42016 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. 

§ 73.202 [Amended] 

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 

Allotments under Florida, is amended 

by removing Channel *259A and by 

adding Channel *261A at Live Oak. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. E7–14879 Filed 7–31–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 07–3151; MB Docket No. 07–130; RM–

11372] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; 

Silverton, CO 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document requests 

comments on a petition for rulemaking 

filed by Laramie Mountain 

Broadcasting, LLC, requesting the 

allotment of Channel 281A at Silverton, 

Colorado, as the community’s second 

local aural transmission service. 

Channel 281A can be allotted at 

Silverton, Colorado, without a site 

restriction at coordinates 37–07–43 NL 

and 107–39–50 WL. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before September 3, 2007, and reply 

comments on or before September 18, 

2007. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to 

filing comments with the FCC, 

interested parties should serve the 

petitioner as follows: A. Wray Fitch, 

Esquire, Gammon & Grange, PC, 8280 

Greensboro Drive, 7th Floor, McLean, 

VA 22102–3807. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Victoria McCauley, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2180. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 

07–130, adopted July 11, 2007 and 

released July 13, 2007. The full text of 

this Commission decision is available 

for inspection and copying during 

normal business hours in the FCC’s 

Reference Information Center at Portals 

II, CY–A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. This document 

may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s copy contractor, Best 

Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 

12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1–

800–378–3160 or http:// 

www.BCPIWEB.com. 

This document does not contain 

proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–

13. In addition, therefore, it does not 

contain any proposed information 

collection burden ‘‘for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. 

Members of the public should note 

that from the time a Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making is issued until the matter 

is no longer subject to Commission 

consideration or court review, all ex 

parte contacts are prohibited in 

Commission proceedings, such as this 

one, which involve channel allotments. 

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules 

governing permissible ex parte contacts. 

For information regarding proper 

filing procedures for comments, see 47 

CFR 1.415 and 1.420. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Radio broadcasting. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

Part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

1. The authority citation for Part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. 

§ 73.202 [Amended] 

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 

Allotments under Colorado is amended 

by adding Silverton, Channel 281A. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. E7–14878 Filed 7–31–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Part 238 

[Docket No. FRA–2006–25268, Notice No. 

1] 

RIN 2130–AB80 

Passenger Equipment Safety 

Standards; Front-End Strength of Cab 

Cars and Multiple-Unit Locomotives 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to further 

the safety of passenger train occupants 

by amending existing regulations to 

enhance structural strength 

requirements for the front end of cab 

cars and multiple-unit locomotives. 

These enhancements would include the 

addition of deformation and energy 

absorption requirements specified in 

revised American Public Transportation 

Association (APTA) standards for frontend collision posts and corner posts for 

this equipment. FRA is also proposing 

to make miscellaneous clarifying 

amendments to current regulations for 

the structural strength of passenger 

equipment. 

DATES: (1) Written comments must be 

received by October 1, 2007. Comments 

received after that date will be 

considered to the extent possible 

without incurring additional expense or 

delay. 

(2) FRA anticipates being able to 

resolve this rulemaking without a 

public, oral hearing. However, if FRA 

receives a specific request for a public, 

oral hearing prior to August 31, 2007, 

one will be scheduled, and FRA will 

publish a supplemental notice in the 

Federal Register to inform interested 

parties of the date, time, and location of 

any such hearing. 

ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments 

related to Docket No. FRA–2006–25268, 

Notice No. 1, may be submitted by any 

of the following methods: 

• Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic docket 

site. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Docket Management 

Facility, U.S. Department of 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 42017 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number or Regulatory Identification 

Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Note 

that all comments received will be 

posted without change to http:// 

dms.dot.gov including any personal 

information. Please see the Privacy Act 

heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document 

for Privacy Act information related to 

any submitted comments or materials. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

dms.dot.gov at any time or to the Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday 

through Friday, except Federal 

Holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary 

G. Fairbanks, Specialist, Motive Power 

and Equipment Division, Office of 

Safety, RRS–14, Mail Stop 25, Federal 

Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone 202–493–6282); Eloy E. 

Martinez, Program Manager, Equipment 

and Operating Practices Division, Office 

of Railroad Development, RDV–32, 

Federal Railroad Administration, 55 

Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02142 

(telephone 617–494–2243); or Daniel L. 

Alpert, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief 

Counsel, Mail Stop 10, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 

202–493–6026). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Supplementary 

Information 

I. Statutory Background 

II. Proceedings to Date 

A. Proceedings To Carry Out the Initial 

Rulemaking Mandate 

B. Key Issues Identified for Future 

Rulemaking 

C. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee 

(RSAC) Overview 

D. Establishment of the Passenger Safety 

Working Group 

E. Establishment of the Crashworthiness/ 

Glazing Task Force 

F. Development of the NPRM 

III. Technical Background 

A. Predominant Types of Passenger Rail 

Service 

B. Front-End Frame Structures of Cab Cars 

and MU Locomotives 

C. Accident History 

D. FRA and Industry Standards for FrontEnd Frame Structures of Cab Cars and 

MU Locomotives 

E. Testing of Front-End Frame Structures of 

Cab Cars and MU Locomotives 

1. Designs Evaluated by FRA 

2. FRA Dynamic Impact Testing 

3. Industry Quasi-Static Testing 

4. Comparative Analyses 

F. Approaches for Specifying Large 

Deformation Requirements 

G. Crash Energy Management and the 

Design of Front-End Frame Structures of 

Cab Cars and MU Locomotives 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis 

V. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive 

Order 13272 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. Federalism Implications 

E. Environmental Impact 

F. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 

G. Energy Impact 

H. Trade Impact 

I. Privacy Act 

I. Statutory Background 

In September of 1994, the Secretary of 

Transportation convened a meeting of 

representatives from all sectors of the 

rail industry with the goal of enhancing 

rail safety. As one of the initiatives 

arising from this Rail Safety Summit, 

the Secretary announced that DOT 

would begin developing safety 

standards for rail passenger equipment 

over a five-year period. In November of 

1994, Congress adopted the Secretary’s 

schedule for implementing rail 

passenger equipment safety regulations 

and included it in the Federal Railroad 

Safety Authorization Act of 1994 (the 

Act), Pub. L. No. 103–440, 108 Stat. 

4619, 4623–4624 (November 2, 1994). 

Congress also authorized the Secretary 

to consult with various organizations 

involved in passenger train operations 

for purposes of prescribing and 

amending these regulations, as well as 

issuing orders pursuant to them. Section 

215 of the Act is codified at 49 U.S.C. 

20133. 

II. Proceedings to Date 

A. Proceedings to Carry Out the Initial 

Rulemaking Mandate 

The Secretary of Transportation 

delegated these rulemaking 

responsibilities to the Federal Railroad 

Administrator, see 49 CFR 1.49(m), and 

FRA formed the Passenger Equipment 

Safety Standards Working Group to 

provide FRA advice in developing the 

regulations. On June 17, 1996, FRA 

published an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) 

concerning the establishment of 

comprehensive safety standards for 

railroad passenger equipment. See 61 

FR 30672. The ANPRM provided 

background information on the need for 

such standards, offered preliminary 

ideas on approaching passenger safety 

issues, and presented questions on 

various passenger safety topics. 

Following consideration of comments 

received on the ANPRM and advice 

from FRA’s Passenger Equipment Safety 

Standards Working Group, FRA 

published an NPRM on September 23, 

1997, to establish comprehensive safety 

standards for railroad passenger 

equipment. See 62 FR 49728. In 

addition to requesting written comment 

on the NPRM, FRA also solicited oral 

comment at a public hearing held on 

November 21, 1997. FRA considered the 

comments received on the NPRM and 

prepared a final rule establishing 

comprehensive safety standards for 

passenger equipment, which was 

published on May 12, 1999. See 64 FR 

25540. 

After publication of the final rule, 

interested parties filed petitions seeking 

FRA’s reconsideration of certain 

requirements contained in the rule. 

These petitions generally related to the 

following subject areas: structural 

design; fire safety; training; inspection, 

testing, and maintenance; and 

movement of defective equipment. To 

address the petitions, FRA grouped 

issues together and published in the 

Federal Register three sets of 

amendments to the final rule. Each set 

of amendments summarized the petition 

requests at issue, explained what action, 

if any, FRA decided to take in response 

to the issues raised, and described 

FRA’s justifications for its decisions and 

any action taken. Specifically, on July 3, 

2000, FRA issued a response to the 

petitions for reconsideration relating to 

the inspection, testing, and maintenance 

of passenger equipment, the movement 

of defective passenger equipment, and 

other miscellaneous provisions related 

to mechanical issues contained in the 

final rule. See 65 FR 41284. On April 

23, 2002, FRA responded to all 

remaining issues raised in the petitions 

for reconsideration, with the exception 

of those relating to fire safety. See 67 FR 

19970. Finally, on June 25, 2002, FRA 

completed its response to the petitions 

for reconsideration by publishing a 

response to the petitions for 

reconsideration concerning the fire 

safety portion of the rule. See 67 FR 

42892. (For more detailed information 

on the petitions for reconsideration and 

FRA’s response to them, please see 

these three rulemaking documents.) The 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
42018 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

product of this rulemaking was codified 

primarily at 49 CFR part 238 (part 238) 

and also at 49 CFR parts 216, 223, 229, 

231, and 232. 

Meanwhile, another rulemaking on 

passenger train emergency preparedness 

produced a final rule codified at 49 CFR 

part 239. See 63 FR 24629; May 4, 1998. 

The rule addresses passenger train 

emergencies of various kinds, including 

security situations, and requires the 

preparation, adoption, and 

implementation of emergency 

preparedness plans by railroads 

connected with the operation of 

passenger trains. The rule requires 

railroads that operate intercity or 

commuter passenger train service or that 

host the operation of such service to 

adopt and comply with written 

emergency preparedness plans. The 

emergency preparedness plans must 

address subjects such as 

communication, employee training and 

qualification, joint operations, tunnel 

safety, liaison with emergency 

responders, on-board emergency 

equipment, and passenger safety 

information. The rule requires each 

affected railroad to instruct its 

employees on the applicable provisions 

of its plan, and the plan adopted by 

each railroad is subject to formal review 

and approval by FRA. The rule also 

requires each railroad operating 

passenger train service to conduct 

emergency simulations to determine its 

capability to execute the emergency 

preparedness plan under the variety of 

emergency scenarios that could 

reasonably be expected to occur. In 

addition, the rule contains requirements 

for the identification and usage of 

emergency window exits, rescue access 

windows, and door exits. 

B. Key Issues Identified for Future 

Rulemaking 

Although FRA had completed these 

rulemakings, FRA had identified 

various issues for possible future 

rulemaking, including those to be 

addressed following the completion of 

additional research, the gathering of 

additional operating experience, or the 

development of industry standards, or 

all three. One such issue concerned 

enhancing the requirements for corner 

posts on cab cars and MU locomotives. 

See 64 FR 25607; May 12, 1999. Current 

FRA requirements for corner posts are 

based on conventional industry practice 

at the time, which had not proven 

adequate in then-recent side swipe 

collisions with cab cars leading. Id. FRA 

explained that the current requirements 

were being adopted as an interim 

measure to prevent the introduction of 

equipment not meeting the 

requirements, that FRA was assisting 

APTA in preparing an industry standard 

for corner post arrangements on cab cars 

and MU locomotives, and that adoption 

of a suitable Federal standard would be 

an immediate priority. Id. In broader 

terms, this issue concerned the behavior 

of cab car and MU locomotive end 

frames when overloaded, as during an 

impact with maintenance-of-way 

equipment or with a highway vehicle at 

a highway-rail grade crossing, and thus 

concerned collision post strength as 

well. FRA and interested industry 

members also began identifying other 

issues related to the passenger 

equipment safety standards and the 

passenger train emergency preparedness 

regulations. FRA decided to address 

these issues with the assistance of FRA’s 

Railroad Safety Advisory Committee. 

C. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee 

(RSAC) Overview 

In March 1996 FRA established 

RSAC, which provides a forum for 

developing consensus recommendations 

to FRA’s Administrator on rulemakings 

and other safety program issues. The 

Committee includes representation from 

all of the agency’s major customer 

groups, including railroads, labor 

organizations, suppliers and 

manufacturers, and other interested 

parties. A list of current member groups 

follows: 

• American Association of Private 

Railroad Car Owners (AARPCO); 

• American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO); 

• American Chemistry Council; 

• American Petroleum Institute; 

• APTA; 

• American Short Line and Regional 

Railroad Association (ASLRRA); 

• American Train Dispatchers 

Association; 

• Association of American Railroads 

(AAR); 

• Association of Railway Museums; 

• Association of State Rail Safety 

Managers (ASRSM); 

• Brotherhood of Locomotive 

Engineers and Trainmen (BLET); 

• Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way 

Employees Division; 

• Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen 

(BRS); 

• Chlorine Institute; 

• Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA)*; 

• Fertilizer Institute; 

• High Speed Ground Transportation 

Association; 

• Institute of Makers of Explosives; 

• International Association of 

Machinists and Aerospace Workers; 

• International Brotherhood of 

Electrical Workers (IBEW); 

• Labor Council for Latin American 

Advancement*; 

• League of Railway Industry 

Women*; 

• National Association of Railroad 

Passengers (NARP); 

• National Association of Railway 

Business Women*; 

• National Conference of Firemen & 

Oilers; 

• National Railroad Construction and 

Maintenance Association; 

• National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation (Amtrak); 

• National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB)*; 

• Railway Supply Institute (RSI); 

• Safe Travel America (STA); 

• Secretaria de Comunicaciones y 

Transporte*; 

• Sheet Metal Workers International 

Association (SMWIA); 

• Tourist Railway Association, Inc.; 

• Transport Canada*; 

• Transport Workers Union of 

America (TWU); 

• Transportation Communications 

International Union/BRC (TCIU/BRC); 

• Transportation Security 

Administration*; and 

• United Transportation Union 

(UTU). 

*Indicates associate, non-voting 

membership. 

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. These recommendations are 

developed by consensus. A working 

group may establish one or more task 

forces to develop facts and options on 

a particular aspect of a given task. The 

task force then provides that 

information to the working group for 

consideration. If a working group comes 

to unanimous consensus on 

recommendations for action, the 

package is presented to the full RSAC 

for a vote. If the proposal is accepted by 

a simple majority of RSAC, the proposal 

is formally recommended to FRA. FRA 

then determines what action to take on 

the recommendation. Because FRA staff 

play an active role at the working group 

level in discussing the issues and 

options and in drafting the language of 

the consensus proposal, FRA is often 

favorably inclined toward the RSAC 

recommendation. However, FRA is in 

no way bound to follow the 

recommendation, and the agency 

exercises its independent judgment on 

whether the recommended rule achieves 

the agency’s regulatory goal, is soundly 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 42019 

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 or final 

rule. Any such variations would be 

noted and explained in the rulemaking 

document issued by FRA. 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. 

D. Establishment of the Passenger Safety 

Working Group 

On May 20, 2003, FRA presented, and 

RSAC accepted, the task of reviewing 

existing passenger equipment safety 

needs and programs and recommending 

consideration of specific actions that 

could be useful in advancing the safety 

of rail passenger service. The RSAC 

established the Passenger Safety 

Working Group (Working Group) to 

handle this task and develop 

recommendations for the full RSAC to 

consider. Members of the Working 

Group, in addition to FRA, include the 

following: 

• AAR, including members from 

BNSF Railway Company, CSX 

Transportation, Inc., and Union Pacific 

Railroad Company; 

• AAPRCO; 

• AASHTO; 

• Amtrak; 

• APTA, including members from 

Bombardier, Inc., LDK Engineering, 

Herzog Transit Services, Inc., Long 

Island Rail Road (LIRR), Metro-North 

Commuter Railroad Company (MetroNorth), Northeast Illinois Regional 

Commuter Railroad Corporation (Metra), 

Southern California Regional Rail 

Authority (Metrolink), and Southeastern 

Pennsylvania Transportation Authority 

(SEPTA); 

• BLET; 

• BRS; 

• FTA; 

• HSGTA; 

• IBEW; 

• NARP; 

• RSI; 

• SMWIA; 

• STA; 

• TCIU/BRC; 

• TWU; and 

• UTU. 

Staff from DOT’s John A. Volpe 

National Transportation Systems Center 

(Volpe Center) attended all of the 

meetings and contributed to the 

technical discussions. In addition, staff 

from the NTSB met with the Working 

Group when possible. The Working 

Group has held nine meetings on the 

following dates and locations: 

• September 9–10, 2003, in 

Washington, DC; 

• November 6, 2003, in Philadelphia, 

PA; 

• May 11, 2004, in Schaumburg, IL; 

• October 26–27, 2004, in Linthicum/ 

Baltimore, MD; 

• March 9–10, 2005, in Ft. 

Lauderdale, FL; 

• September 7, 2005, in Chicago, IL; 

• March 21–22, 2006, in Ft. 

Lauderdale, FL; 

• September 12–13, 2006, in Orlando, 

FL; and 

• April 17–18, 2007, in Orlando, FL. 

At the meetings in Chicago and Ft. 

Lauderdale in 2005, FRA met with 

representatives of Tri-County Commuter 

Rail and Metra, respectively, and toured 

their passenger equipment. The visits 

were open to all members of the 

Working Group, and FRA believes they 

have added to the collective 

understanding of the Group in 

identifying and addressing passenger 

equipment safety issues. 

E. Establishment of the 

Crashworthiness/Glazing Task Force 

Due to the variety of issues involved, 

at its November 2003 meeting the 

Working Group established four task 

forces—smaller groups to develop 

recommendations on specific issues 

within each group’s particular area of 

expertise. Members of the task forces 

include various representatives from the 

respective organizations that were part 

of the larger Working Group. One of 

these task forces was assigned the job of 

identifying and developing issues and 

recommendations specifically related to 

the inspection, testing, and operation of 

passenger equipment as well as 

concerns related to the attachment of 

safety appliances on passenger 

equipment. An NPRM on these topics 

was published on December 8, 2005, see 

70 FR 73069, and a final rule was 

published on October 19, 2006, see 71 

FR 61835. Another of these task forces 

was established to identify issues and 

develop recommendations related to 

emergency systems, procedures, and 

equipment, and helped to develop an 

NPRM on these topics that was 

published on August 24, 2006, see 71 

FR 50276. Another task force, the 

Crashworthiness/Glazing Task Force 

(Task Force), was assigned the job of 

developing recommendations related to 

glazing integrity, structural 

crashworthiness, and the protection of 

occupants during accidents and 

incidents. Specifically, this Task Force 

was charged with developing 

recommendations for glazing 

qualification testing and for cab car/MU 

locomotive end frame optimization. 

Although being developed by the same 

Task Force, the glazing and cab car/MU 

locomotive end frame recommendations 

are being handled separately, and 

glazing is not a subject of this NPRM. 

The Task Force was also given the 

responsibility of addressing a number of 

other issues related to glazing, structural 

crashworthiness, and occupant 

protection and recommending any 

research necessary to facilitate their 

resolution. Members of the Task Force, 

in addition to FRA, include the 

following: 

• AAR; 

• Amtrak; 

• APTA, including members from 

Bombardier, Inc., General Electric 

Transportation Systems, General 

Motors—Electro-Motive Division, 

Kawasaki Rail Car, Inc., LDK 

Engineering, LIRR, LTK Engineering 

Services, Maryland Transit 

Administration, Massachusetts Bay 

Commuter Rail Corporation (MBCR), 

Metrolink, Metro-North, Northern 

Indiana Commuter Transportation 

District (NICTD), Rotem Company, Saint 

Gobian Sully NA, San Diego Northern 

Commuter Railroad (Coaster), SEPTA, 

and STV, Inc.; 

• BLET; 

• California Department of 

Transportation (Caltrans); 

• NARP; 

• RSI; and 

• UTU. 

While not voting members of the Task 

Force, representatives from the NTSB 

attended certain of the meetings and 

contributed to the discussions of the 

Task Force. In addition, staff from the 

Volpe Center attended all of the 

meetings and contributed to the 

technical discussions. 

The Task Force held six meetings on 

the following dates and locations: 

• March 17–18, 2004, in Cambridge, 

MA; 

• May 13, 2004, in Schaumberg, IL; 

• November 9, 2004, in Boston, MA; 

• February 2–3, 2005, in Cambridge, 

MA; 

• April 21–22, 2005, in Cambridge, 

MA; and 

• August 11, 2005, in Cambridge, 

MA. 

F. Development of the NPRM 

This NPRM was developed to address 

concerns raised and issues discussed 

about cab car and MU locomotive frontend frame structures during the Task 

Force meetings and pertinent Working 

Group meetings. Minutes of each of 

these meetings have been made part of 

the docket in this proceeding and are 

available for public inspection. With the 

exception discussed below, the Working 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
42020 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Group reached consensus on the 

principal regulatory provisions 

contained in this NPRM at its meeting 

in September 2005. After the September 

2005 meeting, the Working Group 

presented its recommendations to the 

full RSAC for concurrence at its meeting 

in October 2005. All of the members of 

the full RSAC in attendance at its 

October 2005 meeting accepted the 

regulatory recommendations submitted 

by the Working Group. Thus, the 

Working Group’s recommendations 

became the full RSAC’s 

recommendations to FRA in this matter. 

After reviewing the full RSAC’s 

recommendations, FRA agreed that the 

recommendations provided a good basis 

for a proposed rule, but that test 

standards and performance criteria more 

suitable to cab cars and MU locomotives 

without a flat forward end or with 

energy absorbing structures used as part 

of a crash energy management design 

(CEM), or both, should be specified. As 

discussed below, the NPRM provides an 

option for the dynamic testing of cab 

cars and MU locomotives as a means of 

demonstrating compliance with the 

rule. However, FRA makes clear that 

this proposal was not the result of an 

RSAC recommendation. Otherwise, FRA 

has adopted the RSAC’s 

recommendations with generally minor 

changes for purposes of clarity and 

formatting in the Federal Register. 

Overall, this NPRM is the product of 

FRA’s review, consideration, and 

acceptance of the recommendations of 

the Task Force, Working Group, and full 

RSAC. In the preamble discussion of 

this proposal, FRA refers to comments, 

views, suggestions, or recommendations 

made by members of the Task Force, 

Working Group, and full RSAC, as they 

are identified or contained in the 

minutes of their meetings. FRA does so 

to show the origin of certain issues and 

the nature of discussions concerning 

those issues at the Task Force, Working 

Group, and full RSAC level. FRA 

believes this serves to illuminate factors 

it has weighed in making its regulatory 

decisions, as well as the logic behind 

those decisions. The reader should keep 

in mind, of course, that only the full 

RSAC makes recommendations to FRA. 

However, as noted above, FRA is in no 

way bound to follow the 

recommendations, and the agency 

exercises its independent judgment on 

whether the recommendations achieve 

the agency’s regulatory goal(s), are 

soundly supported, and are in 

accordance with policy and legal 

requirements. 

III. Technical Background 

Transporting passengers by rail is 

very safe. Since 1978, more than 11.2 

billion passengers have traveled by rail, 

based on reports filed monthly with 

FRA. The number of rail passengers has 

steadily increased over the years, and 

since the year 2000 has averaged more 

than 500 million per year. On a 

passenger-mile basis, with an average of 

about 15.5 billion passenger-miles per 

year, rail travel is about as safe as 

scheduled airline service and intercity 

bus transportation, and it is far safer 

than private motor vehicle travel. 

Passenger rail accidents—while always 

to be avoided—have a very high 

passenger survival rate. 

Yet, as in any form of transportation, 

there are risks inherent in passenger rail 

travel. Although no passengers died in 

train collision or derailments in 2006, 

12 passengers did in 2005. For this 

reason, FRA continually works to 

improve the safety of passenger rail 

operations. FRA’s efforts include 

sponsoring the research and 

development of safety technology, 

providing technical support for industry 

specifications and standards, and 

engaging in cooperative rulemaking 

efforts with key industry stakeholders. 

FRA has focused in particular on 

enhancing the crashworthiness of 

passenger trains. 

In a passenger train collision or 

derailment, the principal 

crashworthiness risks that occupants 

face are the loss of safe space inside the 

train from crushing of the train structure 

and, as the train decelerates, the risk of 

secondary impacts with interior 

surfaces. Therefore, the principal goals 

of the crashworthiness research 

sponsored by FRA are twofold: First, to 

preserve a safe space in which 

occupants can ride out the collision or 

derailment, and, then, to minimize the 

physical forces to which occupants are 

subjected when impacting surfaces 

inside a passenger car as the train 

decelerates. Though not a part of this 

NPRM, other crashworthiness research 

focuses on related issues such as fuel 

tank safety, for equipment with a fuel 

tank, and the associated risk of fire if the 

fuel tank is breached during the 

collision or derailment. 

The results of ongoing research on cab 

car and MU locomotive front-end frame 

structures help demonstrate both the 

effectiveness and the practicality of the 

structural enhancements proposed in 

this NPRM to make this equipment 

more crashworthy. This research is 

discussed below, along with other 

technical information providing the 

background for FRA’s proposal. 

A. Predominant Types of Passenger Rail 

Service 

FRA’s focus on cab car and MU 

locomotive crashworthiness should be 

considered in the context of the 

predominant types of passenger rail 

service in North America. The first 

involves operation of passenger trains 

with conventional locomotives in the 

lead, typically pulling consists of 

passenger coaches and other cars such 

as baggage cars, dining cars, and 

sleeping cars. Such trains are common 

on long-distance, intercity rail routes 

operated by Amtrak. On a daily basis, 

however, most passenger rail service is 

provided by commuter railroads, which 

typically operate one or both of the two 

most predominant types of service: 

Push-pull service and MU locomotive 

service. 

Push-pull service is passenger train 

service typically operated in one 

direction of travel with a conventional 

locomotive in the rear of the train 

pushing the consist (the ‘‘push mode’’) 

and with a cab car in the lead position 

of the train; and, in the opposite 

direction of travel, the service is 

operated with the conventional 

locomotive in the lead position of the 

train pulling the consist (the ‘‘pull 

mode’’) and with the cab car in the rear 

of the train. (A cab car is both a 

passenger car, in that it has seats for 

passengers, and a locomotive, in that it 

has a control cab from which the 

engineer can operate the train.) Control 

cables run the length of the train, as do 

electrical lines providing power for 

heat, lights, and other purposes. 

MU locomotive service is passenger 

rail service involving trains consisting 

of self-propelled electric or diesel MU 

locomotives. MU locomotives typically 

operate semi-permanently coupled 

together as a pair or triplet with a 

control cab at each end of the consist. 

During peak commuting hours, multiple 

pairs or triplets of MU locomotives, or 

a combination of both, are typically 

operated together as a single passenger 

train in MU service. This type of service 

does not make use of a conventional 

locomotive as a primary means of 

motive power. MU locomotive service is 

very similar to push-pull service as 

operated in the push mode with the cab 

car in the lead. 

By focusing on enhancements to cab 

car and MU locomotive 

crashworthiness, FRA seeks to enhance 

the safety of the two most typical forms 

of passenger rail service in the U.S. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 42021 

B. Front-End Frame Structures of Cab 

Cars and MU locomotives 

Structurally, MU locomotives and cab 

cars built in the same period are very 

similar, and both are designed to 

transport and be occupied by 

passengers. The principal distinction is 

that cab cars do not have motors to 

propel themselves. Unlike MU 

locomotives and cab cars, conventional 

locomotives are not designed to be 

occupied by passengers—only by 

operating crewmembers. Concern has 

been raised about the safety of cab carled and MU locomotive train service 

due to the closer proximity of the 

engineer and passengers to the leading 

end of the train than in conventional 

locomotive-led service. 

The principal purpose of cab car and 

MU locomotive end frame structures is 

to provide protection for the engineer 

and passengers in the event of a 

collision where the superstructure of the 

vehicle is directly engaged and the 

underframe is either not engaged or only 

indirectly engaged in the collision. In 

the event of impacts with objects above 

the underframe of a cab car or MU 

locomotive, the end frame members are 

the primary source of protection for the 

engineer and the passengers. There are 

various types of cab cars and MU 

locomotives in current use. As 

discussed below, a flat-nosed, singlelevel cab car has been used for purposes 

of FRA-sponsored crashworthiness 

research. (The cab car was originally 

constructed as an MU locomotive but 

had its traction motors removed for 

testing.) Flat-nosed designs are 

representative of a large proportion of 

the cab car and MU locomotive fleet. 

In a typical flat-nosed cab car, the end 

frame is composed of several structural 

elements that act together to resist 

inward deformations under load. The 

base of the end frame structure is 

composed of the end/buffer beam, 

which is directly connected to the draft 

sill of the vehicle. For cars that include 

stepwells, the side sills of the 

underframe generally do not directly 

connect to the end/buffer beam. There 

are four major vertical members 

connected to the end/buffer beam: two 

collision posts located approximately at 

the one-third points along the length of 

the beam, and two corner posts located 

at the outermost points of the beam. 

These structural elements are also 

connected together through two 

additional lateral members: a lateral 

member/shelf located just below the 

window frame structure, and an antitelescoping plate at the top. The 

attachment of the end frame structure to 

the rest of the vehicle typically occurs 

at three locations. The first location is 

at the draft sill at the level of the 

underframe. This is the main 

connection where a majority of any 

longitudinal load applied to the end 

frame is reacted into the underframe of 

the vehicle. There are two other 

connections at the cant/roof rail located 

at either side of the car just below the 

level of the roof. When a longitudinal 

load is applied to the end frame, it is 

reacted by the draft sill and the cant 

rails into the main carbody structure. A 

schematic of a typical arrangement is 

depicted in Figure 1. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
42022 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

1National Transportation Safety Board, 

‘‘Collision of Northern Indiana Commuter 

Transportation District Train 102 with a TractorTrailer Portage, Indiana, June 18, 1998,’’ RAR–99–

03, 07/26/1999. 

2National Transportation Safety Board, ‘‘Railroad 

Accident Report: Near Head-On Collision and 

Derailment of Two New Jersey Transit Commuter 

Trains Near Secaucus, New Jersey, February 9, 

1996,’’ RAR–97–01, 03/25/1997. 

C. Accident History 

In a collision involving the front end 

of a cab car or an MU locomotive, it is 

vitally important that the end frame 

behaves in a ductile manner, absorbing 

some of the collision energy in order to 

maintain sufficient space in which the 

engineer and passengers can ride out the 

event. An example of a collision where 

the end frame did not effectively absorb 

collision energy occurred in Portage, IN, 

in 1998 when a NICTD train consisting 

of MU locomotives struck a tractortandem trailer carrying steel coils that 

had become immobilized on a grade 

crossing.1 The leading MU locomotive 

impacted a steel coil at a point centered 

on one of its collision posts, the 

collision post failed, and the steel coil 

penetrated into the interior of the 

locomotive, resulting in three fatalities. 

Little of the collision energy was 

absorbed by the collision post, because 

the post had failed before it could 

deform in any significant way. 

There are additional examples of 

incidents where the end frame of a cab 

car or an MU locomotive was engaged 

during a collision and a loss of 

survivable volume ensued due to the 

failure of end frame structures. As 

detailed in the NTSB accident reports 

referenced below, one such incident 

was the 1996 Secaucus, NJ collision 

between a cab car-led consist with a 

conventional locomotive-led consist,2 in 

which the right corner post of the cab 

car and its supporting end frame 

structure had separated from the car. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALSEP01AU07.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 42023 

3National Transportation Safety Board, 

‘‘Collision and Derailment of Maryland Rail 

Commuter MARC Train 286 and National Railroad 

Passenger Corporation AMTRAK Train 29 Near 

Silver Spring, Maryland, February 16, 1996,’’ RAR–

97–02, 06/17/1997. 

4American Public Transportation Association, 

Member Services Department, Manual of Standards 

and Recommended Practices for Passenger Rail 

Equipment, Issue of July 1, 1999. 

5American Public Transportation Association, 

Member Service Department, Manual of Standards 

and Recommended Practices for Passenger Rail 

Equipment, Issue of May 1, 2004. 

6Mayville, R., Johnson, K., Tyrell, D., 

Stringfellow, R., ‘‘Rail Vehicle Cab Car Collision 

and Corner Post Designs According to APTA S–034 

Requirements,’’ American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers, Paper No. MECE2003–44114, November 

2003. 

Another such incident was the 1996 

Silver Spring, MD collision between a 

cab car-led consist with a locomotiveled consist, in which the cab car’s left 

corner post and its supporting end 

frame structure had separated from the 

car.3 Although the speeds associated 

with certain past events are greater than 

what can be fully protected against, and 

even though enhancements to passenger 

train emergency features and other 

requirements unrelated to 

crashworthiness, such as fire safety, 

may overall do as much or more to 

prevent or mitigate the consequences of 

these types of events, they do provide 

indicative loading conditions for 

developing structural enhancements 

that can improve crashworthiness 

performance. 

FRA also notes that on January 26, 

2005 in Glendale, CA, a collision 

involving an unoccupied sport utility 

vehicle (SUV) that was parked on the 

track, two Metrolink commuter trains, 

and a standing freight train resulted in 

11 deaths and numerous injuries. Eight 

of the fatalities occurred on a cab carled passenger train which derailed after 

striking the SUV, causing the cab car to 

be guided down a railroad siding, which 

resulted in an impact at an approximate 

speed of 49 mph with the standing 

freight train. After the collision with the 

standing freight train, the rear end of the 

lead cab car buckled laterally, 

obstructing the right-of-way of an 

oncoming, conventional locomotive-led 

passenger train. The rear end of the cab 

car raked the side of the conventional 

locomotive-led train, which was moving 

at an approximate speed of 51 mph, 

crushing occupied areas of that train. 

This incident involved enormous 

quantities of kinetic energy, and the 

underframe of the leading cab car 

crushed more than 20 feet inward. 

Because the strength of the end frame is 

ultimately dependent on the strength of 

the underframe, which failed, stronger 

collision posts and corner posts on the 

front end of the leading cab car would 

have been, in themselves, of little 

benefit in absorbing the collision 

energy. For this reason, as discussed 

below, FRA has been exploring other 

crashworthiness strategies, such as 

CEM, to help mitigate the effects of 

collisions involving higher impact 

speeds. Nevertheless, CEM will also 

require proper end frame performance 

in order to function as intended. 

D. FRA and Industry Standards for 

Front-End Frame Structures of Cab Cars 

and MU Locomotives 

Both the Federal government and the 

passenger railroad industry have been 

working together to improve the 

crashworthiness of cab cars and MU 

locomotives. As noted above, in 1999, 

after several years of development and 

in consultation with a working group 

comprised of key industry stakeholders, 

FRA promulgated the Passenger 

Equipment Safety Standards final rule. 

The rule included end frame structure 

requirements and other 

crashworthiness-related requirements 

for cab cars, MU locomotives, and other 

passenger equipment. In particular, the 

final rule provided for strengthened 

collision posts for new cab cars and MU 

locomotives (i.e., those ordered on or 

after September 8, 2000, or placed in 

service for the first time on or after 

September 9, 2002). 

APTA also issued industry standards 

in 1999, in furtherance of its initiative 

to continue the development and 

maintenance of voluntary industry 

standards for the safety of railroad 

passenger equipment. In particular, 

APTA Standards SS–C&S–013–99 and 

SS–C&S–014–99 included provisions on 

end frame designs for cab cars and MU 

locomotives.4 Specifically, APTA’s 

standards included increased industry 

requirements for the strength of cab car 

and MU locomotive vertical end frame 

members—collision posts and corner 

posts. The 1999 APTA standards also 

included industry requirements for the 

deformation of these end frame vertical 

members, specifying that they must be 

able to sustain ‘‘severe deformation’’

before failure of the connections to the 

underframe and roof structures. 

In January 2000, APTA requested that 

FRA develop information on the 

effectiveness of APTA’s then-recently 

introduced Manual of Standards and 

Recommended Practices for passenger 

rail equipment, which included APTA 

SS–C&S–013–99 and APTA SS–C&S–

014–99, and FRA’s then-recently issued 

Passenger Equipment Safety Standards 

rule. This review was intended to look 

in particular at what increase in 

crashworthiness was obtained for cab 

cars and MU locomotives through the 

combination of these standards and 

regulations. FRA shared APTA’s interest 

and included full-scale impact tests and 

associated planning and analysis 

activities in its overall research plan to 

gather this information. FRA then 

developed the details of the testing 

process in conjunction with APTA’s 

Passenger Rail Equipment Safety 

Standards (PRESS) ConstructionStructural (C&S) Subcommittee. 

Around this same time, questions 

arose in the passenger rail industry in 

applying the APTA standards for 

collision posts and corner posts to new 

cab cars and MU locomotives. Views 

differed as to what the standards 

actually specified-namely, the meaning 

of ‘‘severe deformation’’ in the 

provisions calling for corner and 

collision posts to sustain ‘‘severe 

deformation’’ before failure of the posts’

attachments. Consequently, there was 

not common agreement as to whether 

particular designs met the standards. On 

May 22, 2003, APTA’s PRESS 

Committee accepted the 

recommendation of its C&S 

Subcommittee to replace these 

provisions in the standards with a 

recommended practice that the corner 

and collision post attachments be able 

to sustain minimum prescribed loads 

with negligible deformation.5 Both 

APTA Standards SS–C&S–013–99 and 

SS–C&S–014–99 were then otherwise 

incorporated in their entirety into APTA 

SS–C&S–034–99, Standard for the 

Design and Construction of Passenger 

Railroad Rolling Stock. (APTA 

combined these and other structural 

standards for the design of rail 

passenger equipment into a single 

document, for ease of reference for 

railroads and car builders.) 

Nevertheless, when the decision to 

turn these provisions into a 

recommended practice was made, 

ongoing research from full-scale impact 

tests was showing that a substantial 

increase in cab car and MU locomotive 

crashworthiness could be achieved by 

designing the posts to first deform and, 

thereby, absorb collision energy before 

failing.6 As discussed below, in August 

2005, APTA’s PRESS C&S 

Subcommittee accepted a revised 

‘‘severe deformation’’ standard for 

collision and corner posts. The standard 

includes requirements for minimum 

energy absorption and maximum 

deflection. The standard thereby 

eliminates a deficiency in the 1999 

APTA standards by specifying test 

criteria to objectively measure ‘‘severe 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
42024 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

7Martinez, E., Tyrell, D., Zolock, J., ‘‘Rail-Car 

Impact Tests with Steel Coil: Car Crush,’’ American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers, Paper No. 

JRC2003–1656, April 2003. 

8 Jacobsen, K., Tyrell, D., Perlman, A.B., ‘‘Rail-Car 

Impact Tests with Steel Coil: Collision Dynamics,’’

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Paper 

No. JRC2003–1655, April 2003. 

deformation.’’ This NPRM proposes to 

codify this standard. 

E. Testing of Front-End Frame 

Structures of Cab Cars and MU 

locomotives 

This section summarizes the work 

done by FRA and the passenger rail 

industry on developing the technical 

information to make recommendations 

for regulations requiring that corner and 

collision posts in cab car and MU 

locomotive front-end frames fail in a 

controlled manner when overloaded. 

Due to the collaborative work of FRA 

with the passenger rail industry, 

APTA’s current passenger rail 

equipment standards include 

deformation requirements, which 

prescribe how these vertical members 

should perform when overloaded. 

1. Designs Evaluated by FRA 

Two end frame designs were 

developed for purposes of evaluating 

incremental improvements in the 

crashworthiness performance, in 

highway-rail grade crossing collision 

scenarios, of modern corner and 

collision post designs when compared 

against the performance of older 

designs. The first end frame design was 

representative of typical designs of 

passenger rail vehicles in the 1990s 

prior to 1999. (The first end frame 

design is referred to as the ‘‘1990s 

design.’’) The second end frame design 

incorporated all the enhancements 

required beginning in 1999 by FRA’s 

Passenger Equipment Safety Standards 

rule in part 238 and also recommended 

beginning in 1999 by APTA’s standards 

for corner post and collision post 

structures, respectively, SS–C&S–013 

and SS–C&S–014. (The second end 

frame design is referred to as the Stateof-the-Art (SOA) design.) The two end 

frame designs developed were then 

retrofitted onto two Budd Pioneer 

passenger rail cars for testing. 

The SOA design differed principally 

from the 1990s design by having higher 

values for static loading of the end 

structure and by specifically addressing 

the performance of the collision and 

corner posts when overloaded. As noted 

above, the 1999 APTA standards for cab 

car and MU locomotive end structures 

included the following statement for 

both corner and collision posts: 

[The] post and its supporting structure 

shall be designed so that when it is 

overloaded * * * failure shall begin as 

bending or buckling in the post. The 

connections of the post to the supporting 

structure, and the supporting car body 

structure, shall support the post up to its 

ultimate capacity. The ultimate shear and 

tensile strength of the connecting fasteners or 

welds shall be sufficient to resist the forces 

causing the deformation, so that shear and 

tensile failure of the fasteners or welds shall 

not occur, even with severe deformation of 

the post and its connecting and supporting 

structural elements. 

(See paragraph 4.1 of APTA SS–C&S–

013–99, and paragraph 3.1 of APTA SS–

C&S–014–99.) Although the term 

‘‘severe deformation’’ was not 

specifically defined in the APTA 

standards, discussions with APTA 

technical staff led to specifying ‘‘severe 

deformation’’ in the SOA design as a 

horizontal crush of the corner and 

collisions posts for a distance equal to 

the posts’ depth. Some failure of the 

parent material in the posts was 

allowable, but no failure would be 

allowed in the welded connections, as 

the integrity of the welded connections 

prevents complete separation of the 

posts from their connections. 

An additional difference in the 

designs was the exclusion of the 

stepwells for the SOA design, to allow 

for extended side sills from the body 

bolster to the end/buffer beam. By 

bringing the side sills forward to 

support the end/buffer beam directly at 

the corners, the end/buffer beam can be 

developed to a size similar to the one for 

the 1990s design. In fact, recent cab car 

procurements have provided for 

elimination of the stepwells at the ends 

of the cars. 

As compared to the 1990s design, the 

SOA design had the following 

enhancements: More substantial corner 

posts; a bulkhead sheet connecting the 

collision and corner posts, extending 

from the floor to the transverse member 

connecting the posts; and a longer side 

sill that extended along the engineer’s 

compartment to the end beam, removing 

the presence of a stepwell. In addition 

to changes in the cross-sectional sizes 

and thickness of some structural 

members, another change in the SOA 

design was associated with the 

connection details for the corner posts. 

In comparison to the corner posts, the 

collision posts of both the 1990s and 

SOA designs penetrated both the top 

and bottom flanges of both the end/ 

buffer beam and the anti-telescoping 

plate. This was based upon typical 

practice in the early 1990s for the 1990s 

design, and a provision in the APTA 

standard for the SOA design. Yet, the 

corner posts differed in that the corner 

posts for the 1990s design did not 

penetrate both top and bottom flanges of 

the end/buffer and anti-telescoping 

beams, while those in the SOA design 

did. The SOA design therefore had a 

significantly stiffer connection that was 

better able to resist torsional loads 

transferred to the anti-telescoping plate. 

2. FRA Dynamic Impact Testing 

Two full-scale, grade crossing impact 

tests were conducted as part of an 

ongoing series of crashworthiness tests 

of passenger rail equipment. The grade 

crossing tests were designed to address 

the concern of occupant vulnerability to 

bulk crushing resulting from offset/ 

oblique collisions where the primary 

load-resisting-structure is the 

equipment’s end frame design. Both 

tests were conducted in June 2002, and 

in each test a single cab car impacted a 

40,000-lb steel coil resting on a frangible 

table at a nominal speed of 14 mph. The 

steel coil was situated such that it 

impacted the corner post above the cab 

car’s end sill. The principal difference 

between the two tests involved the end 

frame design tested: in one test, the cab 

car was fitted with the 1990s end frame 

design; in the other, the cab car was 

fitted with the SOA end frame design. 

Prior to the tests, the crush behaviors 

of the cars and their dynamic responses 

were simulated with car crush and 

collision dynamics models. The car 

crush model was used to determine the 

force/crush characteristics of the corner 

posts, as well as their modes of 

deformation.7 The collision dynamics 

model was used to predict the extent of 

crush of the corner posts as a function 

of impact velocity, as well as the threedimensional accelerations, velocities, 

and displacements of the cars and coil.8

Pre-test analyses of the models were 

used in determining the initial test 

conditions and instrumentation test 

requirements. 

The impact speed of approximately 14 

mph for both tests was chosen so that 

there would be significant intrusion 

(more than 12 inches) into the 

engineer’s cab in the test of the 1990s 

design, and limited intrusion (less than 

12 inches) in the test of the SOA design. 

This 12-inch deformation metric was 

chosen to demarcate the amount of 

intrusion that leaves sufficient space for 

the engineer to ride out the collision 

safely. 

During the full-scale tests, the impact 

force transmitted to the 1990s design 

end structure exceeded the corner post’s 

predicted strength, and the corner post 

separated from its upper attachment. 

Upon impact, the corner post began to 

hinge near the contact point with the 

coil; subsequently, tearing at the upper 

connection occurred. The intensity of 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 42025 

the impact ultimately resulted in the 

failure of the upper connection of the 

corner post to the anti-telescoping plate. 

More than 30 inches of deformation 

occurred. 

The SOA design performed very 

closely to pre-test predictions made by 

the finite element and collision 

dynamics models. See Figure 2. The 

SOA design crushed approximately 9 

inches in the longitudinal direction. 

Pre-test analyses for the 1990s design 

using the car crush model and collision 

dynamics model were in close 

agreement with the measurements taken 

during the actual testing of the cab car 

end frame built to this design. The pretest analyses also nearly overlay the test 

results for the force/crush characteristic 

of the SOA design. As a result, FRA 

believes that both sets of models are 

capable of predicting the modes of 

structural deformation and the total 

amount of energy consumed during a 

collision. Careful application of finiteelement modeling allows accurate 

prediction of the crush behavior of rail 

car structures. 

Both the methodologies used to 

design the cab car end frames and the 

results of the tests show that significant 

increases in rail passenger equipment 

crashworthiness can be achieved if 

greater consideration is given to the 

manner in which structural elements 

deform when overloaded. Modern 

methods of analysis can accurately 

predict structural crush (severe 

deformation) and consequently can be 

used with confidence to develop 

structures that collapse in a controlled 

manner. Modern testing techniques 

allow the verification of the crush 

behavior of such structures. 

3. Industry Quasi-Static Testing 

While FRA’s full-scale, dynamic 

testing program was being planned and 

conducted with input from key industry 

representatives, several passenger 

railroads were incorporating in 

procurement specifications the thennewly promulgated Federal regulations 

and industry standards issued in 1999. 

Specifically, both LIRR and Metro-North 

had contracted with Bombardier for the 

development of a new MU locomotive 

design, the M7 series. Bombardier 

conducted a series of qualifying quasistatic tests on a mock-up, front-end 

structure of an M7, including a severe 

deformation test of the collision post. In 

addition to the severe deformation test, 

the other end frame members were also 

tested elastically at the enhanced loads 

specified in the APTA standards. The 

severe deformation qualification test 

was conducted on February 20, 2001. 

The quasi-static testing of the M7 

collision post was conducted on a 

mock-up test article. The first 19.25 feet 

of the car structure was fabricated, from 

the car’s body bolster to the front end, 

so that the mock-up contained all 

structural elements. Load was applied at 

incrementally increasing levels with 

hydraulic jacks while being measured 

by load cells at the rear of the 

longitudinal end frame members. 

Initially, the elastic limit was 

determined for the post, and then the 

large deformation test was conducted. 

The test was stopped, for safety 

considerations, prior to full separation 

of the collision post with the end/buffer 

beam. 

The maximum deflection in the 

collision post before yielding occurred 

at a position 42 inches above the end 

beam, near the top of the plates used to 

reinforce the collision post. The plastic 

shape the collision post acquired during 

testing was ‘V’-shaped, with a plastic 

hinge occurring at 42 inches above the 

end beam. Some cracking and material 

failure occurred at the connection of the 

post with the end beam. The antitelescoping plate was pulled down 

roughly three inches, and load was shed 

to the corner post via the shelf member 

and the bulkhead sheet. The shape that 

the collision post experienced is very 

similar to what was observed from the 

dynamic testing of the SOA corner post, 

as discussed above. 

4. Comparative Analyses 

Under FRA sponsorship, the Volpe 

Center, with cooperation from 

Bombardier, conducted non-linear, large 

deformation analyses to evaluate the 

performance of the cab car corner and 

collision posts of the SOA end frame 

design and the Bombardier M7 design 

under dynamic test conditions. One of 

the purposes of this research was to 

determine whether the level of 

crashworthiness demonstrated by the 

SOA prototype design could actually be 

achieved by a general production 

design—here, the M7 design. Pre-test 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALSEP01AU07.001</GPH> 
42026 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

9Martinez, E., Tyrell, D., Zolock, J. Brassard, J., 

‘‘Review of Severe Deformation Recommended 

Practice Through Analyses—Comparison of Two 

Cab Car End Frame Designs,’’ American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers, Paper No. IMECE2005–

70043, March 2005. 

analysis predictions of the dynamic 

performance of the SOA corner post 

closely matched test measurements.9 A 

similar analysis of the corner post was 

performed on the M7 design, and the 

results compared closely with the SOA 

design test and analysis results. Overall, 

the crashworthiness performance of the 

collision posts of the SOA and M7 

designs were found to be essentially the 

same, and the M7 corner post design 

was even found to perform better than 

the SOA corner post design. This latter 

difference in performance is attributable 

to the sidewall support in the M7 

design, which is not present in the SOA 

design. 

Having established the fidelity of the 

models and modeling approach, a 

number of comparative simulations 

were conducted of both the SOA end 

frame and the M7 end frame under both 

dynamic and quasi-static test conditions 

to assess the equivalency of the two 

different tests for demonstrating 

compliance with the severe deformation 

standard. For both sets of tests, the 

modes of deformation were very similar 

at the same extent of longitudinal 

displacement, and the locations where 

material failure occurred were also 

similar. In addition, the predicted forcecrush characteristics showed reasonable 

agreement within the repeatability of 

the tests. Figure 3, below, shows a 

comparison of the deformation modes 

for the M7, as observed from the quasistatic testing and as predicted for the 

dynamic coil loading condition. 

F. Approaches for Specifying Large 

Deformation Requirements 

As discussed above, APTA’s initial 

‘‘severe deformation’’ standard, 

published in 1999, did not contain 

specific methodologies or criteria for 

demonstrating compliance with the 

standard. Consequently, the dynamic 

tests performed by FRA and the Volpe 

Center, static tests performed by 

members of the rail industry, and 

analyses conducted by the Volpe Center 

and its contractors all helped to develop 

the base of information needed to 

identify the types of analyses and test 

methodologies to use. Further, 

evaluation of the test data, with the 

analyses providing a supporting 

framework, allowed development of 

appropriate criteria to demonstrate 

compliance. 

The principal criteria developed 

involve energy absorption through end 

frame deformation and the maximum 

amount of that deformation. As shown 

by FRA and industry testing, energy can 

be imparted to conventional flat-nosed 

cab cars and MU locomotives either 

dynamically or quasi-statically. As 

shown by Volpe Center analyses, 

currently available engineering tools can 

be used to predict the results of such 

tests. Given the complexity of such 

analyses, and commensurate 

uncertainties, there is a benefit to 

maintaining dynamic testing as an 

option for evaluating compliance with 

any ‘‘severe deformation’’ standard. 

There are tradeoffs between quasistatic and dynamic end frame testing of 

cab cars and MU locomotives. Both sets 

of tests prescribe a minimum amount of 

energy for end frame deformation. 

However, the manner in which the 

energy is applied is different, and the 

setup of the two types of tests is 

different. As demonstrated by the tests 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALSEP01AU07.002</GPH> 
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 42027 

10Tyrell, D.C., Perlman, A.B., ‘‘Evaluation of Rail 

Passenger Equipment Crashworthiness Strategies,’’

Transportation Research Record No. 1825, pp. 8–14, 

National Academy Press, 2003. 

conducted by Bombardier, quasi-static 

tests can be conducted by rail 

equipment manufacturers at their own 

facilities. Dynamic tests require a 

segment of railroad track with 

appropriate wayside facilities; there are 

few such test tracks available. 

Nevertheless, dynamic tests do not 

require detailed knowledge of the car 

structure to be tested, and allow for a 

wide range of structural designs. Quasistatic tests require intimate knowledge 

of the structure being tested, to assure 

appropriate support and loading 

conditions, and development of quasistatic test protocols requires 

assumptions about the layout of the 

structure, confining structural designs. 

In addition, dynamic tests more closely 

approximate accident conditions than 

quasi-static tests do. 

In August 2005, APTA’s PRESS C&S 

Subcommittee accepted a revised 

‘‘severe deformation’’ standard for 

collision and corner posts. The standard 

includes requirements for minimum 

energy absorption and maximum 

deflection. The form of the standard is 

largely based on the testing done by 

Bombardier, and therefore is quasistatic. The standard eliminates a 

deficiency of the 1999 standards by 

specifying test criteria to objectively 

measure ‘‘severe deformation.’’ The 

standard can be readily applied to 

conventional flat-end cab cars and MU 

locomotives, but is more difficult to 

apply to shaped-nosed cab cars and MU 

locomotives or those with crash energy 

management designs. 

In addition, APTA as well as several 

equipment manufacturers have 

expressed an interest in maintaining the 

presence of a stairwell on the side of the 

cab car or MU locomotive opposite from 

where the locomotive engineer is 

situated. This feature enables multilevel boarding from both low and higher 

platforms. As such, FRA and the APTA 

PRESS C&S group worked together to 

develop language associated with 

providing a safety equivalent to the 

requirements stipulated for cab car and 

MU locomotive corner posts in terms of 

energy absorption and graceful 

deformations. The group agreed that for 

this arrangement there is sufficient 

protection afforded by the presence of 

two corner posts (an end corner post 

and an internal adjacent body corner 

post) that are situated in front of the 

occupied space. The load requirements 

stipulated for such posts differ in that 

longitudinal requirements are not equal 

to the transverse requirements. This in 

effect changes the shape of these posts 

so that they are not equal in both width 

and height. For the end corner post the 

longitudinal loads are smaller than the 

transverse loads. The opposite is true for 

the body corner post. Despite the 

changes in the loading requirements 

from longitudinal to transverse, it was 

agreed to allow for the combined 

contribution of both sets of corner posts 

to provide an equivalent level of 

protection to that required for corner 

posts in other cab car and MU 

locomotive configurations. See the 

discussion in the section-by-section on 

the structural requirements for cab cars 

and MU locomotives with a stairwell 

located on the side of the equipment 

opposite from where the locomotive 

engineer is situated. 

G. Crash Energy Management and the 

Design of Front-End Structures of Cab 

Cars and MU Locomotives 

Research has shown that passenger 

rail equipment crashworthiness in trainto-train collisions can be significantly 

increased if the equipment structure is 

engineered to crush in a controlled 

manner. One manner of doing so is to 

design sacrificial crush zones into 

unoccupied locations in the equipment. 

These crush zones are designed to crush 

gracefully, with a lower initial force and 

increased average force. With such 

crush zones, energy absorption is shared 

by multiple cars during the collision, 

consequently helping to preserve the 

integrity of the occupied areas. While 

developed principally to protect 

occupants in train-to-train collisions, 

such crush zones can also potentially 

significantly increase crashworthiness 

in highway-rail grade-crossing 

collisions.10

The approach of including crush 

zones in passenger rail equipment is 

termed CEM, and it extends from 

current, conventional practice. Current 

practice for passenger equipment 

operated at speeds not exceeding 125 

mph (i.e., Tier I passenger equipment 

under part 238) requires that the 

equipment be able to support large loads 

without permanent deformation or 

failure, but does not specifically address 

how the equipment behaves when it 

crushes. CEM prescribes that car 

structures crush in a controlled manner 

when overloaded and absorb collision 

energy. In fact, for passenger equipment 

operating at speeds exceeding 125 mph 

but not exceeding 150 mph (i.e., Tier II 

passenger equipment under part 238), 

FRA requires that the equipment be 

designed with a CEM system to 

dissipate kinetic energy during a 

collision, see § 238.403, and Amtrak’s 

Acela Express trainsets were designed 

with a CEM system complying with this 

requirement. 

FRA notes that Metrolink is in the 

process of procuring a new fleet of cars 

utilizing CEM technology. As part of its 

response to the Glendale, CA train 

incident on January 26, 2005, Metrolink 

determined that CEM design 

specifications should be included in 

this planned procurement, and, in 

coordination with APTA, approached 

FRA and FTA to draft such 

specifications. In turn, FRA and FTA 

formed the ad hoc Crash Energy 

Management Working Group in May 

2005. This working group included 

government engineers and participants 

from the rail industry, including 

passenger railroads, suppliers, labor 

organizations, and industry consultants, 

many of whom also participated in the 

Crashworthiness/Glazing Task Force. 

The working group developed a detailed 

technical specification for crush zones 

in passenger cars for Metrolink to 

include in its procurement 

specification, as well as for other 

passenger railroads to include in future 

procurements of their own. Metrolink 

released its specification as part of an 

invitation for bid, and then awarded the 

contract to manufacture the equipment 

to Rotem, a division of Hyundai. 

Rotem is currently developing a 

shaped-nose, CEM design for new 

Metrolink cab cars. Because of the 

shaped-nose, it is more difficult to 

engineer structural members identifiable 

as full-height collision posts and corner 

posts that extend from the underframe 

to the cantrail or roofline at the front 

end, as specified in the current APTA 

standard. Consequently, to meet the 

APTA standard, FRA believes that 

Rotem will need to locate the collision 

and corner posts inboard of the crush 

zone, rather than place them at the 

extreme front end of the cab car. 

Further, as currently written, the APTA 

quasi-static standard does not expressly 

take into account the energy absorption 

capability of the crush zone, even if the 

crush zone would likely be engaged in 

a grade-crossing impact. Although the 

APTA standard acknowledges the use of 

shaped-nose and CEM designs, there 

remains uncertainty in the standard 

associated with demonstration of 

compliance with such designs. (The 

APTA standard does provide that on 

cars with CEM designs, compliance be 

demonstrated either through analysis or 

testing as agreed to by the vehicle 

builder and purchaser, but no test 

methodology or criteria are provided.) 

A dynamic test standard would place 

fewer constraints on the layout of the 

cab car end structure and would allow 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
42028 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

the energy absorption capability of the 

crush zone to be expressly taken into 

account in the design of the collision 

and corner post structures. As noted, the 

NPRM provides an option for the 

dynamic testing of cab cars and MU 

locomotives. Nevertheless, FRA makes 

clear that the Task Force did not reach 

consensus on recommending the 

inclusion of dynamic testing in this 

NPRM. However, FRA believes that the 

results of the crashworthiness research 

discussed above provide strong support 

for including dynamic testing in the 

rule, and that it is particularly necessary 

to address what FRA believes will be a 

growing number of cab cars and MU 

locomotives utilizing CEM designs. This 

need has become more apparent since 

the Task Force meetings occurred, and 

FRA has scheduled additional, full-scale 

crash testing to facilitate the use of both 

quasi-static and dynamic test standards. 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis 

Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part 

238, Passenger Equipment Safety 

Standards 

Subpart A—General 

Section 238.13 Preemptive Effect 

Existing § 238.13 informs the public 

as to FRA’s views regarding the 

preemptive effect of this part by citing 

and restating the statutory provision 

that governed the regulation’s 

preemptive effect at the time that it was 

promulgated (49 U.S.C. 20106). See 64 

FR 25581. This statutory provision was 

amended by the Homeland Security Act 

of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107–296, 116 Stat. 

2135, 2319 (November 25, 2002), 

subsequent to the issuance of the May 

12, 1999 final rule promulgating the 

Passenger Equipment Safety Standards. 

Consequently, FRA is proposing to 

amend § 238.13 so that it is more 

consistent with the revised statutory 

language expressly addressing railroad 

security. 

As amended to date, 49 U.S.C. 20106 

provides that all regulations and orders 

prescribed or issued by the Secretary of 

Transportation (with respect to railroad 

safety matters) and the Secretary of 

Homeland Security (with respect to 

railroad security matters) preempt any 

State law, regulation, or order covering 

the same subject matter, except an 

additional or more stringent provision 

necessary to eliminate or reduce an 

essentially local safety or security 

hazard that is not incompatible with a 

Federal law, regulation, or order and 

that does not unreasonably burden 

interstate commerce. The Congressional 

intent behind the statute is to promote 

national uniformity in railroad safety 

and security standards and to avoid 

subjecting the railroads to a variety of 

enforcement in 50 different State 

judicial and administrative systems. The 

courts have construed the ‘‘essentially 

local safety or security’’ exception very 

narrowly, holding that it is designed to 

enable States to respond to local 

situations which are not statewide in 

character and not capable of being 

adequately encompassed within 

uniform national standards. With the 

exception of such a provision directed 

at an essentially local safety or security 

hazard, 49 U.S.C. 20106 preempts any 

State statutory, regulatory, or common 

law standard covering the same subject 

matter as a Federal law, regulation, or 

order, including an FRA regulation or 

order. 

In addition, since issues have arisen 

regarding the preemptive effect of this 

part on the safety of operating a cab car 

as the leading unit of a passenger train, 

FRA believes that clarification of its 

views on the matter is needed to address 

any misunderstanding. As described 

below, through a variety of initiatives 

spanning more than a decade, FRA has 

comprehensively and intentionally 

covered the subject matter of the 

requirements for passenger equipment, 

planning for the safe use of passenger 

equipment, and the manner in which 

passenger equipment is used. In so 

doing, FRA believes that it has 

preempted any State law, regulation, or 

order, including State common law, 

concerning the operation of a cab car or 

MU locomotive as the leading unit of a 

passenger train. This NPRM on cab car 

and MU locomotive crashworthiness 

further refines FRA’s comprehensive 

regulation of passenger equipment 

safety and serves to show that the 

operation of cab cars and MU 

locomotives is a matter regulated by 

FRA, and not one which FRA has left 

subject to State statutory, regulatory, or 

common law standards covering that 

subject matter. 

Emergency Order No. 20 

In the wake of two serious accidents, 

each involving a passenger train 

operating with a cab car in the lead 

position in ‘‘push-pull service,’’ FRA 

issued Emergency Order No. 20 (EO 20) 

on February 22, 1996 (61 FR 6876), 

amended on March 5, 1996 (61 FR 

8703). EO 20 generally required 

passenger railroads operating push-pull 

or MU locomotive service to have in 

their operating rules a delayed-in-block 

rule and a rule requiring 

communication of wayside signals, and 

required passenger railroads to mark 

and test exits used for emergency egress. 

EO 20 also required passenger railroads 

which operated push-pull or MU 

locomotive service to develop and 

submit interim system safety plans for 

the purpose of enhancing the safety of 

such operations. FRA noted that it 

would review the plans submitted and, 

based on that review, it would 

‘‘determine whether other mandatory 

action appears necessary to address 

hazards associated with the subject rail 

passenger service.’’ 61 FR 6882. Thus, 

FRA’s approach was to have passenger 

railroads review their approach to pushpull and MU operations, and FRA 

would then review the railroads’ plans 

and determine what further action to 

take. FRA ultimately did take further 

action to regulate push-pull and MU 

operations as part of its overall 

regulation of passenger equipment 

safety. 

Passenger Safety Rulemakings 

At the time EO 20 was issued in 

February 1996, FRA had been moving 

forward with rulemakings to establish 

comprehensive safety standards for 

railroad passenger equipment. As noted 

above, the rulemakings arose out of the 

Secretary of Transportation’s 

commitment in 1994 to develop safety 

standards for railroad passenger 

equipment, soon followed by enactment 

of the Federal Railroad Safety 

Authorization Act of 1994. In Section 

215 of the Act, Congress directed the 

Secretary to specifically consider a 

number of matters before prescribing 

regulations, such as the crashworthiness 

of the cars, interior features (including 

luggage restraints, seat belts, and 

exposed surfaces) that may affect 

passenger safety, and any operating 

rules and conditions that directly affect 

safety not otherwise governed by 

regulations. Congress granted the 

Secretary the authority to make 

applicable some or all of the standards 

to cars existing at the time the 

regulations were prescribed, as well as 

to new cars. Moreover, as noted above, 

Congress authorized the Secretary, 

when prescribing regulations, issuing 

orders, and making amendments under 

this section, to consult with Amtrak, 

public authorities operating railroad 

passenger service, other railroad carriers 

transporting passengers, organizations 

of passengers, and organizations of 

employees. 49 U.S.C. 20133. As 

delegated from the Secretary, FRA has 

exercised these grants of authority. 

Passenger Train Emergency 

Preparedness 

Using the consultative authority 

granted by Congress, FRA convened the 

first meeting of the Passenger Train 

Emergency Preparedness Working 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 42029 

Group in August 1995, focused on the 

development of emergency 

preparedness planning requirements for 

commuter and intercity passenger train 

operations. The rulemaking culminated 

in the publication of a final rule on 

Passenger Train Emergency 

Preparedness on May 4, 1998. 63 FR 

24630. 

As described above, this regulation 

requires railroads that operate intercity 

or commuter passenger train service or 

that host the operation of such service 

to adopt and comply with written 

emergency preparedness plans 

approved by FRA. In addition, as noted 

above, the regulation specifies marking 

and instruction requirements for 

emergency window and door exits, and 

provides for the inspection, 

maintenance, and repair of emergency 

window and door exits. The regulation 

therefore codified and expanded EO 

20’s requirements to mark and inspect 

emergency exits. 

In formalizing a planning requirement 

for emergency preparedness, FRA 

acknowledged that the plans would be 

integrated into commuter railroads’

overall system safety planning efforts. 

63 FR at 24636. FRA announced that it 

would monitor the implementation of 

the rule and evaluate whether further 

rulemaking or other action were 

necessary to achieve the desired 

improvements in emergency 

preparedness. Id. 

Passenger Equipment Safety Standards 

Using the same consultative authority 

granted by Congress, FRA convened the 

first meeting of the Passenger 

Equipment Safety Standards Working 

Group in June 1995, as mentioned 

above. Thereafter in June 1996, FRA 

issued an ANPRM on Passenger 

Equipment Safety Standards. 61 FR 

30672. In that notice, FRA stated its 

views and solicited comments on 

possible safety regulations, including 

requirements addressing inspection, 

testing, and maintenance procedures, 

equipment design and performance 

criteria related to passenger and crew 

survivability in the event of a train 

accident, and the safe operation of 

passenger train service. FRA considered 

system safety planning to be the heart of 

its approach to passenger equipment 

safety. 61 FR 30684. 

In the ANPRM, FRA stressed the need 

for flexibility in the development of 

system safety plans, noting that they 

could range from a relatively simple 

document to a detailed document laying 

out a comprehensive approach for 

designing, testing, and operating stateof-the-art high-speed passenger rail 

systems. In this regard, FRA provided 

an example of how system safety could 

be approached, breaking down the 

railroad system into four major 

component systems: interfaces; right-ofway; equipment; and transportation. 61 

FR 30685. FRA noted that many 

passenger railroads operate at least 

partially as a tenant on the right-of-way 

and property of another railroad, and 

may have little or no control over some 

of the major risk components of the risk 

analysis, such as the interfaces and 

right-of-way components. 61 FR 30686. 

Nevertheless, FRA explained that the 

‘‘systems’’ methodology still has 

considerable merit when applied to the 

remaining subsystems, in that the 

analysis could help define the 

equipment crashworthiness features 

required for its intended purpose or the 

operational limitations needed to 

improve or retain safety levels, but that 

a true system safety approach cannot be 

applied to a system that has major risk 

components that are constrained. 

FRA also solicited comments on 

various aspects of system safety 

planning, including information 

regarding any existing plans in use at 

the time. FRA was particularly 

interested in ways to tailor system safety 

programs to fit individual situations, so 

that the process made good business 

sense and addressed safety needs, and 

was not a regulatory burden that did not 

benefit safety. 

Following the consideration of 

comments received on the ANPRM and 

recommendations of the Working 

Group, FRA issued an NPRM to 

establish comprehensive safety 

standards for passenger equipment, 

including cab cars, as discussed above. 

62 FR 49728; September 23, 1997. 

Among FRA’s proposals in the NPRM 

were requirements for system safety 

plans and programs which would apply 

to both Tier I and Tier II passenger 

equipment. FRA indicated that through 

the system safety process, railroads 

would be required to identify, evaluate, 

and seek to eliminate or reduce the 

hazards associated with the use of 

passenger equipment over the railroad 

system. FRA noted that the importance 

of system safety planning had been 

recognized in EO 20, and that the 

commuter railroads had subsequently 

committed to the development of 

comprehensive system safety plans, 

which went beyond the limited scope of 

the interim system safety plans that had 

been required by EO 20. 62 FR 49733. 

In the NPRM, FRA explained that 

while consensus was reached within the 

Working Group on system safety 

planning requirements as they would 

apply to Tier II passenger equipment, 

the Working Group did not reach 

consensus on the requirements as they 

would apply to Tier I passenger 

equipment. 62 FR 49760. Although the 

Working Group agreed that passenger 

rail systems should apply system safety 

planning to Tier I passenger equipment, 

some members of the Working Group 

questioned whether this should be 

required by law. In particular, FRA 

noted the position of the American 

Public Transit Association (now 

American Public Transportation 

Association, APTA), which objected to 

FRA’s regulation of any aspect of system 

safety planning. 62 FR 49734. APTA 

suggested that the commuter railroads 

be allowed to regulate themselves in 

this area because the system safety 

efforts they were undertaking were more 

comprehensive in nature than anything 

FRA sought to require, and were not 

limited to rail equipment issues. FRA 

therefore invited comment on APTA’s 

suggestion and on a number of other 

issues with respect to system safety 

planning requirements, so that it could 

decide what approach to take in the 

final rule with respect to system safety 

plans. In addition, FRA proposed 

numerous other requirements for the 

safe operation of passenger train service, 

including equipment design and 

performance criteria related to 

passenger and crew survivability in the 

event of a train accident, and 

inspection, testing, and maintenance 

procedures. 

FRA received extensive comments on 

the NPRM, including comments 

regarding the question of system safety 

planning. Some comments suggested 

that system safety planning should be 

completely voluntary, to allow for 

maximum flexibility. Other 

commenters, however, argued that FRA 

had to prescribe specific mandatory 

requirements for those aspects of system 

safety that it chose to address. All of the 

comments received on the proposed 

rule, both written and oral, were 

considered by FRA in promulgating the 

final rule on May 12, 1999. 64 FR 25540. 

FRA’s ultimate regulatory decision in 

issuing a final rule on passenger 

equipment safety standards was to 

address only certain aspects of system 

safety planning, focused primarily on 

rail passenger equipment, rather than to 

require generally that the railroads 

implement comprehensive system safety 

plans. 64 FR 25549. While FRA 

acknowledged that the plans required 

by the regulation would be part of larger 

system safety planning efforts, only the 

elements specifically addressed in the 

rule would be enforced. As with most of 

FRA’s regulations, the final rule 

prescribed minimum Federal safety 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
42030 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

standards and did not restrict a railroad 

and other persons subject to the 

regulation from adopting additional or 

more stringent requirements not 

inconsistent with the final rule. 64 FR 

25575. 

FRA made a conscious decision to 

regulate in a way that allowed greater 

flexibility in overall system safety 

planning for Tier I passenger 

equipment, stating in the final rule that: 

FRA will closely monitor Tier I railroad 

operations in their development and 

adherence to voluntary, comprehensive 

system safety plans. FRA has already 

established a liaison relationship with APTA 

and has already begun participating in 

system safety plan audits on commuter 

railroads. FRA is using this involvement to 

enrich FRA’s Safety Assurance and 

Compliance Program (SACP) efforts on these 

railroads-which, unlike the triennial audit 

process for system safety plans, is a 

continuous activity with frequent onproperty involvement by FRA safety 

professionals. FRA will reconsider its 

decision not to impose a general requirement 

for system safety plans on Tier I railroad 

operations if the need to do so arises. 64 Fed. 

Reg. at 25549. 

FRA’s participation in the APTA 

audit process was intended to 

complement FRA’s regulatory 

requirements, and other initiatives such 

as the SACP process. It was not, 

however, a delegation of responsibility 

to the industry to regulate itself. 

FRA did not impose system safety 

planning requirements that specifically 

addressed push-pull or MU locomotive 

operations for Tier I passenger 

equipment. However, FRA considered 

the proper scope of system safety 

planning requirements that it should 

impose for such operations, and chose 

not to impose general system safety 

requirements for this equipment. 

Instead, in the 1999 final rule FRA 

imposed a myriad of substantive 

requirements intended to ensure the 

safety of the equipment in whatever 

operational mode it is used. For 

instance, using the statutory authority to 

apply requirements of the final rule to 

existing passenger equipment, FRA 

generally required that all Tier I 

passenger equipment, including both 

new and existing cab cars, have a 

minimum buff strength of 800,000 

pounds, as specified in 49 CFR 238.203. 

FRA also noted that these substantive 

requirements, like the system safety 

planning requirements, might be further 

addressed in subsequent rulemaking. 

For example, FRA specifically stated in 

the final rule that additional effort 

needed to be made to enhance corner 

post safety standards for cab cars and 

MU locomotives—leading to the NPRM 

that FRA is issuing today. 64 FR at 

25607. However, FRA made clear that 

the very fact that it identified the 

possibility of specifying additional 

regulations did not nullify the 

preemptive effect of the final rule, both 

in terms of the issues addressed by the 

specific requirements imposed, and 

those as to which FRA considered 

specific requirements but ultimately 

chose to allow a more flexible approach. 

FRA extended additional 

requirements to Tier II passenger 

equipment, both in terms of system 

safety planning and substantive 

requirements that eliminated the 

possibility of operating Tier II passenger 

equipment in the push-pull mode, or in 

any mode with passengers occupying 

the leading car in a train. In addition to 

the specific system safety planning 

requirements generally applicable to all 

passenger equipment (fire safety; 

hardware and software safety; 

inspection, testing, and maintenance; 

training, qualifications, and 

designations; and pre-revenue service 

testing), FRA required additional system 

safety planning for Tier II passenger 

equipment. Railroads are required to 

have a written plan for the safe 

operation of the equipment, both prior 

to its operation and also before 

introducing new technology in the 

equipment that affects a safety system 

on the equipment. These plans may be 

combined with the other plans required 

for all passenger equipment. See 64 FR 

25646–25647; 49 CFR 238.601 and 

238.603. Although the rule does not 

require FRA approval of the plans, it 

does generally require FRA approval of 

Tier II passenger equipment operations, 

pursuant to 49 CFR 238.111(b)(7). 

FRA also adopted structural 

requirements for Tier II passenger 

equipment that require the equipment to 

withstand collision forces not possible 

for conventional cab cars or MU 

locomotives to withstand, thus 

effectively prohibiting the use of such 

equipment in Tier II passenger trains. 

FRA specifically stated with regard to 

Tier II passenger equipment that the 

crash energy management requirements 

‘‘will effectively prevent a conventional 

cab car from operating as the lead 

vehicle in a Tier II passenger train 

because such equipment cannot absorb 

5 MJ of collision energy ahead of the 

train operator’s position.’’ 64 FR at 

25630. Morever, FRA expressly 

prohibited passenger seating in the 

leading unit of Tier II passenger trains, 

see 49 CFR 238.403(f), which, in turn, 

effectively prohibits the operation of 

push-pull or MU locomotive servicemethods of operation in which 

passengers can occupy the lead unit of 

a train. In fact, FRA specifically stated 

that cab cars ‘‘should not be used in the 

forward position of a train that travels 

at speeds greater than 125 mph.’’ Id. 

FRA imposed no such prohibition on 

passenger seating in the lead unit of a 

Tier I passenger train. 

FRA’s decisions to require more 

general system safety planning for Tier 

II passenger operations, and to impose 

substantive requirements that in both 

effect and application prohibit 

passenger seating in the leading unit of 

Tier II passenger trains, make clear that 

these issues were carefully considered 

in the 1999 final rule. Of course, by 

virtue of imposing stricter standards on 

Tier II passenger equipment than Tier I 

passenger equipment, FRA did not 

intend States to step in and regulate Tier 

I passenger equipment. On the contrary, 

FRA recognized the operational 

differences between Tier I and Tier II 

passenger equipment, and purposely 

chose to address these two types of 

equipment differently. Where FRA has 

prohibited one thing and chosen not to 

prohibit another, such as prohibiting 

cab car-forward operations for Tier II 

and not for Tier I, FRA intended to 

allow a railroad to do that which FRA 

did not prohibit. FRA’s regulatory 

choice was intended to be preemptive of 

State standards with regard to both Tier 

I and Tier II passenger equipment. 

As FRA understands the Supreme 

Court’s standard for covering the subject 

matter, State or local governments, 

courts or litigants may not carve out 

subsets of subject matters FRA has 

covered. Accordingly, when FRA has 

regulated the construction of a railcar, 

FRA clearly permits its operation on the 

general system of railroad transportation 

unless FRA explicitly sets limits on its 

operation, and State or local 

governments may not prohibit certain of 

those operations or impose an 

independent duty of care with respect to 

those operations. FRA’s comprehensive 

regulation of this area has covered the 

subject matter of all aspects of the safe 

operation of cab cars and MU 

locomotives, leaving no room for State 

standards. States are free of course to 

craft standards to address the extremely 

rare ‘‘essentially local safety or security 

hazard,’’ so long as the standards 

otherwise meet the three part test of 49 

U.S.C. 20106. 

Nevertheless, as explained below, a 

State or local entity which owns or 

controls a railroad may direct that 

railroad to exceed FRA’s requirements, 

provided that it does so in a capacity 

that is wholly distinct, and does not 

derive, from the statutory provision 

governing the preemptive effect of 

FRA’s regulation of this area. Commuter 

rail service is typically provided by 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 42031 

public benefit corporations chartered by 

State or local governments, whereas 

freight rail service is provided almost 

exclusively by non-governmental 

entities. Just as the owner of a freight 

railroad may direct that its railroad’s 

operations exceed FRA’s minimum 

safety standards, so may a State or local 

body, acting through the public benefit 

corporation that it has chartered, direct 

its railroad to operate in a manner more 

restrictive than, but not inconsistent 

with, FRA’s requirements. FRA makes 

clear that, when a State or local 

government entity acts in this capacity, 

it is not acting as a regulator of railroad 

operations. It is effectively acting in a 

private capacity concerning the 

operation of its own railroad, and the 

fact that it is a public entity does not 

somehow change its action into a law, 

regulation, or order related to railroad 

safety or security that invokes the 

statutory provision governing the 

preemptive effect of FRA’s regulation of 

this area. A State or local entity’s ability 

to act in this capacity concerning its 

own railroad is wholly distinct, and 

does not derive, from any provision of 

49 U.S.C. 20106. 

Because FRA’s safety standards are 

minimum safety standards, a State or 

local entity’s ability to act in this 

manner is the same ability that a nongovernmental entity which owns a 

freight railroad would have, should it 

decide to provide passenger service, to 

direct its passenger operations in a 

manner more stringent than, but not 

inconsistent with, FRA’s requirements. 

The fact that a State or local entity is 

involved—and not a private entity—

does not alter in any way FRA’s views 

as to the preemptive effect of FRA’s 

comprehensive regulation of passenger 

equipment safety, and the safe operation 

of cab cars and MU locomotives in 

particular. 

Similarly, where FRA has required 

passenger railroads to engage in system 

safety planning or has not required such 

planning because the passenger 

railroads, in FRA’s judgment, are doing 

an adequate job of system safety 

planning, FRA intends to preempt State 

and local regulation precisely because 

FRA has already decided what system 

safety planning each railroad should be 

doing based on its own circumstances. 

The relevant circumstances vary more 

widely among passenger railroads than 

among freight railroads and, at this level 

of specificity, the best and most 

effective planning is aimed squarely at 

the circumstances of each individual 

passenger railroad. Therefore, State or 

local regulation of such system safety 

planning is also preempted. 

Further, FRA’s decision to revisit in 

this NPRM subjects addressed in the 

1999 final rule does not change the 

preemptive effect of the comprehensive 

requirements imposed in that rule. As 

noted earlier, FRA’s recognition in the 

1999 final rule that additional work 

needed to be completed to enhance the 

crashworthiness of cab cars and MU 

locomotives does not nullify the 

preemptive effect of the standards then 

imposed for this equipment. In the same 

way, FRA’s recognition in this NPRM 

that fuller application of crash energy 

management technologies to cab cars 

and MU locomotives could enhance 

their safety would not nullify the 

preemptive effect of the standards 

arising from the rulemaking. FRA 

continually strives to enhance railroad 

safety, has an active research program 

focused on doing so, and sets safety 

standards that it believes are necessary 

and appropriate for the time that they 

are issued with a view to amending 

those standards as circumstances 

change. The proposed imposition of 

enhanced crashworthiness requirements 

for cab cars and MU locomotives in Tier 

I passenger trains, and the specific 

recognition that this equipment will be 

operated cab car forward in the push 

mode, demonstrate that FRA has 

imposed, and will continue to impose, 

the requirements that it deems 

necessary for the safe operation of cab 

cars and MU locomotives in all of the 

configurations in which they will be 

operated. FRA is thoroughly familiar, 

through the inspections it performs 

regularly, with the physical properties 

and operating characteristics of each 

passenger railroad. FRA has applied that 

knowledge in deciding to permit those 

railroads to operate cab cars and MU 

locomotives as the leading units of Tier 

I passenger trains, and FRA is not aware 

of any circumstances on any of those 

passenger railroads which would 

qualify under the statute as essentially 

local safety or security hazards affecting 

those operations. 

Subpart C—Specific Requirements for 

Tier I Passenger Equipment 

Section 238.205 Anti-climbing 

mechanism 

FRA is proposing to amend paragraph 

(a) of this section to correct an error in 

the rule text. In the relevant part, this 

paragraph currently states that ‘‘all 

passenger equipment * * * shall have 

at both the forward and rear ends an 

anti-climbing mechanism capable of 

resisting an upward or downward 

vertical force of 100,000 pounds without 

failure.’’ However, FRA had intended 

that the words ‘‘without failure’’

actually read as ‘‘without permanent 

deformation,’’ as stated in the preamble 

accompanying the issuance of this 

paragraph. Specifically, FRA explained 

in the accompanying preamble that the 

anti-climbing mechanism must be 

capable of resisting an upward or 

downward vertical force of 100,000 

pounds ‘‘without permanent 

deformation.’’ See 64 FR 25604; May 12, 

1999. Use of the ‘‘without permanent 

deformation’’ criterion is consistent 

with North American industry practice, 

and FRA had not intended to relax that 

practice. Consequently, FRA is 

proposing to correct § 238.205(a) to 

expressly require that the anti-climbing 

mechanism be capable of resisting an 

upward or downward vertical force of 

100,000 pounds without permanent 

deformation. 

Section 238.211 Collision posts 

FRA is proposing to adopt the 

provisions of paragraphs (a) through (d) 

of section 5.3.1.3.1, Cab-end collision 

posts, of APTA Standard SS–C&S–034–

99, Rev. 1. FRA is also proposing to 

modify these provisions for purposes of 

their adoption as a Federal regulation. 

This proposal would enhance current 

requirements for collision posts at the 

forward ends of cab cars and MU 

locomotives. In sum, paragraph (b) 

currently requires that each locomotive, 

including a cab car and an MU 

locomotive, ordered on or after 

September 8, 2000, or placed in service 

for the first time on or after September 

9, 2002, have two collision posts at its 

forward end, each post capable of 

withstanding a 500,000-pound 

longitudinal force at the point even with 

the top of the underframe and a 

200,000-pound longitudinal force 

exerted 30 inches above the joint of the 

post to the underframe. These 

requirements were based on AAR 

Standard S–580, and had been the 

industry practice for all locomotives 

built since August 1990. See 64 FR 

25606. Subsequently, industry 

standards for locomotive 

crashworthiness have been enhanced, 

with APTA focusing on standards for 

passenger-occupied locomotives, i.e., 

cab cars and MU locomotives, and the 

AAR focusing on standards for freight 

locomotives. The AAR’s efforts helped 

support development of the Locomotive 

Crashworthiness rulemaking, published 

as a final rule on June 28, 2006. See 71 

FR 36887. That final rule specifically 

addresses the safety of freight 

locomotives and does not apply to 

passenger-occupied locomotives (i.e., 

cab cars and MU locomotives). 

Nevertheless, FRA believes that 

conceptual approaches taken in the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
42032 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Locomotive Crashworthiness final rule 

are applicable to this rulemaking, as 

discussed below. To clearly delineate 

the relationship between the 

Locomotive Crashworthiness final rule 

and part 238, FRA proposes that a crossreference be inserted in the introductory 

language of paragraph (b) to indicate 

that as the locomotive requirements for 

collision posts become effective for 

locomotives manufactured on or after 

January 1, 2009, those more stringent 

requirements will apply to conventional 

locomotives (though not to cab cars or 

MU locomotives). 

FRA is proposing to correct paragraph 

(b)(2) so that the rule text is consistent 

with the clear intent of the provision. As 

explained in the preamble 

accompanying the issuance of this 

paragraph, paragraph (b)(2) provides for 

the use of an equivalent end structure in 

place of the two forward collision posts 

described in paragraph (b)—specifically, 

paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii). See 64 FR 

25606. However, the rule text makes 

express reference only to the collision 

posts in ‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this 

section.’’ This provision was not 

intended to be limited to the collision 

posts described in paragraph (b)(1)(i) 

alone, but instead to the collision posts 

described in paragraph (b)(1) as a 

whole—both paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and 

(ii). FRA is, therefore, proposing to 

correct this clear error in the rule text. 

FRA is proposing to redesignate 

current paragraph (c) as paragraph (d) 

and add a new paragraph (c) in its place. 

Specifically, proposed paragraphs 

(c)(1)(i) and (ii) are similar to paragraphs 

(b)(1)(i) and (ii). One principal 

difference is that the proposed 

regulation would require that each 

collision post be able to support the 

specified loads for angles up to 15° from 

the longitudinal. In effect, this would 

require each post to support a 

significant lateral load, and is intended 

to reflect the uncertainty in the 

direction a load is imparted during an 

impact. The proposed standard is also 

intended to encourage the use of 

collision posts with closed (e.g., 

rectangular) cross sections, rather than 

with open (e.g., I-beam) cross sections. 

Beams with open cross sections tend to 

twist and bend across the weaker axis 

when overloaded, regardless of the 

direction of load. Beams with closed 

cross sections are less likely to twist 

when overloaded, and are more likely to 

sustain a higher load as they deform, 

absorbing more energy. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(iii) does not 

have a counterpart in paragraph (b). 

This paragraph would require that the 

collision post be able to support a 

60,000-pound longitudinal load applied 

anywhere along its length, from its 

attachment to floor-level structure up to 

its attachment to roof-level structure. 

This proposed regulation is intended to 

provide a minimum level of collision 

post strength at any point along its full 

height-not only at its connection to the 

underframe or at 30 inches above that 

point. The proposed requirement must 

also be met for any angle within 15 

degrees of the longitudinal axis. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would 

require that each collision post also be 

able to absorb a prescribed amount of 

energy without separation from its 

supporting structure. This proposed 

requirement is intended to provide a 

level of protection similar to the SOA 

design, as discussed in the Technical 

Background section of the preamble, 

above. A quasi-static test, such as the 

test conducted by Bombardier on the 

M7 design, may be used to show 

compliance, or the builder may utilize 

the dynamic test method. 

Designs without flat forward ends 

include shaped-nosed designs such as 

those by Colorado Railcar and, as 

discussed above, the design being 

developed by Rotem for Metrolink. 

Because such designs place the engineer 

back from the extreme forward end of 

the vehicle, there is the potential for 

significantly increased protection for the 

engineer in collisions. In this regard, 

FRA is proposing to add paragraph (e) 

to require an equivalent structure to be 

present in front of occupied space but 

set back from the very end of the cab car 

or MU locomotive. Such structures may 

be part of the nose of the equipment or 

the CEM system, or both. Paragraph (e) 

would provide relief from utilization of 

a traditional end frame structure 

provided that an equivalent level of 

protection is afforded by the 

components of the CEM system. In the 

FRA CEM design tested in March 2006, 

the end frame structure was reinforced 

in order to support the loads introduced 

through the deformable anti-climber. 

Significantly more energy was absorbed 

in the deformation of the deformable 

anti-climber than the combined 

requirements outlined for both collision 

and corner posts while preserving all 

space for the locomotive engineer and 

passengers. In the design under 

development for Metrolink in southern 

California, an equivalent end frame 

structure is placed outboard of occupied 

space with crush elements between the 

very end of the nose and the equivalent 

end frame. For a grade crossing collision 

above the underframe of the cab car it 

is expected that perhaps an order of 

magnitude or larger of collision energy 

will be absorbed prior to any 

deformations into occupied space. 

As noted, the APTA Standard does 

recognize the need to address shapednosed designs and CEM designs. 

Specifically, the Standard provides that 

cab end collision posts and corner posts 

(and their supporting structure) on MU 

locomotives and cab cars without flat 

ends, or on equipment utilizing crash 

energy management designs, meet the 

‘‘severe deformation’’ requirements, but 

that compliance with the requirements 

be demonstrated either through analysis 

or testing as agreed to by the vehicle 

builder and purchaser. See paragraph (e) 

in both sections 5.3.1.3.1, Cab-end 

collision posts, and 5.3.2.3.1, Cab end 

corner posts, of APTA Standard SS–

C&S–034–99, Rev. 1. While FRA 

supports applying the ‘‘severe 

deformation’’ requirements to such 

designs, FRA does not believe it viable 

as a Federal regulation to have the 

application of these requirements 

essentially depend on an agreement 

between the vehicle builder and the 

purchaser of the vehicle-without the 

involvement of the Federal government 

or public input. In particular, since the 

‘‘severe deformation’’ requirements 

were developed from research on 

typical flat-end cab cars and MU 

locomotives, FRA believes that there 

may be too much uncertainty for 

applying such requirements to other 

designs and that the industry would 

benefit from the inclusion of a more 

specific standard. 

Within the Task Force, FRA proposed 

that a dynamic test standard be added 

to address the issue. However, as noted 

above, the Task Force could not reach 

consensus on a recommendation for 

such a dynamic standard. Concern was 

raised about the validity of any dynamic 

test standard chosen and whether such 

a standard could be used for valid 

comparisons with a quasi-static test 

standard. This concern included the 

need to first conduct full-scale testing 

on an actual prototype for a production 

design. Further, APTA was concerned 

that its member railroads might feel 

compelled to conduct both quasi-static 

and dynamic testing to demonstrate 

compliance, even if the regulations were 

expressly written to state that 

compliance with only one test standard 

would be required. FRA wishes to make 

clear that nothing in this proposal 

would require that both types of 

qualification procedures be used. Either 

may be clearly adequate for the purpose, 

depending on the technical challenge 

presented; and conducting two analyses 

or types of tests would clearly be 

excessive and wasteful. Again, FRA 

proposes two alternative methods in 

order to provide maximum flexibility, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 42033 

recognizing that other-than-flat-nosed 

cars will be offered in the marketplace 

and further recognizing that equipment 

utilizing crush zones may also present 

difficulties should the quasi-static test 

be the only approach considered. 

Concern was also raised as to the 

safety of conducting full-scale, dynamic 

testing. The technical tradeoffs between 

quasi-static and dynamic test standards 

are discussed in the Technical 

Background section of the preamble, 

above. FRA notes that there are safety 

concerns associated with both quasistatic and dynamic testing, and in a 

quasi-static test particular care must be 

taken due to the potential for the 

sudden release of stored energy should 

there be material failure. Proper 

planning and execution of each test are 

required. (By noting that caution must 

be exercised in planning and executing 

the tests, FRA does not intend in any 

way to oust the jurisdiction of the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration of the U.S. Department 

of Labor with regard to the safety of 

employees performing the tests.) 

FRA believes that dynamic test 

standards have been sufficiently 

validated and that dynamic testing 

should be included as an option for 

demonstrating compliance with the 

rule. For this reason, FRA is proposing 

that paragraph (c)(2) include an option 

for the dynamic testing of cab cars and 

MU locomotives. Although FRA expects 

that this method will be applied to 

designs with shaped-nose designs or 

with CEM designs, or both, it may also 

be used for a conventional flat-nosed 

design; and the quasi-static method may 

be applied to shaped-nose or CEM 

designs. 

FRA recognizes that questions may 

arise in applying these methods in 

situations not clearly anticipated today. 

FRA requests comment on whether the 

final rule should include either an 

option or requirement that the test 

methodology be submitted for FRA 

review prior to the conduct of 

destructive testing. FRA also requests 

comment on whether and under what 

circumstances analysis and scale model 

or fixture testing might be accepted as 

satisfying the dynamic standard. 

The dynamic standard itself is a 

performance standard involving impact 

with a proxy object. The proxy object 

must have a cylindrical shape, diameter 

of 48 inches, length of 36 inches, and 

minimum weight of 10,000 pounds. The 

longitudinal axis of the proxy object 

must be offset by 19 inches from the 

longitudinal axis of the cab car or MU 

locomotive, which must be ballasted to 

weigh a minimum of 100,000 pounds. 

At impact, the longitudinal axis of the 

proxy object must be 30 inches above 

the top of the finished floor. The cab car 

or MU locomotive and its end structure 

must withstand a 21 mph impact with 

the proxy object resulting in no more 

than 10 inches of intrusion 

longitudinally into the occupied area of 

the vehicle, and without separation of 

the attachments of any structural 

members. FRA is including a graphical 

description of this collision scenario as 

Figure 1 to subpart C. 

FRA notes that in the Locomotive 

Crashworthiness final rule, the frontend structure requirements are 

principally stated in the form of 

performance criteria for given collision 

scenarios. See Appendix E to part 229; 

71 FR 36915. In fact, the performance 

criteria in Appendix E to part 229 

involve dynamic loading conditions 

stated in a way similar to what FRA is 

proposing here as the example to 

demonstrate compliance. In the 

Locomotive Crashworthiness final rule, 

FRA adopted performance criteria, 

rather than more prescriptive design 

standards, to allow for greater flexibility 

in the design of locomotives and better 

encourage innovation in locomotive 

designs. See 71 FR 36895–36898. Of 

course, the requirements proposed in 

paragraph (c)(2)(i) are a form of 

performance criteria. The distinction is 

that the performance criteria relate to 

quasi-static loading conditions—instead 

of dynamic loading conditions, which 

more approximate actual collision 

scenarios. 

FRA also notes that recently adopted 

European standards, prEN 15227 FCD 

Crashworthiness Requirements for 

Railway Vehicle Bodies, include four 

collision scenarios. Collision Scenario 3 

of the European standard involves a 

‘‘train unit front end impact with a 

heavy obstacle (e.g. lorry on road 

crossing).’’ Commuter and intercity 

trains are required to be able to sustain 

an impact with a deformable object 

weighing 33 kips (15,000 kg) at 68 mph 

(110 kph). Calibration tests on 

components and numerical simulations 

of the scenario are recommended for 

showing compliance. Key differences 

between the European standard and the 

dynamic testing collision scenarios FRA 

is proposing to apply to both collision 

posts and corner posts, below, include 

the amount of energy involved and the 

character of the object. Assuming that 

the mass of the train is more than about 

25 times greater than the mass of the 

object (which roughly corresponds to 

the mass of a commuter train made up 

of a cab car, four coaches, and a 

locomotive, or made up of six MU 

locomotives) then the total energy 

dissipated in a prEN 15227 Scenario 3- 

impact is 5.0 million foot-pounds. The 

total energy absorbed in the collision 

scenarios included in this NPRM are 

135,000 foot-pounds for the collision 

post and 120,000 foot-pounds for the 

corner post. However, in the European 

standard, the impacted object is 

deformable and potentially absorbs a 

significant amount of the available 

energy; in the collision scenarios 

included in the NPRM, the impacted 

object is rigid and all of the energy is 

absorbed by the cab car or MU 

locomotive. 

FRA invites comment on the proposal 

to provide for dynamic testing to 

demonstrate compliance by cab cars and 

MU locomotives. Specifically, FRA 

invites comment on the dynamic testing 

collision scenario included in the 

proposed rule for collision posts, and 

invites comment suggesting any 

alternative collision scenario or way to 

address such cab cars and MU 

locomotives. 

Section 238.213 Corner posts 

FRA is proposing to adopt the 

provisions of paragraph (a) through (d) 

of Section 5.3.2.3.1, Cab end corner 

posts, of APTA Standard SS–C&S–034–

99 Rev. 1, and Section 5.3.2.3.3, Cab 

end-non-operator side of cab-alternate 

requirements. FRA is also proposing to 

modify these provisions for purposes of 

their adoption as a Federal regulation 

and to specify standards for a cab car or 

MU locomotive with a stairwell located 

on the side of the equipment opposite 

from where the locomotive engineer is 

situated. Together with the proposal for 

collision posts, this action would 

increase the strength of the front-end 

structure of cab cars and MU 

locomotives up to what the main 

structure can support, and also require 

explicit consideration of the behavior of 

the front-end structures when 

overloaded. 

Overall, FRA is proposing to revise 

this section in its entirety by 

redesignating current paragraph (b) as 

paragraph (a)(2), making conforming 

changes to paragraph (a), and adding 

new paragraphs (b), (c), and (d). 

Proposed paragraph (b) is intended to 

augment the current requirements of 

paragraph (a) for cab cars and MU 

locomotives ordered on or after October 

1, 2009, or placed in service for the first 

time on or after October 2, 2011. 

Proposed paragraph (b) would require 

higher loads at the specified locations 

than its counterpart in paragraph (a). 

Paragraph (b)(2) addresses alternative 

methods of demonstrating that the 

corner posts absorb energy while 

deforming. Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(i) 

sets forth quasi-static test requirements. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
42034 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

The corner post would have to be able 

to absorb a prescribed amount of energy 

without separation from its supporting 

structure. This proposed requirement is 

intended to provide a level of protection 

similar to the SOA design, as described 

in the Technical Background section of 

the preamble, above. A quasi-static test, 

similar to the test conducted by 

Bombardier on the M7, may be used to 

demonstrate compliance. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii) would 

provide for alternative dynamic 

qualification. The end structure would 

need to be capable of withstanding a 

frontal impact with a proxy object that 

is intended to approximate lading 

carried by a highway vehicle under the 

following conditions. The proxy object 

must have a cylindrical shape, diameter 

of 48 inches, length of 36 inches, and 

minimum weight of 10,000 pounds. The 

longitudinal axis of the proxy object 

must be aligned with the outboard edge 

of the side of the cab car or MU 

locomotive, which must be ballasted to 

weigh a minimum of 100,000 pounds. 

At impact, the longitudinal axis of the 

proxy object must be 30 inches above 

the top of the finished floor. The cab car 

or MU locomotive and its end structure 

must withstand a 20 mph impact with 

the proxy object resulting in no more 

than 10 inches of intrusion 

longitudinally into the occupied area of 

the cab car or MU locomotive, and 

without separation of the attachments of 

any structural members. FRA is 

including a graphical description of this 

collision scenario as Figure 2 to subpart 

C. 

Paragraph (c) prescribes the corner 

post standards for cab cars and MU 

locomotives ordered on or after October 

1, 2009, or placed in service for the first 

time on or after October 2, 2011, 

utilizing low-level passenger boarding 

on the side of the equipment opposite 

from where the locomotive engineer is 

seated. In this arrangement the nonoperating side of the vehicle is protected 

by two corner posts (an end corner post 

and an internal adjacent body corner 

post) that are situated in front of 

occupied space and provide protection 

for the occupied space; the proposed 

rule allows for the combined 

contribution of both sets of corner posts 

to provide an equivalent level of 

protection to that required for corner 

posts in other cab car configurations. 

Paragraph (c) would require that the 

corner post load requirements of 

paragraph (b) be met for the corner post 

on the operating side of the cab. The 

requirements for the two corner posts on 

the opposite side of the operator control 

stand are described in paragraphs (c)(1) 

and (2). The structural requirements for 

the end corner post are described in 

paragraph s (c)(1)(i) through (vii). The 

longitudinal load requirements for the 

end corner post as set forth in paragraph 

(c)(1) are as follows: (1)(i) is a 150,000- 

pound shear load applied at the base of 

the corner post with its connection with 

the underframe where the load must not 

exceed the shear strength of the post; 

(1)(ii) is a 30,000-pound bending load 

applied 18 inches above the top of 

underframe and no permanent 

deformation can occur; (1)(iii) is a 

30,000-pound shear load applied at the 

attachment point with the roof 

structure, again without permanent 

deformations; and (1)(iv) is a 20,000- 

pound bending load applied anywhere 

between the underframe connection up 

to the roof structure connection without 

permanent deformation. The transverse 

load requirements for the end corner 

post are described in paragraph (c)(1) as 

follows: (1)(v) is a 300,000-pound shear 

load applied at a point even with the 

top of the underframe without 

exceeding the shear strength of the post 

or the carbody supporting structure; 

(1)(vi) is a 100,000-pound bending load 

applied 18 inches above the top of 

underframe and no permanent 

deformation can occur; and (1)(vii) is a 

45,000-pound shear load at the 

connection between the corner post and 

the roof structure without deforming the 

post or the supporting structure. The 

higher magnitude loads applied in the 

longitudinal direction will result in a 

corner post that is wider than it is deep. 

The structural load requirements for 

the body corner post are described in 

paragraphs (2)(i) through (vi). The 

longitudinal load requirements are as 

follows: (2)(i) is a 300,000-pound shear 

load applied at the base of the body 

corner post with its connection with the 

underframe where the load must not 

exceed the shear strength of the post; 

(2)(ii) is a 100,000-pound bending load 

applied 18 inches above the top of 

underframe and no permanent 

deformation can occur; (2)(iii) is a 

45,000-pound bending load applied 

anywhere between the underframe 

connection up to the roof structure 

connection without permanent 

deformation. The transverse load 

requirements for the body corner post 

are described in paragraph (2) are as 

follows: (2)(iv) is a 100,000-pound shear 

load applied at a point even with the 

top of the underframe without 

exceeding the shear strength of the post 

or the carbody supporting structure; 

(2)(v) is a 30,000-pound bending load 

applied 18 inches above the top of 

underframe and no permanent 

deformation can occur; and (2)(vi) is a 

20,000-pound shear load applied at the 

connection between the body corner 

post and the roof structure without 

deforming the post or the supporting 

structure. The higher magnitude loads 

applied in the transverse direction will 

result in a corner post that is deeper 

than it is wide. 

FRA is also proposing that the 

combination of the corner post and the 

adjacent body corner post be capable of 

absorbing collision energy prior to or 

during structural deformation, as 

demonstrated by either a quasi static 

test or alternative dynamic qualification 

similar to the provisions set out for 

qualification under paragraph (b). 

FRA notes that it is proposing 

different speeds and different points of 

contact for the dynamic testing 

alternatives given for collision post 

equivalents and corner post equivalents. 

The collision post equivalents are to be 

tested at 21 mph, and the corner post 

equivalents at 20 mph—a difference of 

about 10% in total energy involved. As 

the dynamic testing alternatives are 

intended to provide an equivalent level 

of safety, the higher speed for 

dynamically testing the collision posts 

reflects the more stringent quasi-static 

testing requirements for collision posts. 

The collision posts have more available 

space and a stronger support structure; 

hence, they can absorb more energy 

than the corner posts. Nevertheless, the 

proposed requirements for corner posts 

would more than double the amount of 

energy required for the posts to fail, 

when compared to current FRA 

requirements. Together, the proposed 

requirements for collision posts and 

corner posts would significantly 

enhance the performance of the posts in 

protecting occupants of cab cars and 

MU locomotives. 

As noted above, FRA invites comment 

on the proposal to provide for dynamic 

testing to demonstrate compliance by 

cab cars and MU locomotives. 

Specifically, FRA invites comment on 

the dynamic testing collision scenario 

included in the proposed rule for corner 

posts, and invites comment suggesting 

any alternative collision scenario or way 

to address possible future designs. 

Moreover, FRA invites comment 

whether the final rule should provide 

for all cab cars and MU locomotives to 

be tested dynamically to demonstrate 

compliance—whether or not they have 

a shaped-nosed design or a CEM 

design—and, if so, whether the collision 

scenario included in the proposed rule 

is appropriate or whether another 

collision scenario would be. 

Paragraph (d) would provide relief 

from utilization of a traditional end 

frame structure provided that an 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 42035 

equivalent level of protection is afforded 

by the components of the CEM system. 

In the FRA CEM design tested in March 

2006, the end frame structure was 

reinforced in order to support the loads 

introduced through the deformable anticlimber. Significantly more energy was 

absorbed in the deformation of the 

deformable anti-climber than the 

combined requirements outlined for 

both collision and corner posts while 

preserving all space for the locomotive 

engineer and passengers. In the design 

under development for Metrolink in 

southern California, an equivalent end 

frame structure is placed outboard of 

occupied space with crush elements 

between the very end of the nose and 

the equivalent end frame. For a grade 

crossing collision above the underframe 

of the cab car it is expected that perhaps 

an order of magnitude or larger of 

collision energy will be absorbed prior 

to any deformations into occupied 

space. 

Appendix A to Part 238—Schedule of 

Civil Penalties 

Appendix A to part 238 contains a 

schedule of civil penalties for use in 

connection with this part. FRA may 

revise the schedule of civil penalties in 

issuing the final rule to reflect revisions 

made to part 238. Because such penalty 

schedules are statements of agency 

policy, notice and comment are not 

required prior to their issuance. See 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Nevertheless, 

commenters are invited to submit 

suggestions to FRA describing the types 

of actions or omissions for each 

proposed regulatory section that would 

subject a person to the assessment of a 

civil penalty. Commenters are also 

invited to recommend what penalties 

may be appropriate, based upon the 

relative seriousness of each type of 

violation. 

FRA notes that in December 2006 it 

published proposed statements of 

agency policy that would amend the 25 

schedules of civil penalties issued as 

appendixes to FRA’s safety regulations, 

including part 238. See 71 FR 70589; 

Dec. 5, 2006. The proposed revisions are 

intended to reflect more accurately the 

safety risks associated with violations of 

the rail safety laws and regulations, as 

well as to make sure that the civil 

penalty amounts are consistent across 

all safety regulations. Although the 

schedules are statements of agency 

policy, and FRA has authority to issue 

the revisions without having to follow 

the notice and comment procedures of 

the Administrative Procedure Act, FRA 

has provided members and 

representatives of the general public an 

opportunity to comment on the 

proposed revisions before amending 

them. FRA is currently evaluating all of 

the comments received in preparing 

final statements of agency policy, and 

the schedule of civil penalties to part 

238 may be revised as a result, 

independent of this rulemaking 

proceeding. 

V. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This proposed rule has been 

evaluated in accordance with existing 

policies and procedures, and it has been 

determined not to be significant under 

either Executive Order 12866 or DOT 

policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; 

Feb. 26, 1979). FRA has prepared and 

placed in the docket a regulatory 

evaluation addressing the economic 

impact of this proposed rule. Document 

inspection and copying facilities are 

available at the Docket Management 

Facility, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 

20590. Access to the docket may also be 

obtained electronically through the Web 

site for the DOT Docket Management 

System at http://dms.dot.gov. 

Photocopies may also be obtained by 

submitting a written request to the FRA 

Docket Clerk at Office of Chief Counsel, 

Stop 10, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20590; please 

refer to Docket No. FRA–2006–25268. 

FRA invites comments on the regulatory 

evaluation. 

The regulatory evaluation explains 

that the proposed requirements are 

based on industry standards, which 

every affected cab car or MU locomotive 

from currently producing manufacturers 

would now meet. Consequently, the 

proposed requirements are not expected 

to affect any units in production by 

current manufacturers, and are, 

therefore, estimated to have zero costs 

and benefits for such units. The 

proposed requirements would affect cab 

cars and MU locomotives from other 

potential manufacturers if those units 

were of a design which would not meet 

the proposed requirements. However, it 

is highly speculative whether any nonconforming cab car or MU locomotive 

would ever be produced, even in the 

absence of this proposal. Further, as 

discussed in detail above, States are 

preempted from imposing by regulation 

other, potentially conflicting, or more 

burdensome requirements. 

Were any cab cars or MU locomotives 

to be affected by this proposal, the 

estimated benefits would be about 

$16,000 per cab car or MU locomotive, 

discounted at 7% over 20 years, and the 

estimated costs would be only about 

$2,000 per cab car or MU locomotive, 

also discounted at 7% over 20 years. 

Therefore, FRA estimates that the net 

benefit, discounted at 7% over 20 years, 

would be about $14,000 per such cab 

car or MU locomotive. However, 

because FRA believes that no units will 

be affected, FRA estimates that the 

present value of the total 20-year costs 

which the industry would be expected 

to incur to comply with the 

requirements proposed in this rule is 

zero, as is the anticipated benefits. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

Executive Order 13272 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and Executive Order 

13272 require a review of proposed and 

final rules to assess their impact on 

small entities. FRA has prepared and 

placed in the docket an Analysis of 

Impact on Small Entities (AISE) that 

assesses the small entity impact of this 

proposal. Document inspection and 

copying facilities are available at the 

Docket Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590. Docket material 

is also available for inspection on the 

Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. 

Photocopies may also be obtained by 

submitting a written request to the FRA 

Docket Clerk at Office of Chief Counsel, 

Stop 10, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20590; please 

refer to Docket No. FRA–2006–25268. 

The AISE developed in connection 

with this NPRM concludes that this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The principal entities impacted by the 

rule would be governmental 

jurisdictions or transit authorities—

none of which is small for purposes of 

the United States Small Business 

Administration (i.e., no entity serves a 

locality with a population less than 

50,000). These entities also receive 

Federal transportation funds. Although 

these entities are not small, the level of 

costs incurred by each entity should 

generally vary in proportion to either 

the size of the entity, or the extent to 

which the entity purchases newly 

manufactured passenger equipment, or 

both. Tourist, scenic, excursion, and 

historic passenger railroad operations 

would be exempt from the rule, and, 

therefore, these smaller operations 

would not incur any costs. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
42036 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

The rule would impact passenger car 

manufacturers. In general, these entities 

are principally large international 

corporations that would not be 

considered small entities. However, it is 

possible that a smaller entity, such as a 

small domestic manufacturer of rail 

cars, could be impacted if the 

requirements of the final rule do not 

provide sufficient flexibility for shapednosed MU locomotives and cab cars of 

the type it manufactures. 

Having made these determinations, 

FRA certifies that this proposed rule is 

not expected to have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act or Executive 

Order 13272. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

FRA has analyzed the proposed rule 

in accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.) to determine whether it would 

result in any new or additional 

information collection requirements. 

FRA has determined that no new or 

additional information collection 

requirements would result from the rule 

as proposed. FRA invites comment on 

this determination and whether the 

proposed rule would in fact result in 

any new or additional information 

collection requirements. Should any 

new or additional information 

collection requirements result from this 

rulemaking, FRA intends to obtain 

current Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) control numbers for any 

such collection requirement prior to the 

effective date of a final rule. 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. 

D. 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 would not 

have a substantial direct 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. 

FRA does note that it is clarifying the 

preemptive effect of this proposed rule 

and the underlying regulations it is 

proposing to amend. See the discussion 

of § 238.13, Preemptive effect, above. In 

particular, FRA believes that it has 

preempted any State law, regulation, or 

order, including State common law, 

concerning the operation of a cab car or 

MU locomotive as the leading unit of a 

passenger train. FRA has taken into 

account the federalism principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132 in making this determination. 

One of the fundamental federalism 

principles, as stated in Section 2(a) of 

Executive Order 13132, is that 

‘‘[f]ederalism is rooted in the belief that 

issues that are not national in scope or 

significance are most appropriately 

addressed by the level of government 

closest to the people.’’ Congress 

expressed its intent that there be 

national uniformity of regulation 

concerning railroad safety matters when 

it issued 49 U.S.C. 20106, which 

provides that all regulations prescribed 

by the Secretary with respect to railroad 

safety matters and the Secretary of 

Homeland Security with respect to 

railroad security matters preempt any 

State law, regulation, or order covering 

the same subject matter, except a 

provision necessary to eliminate or 

reduce an essentially local safety hazard 

that is not incompatible with a Federal 

law, regulation, or order and that does 

not unreasonably burden interstate 

commerce. This intent was expressed 

even more specifically in 49 U.S.C. 

20133, which mandated that the 

Secretary of Transportation prescribe 

‘‘regulations establishing minimum 

standards for the safety of cars used by 

railroad carriers to transport 

passengers’’ and consider such matters 

as ‘‘the crashworthiness of the cars’’

before prescribing the regulations. This 

proposed rule is intended to add to and 

enhance these regulations, originally 

issued on May 12, 1999, pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. 20133. 

Further, federalism concerns have 

been considered in the development of 

this NPRM both internally and through 

consultation within the RSAC forum, as 

described in Section II of this preamble, 

above. The full RSAC, which reached 

consensus on the proposal (with the 

exception discussed above concerning 

cab cars and MU locomotives without 

flat-ends or with CEM designs, or both) 

and then recommended it to FRA, has 

as permanent voting members two 

organizations representing State and 

local interests: AASHTO and ASRSM. 

As such, these State organizations 

concurred with the proposed 

requirements (again, with the exception 

noted above). 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 from any other 

representative on the Committee. 

For the foregoing reasons, FRA 

believes that this proposed rule is in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132. 

E. Environmental Impact 

FRA has evaluated this proposed 

regulation in accordance with its 

‘‘Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impacts’’ (FRA’s 

Procedures) (64 FR 28545, May 26, 

1999) as required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), other environmental 

statutes, Executive Orders, and related 

regulatory requirements. FRA has 

determined that this proposed 

regulation is not a major FRA action 

(requiring the preparation of an 

environmental impact statement or 

environmental assessment) because it is 

categorically excluded from detailed 

environmental review pursuant to 

section 4(c)(20) of FRA’s Procedures. 64 

FR 28547, May 26, 1999. In accordance 

with section 4(c) and (e) of FRA’s 

Procedures, the agency has further 

concluded that no extraordinary 

circumstances exist with respect to this 

regulation that might trigger the need for 

a more detailed environmental review. 

As a result, FRA finds that this 

proposed regulation is not a major 

Federal action significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Pursuant to Section 201 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each 

Federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise 

prohibited by law, assess the effects of 

Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and tribal governments, and the 

private sector (other than to the extent 

that such regulations incorporate 

requirements specifically set forth in 

law).’’ Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 

1532) further requires that ‘‘before 

promulgating any general notice of 

proposed rulemaking that is likely to 

result in the promulgation of any rule 

that includes any Federal mandate that 

may result in expenditure by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100,000,000 or more (adjusted 

annually for inflation)[currently 

$120,700,000] 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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 42037 

on State, local, and tribal governments 

and the private sector. The proposed 

rule would not result in the 

expenditure, in the aggregate, of 

$120,700,000 or more in any one year, 

and thus preparation of such a 

statement is not required. 

G. Energy Impact 

Executive Order 13211 requires 

Federal agencies to prepare a Statement 

of Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant 

energy action.’’ 66 FR 28355 ( May 22, 

2001). Under the Executive Order, a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency (normally 

published in the Federal Register) that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to the 

promulgation of a final rule or 

regulation, including notices of inquiry, 

advance notices of proposed 

rulemaking, and notices of proposed 

rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy; or (2) that is designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action. FRA has 

evaluated this NPRM in accordance 

with Executive Order 13211. FRA has 

determined that this NPRM is not likely 

to have a significant adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. Consequently, FRA has 

determined that this regulatory action is 

not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ within 

the meaning of Executive Order 13211. 

H. Trade Impact 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. No. 96–39, 19 U.S.C. 2501 et 

seq.) prohibits Federal agencies from 

engaging in any standards or related 

activities that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. Legitimate domestic 

objectives, such as safety, are not 

considered unnecessary obstacles. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. 

FRA has assessed the potential effect 

of this rulemaking on foreign commerce 

and believes that the proposed 

requirements are consistent with the 

Trade Agreements Act. The 

requirements proposed are safety 

standards, which, as noted, are not 

considered unnecessary obstacles to 

trade. Moreover, FRA has sought, to the 

extent practicable, to propose the 

requirements in terms of the 

performance desired, rather than in 

more narrow terms restricted to a 

particular design, so as not to limit 

alternative, compliant designs by any 

manufacturer—foreign or domestic. 

For related discussion on the 

international effects of this part, please 

see the preamble to the May 12, 1999 

Passenger Equipment Safety Standards 

final rule on the topic of ‘‘United States 

international treaty obligations,’’ 64 FR 

25545. 

I. Privacy Act 

FRA wishes to inform all potential 

commenters that anyone is able to 

search the electronic form of all 

comments received into any agency 

docket by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–

78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 238 

Passenger equipment, Penalties, 

Railroad safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

The Proposed Rule 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, FRA proposes to amend part 

238 of chapter II, subtitle B of Title 49, 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 238—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 238 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20133, 

20141, 20302–20303, 20306, 20701–20702, 

21301–21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; 

and 49 CFR 1.49. 

Subpart C—Specific Requirements for 

Tier I Passenger Equipment 

2. Section 238.13 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 238.13 Preemptive effect. 

Under 49 U.S.C. 20106, issuance of 

these regulations preempts any State 

law, regulation, or order covering the 

same subject matter, except an 

additional or more stringent law, 

regulation or order that is necessary to 

eliminate or reduce an essentially local 

safety or security hazard; that is not 

incompatible with a law, regulation, or 

order of the United States Government; 

and that does not unreasonably burden 

interstate commerce. 

3. Section 238.205 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read: 

§ 238.205 Anti-climbing mechanism. 

Except as provided in paragraph (b) of 

this section, all passenger equipment 

placed in service for the first time on or 

after September 8, 2000 shall have at 

both the forward and rear ends an anticlimbing mechanism capable of 

resisting an upward or downward 

vertical force of 100,000 pounds without 

permanent deformation. When coupled 

together in any combination to join two 

vehicles, AAR Type H and Type F tightlock couplers satisfy this requirement. 

* * * * * 

4. Section 238.211 is amended by 

revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (a), the introductory text of 

paragraph (b) and paragraph (b)(2), 

redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph 

(d) and revising it, and by adding new 

paragraphs (c) and (e) to read as follows: 

§ 238.211 Collision posts. 

(a) Except as further specified in this 

paragraph and paragraphs (b) through 

(d) of this section—

* * * * * 

(b) Each locomotive, including a cab 

car and an MU locomotive, ordered on 

or after September 8, 2000, or placed in 

service for the first time on or after 

September 9, 2002 (except a 

conventional locomotive manufactured 

on or after January 1, 2009, which shall 

be subject to the requirements of subpart 

D of part 229 of this chapter), shall have 

at its forward end, in lieu of the 

structural protection described in 

paragraph (a) of this section either: 

(1) * * * 

(2) An equivalent end structure that 

can withstand the sum of the forces that 

each collision post in paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section is required to withstand. 

(c) Each cab car and MU locomotive 

ordered on or after October 1, 2009, or 

placed in service for the first time on or 

after October 2, 2011, shall have at its 

forward end, in lieu of the structural 

protection described in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section, two forward 

collision posts, located at approximately 

the one-third points laterally, meeting 

the following requirements: 

(1) Each collision post, with the 

supporting car body structure, shall be 

capable of withstanding the following 

loads individually applied at any angle 

within 15 degrees of the longitudinal 

axis: 

(i) A 500,000-pound longitudinal 

force applied at the connection to the 

top of the underframe, without 

exceeding the ultimate strength of the 

post or supporting car body structure; 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
42038 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(ii) A 200,000-pound longitudinal 

force applied 30 inches above the 

connection of the post to the 

underframe, without exceeding the 

ultimate strength of the post or 

supporting car body structure; and 

(iii) A 60,000-pound longitudinal 

force applied at any height along the 

post above the top of the underframe, 

without permanent deformation of the 

post or supporting car body structure; 

and 

(2) Each collision post shall also be 

capable of absorbing collision energy 

prior to or during structural 

deformation, as demonstrated by one of 

the following methods: 

(i) Quasi-static method. Each collision 

post shall be demonstrated to absorb a 

minimum of 135,000 ft-lbs (0.18 MJ) of 

energy when loaded longitudinally at a 

height of 30 inches above the 

connection of the post to the 

underframe, while not permanently 

deflecting more than 10 inches 

longitudinally. There shall be no 

complete separation of the post from its 

connections to the supporting structure; 

or 

(ii) Dynamic method. The front end 

structure shall be demonstrated to be 

capable of withstanding a frontal impact 

with a proxy object that is intended to 

approximate lading carried by a 

highway vehicle under the following 

conditions: 

(A) The proxy object shall have a 

cylindrical shape, diameter of 48 inches, 

length of 36 inches, and minimum 

weight of 10,000 pounds. The 

longitudinal axis of the proxy object 

shall be offset by 19 inches from the 

longitudinal axis of the cab car or MU 

locomotive, which shall be ballasted to 

weigh a minimum of 100,000 pounds. 

At impact, the longitudinal axis of the 

proxy object shall be 30 inches above 

the top of the finished floor; and 

(B) The cab car or MU locomotive and 

its end structure must withstand a 21 

mph impact with the proxy object 

resulting in no more than 10 inches of 

intrusion longitudinally into the 

occupied area of the vehicle, and 

without separation of the attachments of 

any structural members. (A graphical 

description of the frontal impact is 

provided in Figure 1 to subpart C.) 

(d) The end structure requirements of 

this section apply only to the ends of a 

semi-permanently coupled consist of 

articulated units, provided that: 

(1) The railroad submits to the FRA 

Associate Administrator for Safety 

under the procedures specified in 

§ 238.21 a documented engineering 

analysis establishing that the articulated 

connection is capable of preventing 

disengagement and telescoping to the 

same extent as equipment satisfying the 

anti-climbing and collision post 

requirements contained in this subpart; 

and 

(2) FRA finds the analysis persuasive. 

(e) In the case of a cab car or MU 

locomotive designed to provide the 

benefits of crash energy management, 

the end structure requirements of this 

section are satisfied if the requirements 

of this section are met with respect to 

the portion of the car or MU locomotive 

outboard of the areas occupied by crew 

members and passengers. 

5. Section 238.213 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 238.213 Corner posts. 

(a) Except as further specified in 

paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, 

each passenger car and MU locomotive 

shall have at each end of the car, placed 

ahead of the occupied volume, two fullheight corner posts capable of resisting: 

(1)(i) A horizontal load of 150,000 

pounds at the point of attachment to the 

underframe, without failure; 

(ii) A horizontal load of 20,000 

pounds at the point of attachment to the 

roof structure, without failure; and 

(iii) A horizontal load of 30,000 

pounds applied 18 inches above the top 

of the floor, without permanent 

deformation. 

(2) For purposes of this paragraph (a), 

the orientation of the applied horizontal 

loads shall range from longitudinal 

inward to transverse inward. 

(b) Except as provided in paragraph 

(c) of this section, each cab car and MU 

locomotive ordered on or after October 

1, 2009, or placed in service for the first 

time on or after October 2, 2011, shall 

have at its forward end, in lieu of the 

structural protection described in 

paragraph (a) of this section, two corner 

posts ahead of the occupied volume, 

meeting the following requirements: 

(1) Each post, with the supporting car 

body structure, shall be capable of 

withstanding the following loads 

individually applied toward the inside 

of the vehicle at all angles in the range 

from longitudinal to lateral: 

(i) A 300,000-pound longitudinal 

force at the point even with the top of 

the underframe, without exceeding the 

ultimate strength of the post or 

supporting car body structure; 

(ii) A 100,000-pound longitudinal 

force exerted 18 inches above the joint 

of the post to the underframe, without 

permanent deformation of the post or 

supporting car body structure; and 

(iii) A 45,000-pound longitudinal 

force applied at any height along the 

post above the top of the underframe, 

without permanent deformation of the 

post or supporting car body structure; 

and 

(2) Each corner post shall also be 

capable of absorbing collision energy 

prior to or during structural 

deformation, as demonstrated by one of 

the following methods: 

(i) Quasi-static method. Each corner 

post shall be demonstrated to be capable 

of absorbing a minimum of 120,000 ftlbs (O.16 MJ) of energy when loaded 

longitudinally at a height of 30 inches 

above the connection of the post to the 

underframe, while not permanently 

deflecting more than 10 inches 

longitudinally. There shall be no 

complete separation of the post from its 

connections to the supporting structure; 

or 

(ii) Dynamic method. The front end 

structure shall be demonstrated to be 

capable of withstanding frontal impact 

with a proxy object that is intended to 

approximate lading carried by a 

highway vehicle under the following 

conditions: 

(A) The proxy object shall have a 

cylindrical shape, diameter of 48 inches, 

length of 36 inches, and minimum 

weight of 10,000 pounds. The 

longitudinal axis of the proxy object 

shall be aligned with the outboard edge 

of the side of the cab car or MU 

locomotive, which shall be ballasted to 

weigh a minimum of 100,000 pounds. 

At impact, the longitudinal axis of the 

proxy object shall be 30 inches above 

the top of the finished floor; and 

(B) The cab car or MU locomotive and 

its end structure must withstand a 20 

mph impact with the proxy object 

resulting in no more than 10 inches of 

intrusion longitudinally into the 

occupied area of the cab car or MU 

locomotive, and without separation of 

the attachments of any structural 

members. (A graphical description of 

the frontal impact is provided in Figure 

2 to subpart C.) 

(c) Each cab car and MU locomotive 

ordered on or after October 1, 2009, or 

placed in service for the first time on or 

after October 2, 2011, utilizing low-level 

passenger boarding on the nonoperating side of the cab end shall meet 

the corner post requirements of 

paragraph (b) of this section for the 

corner post on the side of the cab 

containing the control stand, and the 

following structural requirements for 

the corner post and the adjacent body 

corner post on the opposite side of the 

cab from the control stand: 

(1) The corner post on the opposite 

side of the cab from the control stand, 

with the supporting car body structure, 

shall be capable of withstanding the 

following horizontal loads individually 

applied toward the inside of the vehicle: 

(i) A 150,000-pound longitudinal 

force at the point even with the top of 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 42039 

the underframe, without exceeding the 

ultimate strength of the post or 

supporting car body structure; 

(ii) A 30,000-pound longitudinal force 

at a point 18 inches above the top of the 

underframe, without permanent 

deformation; 

(iii) A 30,000-pound longitudinal 

force at the point of attachment to the 

roof structure, without permanent 

deformation; 

(iv) A 20,000-pound longitudinal 

force anywhere between the top of the 

post at its connection to the roof 

structure, and the top of the underframe, 

without permanent deformation of the 

post or supporting structure; 

(v) A 300,000-pound transverse force 

at a point even with the top of the 

underframe, without exceeding the 

ultimate strength of the post or 

supporting car body structure; 

(vi) A 100,000-pound transverse force 

at a point 18 inches above the top of the 

underframe, without permanent 

deformation; and 

(vii) A 45,000-pound transverse force 

anywhere between the top of the post at 

its connection to the roof structure, and 

the top of the underframe, without 

permanent deformation of the post or 

supporting structure. 

(2) The body corner post on the 

opposite side of the cab from the control 

stand, with the supporting car body 

structure, shall be capable of 

withstanding the following horizontal 

loads individually applied toward the 

inside of the vehicle: 

(i) A 300,000-pound longitudinal 

force at a point even with the top of the 

underframe, without exceeding the 

ultimate strength of the post or 

supporting car body structure; 

(ii) A 100,000-pound longitudinal 

force at a point 18 inches above the top 

of the underframe, without permanent 

deformation; 

(iii) A 45,000-pound longitudinal 

force anywhere between the top of the 

post at its connection to the roof 

structure, and the top of the underframe, 

without permanent deformation or 

supporting structure; 

(iv) A 100,000-pound transverse force 

at a point even with the top of the 

underframe, without exceeding the 

ultimate strength of the post or 

supporting car body structure; 

(v) A 30,000-pound transverse force at 

a point 18 inches above the top of the 

underframe, without permanent 

deformation; and 

(vi) A 20,000-pound transverse force 

anywhere between the top of the post at 

its connection to the roof structure, and 

the top of the underframe, without 

deformation of the post or supporting 

structure, and 

(3) The combination of the corner post 

and the adjacent body corner post shall 

also be capable of absorbing collision 

energy prior to or during structural 

deformation, as demonstrated by one of 

the following methods: 

(i) Quasi-static method. The two posts 

in combination shall be demonstrated to 

be capable of absorbing a minimum of 

120,000 ft-lbs (O.16 MJ) of energy when 

loaded longitudinally at a height of 30 

inches above the connection of the posts 

to the underframe, while not 

permanently deflecting the body corner 

post than 10 inches longitudinally. 

There shall be no complete separation of 

the body corner post from its 

connections to the supporting structure; 

or 

(ii) Dynamic method. The front end 

structure on the non-operating side of 

the cab shall be demonstrated to be 

capable of withstanding frontal impact 

with a proxy object that is intended to 

approximate lading carried by a 

highway vehicle under the following 

conditions: 

(A) The proxy object shall have a 

cylindrical shape, diameter of 48 inches, 

length of 36 inches, and minimum 

weight of 10,000 pounds. The 

longitudinal axis of the proxy object 

shall be aligned with the outboard edge 

of the side of the cab car or MU 

locomotive, which shall be ballasted to 

weigh a minimum of 100,000 pounds. 

At impact, the longitudinal axis of the 

proxy object shall be 30 inches above 

the top of the finished floor; and 

(B) The cab car or MU locomotive and 

its end structure on the non-operating 

side of the cab must withstand a 20 mph 

impact with the proxy object resulting 

in no more than 10 inches of intrusion 

longitudinally into the occupied area of 

the cab car or MU locomotive, and 

without separation of the attachments of 

the body corner post. (A graphical 

description of the frontal impact is 

provided in Figure 3 to subpart C.) 

(d) In the case of a cab car or MU 

locomotive designed to provide the 

benefits of crash energy management, 

the end structure requirements of this 

section are satisfied if the requirements 

of this section are met with respect to 

the portion of the cab car or MU 

locomotive outboard of the areas 

occupied by crew members and 

passengers. 

6. Add Appendix to Subpart C of Part 

238, consisting of figures 1, 2, and 3, to 

read as follows: 

Appendix to Subpart C of Part 238 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
42040 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALSEP01AU07.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 42041 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 26, 

2007. 

Joseph H. Boardman, 

Federal Railroad Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 07–3736 Filed 7–31–07: 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–C 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALSEP01AU07.004</GPH>