA expects that submission of petitions for 
alternative locomotive crashworthiness designs will be a rare 
occurrence.
    FRA also understands that the market for locomotives is very much 
customer-driven and that railroads of all sizes require a great degree 
of operational flexibility. Thus, FRA assumes that a locomotive capable 
of performing road-haul service will at some point be called upon to 
perform such service. Since the performance criteria are objectives 
designed for road-haul service locomotives, FRA contemplates approval 
of design standards and alternative designs not meeting the performance 
criteria or applicable technical standard only under a waiver 
proceeding (see part 211, subpart c). In such a proceeding, FRA would 
expect the petitioner to demonstrate that (1) service conditions will 
not approximate assumptions used for performance criteria (i.e, 
locomotive cannot possibly be used for road-haul service), and (2) 
adequate design restrictions on use will reinforce those assumptions. 
For example, appropriate restrictions on a locomotive's horsepower 
guarantee that it cannot effectively be used as a road-haul locomotive. 
However, FRA is willing to consider the option of building such an 
approval mechanism into this rule, and FRA welcomes comments regarding 
how that might be done.
    Paragraph (a) explains the purpose of this section. This section 
contains procedures which govern locomotive designs which are truly 
innovative and unconventional. Manufacturers or railroads will most 
likely use the procedures in this section to gain FRA approval, rather 
than attempt to fit within an already-established design standard or 
alter an existing design standard. FRA feels that builders/railroads 
should not necessarily be forced to work with existing standards, 
should they be willing to have validated the safety features of their 
design against the performance criteria of Appendix D (or equivalence 
to the applicable technical standard).
    Paragraph (b) specifies submission procedures for petitions for 
alternative locomotive crashworthiness designs. Each petition must be 
submitted to the FRA Associate Administrator for Safety and be titled 
``Petition for FRA Approval of Alternative Locomotive Crashworthiness 
Design.'' Subparagraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) require the petition to 
contain contact information for a representative of the petitioner and 
the proposed design in detail. Subparagraph (b)(3) requires that, along 
with the proposed alternative design, the petitioner also submit the 
type of service to which the locomotive will be put. FRA needs to 
understand the intended type of use to appreciate the probable 
collision risks to which it will be subjected. Subparagraph (b)(4) 
requires the petition to contain data and analysis showing how the 
proposed design standard satisfies the performance requirements in 
Appendix D or is equivalent in protection of cab occupants (in the case 
of narrow-nose or monocoque/semi-monocoque designs) to the applicable 
technical standard. Examples of the types of data and analysis required 
are provided in Sec.  229.211(c)(1).

Section 229.211 Processing of Petitions

    This section outlines the procedures that FRA will follow in 
reaching a decision on petitions submitted under Sec.  229.207(b) 
(petitions for approval of new design standards); Sec.  229.207(c) 
(petitions for approval of substantive changes to an approved design 
standard); and Sec.  229.209(b) (petitions for approval of alternative 
design standards).
    Paragraph (a) proposes that FRA publish a notice in the Federal 
Register for each petition received seeking approval of new or 
alternative crashworthiness designs or substantive changes to existing 
crashworthiness designs. This is to notify interested parties of the 
pending FRA action.
    Paragraph (b) provides procedures for interested parties to comment 
on any petitions submitted to FRA pursuant to this section. FRA is 
aware that changes in design of conventional locomotives might impact 
the safety of locomotive crews and others railroad employees. 
Therefore, this paragraph provides such parties the opportunity to 
comment. Further, FRA welcomes comments in electronic form as well as 
in written form. If FRA determines that additional information is 
required to appropriately consider the petition, FRA will conduct a 
hearing on the petition. Notice of such hearing will provided in the 
Federal Register. Procedures for the conduct of such hearing will be in 
accord with Sec.  211.25.
    Paragraph (c) addresses FRA action on petitions submitted for FRA 
approval pursuant to Sec. Sec.  229.207(b), 229.207(c), and 229.209.
    Subparagraph (c)(1) describes the types of validation techniques 
required for FRA approval of design standards, changes to design 
standards, and alternative locomotive crashworthiness designs. FRA 
proposes several validation methods which it considers satisfactory. 
FRA is aware of the basic types of modeling and testing of locomotive 
design standards, as well as the relative costs associated with these 
processes. Any validation technique considered to be state-of-the-art, 
or generally acceptable within the scientific community, should suffice 
for purposes of this subparagraph, whether it be computer software 
modeling or full-scale crash testing of locomotives. FRA does realize 
that technological and market changes may make modeling and/or testing 
methods more or less cost-effective, and would thus require validation 
to such an extent as reasonably practicable. Finally, in order to 
facilitate and expedite the approval process, FRA would encourage 
effective peer review of submitted standards prior to submission. FRA 
is not aware how this requirement would affect small entities, but 
invites comments addressing this issue.
    For locomotives subject to paragraph (a) of Sec.  229.205, where 
solely incremental changes are being introduced to a previously 
approved design standard, FRA would not require proof of satisfaction 
of all Appendix D performance requirements. In this case, FRA would 
require submission of validation material for only those areas affected 
by the changes. FRA feels that to require full satisfaction of the 
Appendix D performance criteria would be too great a burden and would 
simply result in the requirement that subsequent petitioners ``reinvent 
the wheel'' in areas where it has already been invented.
    In the event that a truly innovative alternative design is 
submitted for FRA approval (i.e., not close to satisfying a previously-
approved design standard), FRA would require full validation of its 
crashworthiness per Appendix D. However, if a proposed alternative 
design varies only slightly from a previously-approved design standard, 
FRA would require only validation of those features which are 
different, in lieu of proof of satisfaction of all Appendix D 
performance criteria. Designers ought to be able to take advantage of 
prior safety validation efforts on conventional designs (reflected in 
FRA-approved design standards). Thus, when an alternative locomotive 
design approaches that of a previously-approved design standard, FRA 
would prefer that validation efforts be focused on areas where the 
alternative design takes a different approach from the approved design 
standard. FRA envisions validation of such alternative designs to be

[[Page 63902]]

demonstrated through competent engineering analysis which compares the 
new alternative design to that of an approved design or design standard 
and demonstrates an equal or better performance. As detailed in 
Appendix D, the primary performance measure to be evaluated is crush 
distance. Crush distance restrictions are utilized in order to 
determine compliance with the goal of preventing intrusion into the 
occupied cab space.
    In subparagraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3), FRA proposes a 90-day goal for 
disposition of a petition under this section, due to the technical 
review which may be required. It should be noted that 90 days is only a 
target goal. FRA will take more than 90 days to reach a decision if 
warranted. FRA will grant a petition only if it finds that the proposed 
design standard or change to an existing design standard satisfies the 
performance standards specified in Appendix D or provides a level of 
safety equivalent to the recognized technical standard (in the case of 
narrow-nose or monocoque/semi-monocoque designs). FRA will deny a 
petition if it determines that the proposed design standard or change 
to an existing design standard does not satisfy the performance 
standards specified in Appendix D or is not equivalent in safety (as 
applicable). FRA will also deny a petition if it determines that the 
petition does not meet the procedural requirements of Sec. Sec.  
229.207 and 229.209.
    Subparagraph (c)(3) also contains a provision allowing petitions 
which have been denied to be re-opened for cause. For example, FRA 
might re-open consideration of a petition for an alternative locomotive 
crashworthiness design if a specific locomotive collision risk had been 
significantly affected by factors (i.e., elimination of highway-rail 
at-grade crossings or adjacent parallel track) not present during the 
initial consideration of the petition.
    Finally, subparagraph (c)(4) states that FRA will send copies of 
its written decision to all parties to the petition and will also place 
its decision in the docket for that proceeding. FRA may also post its 
decision on its Web site, http://www.fra.dot.gov.

Section 229.213 Locomotive Manufacturing Information

    Paragraph (a) of this section requires each railroad operating a 
railroad subject to this subpart to retain the date upon which the 
locomotive was manufactured or remanufactured, the name of the 
manufacturer or remanufacturer, and the design specifications to which 
the locomotive was manufactured or remanufactured.
    Paragraph (b) provides that the information required by paragraph 
(a) must be located permanently in the locomotive cab (i.e., a plaque 
or plate affixed to the inside of the cab) or provided within two 
business days upon request of FRA or an FRA certified state inspector. 
This requirement would provide a means by which it can be rapidly 
determined whether a locomotive is subject to the requirements of this 
rule.
    A related issue of locomotive identification of safety features is 
communication of these features to crews. The benefits of this rule may 
not be fully realized if the occupants of the locomotive are not made 
aware of the fact that the locomotive has crashworthiness design 
features and of the specific safety features incorporated in the 
locomotive design. Consequently, FRA feels it is imperative that this 
information be communicated to locomotive cab occupants. Commenters are 
asked to specifically address whether any particular method of 
identification ought be used so as to promote uniformity, or whether 
carriers should be required to simply identify the locomotive with the 
appropriate information by any reasonable means, such as training of 
crews.

Section 229.215 Retention and Inspection of Designs

    Paragraph (a) proposes a requirement that locomotive manufacturers 
and remanufacturers maintain crashworthiness designs for those 
locomotives subject to subpart D. This requirement is designed to 
ensure that compliance with the requirements of this subpart can be 
readily determined in the event that a locomotive's compliance with its 
design or performance standard is called into question. It is also 
meant to ensure that the relevant designs are available in the event a 
locomotive subject to this subpart is modified or repaired. FRA 
believes these records should be available so that any repairs or 
modifications made to the locomotives do not compromise the 
crashworthiness features to such an extent that they are no longer in 
compliance with the proposed rule.
    The requirement that these records be maintained for the life of 
the locomotive is limited to a twenty-year term, which approximates the 
normal period an initial owner would typically retain control of the 
unit. The twenty-year term runs from the date that a locomotive is 
manufactured. In the case of a remanufactured locomotive, the twenty-
year term begins anew on its date of remanufacture. The manufacture and 
remanufacture date is determined by the date the locomotive is shipped 
by the manufacturer or remanufacturer to the customer.
    Paragraph (b) requires all records of repairs or modifications to 
crashworthiness features of a locomotive subject to this subpart be 
kept by the owner or lessee of the locomotive. These records must also 
be maintained for the life cycle of the locomotive, up to a period of 
20 years from the date these repairs/modifications are made. Under this 
paragraph, transfer of ownership of a locomotive does not relieve the 
transferor of responsibility to maintain the repair/modification 
records. The railroad would be relieved of its responsibility to 
maintain the repair/modification records after the earlier of a 20-year 
period or when the locomotive is permanently retired from service. FRA 
invites comments from small railroads regarding this issue, since FRA 
is aware that many smaller railroads obtain locomotives from larger 
railroads, rather than purchasing new from the manufacturer.
    Paragraph (c) outlines the basic procedure FRA proposes for 
inspection of locomotive designs. FRA, or FRA-certified state 
inspectors, will request to view designs for specified locomotives, and 
the railroad will comply by making the designs available for inspection 
and photocopying by FRA, or FRA-certified state inspectors, within 7 
days. FRA feels this provision is essential to its ability to ensure 
compliance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
    FRA understands that railroads may not perform the actual repairs/
modifications or possess the actual designs themselves, but rather 
would have them stored by a third party such as the AAR, the leasing 
company, or even the manufacturer. Paragraph (d) allows the records to 
be maintained by third parties; however, the manufacturers, 
remanufacturers, owners, and lessees of locomotives subject to this 
subpart will remain responsible for compliance with this section.

Section 229.217 Fuel Tank

    Paragraph (a) proposes that locomotives equipped with external fuel 
tanks meet the October 1, 2001 version of AAR Standard S-5506 
requirement for external fuel tanks, with the exception of Section 4.4 
as noted below. That version of AAR S-5506 has been placed in the 
docket of this proceeding. These requirements were formerly classified 
as an AAR Recommended Practice, RP-506. RP-506 became effective on June 
1, 1995. Only

[[Page 63903]]

preliminary observations of its effect have been made. Data from FRA 
accident records has shown that RP-506 has had a positive effect on the 
performance of fuel tanks in locomotive collisions and derailments. The 
NTSB in NTSB Report <greek-i> PB92-917009 on fuel tank integrity has 
accepted RP-506 as a means to mitigate fuel tank breaches (a copy of 
the report has been placed in the docket of this proceeding). On 
October 1, 2001, AAR S-5506 was adopted as an AAR standard.
    Section 238.223(a) requires that passenger locomotives with 
external fuel tanks comply with a similar version of S-5506. As FRA 
decided in the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards final rule (64 FR 
25651-25652 (May 12, 1999)), to omit one of the provisions of RP-506 
(now S-5506) since it does not appear to be a safety standard, but 
rather a fueling requirement; this provision is intentionally omitted 
here as well. This provision, Section 4.4 (``Fueling'') of S-5506, 
states ``[i]nternal structures of [the] tank must not impede the flow 
of fuel through the tank while fueling at a rate of 300 gpm [gallons 
per minute].'' FRA does not consider fueling rates to be a safety 
concern, but rather an operational consideration.
    Paragraph (b) requires locomotives equipped with internal fuel 
tanks to meet the requirements of Sec.  238.223, which governs design 
of fuel tanks on passenger locomotives. Although FRA contemplates most 
locomotives equipped with internal fuel tanks will be used in passenger 
service, FRA has classified locomotives by design rather than intended 
service, in order to allow maximum operational flexibility by the 
carriers.

Appendix D--Performance Criteria for Structural Design

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

AAR S-580-2004, Locomotive Crashworthiness Requirements

    FRA has approved AAR S-580-2004 as an acceptable design standard, 
for purposes of satisfying the performance criteria of Appendix D.
    AAR S-580-2004 contains design requirements for locomotive front 
end structure design, as well as other miscellaneous design 
requirements, some of which are Federal requirements as well. 
Structural requirements listed

[[Page 63904]]

in AAR S-580-2004 are divided into three different subsections: one for 
locomotives of traditional wide-nose designs, one for locomotives of 
narrow-nose design, and one for those of semi-monocoque/monocoque 
design. There are separate requirements for these general 
classifications of designs in order to account for the different 
service conditions they typically operate under and the significantly 
different crush characteristics of the designs. For example, FRA 
proposes less stringent front end structure requirements for narrow-
nose locomotives because they are used mainly in switching service. 
During switching operations, visibility to and from the cab is 
essential in preventing injuries and fatalities. FRA feels that 
requirements for a significantly enhanced front end structure on 
narrow-nose locomotives would be detrimental to visibility to and from 
the locomotive cab. Manufacturers have indicated that further 
strengthening would require major redesign, with structural members 
taking up more physical space in the cab. As a result, FRA has balanced 
these safety risks by increasing the strength requirements for the 
front end of narrow-nose locomotives, but only to the extent that the 
functionality of these locomotives would not be compromised.
    Requirements in AAR S-580-2004 for wide-nose locomotive front end 
structure encompass three main components: anti-climbers, collision 
posts, and short hood structure.
    Collision posts: the collision posts are the primary crash-energy 
absorbing features on a locomotive involved in an in-line train-to-
train collision or impact with a large motor vehicle. S-580, as adopted 
in 1989, provided for a ``500,000/200,000 pound'' collision post. 
Through its efforts, the Working Group found that strengthened 
collision posts would provide additional collision protection to the 
cab occupants. Specifically, the group found that a collision post 
which can handle an application of 750,000 pounds at the point of 
attachment and 500,000 pounds of force applied at a point 30 inches 
above the top of the underframe could withstand the same damage in 
collisions occurring at a closing speed 2 mph higher than the baseline 
S-580 design. A collision post which can handle 800,000 pounds at the 
same point behaves similar in collisions occurring at closing speeds 8 
mph faster than the baseline S-580 design. However, increasing the 
strength of the collision posts to a point beyond that of the strength 
of the underframe would serve no useful purpose, because the underframe 
would fail before the collision posts.\6\ The Working Group found it 
more desirable to have the collision posts fail before the underframe 
does, thereby reducing the possibility of override due to either the 
formation of a ramp caused by underframe deformation or catapulting. 
The Working Group ultimately recommended the ``750,000/500,000 pound'' 
collision post as a minimum standard. FRA agrees and the proposed rule 
reflects this recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ADL presentation at July 14-15, 1998, Working Group meeting. 
This presentation has been placed in the docket of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AAR S-580-2004 also requires collision posts to extend to a minimum 
of 24 inches above the finished floor and be located forward of the 
position of any seated crew member. The position of the collision posts 
and their required height were developed to provide the crew members a 
survivable area in the event of a frontal collision with an object 
above the underframe of the locomotive. The Working Group discussed the 
advantages of such a survivable volume in that it may help encourage 
crew members to remain in the cab rather than jumping, as they often do 
in the face of a collision. This would prevent unnecessary injuries, 
and even fatalities, resulting from jumping in these situations. FRA 
agrees with the Working Group's recommendation and the proposed rule 
reflects this recommendation.
    Short Hood Structure: The short hood structure is constructed 
primarily from steel sheets, and spans the width of the locomotive from 
the finished floor up to the window frame. It provides additional 
protection to occupants. Since it extends the width of the locomotive 
(unlike collision posts), it is the primary means of protection in the 
event the locomotive collides with an object at an angle or a load is 
applied longitudinally outside of the collision posts, such as in a 
collision with an offset trailer on a flatbed car.
    A short hood structure meeting the performance requirements in 
Appendix D should provide adequate protection to cab occupants in a 30-
mile per hour collision with an offset trailer on a flatcar on an 
adjacent track. Such a structure should be able to withstand a load of 
400,000 pounds. It is also intended to crush in a collision, absorbing 
some energy. Thus, the model design requirements of AAR S-580-2004 
provide guidelines for design of a short hood structure having such 
strength characteristics.
    AAR S-580-2004 also covers proposed front end structural 
requirements for semi-monocoque locomotives in section 8.0 ``Monocoque 
or Semi-monocoque Locomotive Designs.'' This design standard was 
adapted from the performance requirements of Appendix D and through 
variation of the design standard for wide-nose locomotives. Since 
locomotives of monocoque or semi-monocoque design are more efficient in 
managing crash energy due to the load-bearing capabilities of the wall 
and roof structures, they may be designed using a slightly weaker 
underframe than the conventional wide-nose locomotives. This type of 
design better distributes loads applied to its front end by effectively 
transferring them to the walls and roof, as well as the underframe. 
This design allows it to utilize a less-resistant underframe in order 
to provide the same degree of protection. Limited data from the 
performance of semi-monocoque locomotives involved in locomotive 
collisions has corroborated this theory.
    Section 7.0 ``Narrow-Nose Locomotives'' covers design requirements 
for the front-end structure of narrow-nose locomotives. Strength 
requirements for the front end structure of narrow-nose locomotives are 
less stringent than those for wide-nose locomotives. The narrow nose on 
these locomotives simply does not allow for equivalent protection at 
the widest part of the locomotive in front of the cab. Although this 
makes the wide-nose locomotive more desirable for use in road freight 
service, narrow-nose locomotives have become useful in intermediate-
haul and local switching operations because they offer cab occupants a 
much greater range of vision from the cab. During these types of 
movements, unobstructed vision is very important because railroad 
personnel are often standing on or near the right of way directing the 
movement. FRA believes that provision must be made for use of the 
narrow-nose locomotive design to maintain an appropriate level of 
safety during intermediate-haul and local switching operations. FRA 
proposes a design standard for narrow-nose locomotives which maximizes 
the strength of the front corners under existing technology and 
materials without sacrificing occupant visibility from the cab.
    The most significant safety risk with respect to narrow-nose 
locomotives is their regular use in road-haul service. Since the Class 
I railroads have followed a trend of purchasing more and more wide-nose 
locomotives to be used in road freight service, the use of narrow-nose 
locomotives in a manner inconsistent with their intended service

[[Page 63905]]

(i.e., over-utilization in road freight service) is unlikely. Through 
the course of its deliberations, the Working Group had discussed 
possibilities of (1) Restricting service of narrow-nose locomotives to 
intermediate- and local-haul and transfer train service, (2) 
restricting them to a maximum speed limit, and (3) restricting design 
of these locomotives to a maximum horsepower limit. In its final 
recommendation, the Working Group decided not to recommend any service 
or design restrictions. FRA has no reason to believe that the trend of 
purchasing wide-nose locomotives will not continue, and thus does not 
propose any service or design restrictions on narrow-nose locomotives 
in this rule. FRA invites public comment on whether service or design 
restrictions should be imposed on narrow-nose locomotives; and, 
commenters supporting restrictions should specify the restrictions they 
support.
    It should be noted that the Working Group abandoned discussions 
over a fourth design standard, that of the yard switcher locomotive. 
Such a locomotive would be designed for use solely in the assembling 
and disassembling of trains, and could be designed to the standard of 
S-580. FRA invites comments addressing whether such a design or 
performance standard ought to be included in this proposed rule rather 
than require designs for this type of locomotive to be submitted to FRA 
through the approval process outlined in Sec.  229.209 (in which case 
it would have to be evaluated against the performance criteria in 
Appendix D). If so, what should such a standard contain; and how should 
compliance with the standard be established? Commenters supporting 
inclusion of a design standard in the rule are requested to specify the 
design standards they support.

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

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

Amendments to 49 CFR Part 238

    In contrast to requirements for passenger-occupied cab control cars 
and multiple unit (MU) locomotives, there are no current Federal 
regulations governing conventional locomotive crashworthiness design. 
The proposed revisions to part 229 would revise subpart D to address 
locomotive crashworthiness design for all locomotives covered by this 
rule while moving Sec.  229.141 to part 238 as Sec.  238.224.

Subpart A--General

Section 238.5 Definitions

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

Section 238.224 MU Locomotive Body Structure

    This section is moved from part 229 to part 238 and is redesignated 
from Sec.  229.141 to Sec.  238.224. This section is being relocated to 
part 238 because MU locomotives are normally associated with passenger 
trains.

Regulatory Impact

Privacy Act

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

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    OMB has determined that this proposed rule is ``significant--
other'' under Executive Order 12866. FRA has prepared and placed in the 
docket a regulatory analysis addressing the economic impact of this 
proposed rule.
    As part of the regulatory analysis FRA has assessed quantitative 
measurements of cost and benefit streams expected from the adoption of 
this proposed rule. For the twenty-year period the estimated quantified 
costs total $81.6 million, and have a Present Value (PV) of $43.9 
million. For this period the estimated quantified benefits total $125.9 
million, which have a PV of $52.4 million. Over a twenty-year period, 
the Net Present Value (NPV) of this proposal is a positive $8.5 
million.
    The major costs anticipated from adopting this proposed rule 
include: redesign costs for locomotive models; and the marginal cost 
increases for labor and supplies needed for the more crashworthy 
locomotives.
    The major benefits anticipated from implementing this final rule 
include: a reduction of the damages on locomotives when they are 
involved in collisions; and a reduction in the severity of casualties 
incurred in locomotive collisions. In addition there should be a 
reduction in the number of lost work days by locomotive cab employees.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
requires a review of proposed and final rules to assess their impact on 
small entities. FRA has prepared and placed in the docket a Small 
Entity Impact Assessment and Evaluation which assesses the necessary 
and pertinent small entity impacts.
    Executive Order No. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities 
in Agency Rulemaking,'' requires federal agencies, among other things, 
to notify the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business 
Administration (SBA) of any of its draft rules that will have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The Executive Order also requires federal agencies to consider any 
comments provided by the SBA and to include in the preamble to the rule 
the agency's response to any written comments by the SBA, unless the 
agency head certifies that the inclusion of such material would not 
serve the public interest. 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002).
    The SBA stipulates in its ``Size Standards'' that the largest a 
railroad business firm that is ``for-profit'' may be, and still be 
classified as a ``small entity'' is 1,500 employees for ``Line-Haul 
Operating'' Railroads, and 500 employees for ``Switching and Terminal 
Establishments.'' ``Small entity,'' is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601 as a 
small business concern that is independently owned and operated, and is 
not dominant in its field of operation. SBA's ``size standards'' may be 
altered by Federal agencies on consultation with SBA and in conjunction 
with public comment. Pursuant to that authority, FRA has published a 
final policy which formally establishes ``small entities'' as being 
railroads which meet the line haulage revenue requirements of a Class 
III railroad. Currently, the revenue

[[Page 63906]]

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Respondent       Total annual    Average time    Total annual    Total annual
     CFR section--49 CFR           universe         responses      per response    burden hours     burden cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
229.207A--Petitions For FRA    685 Railroads/4   2 petitions....           1,000           2,000        $241,200
 Approval of New Locomotive     Locomotive
 Crashworthiness Design         Manufacturers.
 Standards.
    --Subsequent Years.......  685 Railroads/4   1 petition.....           1,000           1,000         120,600
                                Locomotive
                                Manufacturers.
229.207B--Petitions For        685 Railroads/4   1 petition.....           1,000           1,000         120,600
 Substantive Changes to an      Locomotive
 FRA-Approved Locomotive        Manufacturers.
 Crashworthiness Design
 Standard.
229.207C--Petitions For Non-   685 Railroads/4   2 petitions....             100             200          16,200
 Substantive Changes to an      Locomotive
 FRA-Approved Locomotive        Manufacturers.
 Crashworthiness Design
 Standard.
229.209--Petitions For FRA     685 Railroads/4   1 petition.....           2,500           2,500         308,100
 Approval of Alternative        Locomotive
 Locomotive Crashworthiness     Manufacturers.
 Designs.
229.211A--Processing of        4 Locomotive      10 comments....              16             160           4,640
 Petitions--Comment.            Manufacturers/
                                Railroad
                                Association/
                                Labor
                                Organizations/
                                Public.
229.211B--Additional           4 Locomotive      1 hearing......              80              80           2,320
 Information Concerning         Manufacturers/
 Petitions.                     Railroad
                                Association/
                                Labor
                                Organizations/
                                Public.
229.213--Locomotive            685 Railroads...  700 records....            \*\6              70           2,590
 Manufacturing Information.
229.215A--Retention of         4 Locomotive      28 records.....               1              28           1,036
 Records--Original Design.      Manufact..
229.215B--Retention of         685 Railroads/    140 records....               1             140          5,180
 Records--Repair and            Locomotive
 Modifications.                 Lessees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Minutes

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

[[Page 63907]]

Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Mail Stop 17, Washington, DC 
20590. Comments may also be submitted via e-mail to Mr. Brogan at the 
following address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bbc9d4d9dec9cf95d9c9d4dcdad5fbddc9da95dfd4cf95dcd4cd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="24564b464156500a46564b43454a644256450a404b500a434b52">[email protected]</span></a>.
    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of 
information requirements contained in this proposed rule between 30 and 
60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. 
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect 
if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. The final rule will 
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection 
requirements contained in this proposal.
    FRA is not authorized to impose a penalty on persons for violating 
information collection requirements which do not display a current OMB 
control number, if required. FRA intends to obtain current OMB control 
numbers for any new information collection requirements resulting from 
this rulemaking action prior to the effective date of a final rule. The 
OMB control number, when assigned, will be announced by separate notice 
in the Federal Register.

Environmental Impact

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

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 this 
proposed rule to FRA, has as permanent members two organizations 
representing State and local interests: The American Association of 
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Association 
of State Rail Safety Managers (ASRSM). Both of these State 
organizations concurred with the RSAC recommendation endorsing this 
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.

Compliance With the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) each federal agency ``shall, unless otherwise prohibited by law, 
assess the effects of Federal Regulatory actions on State, local, and 
tribal governments, and the private sector (other than to the extent 
that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth 
in law).'' Sec. 201. Section 202 of the Act further requires that 
``before promulgating any general notice of proposed rulemaking that is 
likely to result in promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal 
mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 
$120,700,000 or more 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 rules issued today do not include any mandates which will 
result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $120,700,000 or more in 
any one year, and thus preparation of a statement is not required.

Request for Public Comments

    FRA proposes to amend part 229 of title 49, Code of Federal 
Regulations, as set forth below. FRA solicits comments on all aspects 
of the proposed rule whether through written submissions, participation 
in a public hearing if one is held, or both. FRA may make changes in 
the final rule based on comments received in response to this proposed 
rule.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 229

    Transportation, Railroad safety, Locomotives.

49 CFR Part 238

    Transportation, Railroad safety, Passenger equipment.

The Proposed Rule

    In consideration of the foregoing, 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. 20102-20103, 20107, 20133, 20137-20138, 
20143, 20701-20703, 21301-21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. note; and 49 CFR 
1.49(c), (m).

    2. Amend Sec.  229.5 by removing paragraph (l), removing the 
paragraph designations from the remaining paragraphs, placing the 
existing definiton of ``electronic air brake'' in alphabetical order, 
and adding in alphabetical order the following definitions to read as 
follows:


Sec.  229.5  Definitions.

    As used in this part--
    AAR means the Association of American Railroads.
    Anti-climbers means the parts at the ends of adjoining rail 
vehicles in a train that are designed to engage when subjected to large 
buff loads to prevent the override of one vehicle by another.
    Associate Administrator for Safety means the Associate 
Administrator for Safety, Federal Railroad Administration, or that 
person's delegate as designated in writing.
* * * * *
    Build date means the date on which the completed locomotive is 
shipped by the manufacturer or remanufacturer to the customer.
* * * * *
    Collision posts means structural members of the end structures of a 
rail vehicle that extend vertically from the underframe to which they 
are securely

[[Page 63908]]

attached and that provide protection to occupied compartments from an 
object penetrating the vehicle during a collision.
* * * * *
    Corner posts means structural members located at the intersection 
of the front or rear surface with the side surface of a rail vehicle 
and which extends vertically from the underframe to the roof.
* * * * *
    Designated service means exclusive operation of a locomotive under 
the following conditions:
    (1) The locomotive is not used as an independent unit or the 
controlling unit in a consist of locomotives except when moving for the 
purposes of servicing or repair within a single yard area;
    (2) The locomotive is not occupied by operating or deadhead crews 
outside a single yard area; and
    (3) The locomotive is stenciled ``Designated Service--DO NOT 
OCCUPY.''
    Design standard means a criterion adopted by an industry or 
voluntary consensus standards body, which addresses the design of a 
locomotive with respect to its crashworthiness and crashworthiness 
features.
* * * * *
    FRA means the Federal Railroad Administration.
    Fuel tank, external means a fuel containment vessel that extends 
outside the car body structure of a locomotive.
    Fuel tank, internal means a fuel containment vessel that does not 
extend outside the car body structure of a locomotive.
* * * * *
    Lateral means the horizontal direction perpendicular to the 
direction of travel.
* * * * *
    Locomotive cab means the compartment or space on board a locomotive 
where the control stand is located and which is normally occupied by 
the engineer when the locomotive is operated.
    Longitudinal means in a direction parallel to the normal direction 
of travel.
    Manufacture means the act of constructing a locomotive.
* * * * *
    Monocoque design locomotive means a locomotive design where the 
shell or skin acts as a single unit with the supporting frame to resist 
and transmit the loads acting on the locomotive.
    MU locomotive means a multiple operated piece of on-track equipment 
other than hi-rail, specialized maintenance, or other similar 
equipment--
    (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.
    Narrow-nose locomotive means a locomotive with a short hood that 
spans substantially less than the full width of the locomotive.
    Occupied service means the operation of a locomotive when the cab 
is physically occupied by a person.
* * * * *
    Permanent deformation means the undergoing of a permanent change in 
shape of a structural member of a rail vehicle.
* * * * *
    Power car means a rail vehicle that propels a Tier II passenger 
train or is the lead vehicle in a Tier II passenger train, or both.
* * * * *
    Remanufacture means the act of constructing a remanufactured 
locomotive.
    Remanufactured locomotive means a locomotive rebuilt or refurbished 
from a previously used or refurbished underframe (``deck''), containing 
fewer than 25% previously used components (measured by dollar value of 
the components).
    Roof rail means the longitudinal structural member at the 
intersection of the side wall and the roof sheathing.
* * * * *
    Semi-monocoque design locomotive means a locomotive design where 
the skin or shell acts, to some extent, as a single unit with the 
supporting frame to resist and transmit the loads acting on the 
locomotive.
    Semi-permanently coupled means coupled by means of a drawbar or 
other coupling mechanism that requires tools to perform the uncoupling 
operation.
* * * * *
    Short hood means the part of the locomotive above the underframe 
located between the cab and the nearest end of the locomotive.
    Standards body means an industry and/or professional organization 
or association which conducts research and develops and/or issues 
policies, criteria, principles, and standards related to the rail 
industry.
* * * * *
    Tier II means operating at speeds exceeding 125 mph but not 
exceeding 150 mph.
* * * * *
    Ultimate strength means the load at which a structural member 
fractures or ceases to resist any load.
* * * * *
    Wide-nose locomotive means a locomotive with a short hood that 
spans the full width of the locomotive.
    3. Revise the heading of subpart D of part 229 to read as follows:

Subpart D--Locomotive Crashworthiness Design Requirements


Sec.  229.141  [Redesignated]

    4. Redesignate section 229.141 as section 238.224.
    5. Add Sec. 229.201 to read as follows:


Sec.  229.201  Purpose and scope.

    (a) Purpose. The purpose of this subpart is to help protect 
locomotive cab occupants in the event that the locomotive collides with 
another locomotive or piece of on-track equipment, a shifted load on a 
freight car on an adjacent parallel track, or a highway vehicle at a 
highway-rail grade crossing.
    (b) This subpart prescribes minimum crashworthiness standards for 
locomotives. It also establishes the requirements for obtaining FRA 
approval of: New locomotive crashworthiness design standards; changes 
to FRA-approved locomotive crashworthiness design standards; and 
alternative locomotive crashworthiness designs.
    6. Add Sec. 229.203 to read as follows:


Sec.  229.203  Applicability.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, 
this subpart applies to all locomotives manufactured or remanufactured 
on or after [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN 
THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
    (b) Cab cars and power cars. The requirements of this subpart do 
not apply to cab control cars, MU locomotives, and semi-permanently 
coupled power cars that are subject to the design requirements for such 
locomotives set forth in 49 CFR part 238.
    (c) Locomotives used in designated service. Locomotives used in 
designated service are exempt from the requirements of this subpart, 
with the exception of Sec.  229.233 (minimum requirements for fuel tank 
design), which remains applicable to such locomotives.
    7. Add Sec. Sec. 229.205, 229.206, and 229.207 to read as follows:


Sec.  229.205  General requirements.

    (a) Each wide-nose locomotive used in occupied service must meet 
the minimum crashworthiness performance requirements set forth in 
Appendix D of this part. Compliance with those

[[Page 63909]]

performance criteria must be established by:
    (1) Meeting an FRA-approved crashworthiness design standard 
(including AAR S-580-2004, Locomotive Crashworthiness Requirements);
    (2) Meeting new design standards and changes to existing design 
standards approved by FRA pursuant to Sec.  229.207; or
    (3) Meeting an alternate crashworthiness design approved by FRA 
pursuant to Sec.  229.209.
    (b) A monocoque or semi-monocoque design locomotive must be 
designed in accordance with the provisions of AAR S-580-2004, 
Locomotive Crashworthiness Requirements, applicable to those types of 
locomotives or in accordance with a standard or design approved by FRA 
as providing equivalent safety.
    (c) A narrow-nose locomotive must be designed in accordance with 
the provisions of AAR S-580-2004, Locomotive Crashworthiness 
Requirements, applicable to that type of locomotive (notwithstanding 
any limitation of scope contained in that standard) or in accordance 
with a standard or design approved by FRA as providing equivalent 
safety.


Sec.  229.206  Design requirements.

    Each locomotive used in occupied service must meet the minimum 
anti-climber, emergency egress, emergency interior lighting, and 
interior configuration design requirements set forth in AAR S-580-2004, 
Locomotive Crashworthiness Requirements.


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

    (a) General. The following procedures govern consideration and 
action upon requests for FRA approval of new locomotive crashworthiness 
design standards and changes to existing FRA-approved locomotive 
crashworthiness design standards, including AAR S-580-2004, Locomotive 
Crashworthiness Requirements. Only a standards body which has adopted 
an FRA-approved locomotive crashworthiness design standard may initiate 
these procedures for FRA approval of changes to the standard.
    (b) Petitions for FRA approval of new locomotive crashworthiness 
design standards. Each petition for FRA approval of a locomotive 
crashworthiness design standard must be titled ``Petition for FRA 
Approval of a New Locomotive Crashworthiness Design Standard,'' must be 
submitted to the Associate Administrator for Safety, Federal Railroad 
Administration, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 
20590, and must contain the following:
    (1) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the primary 
person to be contacted with regard to review of the petition;
    (2) The proposed locomotive design standard, in detail;
    (3) The intended type of service for locomotives designed under the 
proposed standard; and
    (4) Appropriate data and analysis showing how the proposed design 
standard either satisfies the requirements of Sec.  229.205 for the 
type of locomotive design or provides at least an equivalent level of 
safety. Types of data and analysis to be considered are described in 
Sec.  229.211(c)(1).
    (c) Petitions for FRA approval of substantive changes to an FRA-
approved locomotive crashworthiness design standard. Each petition for 
approval of a substantive change to an FRA-approved locomotive 
crashworthiness design standard must be titled ``Petition for FRA 
Approval of Changes to a Locomotive Crashworthiness Design Standard,'' 
must be submitted to the Associate Administrator for Safety, Federal 
Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW., Mail Stop 25, 
Washington, DC 20590, and must contain the following:
    (1) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the primary 
person to be contacted with regard to review of the petition;
    (2) The proposed change, in detail;
    (3) The intended type of service for locomotives built with the 
proposed change; and
    (4) Appropriate data and analysis showing how the resulting 
standard either satisfies the requirements for the type of locomotive 
set forth in Sec.  229.205 or provides at least an equivalent level of 
safety. Types of data and analysis to be considered are described in 
Sec.  229.211(c)(1).
    (d) Petitions for FRA approval of non-substantive changes to the 
existing FRA-approved crashworthiness design standards. Each petition 
for approval of a non-substantive change to an FRA-approved locomotive 
crashworthiness design standard must be titled ``Petition for FRA 
Approval of Non-substantive Changes to a Locomotive Crashworthiness 
Design Standard,'' must be submitted to the Associate Administrator for 
Safety, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW., Mail 
Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590, and must contain the following:
    (1) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the primary 
person to be contacted with regard to review of the petition;
    (2) The proposed change, in detail; and
    (3) Detailed explanation of how the proposed change results in a 
non-substantive change to the existing FRA-approved crashworthiness 
design standard. If FRA determines that the proposed change is 
substantive, FRA will process the petition in accordance with paragraph 
(c) of this section.
    8. Add Sec. 229.209 to read as follows:


Sec.  229.209  Alternative locomotive crashworthiness designs.

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


Sec.  229.211  Processing of petitions.

    (a) Federal Register notice. FRA will publish in the Federal 
Register notice of receipt of each petition submitted under Sec. Sec.  
229.207(b), 229.207(c), or 229.209.
    (b) Comment. Not later than 60 days from the date of publication of 
the notice in the Federal Register concerning a petition submitted 
under Sec. Sec.  229.207(b), 229.207(c), or 229.209(b),

[[Page 63910]]

any person may comment on the petition.
    (1) Each comment must set forth specifically the basis upon which 
it is made, and contain a concise statement of the interest of the 
commenter in the proceeding.
    (2) Each comment must be submitted to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation Central Docket Management System, Nassif Building, Room 
P1-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, and must contain 
the assigned docket number which appeared in the Federal Register for 
that proceeding. The form of such submission may be in written or 
electronic form consistent with the standards and requirements 
established by the Central Docket Management System and posted on its 
Web site at http://dms.dot.gov.
    (3) In the event FRA requires additional information to 
appropriately consider the petition, FRA will conduct a hearing on the 
petition in accordance with the procedures provided in Sec.  211.25 of 
this chapter.
    (c) Disposition of petitions. (1) In order to determine compliance 
with the performance criteria in Appendix D, FRA will consider proper 
documentation of competent engineering analysis, and/or practical 
demonstrations, which may include validated computer modeling, 
structural crush analysis, component testing, full scale crash testing 
in a controlled environment, or any combination of the foregoing, 
together with evidence of effective peer review. Compliance with the 
appropriate performance criteria must be demonstrated for any part of 
the locomotive which does not conform to an FRA-approved design 
standard.
    (2) If FRA finds that the petition complies with the requirements 
of this subpart and that the proposed change or new design standard 
satisfies the requirements of Sec.  229.205 for the type of locomotive, 
the petition will be granted, normally within 90 days of its receipt. 
If the petition is neither granted nor denied within 90 days, the 
petition remains pending for decision. FRA may attach special 
conditions to the granting of the petition. Following the granting of a 
petition, FRA may reopen consideration of the petition for cause 
stated. Petitions which FRA has granted will be placed in the public 
docket of this proceeding.
    (3) If FRA finds that the petition does not comply with the 
requirements of this subpart, or that the proposed change or new design 
standard does not satisfy the performance criteria contained in 
Appendix D of this part (where applicable), the petition will be 
denied, normally within 90 days of its receipt. If the petition is 
neither granted nor denied within 90 days, the petition remains pending 
for decision. FRA may re-open a denial of a petition for cause stated.
    (4) When FRA grants or denies a petition, or reopens consideration 
of the petition, written notice will be sent to the petitioner and 
other interested parties and a copy of the notice will be placed in the 
public docket of this proceeding.
    10. Add Sec. 229.213 to read as follows:


Sec.  229.213  Locomotive manufacturing information.

    (a) Each railroad operating a locomotive subject to the 
requirements of this subpart must retain the following information:
    (1) The date upon which the locomotive was manufactured or 
remanufactured;
    (2) The name of the manufacturer or remanufacturer of the 
locomotive; and
    (3) The design specification to which the locomotive was 
manufactured or remanufactured.
    (b) The information required in paragraph (a) of this section must 
be located permanently in the locomotive cab or be provided within two 
business days upon request of FRA or an FRA-certified state inspector.
    11. Add Sec.  229.215 to read as follows:


Sec.  229.215  Retention and inspection of designs.

    (a) Retention of records--original designs. Each manufacturer or 
remanufacturer of a locomotive subject to this subpart shall retain all 
records of the original locomotive designs, including supporting 
calculations and drawings, pertaining to crashworthiness features 
required by this subpart. These records must be retained for the lesser 
period of:
    (1) The life of such locomotive, or
    (2) Twenty years after the date of manufacture or, if 
remanufactured, twenty years after the date of remanufacture.
    (b) Retention of records--repairs and modifications. Each owner or 
lessee of a locomotive subject to this subpart shall retain all records 
of repair or modification to crashworthiness features required by this 
subpart. These records must be retained for the lesser period of:
    (1) The life of such locomotive, or
    (2) Twenty years after the date on which the repair/modification 
was performed.
    (c) Inspection of records. Each custodian of records referred to in 
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall, upon request by FRA or an 
FRA-certified state inspector, make available for inspection and 
duplication within 7 days, any records referred to in paragraphs (a) 
and (b) of this section.
    (d) Third party storage of records. Each custodian of records 
referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section may delegate 
storage duties to a third party, however, the custodian retains all 
responsibility for compliance with this section.
    12. Add Sec.  229.217 to read as follows:


Sec.  229.217  Fuel tank.

    (a) External fuel tanks. Locomotives equipped with external fuel 
tanks shall, at a minimum, comply with the requirements of AAR S-5506, 
Performance Requirements for Diesel Electric Locomotive Fuel Tanks 
(October 1, 2001), except for section 4.4.
    (b) Internal fuel tanks. Locomotives equipped with internal fuel 
tanks shall, at a minimum, comply with the requirements of 49 CFR 
238.223(b).
    13. Add new Appendix D to part 229 to read as follows:

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

    This appendix provides performance criteria for the crashworthiness 
evaluation of alternative locomotive designs and of design standards 
for wide-nosed locomotives and for any other locomotive, except 
monocoque/semi-monocoque design locomotives and narrow-nose design 
locomotives. Each of the following criteria describes a collision 
scenario and a given performance measure for protection provided to cab 
occupants, normally through structural design. Demonstration that these 
performance criteria have been satisfied may be accomplished through 
any of the methods described in Sec.  229.205.
    (a) Front end structure (collision posts).
    (1) Objective. The front end structure of the locomotive must 
withstand a frontal impact with a proxy object which is intended to 
simulate lading carried by a heavy highway vehicle (see figure 1).
    (2) Proxy object characteristics and orientation. The proxy object 
must have the following characteristics: Cylindrical shape; 48-inch 
diameter; 126 inches in length; 65,000 pounds in weight; and uniform 
density. The longitudinal axis of the proxy object must be oriented 
horizontally perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the locomotive.
    (3) Impact and result. The front end structure of the locomotive 
must

[[Page 63911]]

withstand a 30-mph impact resulting in no more than 24 inches of crush 
along the longitudinal axis of the locomotive, measured from the 
foremost point on the collision post. The center of impact must be 30 
inches above the top of the locomotive underframe along the 
longitudinal centerline of the locomotive.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO04.103

    (b) Front end structure (short hood).
    (1) Objective. The front end structure of the locomotive must 
withstand an oblique impact with a proxy object intended to simulate an 
intermodal container offset from a freight car on an adjacent parallel 
track (see figure 2).
    (2) Proxy object characteristics and orientation. The proxy object 
must have the following characteristics: Block shape; 36-inch width; 
60-inch height; 108 inches in length; corners having 3-inch radii; 
65,000 pounds in weight; and uniform density. The longitudinal axis of 
the proxy object must be oriented parallel to the longitudinal axis of 
the locomotive. At impact, the proxy object must be oriented such that 
there is 12 inches of lateral overlap and 30 inches from the bottom of 
the proxy object to the top of the locomotive underframe.
    (3) Impact and results. The front end structure of the locomotive 
must withstand impact at 30 mph with no more than 60 inches of crush 
along the longitudinal axis of the locomotive, measured from the first 
point of contact on the short hood.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO04.102

PART 238--[AMENDED]

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

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

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


Sec.  238.5  Definitions

* * * * *
    Fuel tank, external means a fuel containment vessel that extends 
outside the car body structure of a locomotive.

[[Page 63912]]

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

    Issued in Washington, DC on October 22, 2004.
Betty Monro,
Acting Federal Railroad Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-24148 Filed 11-1-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>