63890 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. 

Follow instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic docket 

site. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

001. 

• 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 63891

1Regulatory 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.

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

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 widenose 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, 

63892 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

2Mayville, R.A., Stringfellow, R.G., Rancatore, 

R.J., Hosmer, T.P., 1995, ‘‘Locomotive 

Crashworthiness Research, Volumes 1 through 5,’’

DOT/FRA/ORD–95/8.1√8.5. a copy of each cited 

report has been placed in the docket of this 

rulemaking.

3 ‘‘Locomotive Crashworthiness and Cab Working 

Conditions Report to Congress’’, Office of Safety 

Assurance and Compliance, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1996.

ADL performed a series of analyses 

using computer models to evaluate the 

effectiveness of specific crashworthiness 

design features.2

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.

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 costeffective 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 63893

4Tyrell, 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.

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.

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 

63894 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

5The 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.

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;

(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

Collision scenario Collision mode Modified component Accident location and date 

1. Head-on collision between two freight trains Coupled locomotive override. Anti-climber .............................

Shelf-coupler ..........................

Smithfield, WV, August 20, 

1996. 

2. Head-on collision between two freight trains Colliding locomotive override. Collision post .......................... West Eola, IL, January 20, 

1993. 

3a. Overtaking collision, locomotive to flat car Loading of window frame 

structure.

Window frame structure ......... Phoenixville, PA August 23, 

1996. 

3b. Grade crossing collision with highway 

truck carrying logs.

Loading of window frame 

structure.

Window frame structure ......... Phoenixville, PA, August 23, 

1996. 

4. Object, such as a trailer, fouling right-of-way 

of locomotive.

Corner loading of locomotive 

short hood.

Short hood .............................. Selma, NC, May 16, 1994. 

5. Offset collision between a locomotive and a 

freight car.

Corner loading of locomotive 

underframe.

Front plate .............................. Madrone, NM, October 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, widenose 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 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 ±71⁄4 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 rearend 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 anticlimber 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 

63896 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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 closedform 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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 63897

B. Application to New Locomotives (See 

Also Section-by-Section Analysis for 

§ 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 previouslyused 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 § 229.141 to part 238 as 

§ 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 ‘‘anticlimbing 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 

63898 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 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 § 223.5. Locomotives used 

in designated service would still be 

subject to the fuel tank requirements 

proposed in § 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 widenose 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 §§ 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 widenose 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 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 narrownose 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 §§ 229.207, 229.209) allows the 

qualification of monocoque/semimonocoque 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 § 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 welldefined: 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 238.233(f)–(g) for 

passenger equipment are due solely to 

the difference in how compliance is 

measured. In § 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, 

63900 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

and 2.0 g vertical without permanent 

deformation, as defined in § 229.5. The 

Working Group felt that, given current 

designs, all appurtenances and 

mountings which comply with 

§ 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, 

§ 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 § 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 § 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) (nonsubstantive 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 § 229.205. Types 

of validation which FRA will consider 

appropriate are described in 

§ 229.211(c)(1). 

Paragraph (d) specifies procedures for 

obtaining FRA approval of nonsubstantive changes to existing FRAapproved 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 nonsubstantive. 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 § 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, 

§ 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 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 customerdriven and that railroads of all sizes 

require a great degree of operational 

flexibility. Thus, FRA assumes that a 

locomotive capable of performing roadhaul 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 roadhaul 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 

§ 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 

§ 229.207(b) (petitions for approval of 

new design standards); § 229.207(c) 

(petitions for approval of substantive 

changes to an approved design 

standard); and § 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 

§ 211.25.

Paragraph (c) addresses FRA action on 

petitions submitted for FRA approval 

pursuant to §§ 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 § 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 

63902 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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 

§§ 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 FRAcertified 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 

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

§ 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 321⁄2 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 

63904 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

6ADL presentation at July 14–15, 1998, Working 

Group meeting. This presentation has been placed 

in the docket of this rulemaking.

in AAR S–580–2004 are divided into 

three different subsections: one for 

locomotives of traditional wide-nose 

designs, one for locomotives of narrownose design, and one for those of semimonocoque/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.

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 semimonocoque design are more efficient in 

managing crash energy due to the loadbearing 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 lessresistant underframe in order to provide 

the same degree of protection. Limited 

data from the performance of semimonocoque 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 narrownose locomotives in a manner 

inconsistent with their intended service 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 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 localhaul 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 narrownose 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 § 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 § 229.141 to part 238 as 

§ 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 

§ 229.141 to § 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 

63906 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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:

CFR section—49 CFR Respondent universe Total annual

responses 

Average time 

per response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Total annual 

burden cost 

229.207A—Petitions For FRA 

Approval of New Locomotive 

Crashworthiness Design 

Standards.

685 Railroads/4 Locomotive 

Manufacturers.

2 petitions ................. 1,000 2,000 $241,200 

—Subsequent Years ............ 685 Railroads/4 Locomotive 

Manufacturers.

1 petition ................... 1,000 1,000 120,600 

229.207B—Petitions For Substantive Changes to an FRAApproved Locomotive Crashworthiness Design Standard.685 Railroads/4 Locomotive 

Manufacturers.

1 petition ................... 1,000 1,000 120,600 

229.207C—Petitions For NonSubstantive Changes to an 

FRA-Approved Locomotive 

Crashworthiness Design 

Standard.

685 Railroads/4 Locomotive 

Manufacturers.

2 petitions ................. 100 200 16,200 

229.209—Petitions For FRA Approval of Alternative Locomotive Crashworthiness Designs.685 Railroads/4 Locomotive 

Manufacturers.

1 petition ................... 2,500 2,500 308,100 

229.211A—Processing of Petitions—Comment.4 Locomotive Manufacturers/

Railroad Association/Labor Organizations/Public.

10 comments ............ 16 160 4,640 

229.211B—Additional Information 

Concerning Petitions.

4 Locomotive Manufacturers/

Railroad Association/Labor Organizations/Public.

1 hearing ................... 80 80 2,320 

229.213—Locomotive Manufacturing Information.685 Railroads ............................. 700 records ............... *6 70 2,590 

229.215A—Retention of 

Records—Original Design.

4 Locomotive Manufact. ............. 28 records ................. 1 28 1,036 

229.215B—Retention of 

Records—Repair and Modifications.

685 Railroads/Locomotive Lessees.140 records ............... 1 140 5,180 

* 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 

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

robert.brogan@fra.dot.gov.

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 § 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:

§ 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 

63908 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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

§ 229.141 [Redesignated] 

4. Redesignate section 229.141 as 

section 238.224. 

5. Add §229.201 to read as follows:

§ 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 §229.203 to read as follows:

§ 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 § 229.233 (minimum 

requirements for fuel tank design), 

which remains applicable to such 

locomotives. 

7. Add §§229.205, 229.206, and 

229.207 to read as follows:

§ 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 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 § 229.207; 

or 

(3) Meeting an alternate 

crashworthiness design approved by 

FRA pursuant to § 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.

§ 229.206 Design requirements. 

Each locomotive used in occupied 

service must meet the minimum anticlimber, emergency egress, emergency 

interior lighting, and interior 

configuration design requirements set 

forth in AAR S–580–2004, Locomotive 

Crashworthiness Requirements.

§ 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 FRAapproved 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 § 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 § 229.211(c)(1). 

(c) Petitions for FRA approval of 

substantive changes to an FRAapproved 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 § 229.205 

or provides at least an equivalent level 

of safety. Types of data and analysis to 

be considered are described in 

§ 229.211(c)(1). 

(d) Petitions for FRA approval of nonsubstantive changes to the existing FRAapproved crashworthiness design 

standards. Each petition for approval of 

a non-substantive change to an FRAapproved 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 nonsubstantive change to the existing FRAapproved 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 §229.209 to read as follows:

§ 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 § 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 § 229.211(c)(1). 

9. Add §229.211 to read as follows:

§ 229.211 Processing of petitions. 

(a) Federal Register notice. FRA will 

publish in the Federal Register notice of 

receipt of each petition submitted under 

§§ 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 

§§ 229.207(b), 229.207(c), or 229.209(b), 

63910 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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 

§ 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 § 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 §229.213 to read as follows:

§ 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 FRAcertified state inspector.

11. Add § 229.215 to read as follows:

§ 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 FRAcertified 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 § 229.217 to read as follows:

§ 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 § 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 

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

(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.

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:

§ 238.5 Definitions

* * * * *

Fuel tank, external means a fuel 

containment vessel that extends outside 

the car body structure of a locomotive. 


EP02no04.103</GPH> EP02no04.102</GPH>
63912 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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