9904 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Part 229 

[Docket No. FRA–2006–26174] 

RIN 2130–AB83 

Locomotive Safety Standards; Sanders 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: FRA proposes to revise the 

existing requirements related to sanders 

on locomotives. The proposed rule 

would modify the existing regulations 

by permitting additional flexibility in 

the use of locomotives with inoperative 

sanders. The proposal would provide 

railroads the ability to better utilize 

their locomotive fleets while ensuring 

that locomotives are equipped with 

operative sanders in situations where 

they provide the most benefit from a 

safety and operational perspective. The 

proposed rule would also make the 

regulations related to operative sanders 

more consistent with existing Canadian 

standards related to the devices. 

DATES: (1) Written comments must be 

received by May 7, 2007. Comments 

received after that date will be 

considered to the extent possible 

without incurring additional expenses 

or delays. 

(2) FRA anticipates being able to 

resolve this rulemaking without a 

public, oral hearing. However, if FRA 

receives a specific request for a public, 

oral hearing prior to April 5, 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–2006–26174, 

may be submitted by any of the 

following methods: 

Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow 

the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic docket 

site. 

Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

001. 

Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on the 

plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number or Regulatory Identification 

Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Note 

that all comments received will be 

posted without change to http:// 

dms.dot.gov including any personal 

information. Please see the Privacy Act 

heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document 

for Privacy Act information related to 

any submitted comments or materials. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

dms.dot.gov at any time or to PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

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

through Friday, except Federal 

Holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

George Scerbo, Office of Safety 

Assurance and Compliance, Motive 

Power & Equipment Division, RRS–14, 

Mail Stop 25, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 

202–493–6247), or Michael Masci, Trial 

Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, Mail 

Stop 10, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 

202–493–6037). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Statutory and Regulatory Background 

FRA has broad statutory authority to 

regulate railroad safety. The Locomotive 

Inspection Act (formerly 45 U.S.C. 22–

34, now 49 U.S.C. 20701–20703) was 

enacted in 1911. It prohibits the use of 

unsafe locomotives and authorizes FRA 

to issue standards for locomotive 

maintenance and testing. In order to 

further FRA’s ability to respond 

effectively to contemporary safety 

problems and hazards as they arise in 

the railroad industry, Congress enacted 

the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 

(Safety Act) (formerly 45 U.S.C. 421, 431 

et seq., now found primarily in chapter 

201 of Title 49). The Safety Act grants 

the Secretary of Transportation 

rulemaking authority over all areas of 

railroad safety (49 U.S.C. 20103(a)) and 

confers powers necessary to detect and 

penalize violations of any rail safety 

law. This authority was subsequently 

delegated to the FRA Administrator (49 

CFR 1.49) (Until July 5, 1994, the 

Federal railroad safety statutes existed 

as separate acts found primarily in title 

45 of the United States Code. On that 

date, all of the acts were repealed, and 

their provisions were recodified into 

title 49.). 

Pursuant to its general statutory 

rulemaking authority, FRA promulgates 

and enforces rules as part of a 

comprehensive regulatory program to 

address the safety of railroad track, 

signal systems, communications, rolling 

stock, operating practices, passenger 

train emergency preparedness, alcohol 

and drug testing, locomotive engineer 

certification, and workplace safety. In 

the area of locomotive safety, FRA has 

issued regulations, found at 49 CFR part 

229 (‘‘part 229’’), addressing topics such 

as inspections and tests, safety 

requirements for brake, draft, 

suspension, and electrical systems, and 

cabs and cab equipment. All references 

to parts and sections in this document 

shall be to parts and sections located in 

Title 49 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. FRA continually reviews 

its regulations and revises them as 

needed to keep up with emerging 

technology. 

On July 12, 2004, the Association of 

American Railroads (AAR), on behalf of 

itself and its member railroads, 

petitioned the FRA to delete the 

requirement as contained in 49 CFR 

229.131. The petition and supporting 

documentation asserted that contrary to 

popular belief, depositing sand on the 

rail will not have any significant 

influence on the emergency stopping 

distance of a train. Subsequent to the 

petition, FRA and interested industry 

members began identifying various 

issues related to locomotive safety 

standards with the intent that FRA 

would potentially address the issues 

through its Railroad Safety Advisory 

Committee (RSAC). 

II. RSAC Overview 

In March 1996, FRA established the 

RSAC, which provides a forum for 

developing consensus recommendations 

on rulemakings and other safety 

program issues. The Committee 

includes representation from all of the 

agency’s major customer groups, 

including railroads, labor organizations, 

suppliers and manufacturers, and other 

interested parties. A list of member 

groups follows: 

American Association of Private 

Railroad Car Owners (AARPCO) 

American Association of State Highway 

& Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 

American Public Transportation 

Association (APTA) 

American Short Line and Regional 

Railroad Association (ASLRRA) 

American Train Dispatchers Association 

(ATDA) 

Amtrak 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules 9905 

Association of American Railroads 

(AAR) 

Association of Railway Museums (ARM) 

Association of State Rail Safety 

Managers (ASRSM) 

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers 

and Trainmen (BLET) 

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way 

Employees Division (BMWED) 

Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen 

(BRS) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)* 

High Speed Ground Transportation 

Association (HSGTA) 

International Association of Machinists 

and Aerospace Workers 

International Brotherhood of Electrical 

Workers (IBEW) 

Labor Council for Latin American 

Advancement (LCLAA)* 

League of Railway Industry Women* 

National Association of Railroad 

Passengers (NARP) 

National Association of Railway 

Business Women* 

National Conference of Firemen & Oilers 

National Railroad Construction and 

Maintenance Association 

National Railroad Passenger Corporation 

(Amtrak) 

National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB)* 

Railway Supply Institute (RSI) 

Safe Travel America (STA) 

Secretaria de Communicaciones y 

Transporte* 

Sheet Metal Workers International 

Association (SMWIA) 

Tourist Railway Association Inc. 

Transport Canada* 

Transport Workers Union of America 

(TWU) 

Transportation Communications 

International Union/BRC (TCIU/BRC) 

United Transportation Union (UTU) 

*Indicates associate membership. 

When appropriate, FRA assigns a task to 

the RSAC, and after consideration and 

debate, the RSAC may accept or reject 

the task. If a task is accepted, the RSAC 

establishes a working group that 

possesses the appropriate expertise and 

representation of interests to develop 

recommendations to FRA for action on 

the task. These recommendations are 

developed by consensus. A working 

group may establish one or more task 

forces to develop facts and options on 

a particular aspect of a given task. The 

task force then provides that 

information to the working group for 

consideration. If a working group comes 

to unanimous consensus on 

recommendations for action, the 

package is presented to the RSAC for a 

vote. If the proposal is accepted by a 

simple majority of the RSAC, the 

proposal is formally recommended to 

FRA. FRA then determines what action 

to take on the recommendation. Because 

FRA staff has played an active role at 

the working group level in discussing 

the issues and options and in drafting 

the language of the consensus proposal, 

FRA is often favorably inclined toward 

the RSAC recommendation. However, 

FRA is in no way bound to follow the 

recommendation and the agency 

exercises its independent judgment on 

whether the recommended rule achieves 

the agency’s regulatory goal, is soundly 

supported, and is in accordance with 

policy and legal requirements. Often, 

FRA varies in some respects from the 

RSAC recommendation in developing 

the actual regulatory proposal. If the 

working group or the RSAC is unable to 

reach consensus on recommendations 

for action, FRA moves ahead to resolve 

the issue through traditional rulemaking 

proceedings. 

III. Proceedings to Date 

On February 22, 2006, FRA presented, 

and the RSAC accepted, the task of 

reviewing existing locomotive safety 

needs and recommending consideration 

of specific actions useful to advance the 

safety of rail operations. The RSAC 

established the Locomotive Safety 

Standards 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, included the 

following: 

APTA 

ASLRRA 

Amtrak 

AAR 

ASRSM 

BLET 

BMWE 

BRS 

BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) 

California Department of Transportation 

Canadian National Railway (CN) 

Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) 

Conrail 

CSX Transportation (CSXT) 

Florida East Coast Railroad 

General Electric (GE) 

Genesee & Wyoming Inc. 

International Association of Machinists 

and Aerospace Workers 

IBEW 

Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) 

Long Island Rail Road 

Metro-North Railroad 

MTA Long Island 

National Conference of Firemen and 

Oilers 

Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) 

Public Service Commission of West 

Virginia 

Rail America, Inc. 

Southeastern Pennsylvania 

Transportation Agency 

SMWIA 

STV, Inc. 

Tourist Railway Association Inc. 

Transport Canada 

Union Pacific Railroad (UP) 

UTU 

Volpe Center 

Wabtech Corporation 

Watco Companies 

The task statement approved by the 

full RSAC sought immediate action from 

the Working Group regarding the need 

for and usefulness of the existing 

regulation related to locomotive 

sanders. The task statement established 

a target date of 90 days for the Working 

Group to report back to the RSAC with 

recommendations to revise the existing 

regulatory sander provision. The 

Working Group conducted two meetings 

that focused almost exclusively on the 

sander requirement. The meetings were 

held on May 8–10, 2006, in St. Louis, 

Missouri, and on August 9–10, 2006, in 

Fort Worth, Texas. Minutes of these 

meetings have been made part of the 

docket in this proceeding. After broad 

and meaningful discussion related to 

the potential safety and operational 

benefits provided by equipping 

locomotives with operative sanders, the 

Working Group reached consensus on a 

recommendation for the full RSAC. 

On September 21, 2006, the full RSAC 

unanimously adopted the Working 

Group’s recommendation on locomotive 

sanders as its recommendation to FRA. 

The RSAC recommendation included 

the Working Group’s consensus rule 

text, and requested that FRA draft a 

regulatory proposal related to the use of 

sanders on locomotives performing 

switching service at outlying locations. 

The Working Group’s discussion of 

outlying locations had been based on an 

apparent need to distinguish locations 

that did not have sufficient access to a 

sand delivery system from those that do 

have such access. FRA has reviewed 

and accepted RSAC’s recommendation 

and has developed this regulatory 

proposal based on that 

recommendation. The specific 

regulatory language recommended by 

the RSAC has been amended slightly for 

clarity and consistency and FRA has 

independently developed provisions 

related to the use of sanders on 

locomotives used in switching service at 

outlying locations. 

FRA agrees with the Working Group’s 

determination that locomotive sanders 

provide limited safety benefits and that 

the primary benefits derived from the 

devices are operational. Accordingly, 

this proposal attempts to preserve the 

limited safety benefits while addressing 

the overly restrictive nature of the 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
9906 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

existing provision. This proposal is 

intended to provide appropriate relief 

from the existing requirement by 

creating a more precise standard. Under 

the existing requirements, a locomotive 

cannot depart from a daily inspection 

with inoperative sanders and can only 

move as far as the next daily inspection 

if sanders become inoperative en route. 

The proposal attempts to require sander 

maintenance based on operational 

realities instead of the current timebased standard. The NPRM provides 

relief according to specific identified 

operational conditions. The proposal 

distinguishes between the following 

conditions: Lead and non-lead 

locomotives; locomotives in road 

service and switching service; and, 

locomotives at locations with or without 

a sand delivery system. These 

distinctions would modify the current 

requirement to better reflect railroad 

operations while maintaining the 

current level of safety. The proposed 

rule would also harmonize the sander 

requirement with the Canadian rule by 

placing a fourteen day limit on service 

for lead locomotives in road service 

with inoperative sanders, in lieu of the 

current requirement. 

Throughout the preamble discussion 

of this proposal, FRA refers to 

comments, views, suggestions, or 

recommendations made by members of 

the Working Group. When using this 

terminology, FRA is referring to views, 

statements, discussions or positions 

identified or contained in the minutes of 

the Working Group meetings. These 

documents have been made part of the 

docket in this proceeding and are 

available for public inspection as 

discussed in the ADDRESSES portion of 

this document. These points are 

discussed to show the origin of certain 

issues and the course of discussions on 

those issues at the task force or working 

group level. We believe this helps 

illuminate factors FRA has weighed in 

making its regulatory decisions, and the 

logic behind those decisions. The reader 

should keep in mind, of course, that 

only the full RSAC makes 

recommendations to FRA, and it is the 

consensus recommendation of the full 

RSAC on which FRA is acting. 

IV. Technical Background 

On July 12, 2004, the AAR, on behalf 

of itself and its member railroads, 

petitioned the FRA to delete the 

requirement as contained in 49 CFR 

229.131, which states, ‘‘[e]xcept for MU 

locomotives, each locomotive shall be 

equipped with operable sanders that 

deposit sand on each rail in front of the 

first power operated wheel set in the 

direction of movement.’’ AAR’s 

rationale for its petition was that, 

despite being in existence for many 

decades, this requirement does not 

provide any safety benefit. Enclosed 

with the petition was a presentation by 

CN to the 81st Annual Meeting of the 

Air Brake Association in September 

1989. In that presentation, CN reported 

on a number of tests that measured the 

stopping distances of a train from 

emergency braking with and without 

sanding, with the conclusion that 

sanding from the locomotive 

consistently did not have any significant 

influence upon the emergency stopping 

distance of freight trains. Subsequently, 

FRA reviewed the overall operation of 

locomotive sanders to fully evaluate the 

petition. In addition to stopping 

distances, FRA examined other 

ramifications that the lack of sanding 

may have on the operation of 

locomotives and trains. For each 

technical aspect affected, FRA wanted 

to determine if it affects safety, 

operation efficiency, or both. 

A. Adhesion 

A generally recognized benefit of 

sanding is improved adhesion of the 

locomotive wheels to the rail. The 

maximum force or pull that a 

locomotive can generate in order to pull 

a train is limited by the weight of the 

locomotive and the amount of adhesion 

that it can maintain without wheel 

slippage. Once the wheel starts to slip, 

the pulling force is greatly reduced. 

Adhesion is critical for the locomotive 

pulling power on a steep grade. For a 

heavy freight train, the grade resistance 

will slow the train in an uphill move. 

As the speed drops, the tractive effort of 

the locomotive consist will go up. At a 

certain speed, the tractive effort may 

balance the total resistance including 

that from the grade. In that case, a 

constant speed can be maintained for 

the train to crest over the peak. 

However, at a low speed, the adhesion 

limit becomes an important factor 

because the maximum tractive effort 

that the locomotives can develop to pull 

the train is the product of the 

locomotive weight and the adhesion 

limit. Heavier six-axle locomotives can 

develop a higher tractive effort than the 

lighter four-axle locomotives of the 

same horsepower. If this maximum 

tractive effort is not sufficient to 

overcome the total resistance, the train 

will eventually stall on this grade. The 

presence of a stalled train on mainline 

track creates a safety issue as well as an 

apparent operational inconvenience. In 

addition, a stalled train at a grade 

crossing could tempt pedestrians to 

cross through the train. As the 

pedestrian crosses, the train could move 

and injure the pedestrian. The use of 

sand could prevent such a potentially 

dangerous situation. 

If the total horsepower results in force 

output higher than the maximum 

tractive effort that the adhesion between 

rail and wheel can provide, wheel slip 

will occur resulting in the actual pulling 

force being limited by the maximum 

tractive effort. Under this condition, 

sanding will provide a higher adhesion 

coefficient, boosting the maximum 

tractive effort. In some previous studies 

with conventional DC motors, the 

adhesion limit with smooth wheels on 

smooth rails can be as low as 10 percent 

under wet rail condition. With sanding, 

the adhesion can be increased to 30 

percent. The same principle applies to 

AC motors, except that the adhesion 

limits with and without sanding will 

both be higher because of the inherent 

advantage of AC motors. For 

dispatching purposes, the railroads 

produce tonnage-rating tables that are 

used to determine the number and the 

kind of locomotives to be assigned to a 

train given its length and weight. These 

tables are often developed with the 

assumption that sanding is available to 

boost the adhesion limit. Appropriate 

adhesion limits with the use of sanding 

are assumed for various types of 

locomotive equipment to calculate the 

available maximum tractive effort to 

ensure that trains will not stall on the 

ruling grade. This is particularly 

important for heavy merchandise trains, 

unit coal trains, and unit mineral trains. 

Speed is not very important for these 

trains. For better asset utilization and 

overall operation efficiency, railroads 

want to assign just enough locomotive 

units to enable the trains to climb up the 

ruling grade at low speed but not to 

stall. Sanding is very useful to increase 

the tractive effort. Using sanding to 

improve adhesion, railroads can reduce 

the number of locomotives assigned to 

a train, resulting in lower locomotive 

cost, one of the important factors in the 

overall cost structure of a rail operation. 

Sanding will increase the capability of 

a train to climb up the ruling grade. 

While lack of sanding will affect the 

efficiency of train operations and will 

become a safety issue if the train stalls 

on the track, the operational issue may 

be resolved if the locomotive engineer 

handles the situation to prevent 

undesirable consequences from wheel 

slipping. With automatic wheel slip 

control, the system will see wheel slip, 

cut power to the traction motor for a 

short duration, and reapply the power. 

If the engineer maintains the high 

throttle position, the traction motor will 

again overpower the adhesion, and the 

wheels will slip again. This continuous 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules 9907 

recycling of power on and power off of 

the traction motors will cause the 

locomotive to chatter loudly. This 

phenomenon may cause damage to 

wheel and rail. The train forces may 

spike high and low, leading to track 

train dynamics problems. Sometimes 

rail corrugation and rail burns are 

attributed to continuous wheel slipping, 

which is a common practice. Under this 

circumstance, the locomotives should 

be throttled down gradually to avoid 

long duration of wheel slipping. The 

train should be anchored on the grade, 

and the crew should call for help. 

Although the various railroads’ airbrake 

and train-handling manuals do not 

describe this instruction and procedure, 

it is a common practice for an 

underpowered train with insufficient 

pulling force to successfully operate up 

a grade with or without sanding. 

Some members of the Working Group 

raised the concern that damage to rail 

from slipping wheels can lead to 

development of transverse defects and 

broken rails. Corrugation and shelling of 

the rail head can mask internal rail 

defects and can defeat internal rail flaw 

detection. These circumstances can lead 

to train derailments unless they are 

properly managed, and the heavy 

cumulative tonnages experienced by 

most rail now in service is already 

taxing the ability of the railroads to 

manage these issues successfully. 

Railroads are expected to manage these 

issues and have done so thus far. FRA 

invites comments on this issue. 

B. Braking Distance 

As sanding may increase the 

coefficient of friction between wheel 

and rail, one may anticipate that 

sanding can reduce the stopping 

distance of a train from braking, 

especially on wet rail. However, the 

following factors should be considered 

before drawing such a conclusion: 

• The increase in friction is on the 

first few sets of axles only (i.e., on the 

locomotives). Sanding will splash and 

be dispersed rather quickly from the 

rails once several wheels roll over it. 

Over 90 percent of the wheels in a train 

will likely not receive any benefit from 

sanding. Thus, it is unlikely that the 

stopping distance will be affected by it. 

• Wet rail and dirty rail can be dried 

out and cleaned out rather quickly with 

the rolling of several axles on it. In 

numerous field tests, the second 

locomotive’s tractive effort is always 

20–30 percent higher than the first unit, 

especially on wet rail. This is an 

indication that the rail can be dried out 

and cleaned out just by one locomotive 

passing over it. Therefore, wet rail 

conditions will only affect one to two 

locomotives, and the rest of a train will 

be braked on relatively dry conditions, 

even though the rails are originally wet. 

Given the above explanation, sanding 

will hardly make any difference in the 

braking performance of all the cars 

behind the locomotives. 

• Engineers have been trained to rely 

on dynamic brakes instead of the 

pneumatic brakes, unless during 

extreme emergency situations. In 

emergency braking, little difference will 

occur in stopping distance with or 

without sanding because, as explained 

earlier, sanding likely only affects, if 

any, the braking efforts of the first few 

axles. 

• When insufficient adhesion prevails 

during braking, the wheels may slide. 

The coefficient of friction during this 

sliding will maintain the retardation 

rate of the trains. 

Therefore, it is not surprising that the 

results of CN’s testing show that the 

emergency braking stopping distances 

under various speeds and conditions 

were unchanged by sanding. However, 

the results of the test of the stopping 

distances of a short VIA passenger train 

with and without sanding were 

somewhat less expected. The 

conclusion for the VIA test was the 

same as that for the freight trains. As the 

train consist is very short for the 

passenger trains, typically as short as 

several vehicles, the factors described 

above are not all applicable to the 

passenger trains. It may be expected that 

some effect would occur on the stopping 

distance of a passenger train as a result 

of sanding. The vehicles in the tested 

passenger trains had mixed wheel and 

disk braking, but it is not clear as to how 

disk braking is affected by sanding. 

Nonetheless, the tests with VIA trains, 

submitted by the AAR with the petition, 

showed that sanding had no effect in the 

stopping distance of the trains. Even if 

sanding can affect the braking of these 

short passenger trains, we should note 

that the stopping distance of a short 

passenger train is extremely short 

compared to the heavy freight trains, 

and therefore the actual difference in 

the stopping distance will not be too 

significant. Some MU equipment always 

avoids sanding because this equipment 

is light and the number of axles in a 

train is usually small, thus, railshunting ability may get affected by 

sanding. This is the primary reason why 

the MU equipment is not equipped with 

sanders. 

The braking distance tests submitted 

by the railroads did not include 

stopping distances for ‘‘lite’’ locomotive 

consists. Locomotives are frequently 

moved without cars in order to 

reposition power. Lite locomotives do 

not respond favorably to braking 

because of the ratio of axle load to 

available rail/wheel contact zone. 

Despite results in other brake tests, FRA 

would expect that sand applied on 

multiple axles could be an important 

contributor to maintaining satisfactory 

stopping distances of lite locomotive 

consists under unfavorable conditions 

(wet rail, etc.). 

FRA also notes that the Working 

Group received little information related 

to actual use of sand in conjunction 

with extended range dynamic braking, 

which is now used extensively to slow 

trains and (with rolling resistance and 

perhaps the independent brake) bring 

them to a stop. Locomotive engineers 

may utilize dynamic brakes rather than 

the automatic train brake, where 

possible, in order to conserve fuel and 

avoid mechanical problems. 

C. Operating Rules and Training 

In order to determine what 

instructions each railroad gives to the 

locomotive engineers on the use of 

sanding, FRA obtained and reviewed 

the air braking and train handling 

manuals of NS, CSXT, UP, and BNSF. 

Past experience indicating that sanding 

affects the safety of the train operation, 

would likely be reflected in the 

instructions given to the engineers in 

these manuals. The results of the review 

of the latest version of the manuals 

revealed the following: 

• NS: No reference to sanding exists 

in NS–1, ‘‘Rules of Equipment 

Operation and Handling.’’ Discussion 

with the senior road foreman revealed 

that Norfolk Southern simply instructed 

locomotive engineers to use sanding to 

improve adhesion when wheels start to 

slip. The railroad does instruct 

engineers to back off the throttle if 

wheel slip continues to occur even with 

sanding. If the train stalls on the ruling 

grade, then the engineer must ask for 

help. 

• CSXT: Only one section of the 

railroad’s operating rules makes 

reference to sanding (excluding 

instructions to check for sander 

operation during daily inspection): 5503 

Sanding Use—sand as provided below: 

1. Use sand only when necessary to 

improve traction, which includes 

‘‘sanding the rail;’’ 2. When conditions 

require, use sand as the train is stopping 

to avoid wheel slipping when starting; 

and 3. Use trainline sanding only when 

front/lead truck sanding proves 

inadequate. CSXT’s rules also include 

the definition of sanding, which states: 

‘‘Sanding the Rail: A term used to 

describe the act of putting sand on a rail 

in advance of an anticipated train 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
9908 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

movement to ensure greater adhesion 

when movement begins.’’

• UP: No specific instruction exists 

on the circumstance and manner that 

sanding should be used, other than 

instructions to check for sanding 

operation during daily inspection. 

• BNSF: Other than instructions to 

check for sanding operation during 

daily inspection, BSNF’s rules include 

the statement, ‘‘Apply sand as 

conditions warrant,’’ in sections to 

instruct how to operate during start, 

going upgrade, negotiating undulating 

grade, and cresting grade. In the two 

sections where instructions are given to 

stop a train in a descending grade or 

controlling the speed using dynamic 

brake, the engineers must perform the 

following steps: 

• As dynamic braking becomes 

ineffective near the stopping point, turn 

on the sand and develop enough brake 

cylinder pressure with the independent 

brake valve to prevent forward surge. 

• Make a final brake pipe reduction to 

complete the stop with the service 

exhaust blowing at the stopping point. 

• After stopping, move the dynamic 

brake controller to OFF and reduce the 

remote(s) DB to IDLE. 

• Fully apply the independent brake 

and turn off the sand after the stop is 

completed. 

Apparently, BNSF believes that the 

use of sanding with the independent 

brake at near zero speed will brake the 

locomotive more effectively so that a 

surge of the locomotives can be 

prevented when dynamic braking 

becomes ineffective. However, it is not 

a general practice for all railroads to 

operate that way. 

D. Train Simulations 

The AAR Train Operation and Energy 

Simulation (TOES) Model makes no 

mention of the use of sand for braking 

purposes. This further points to the 

conclusion that sanding is not 

considered for emergency or other 

braking purposes. 

E. General Considerations 

In the Working Group, representatives 

of locomotive engineers supported 

retention of a requirement for provision 

of sand to support safe and efficient 

operations. FRA is conscious of the fact 

that, unlike other safety statutes, the 

Locomotive Inspection law, at 49 U.S.C. 

20701, requires that each locomotive be 

‘‘in proper condition’’ as well as ‘‘safe’’. 

Railroad representatives agree that sand 

remains useful for adhesion in many 

circumstances and would not remove 

sanders from locomotives even if 

allowed to do so. These considerations 

argue for proceeding with caution as the 

regulation is revised. 

Finally, it should be noted that there 

are a variety of situations in yard 

switching (where locomotives only may 

be relied upon for stopping a switching 

movement) and over the road (where it 

is necessary to cross a ruling grade with 

marginal motive power) where sand 

would ordinarily be relied upon. 

Members of the Working Group raised 

the possibility that a locomotive 

engineer might feel compelled to skirt 

other safeguards in order to overcome 

operational difficulties should sand be 

unavailable. This is a concern that 

should be factored in when determining 

how much latitude to provide in this 

rulemaking. FRA welcomes comment on 

this issue. 

V. Current Regulatory Impediments 

Relaxing the locomotive sanding 

requirement as proposed would 

maintain safety and would allow 

railroads to better utilize their 

locomotive fleets. The current 

requirement allows a locomotive found 

with a defective sander to continue in 

service to the next forward location 

where repairs can be made or the next 

calendar day inspection, which ever 

occurs first. Under the proposed 

requirement, a lead locomotive in an 

over-the-road train may continue to be 

utilized by the railroad for up to 

fourteen days; in the case of a trailing 

locomotive, it may continue to be 

utilized by the railroad until placed in 

a facility with a sand delivery system or 

departure from an initial terminal. 

Sanding may reach optimal 

effectiveness even where one or more 

locomotive sanders in a consist is 

inoperative. Locomotives are routinely 

equipped with two sanders at each end. 

Often a consist will contain multiple 

locomotives. Each locomotive in a 

multiple-locomotive consist distributes 

sand to the rail. As a result, when each 

of the locomotives in a multiple 

locomotive consist are operating with 

all sanders operative, the train could 

potentially distribute more sand to the 

rail than it will utilize. At that point the 

effect of the sand on the train would be 

the same if one or two sanders in the 

consist were inoperative. 

Requirements for sanders can be 

traced back to the steam locomotive era; 

at that time, sanding the rail was 

thought to enhance adhesion between 

the steam locomotive wheel and the rail. 

Modern diesel locomotives rely on 

wheel slip and wheel creep devices, as 

well as sand, to provide adhesion 

between the wheel and rail. Where 

sanders are inoperative on a diesel 

locomotive the total loss of adhesion 

would be less than it would have been 

for a steam locomotive. Notably, any 

reduced adhesion would limit the 

ability of the locomotive to pull its train. 

Loss of the ability to pull the train is a 

productivity concern that is not being 

addressed by this proposed rule. 

Sanding the rail in braking mode 

provides little additional adhesion to a 

train, because train handling depends 

primarily on train brakes to maintain 

train dynamics. The locomotive braking 

has limited effect. As stated in the 

technical discussion above, by the time 

the locomotives in the consist have 

passed over the sanded rail, little to no 

sand remains on the rail and little or no 

benefit is provided to train braking. 

VI. Section-by-Section Analysis 

Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part 

229 

Section 229.5 Definitions. 

FRA is proposing to add the term 

‘‘sand delivery system’’ in this section. 

The term would mean a permanently 

stationed or fixed device designed to 

deliver sand to locomotive sand boxes 

that do not require the sand to be 

manually delivered or loaded. A sand 

delivery system will be considered 

permanently stationed if it is at a 

location at least five days a week for 

eight hours per day. FRA seeks views 

from interested parties regarding this 

definition. 

FRA is also proposing to add the term 

‘‘initial terminal.’’ The definition of this 

term would be identical to that 

currently contained in 49 CFR 232.5 and 

238.5. The term would mean ‘‘a location 

where a train is originally assembled.’’

Section 229.9 Movement of noncomplying locomotives. 

FRA proposes to amend this section 

to exempt locomotives operated under 

proposed paragraphs 229.131(b) and 

(c)(1) from the movement for repair 

provision contained in Section 229.9. In 

general, Section 229.9 currently 

provides movement for repair 

requirements for part 229. Proposed 

paragraphs 229.131(b) and (c)(1) contain 

specific requirements relating to the 

movement and continued use of 

locomotives with defective sander 

equipment. Because the proposed 

paragraphs specifically address 

movement for repair, applying Section 

229.9 would be superfluous or 

conflicting, and would no longer be 

necessary. 

FRA also proposes to make a 

clarifying amendment to this section of 

part 229. Section 229.9 currently 

contains the following exception that 

reads: ‘‘[e]xcept as provided in * * * 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules 9909 

229.125(h)’’ The exception relates to 

locomotive auxiliary lights and although 

a correct citation when originally 

inserted into the regulations, later 

amendments to that section resulted in 

redesignation of the paragraphs. The 

exception should refer to Section 

229.125(g). Like Section 229.131(b) and 

(c)(1), Section 229.125(g) sets forth 

movement for repair requirements 

specific to that section. Consequently, 

FRA is proposing to make this 

clarification in this regulatory 

proceeding. 

Section 229.131 Sanders. 

Paragraph (a). This paragraph would 

establish a general requirement that 

locomotives be equipped with operative 

sanders before departing an initial 

terminal. Any time a locomotive is in 

use before leaving the initial terminal it 

will be required to have operative 

sanders. The term ‘‘in use’’ has been 

consistently applied to mean when a 

locomotive is capable of being used. 

Thus, the locomotive does not have to 

actually be used to be in use. Examples 

of a locomotive in use are when a 

locomotive has been inspected, or a 

locomotive is on a ready track. FRA 

agrees with the RSAC’s 

recommendation that the initial 

terminal would be an appropriate place 

to initially require operative sanders, 

because it is a place where sander 

maintenance can usually be 

accomplished without imposing a 

significant burden on the railroad. In 

many instances, locations where trains 

are initiated are equipped with sand 

delivery systems and are capable of 

making repairs to the sander 

mechanisms. FRA notes that this 

proposal will permit locomotives to be 

released from daily locomotive 

inspections with inoperative sanders. 

However, the proposal would require 

sanders to be repaired or handled for 

repair under Section 229.9 if defective 

when the locomotive is preparing to 

depart from an initial terminal. In 

instances where repairs cannot be 

performed, a locomotive may be 

dispatched from an initial terminal but 

only under the strict provisions 

contained in Section 229.9. Thus, the 

locomotive could only continue in use 

to the nearest forward location where 

necessary repairs could be effectuated or 

to the locomotive’s next calendar day 

inspection, whichever occurs first. FRA 

further notes that if a locomotive is at 

an initial terminal for its train and that 

location has a sand delivery system or 

is otherwise capable of making sander 

repairs, then the locomotive may not 

legally depart that location with 

inoperative sanders. FRA also intends to 

make clear that a locomotive’s sanders 

will only be considered operative if 

appropriate amounts of sand are 

deposited on each rail in front of the 

first power operated wheel set in the 

direction of movement. 

FRA recognizes that this proposal 

would be less restrictive than the 

movement for repair provisions 

currently contained in Section 229.9. In 

most instances, locomotives will likely 

encounter an initial terminal less 

frequently than a daily inspection. This 

will facilitate more efficient railroad 

operations. Under the current provision, 

a railroad will take a locomotive out of 

service when a sander defect is found at 

the daily inspection. By requiring 

operative sanders less frequently, the 

new requirement allows the railroad to 

keep the locomotive in service more 

often. With more locomotives in service, 

the railroad will be able to better utilize 

its power throughout its fleet. 

Paragraph (b). This paragraph 

contains the proposed requirements for 

handling locomotives used in road 

service where sanders become 

inoperative after departure from an 

initial terminal. Road service would be 

distinguished from yard service because 

the type of service affects the need for 

sand. Locomotives performing road 

service will likely be in longer trains 

and run at higher speeds than those 

performing switching service. The 

existing definition of switching service, 

as it appears in Sections 229.5 and 

232.5, provides background for the 

distinction between road service and 

switching service. Switching service 

means ‘‘assembling cars for train 

movements * * * or moving rail 

equipment in connection with work 

service that does not constitute a train 

movement.’’ Any movement that is not 

considered ‘‘switching service’’ would 

be considered ‘‘road service.’’ Therefore, 

any service which constitutes a ‘‘train 

movement’’ would be considered ‘‘road 

service’’ for purposes of this section. 

The preamble to the final rule related to 

part 232 (66 FR 4104, January 17, 2001) 

contains detailed discussion of the 

factors that are to be considered when 

determining what constitutes a ‘‘train 

movement.’’ See 66 FR 4148–49. 

Paragraph (b)(1). This paragraph 

proposes requirements related to lead 

locomotives being used in road service 

where sanders are discovered to be 

inoperative after departure from an 

initial terminal. Once inoperative 

sanders are discovered on these 

locomotives, there are four proposed 

triggers that would determine how long 

a lead locomotive will be permitted to 

remain in service with inoperative 

sanders. The proposed triggers are: the 

next initial terminal; a location where it 

is placed in a facility with a sand 

delivery system; its next periodic 

inspection under Section 229.23; or 

fourteen calendar days from the date the 

sanders are first discovered to be 

inoperative, whichever occurs first. 

FRA agrees with the Working Group’s 

determination that the four triggering 

events will ensure that sanders are 

repaired in a timely fashion while 

providing railroads the ability to better 

utilize their locomotive fleets. Under the 

existing rule, a locomotive can move 

only until the next daily inspection with 

inoperative sanders. Utilizing four 

different triggers allows the railroad a 

greater degree of operational flexibility. 

Each trigger provides a logical point at 

which sander maintenance should and 

can be conducted without impacting a 

railroad’s operation to a significant 

degree. The initial terminal is an 

appropriate place to require operative 

sanders for the reasons stated in 

paragraph 229.131(a). When a 

locomotive is placed in a facility that 

has a sand delivery system it is 

appropriate to require a railroad to 

provide sander maintenance. Placed in 

a facility is intended to mean actually 

placed on trackage with access to the 

sand delivery system, and not merely 

passing through a location with a sand 

delivery system on the premises. 

Similarly, when a locomotive is given 

its required periodic inspection it is 

expected that the location will be 

capable of providing repairs and 

additional sand to the locomotive 

sanders with little burden. Permitting a 

lead locomotive to remain in service for 

no longer than fourteen days is 

reasonable as it permits the locomotive 

to reach the destination of a longdistance train run, ensures timely 

repairs to the sanders, and is consistent 

with the current Canadian requirement. 

Paragraph (b)(2). This paragraph 

proposes the requirements for handling 

trailing locomotives, including 

distributed power locomotives, that are 

being used in road service when sanders 

are discovered to be inoperative after 

departure from an initial terminal. Once 

inoperative sanders are discovered, the 

NPRM proposes three triggering events 

that will determine how long the 

trailing locomotive will be permitted to 

remain in service with inoperative 

sanders. The triggering events proposed 

in this paragraph are identical to those 

proposed in paragraph (b)(1) except for 

the elimination of the fourteen day 

requirement. FRA agrees with the 

Working Group’s determination that the 

need to provide sand to a trailing 

locomotive is less critical than it is for 

a lead locomotive. The engineer 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
9910 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

operating the train or locomotive consist 

may be more familiar with the lead 

locomotive than with the trailing 

locomotive. The engineer is likely to be 

operating from the lead locomotive, and 

thus, that locomotive is less likely to be 

switched out of the consist while 

moving over the road. 

The term ‘‘trailing locomotive,’’ as 

used in this paragraph, specifically 

refers to a locomotive that is located 

behind the lead locomotive in a train or 

locomotive consist. A distributed power 

locomotive, as defined in Section 229.5, 

is a locomotive that is part of a 

distributed power system that provides 

control to a number of locomotives 

dispersed in a consist from command 

signals originating in the lead 

locomotive. The distributed power 

locomotives are also trailing 

locomotives because they are located 

behind the lead locomotive in the train. 

Including both the terms ‘‘trailing 

locomotives’’ and ‘‘distributed power 

locomotives’’ may add clarity by 

emphasizing all trailing locomotives are 

subject to the requirements of this 

paragraph. FRA seeks comment and 

views from interested parties regarding 

the relationship between these two 

terms and whether there is a need to use 

both terms in this paragraph. 

Paragraph (c). This paragraph 

proposes requirements for handling 

locomotives used in switching service 

where sanders become inoperative. The 

Working Group and the full RSAC 

recommended that the use of sand on 

locomotives performing switching 

service should be distinguished from 

locomotives being used in road service 

as described above in paragraph (b). 

Included as part of the RSAC’s 

recommendation to FRA in this area, it 

was requested that FRA unilaterally 

develop criteria for the handling of 

locomotives being used in switching 

service that experience inoperative 

sanders. The request specifically related 

to the identification of what constituted 

locomotives at ‘‘outlying locations’’ and 

the identification of the triggering 

events for repairing inoperative sanders 

on such locomotives. FRA considered 

the discussions and views provided by 

members of the Working Group when 

developing this proposal. 

Rather than attempt to define what 

constitutes an ‘‘outlying location,’’ FRA 

believes that the most appropriate 

method of distinguishing between 

switching locomotives and the locations 

where they operate, is to base the 

determination on the existence of a sand 

delivery system at the location. FRA 

believes that locomotives being used in 

switching service at a location with a 

sand delivery system should be able to 

be maintained and handled for repair in 

a more timely manner, with less 

disruption to railroad operations, than 

locomotives being used in switching 

service at locations without sand 

delivery systems. If there is no sand 

delivery system at a location, then the 

railroad is required to send maintenance 

vehicles or crews to the location or is 

required to move the locomotive to 

another location to effectuate necessary 

repairs. This can have a significant 

impact on the efficiency and continuity 

of switching operations at certain 

locations. Thus, paragraphs (c)(1) and 

(c)(2) separate the requirements for 

maintaining the sanders on locomotives 

being used in switching service based 

on the presence of a sand delivery 

system at the location where the 

locomotive is being used. 

Paragraph (c)(1). This paragraph 

proposes requirements for handling 

locomotives being used in switching 

service at locations that are not 

equipped with a sand delivery system. 

In order to remain consistent with the 

overall design of the proposal submitted 

by the RSAC, FRA believes that some 

operational flexibility needs to be 

provided to locomotives being used in 

switching service at locations not 

capable of quickly delivering sand or 

making necessary repairs. As noted 

above, the simplest way of making this 

determination is based on whether or 

not the location has a sand delivery 

system. FRA believes that seven days is 

a reasonable amount of time to permit 

railroads to provide necessary sander 

attention to a locomotive being used in 

switching service at a location that does 

not have a sand delivery system. This 

amount of time is consistent and within 

the time frame in which locomotives 

used in switching service will need 

some other type of maintenance or 

attention, most likely re-fueling. The 

seven day mark appears to be a 

reasonable outer-limit for the 

requirement. The second triggering 

event proposed in this paragraph is if 

the locomotive becomes due for its 

periodic inspection pursuant to Section 

229.23 of this part. FRA solicits 

comments and views concerning the 

appropriateness of this proposed 

provision. 

Paragraph (c)(2). This paragraph 

proposes requirements for handling 

locomotives used in switching service at 

locations equipped with a sand delivery 

system. FRA agrees with the opinions of 

the Working Group and full RSAC that 

sanders on these types of locomotives 

can be maintained with little burden on 

a railroad’s operation as they are already 

at the location where sand can be 

delivered and effective repairs can be 

effectuated. Therefore, FRA accepts the 

RSAC’s recommendation and retains the 

existing requirements applicable to 

these locomotives. Consequently, when 

sanders become inoperative on these 

locomotives they would have to be 

handled in accordance with the 

provisions contained in Section 229.9. 

Paragraph (d). This paragraph is 

proposed in an effort to ensure that any 

locomotive with inoperative sanders is 

properly tagged under the tagging 

provisions contained in Section 

229.9(a). As paragraphs (b) and (c)(1) 

provide railroads with more flexibility 

with regard to using a locomotive with 

inoperative sanders than what is 

currently permitted by Section 229.9, 

FRA wants to ensure that proper 

notification and records are maintained 

on in-service locomotives with 

inoperative sanders. Thus, FRA 

proposes to require that locomotives 

operating with defective sanders be 

tagged in accordance with the 

provisions contained in Section 

229.9(a). This will also ensure that the 

individuals operating the locomotive are 

fully informed as to the fact that the 

locomotive they are operating does not 

have working sanders. 

VII. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This rule has been evaluated in 

accordance with existing policies and 

procedures, and determined to be nonsignificant under both Executive Order 

12866 and DOT policies and procedures 

(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). FRA 

has prepared and placed in the docket 

a regulatory analysis addressing the 

economic impact of this proposed rule. 

Document inspection and copying 

facilities are available at 1120 Vermont 

Avenue, 7th Floor, Washington, DC 

20590. Photocopies may also be 

obtained by submitting a written request 

to the FRA Docket Clerk at Office of 

Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590. 

As part of the regulatory impact 

analysis FRA has assessed quantitative 

measurements of cost and benefit 

streams expected from the adoption of 

this proposed rule. For the twenty year 

period the estimated quantified costs are 

minimal. For this period the estimated 

quantified benefits have a PV of $70.6 

million 

The major benefits anticipated from 

implementing this proposed rule 

include: a reduction in the number of 

times locomotives have sand loaded or 

the number of times the sanders are 

made operative. This reduction 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules 9911 

produces a reduction in injuries related 

to the operation of filling sand boxes on 

the locomotive and the employee days 

absent related to these injures. Finally 

the proposed rule would also harmonize 

the sander requirement with the 

Canadian rule by placing a fourteen day 

limit on service for lead locomotives in 

road service with inoperative sanders. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive 

Order 13272 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

13272 require a review of proposed and 

final rules to assess their impact on 

small entities. FRA has prepared and 

placed in the docket an Analysis of 

Impact on Small Entities (AISE) that 

assesses the small entity impact of this 

proposal. Document inspection and 

copying facilities are available at the 

Department of Transportation Central 

Docket Management Facility located in 

Room PL–401 on the Plaza level of the 

Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590. Docket 

material is also available for inspection 

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

Photocopies may also be obtained by 

submitting a written request to the FRA 

Docket Clerk at Office of Chief Counsel, 

Stop 10, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20590; please 

refer to Docket No. FRA–2005–23080. 

‘‘Small entity’’ is defined in 5 U.S.C. 

601 as a small business concern that is 

independently owned and operated, and 

is not dominant in its field of operation. 

The U.S. Small Business Administration 

(SBA) has authority to regulate issues 

related to small businesses, and 

stipulates in its size standards that a 

‘‘small entity’’ in the railroad industry is 

a railroad business ‘‘line-haul 

operation’’ that has fewer than 1,500 

employees and a ‘‘switching and 

terminal’’ establishment with fewer than 

500 employees. SBA’s ‘‘size standards’’

may be altered by Federal agencies, in 

consultation with SBA and in 

conjunction with public comment. 

Pursuant to that authority FRA has 

published a final statement of agency 

policy that formally establishes ‘‘small 

entities’’ as being railroads that meet the 

line-haulage revenue requirements of a 

Class III railroad. See 68 FR 24891 (May 

9, 2003). Currently, the revenue 

requirements are $20 million or less in 

annual operating revenue. The $20 

million limit is based on the Surface 

Transportation Board’s threshold of a 

Class III railroad carrier, which is 

adjusted by applying the railroad 

revenue deflator adjustment (49 CFR 

part 1201). The same dollar limit on 

revenues is established to determine 

whether a railroad shipper or contractor 

is a small entity. 

For the proposed rule over 600 

railroads could potentially be affected. 

The proposed rule would impact all 

locomotives except those propelled by 

steam power. Given this application, 

only railroads that operate steam 

locomotives exclusively, would be 

unaffected. For those railroads that 

would be affected the impact will be 

minimal, if any. The focus is on 

permitting additional flexibility in the 

use of locomotives with inoperative 

sanders. It is anticipated that the 

additional flexibility will produce 

mostly positive impacts, i.e., savings 

and injury reductions. 

The AISE developed in connection 

with this NPRM concludes that this 

proposal would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Thus, FRA 

certifies that this proposed rule is not 

expected to have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act or Executive Order 13272. In order 

to determine the significance of the 

economic impact for the final rule’s 

Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements, 

FRA invites comments from all 

interested parties concerning the 

potential economic impact on small 

entities caused by this proposed rule. 

The Agency will consider the comments 

and data it receives in making a 

decision on the small entity impact for 

the final rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The proposed rule contains one 

section that would change the current 

regulation, Section 229.131. The 

proposed change would not change the 

current information collection activity. 

The information collection burden 

associated with the proposed rule 

already exists under Section 229.9. 

OMB clearance for the current rule has 

been granted and no further approval is 

sought at this time. If new information 

collection issues arise in the final rule 

stage, FRA will seek OMB approval. 

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. The OMB 

control number assigned for information 

collection related to this proposed rule 

is OMB No. 2130–0004. 

Federalism Implications 

FRA has analyzed this proposed rule 

in accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132, issued on August 4, 1999, which 

directs Federal agencies to exercise great 

care in establishing policies that have 

federalism implications. See 64 FR 

43255. This proposed rule will not have 

a substantial effect on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among various levels of 

government. This proposed rule will not 

have federalism implications that 

impose any direct compliance costs on 

State and local governments. 

FRA notes that the RSAC, which 

endorsed and recommended the 

majority of this proposed rule to FRA, 

has as permanent members two 

organizations representing State and 

local interests: AASHTO and the 

Association of State Rail Safety 

Managers (ASRSM). Both of these State 

organizations concurred with the RSAC 

recommendation endorsing this 

proposed rule. The RSAC regularly 

provides recommendations to the FRA 

Administrator for solutions to regulatory 

issues that reflect significant input from 

its State members. To date, FRA has 

received no indication of concerns 

about the Federalism implications of 

this rulemaking from these 

representatives or of any other 

representatives of State government. 

Consequently, FRA concludes that this 

proposed rule has no federalism 

implications, other than the preemption 

of state laws covering the subject matter 

of this proposed rule, which occurs by 

operation of law under 49 U.S.C. 

Section 20106 whenever FRA issues a 

rule or order. 

Environmental Impact 

FRA has evaluated this proposed 

regulation in accordance with its 

‘‘Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impacts’’ (FRA’s 

Procedures) (64 FR 28545, May 26, 

1999) as required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), other environmental 

statutes, Executive Orders, and related 

regulatory requirements. FRA has 

determined that this proposed 

regulation is not a major FRA action 

(requiring the preparation of an 

environmental impact statement or 

environmental assessment) because it is 

categorically excluded from detailed 

environmental review pursuant to 

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

FR 28547, May 26, 1999. Section 

4(c)(20) reads as follows: 

(c) Actions categorically excluded. Certain 

classes of FRA actions have been determined 

to be categorically excluded from the 

requirements of these Procedures as they do 

not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
9912 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

* * * The following classes of FRA actions 

are categorically excluded: * * * 

(20) Promulgation of railroad safety rules 

and policy statements that do not result in 

significantly increased emissions or air or 

water pollutants or noise or increased traffic 

congestion in any mode of transportation. 

In accordance with section 4(c) and 

(e) of FRA’s Procedures, the agency has 

further concluded that no extraordinary 

circumstances exist with respect to this 

regulation that might trigger the need for 

a more detailed environmental review. 

As a result, FRA finds that this 

proposed regulation is not a major 

Federal action significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Pursuant to Section 201 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each 

Federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise 

prohibited by law, assess the effects of 

Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and tribal governments, and the 

private sector (other than to the extent 

that such regulations incorporate 

requirements specifically set forth in 

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

1532) further requires that ‘‘before 

promulgating any general notice of 

proposed rulemaking that is likely to 

result in the promulgation of any rule 

that includes any Federal mandate that 

may result in expenditure by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$128,100,000 or more (adjusted 

annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and 

before promulgating any final rule for 

which a general notice of proposed 

rulemaking was published, the agency 

shall prepare a written statement’’

detailing the effect on State, local, and 

tribal governments and the private 

sector. The proposed rule would not 

result in the expenditure, in the 

aggregate, of $128,100,000 or more in 

any one year, and thus preparation of 

such a statement is not required. 

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 229 

Locomotives, Railroad safety, and 

Sanders. 

The Proposed Rule 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, FRA proposes to amend part 

229 of chapter II, subtitle B of Title 49, 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 229—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 229 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–03, 20107, 

20133, 20137–38, 20143, 20701–03, 21301–

02, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2401, note; and 49 CFR 

1.49(c), (m). 

2. Section 229.5 is amended by 

adding alphabetically the definitions of 

‘‘initial terminal’’ and ‘‘sand delivery 

system’’ to read as follows: 

§ 229.5 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Initial terminal means a location 

where a train is originally assembled. 

* * * * * 

Sand delivery system means a 

permanently stationed or fixed device 

designed to deliver sand to locomotive 

sand boxes that do not require the sand 

to be manually delivered or loaded. A 

sand delivery system will be considered 

permanently stationed if it is at a 

location at least five days a week for 

eight hours per day. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 229.9 is amended by 

revising the introductory phrase 

contained in paragraph (a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 229.9 Movement of non-complying 

locomotives. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(b), (c), § 229.125(g), and § 229.131(b) 

and (c)(1), * * * 

* * * * * 

4. Section 229.131 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 229.131 Sanders. 

(a) Prior to departure from an initial 

terminal, each locomotive, except for 

MU locomotives, shall be equipped with 

operative sanders that deposit sand on 

each rail in front of the first power 

operated wheel set in the direction of 

movement or shall be handled in 

accordance with the requirements 

contained in § 229.9. 

(b) Locomotives being used in road 

service with sanders that become 

inoperative after departure from an 

initial terminal shall be handled in 

accordance with the following: 

(1) Lead locomotives being used in 

road service that experience inoperative 

sanders after departure from an initial 

terminal may continue in service until 

the earliest of the following occurrences: 

(i) Arrival at the next initial terminal; 

(ii) Arrival at a location where it is 

placed in a facility with a sand delivery 

system; 

(iii) The next periodic inspection 

under § 229.23; or, 

(iv) Fourteen calendar days from the 

date the sanders are first discovered to 

be inoperative; and 

(2) Trailing locomotives and 

distributed power locomotives being 

used in road service that experience 

inoperative sanders after departure from 

an initial terminal may continue in 

service until the earliest of the following 

occurrence: 

(i) Arrival at the next initial terminal; 

(ii) Arrival at a location where it is 

placed in a facility with a sand delivery 

system; or, 

(iii) The next periodic inspection 

under § 229.23. 

(c) Locomotives being used in 

switching service shall be equipped 

with operative sanders that deposit sand 

on each rail in front of the first power 

operated wheel set in the direction of 

movement. If the sanders become 

inoperative, the locomotives shall be 

handled in accordance with the 

following: 

(1) Locomotives being used in 

switching service at a location not 

equipped with a sand delivery system 

may continue in service for seven 

calendar days from the date the sanders 

are first discovered inoperative or until 

its next periodic inspection under 

§ 229.23, which ever occurs first; and 

(2) Locomotives being used in 

switching service at locations equipped 

with a sand delivery system shall be 

handled in accordance with the 

requirements contained in § 229.9. 

(d) Locomotives being handled under 

the provisions contained in paragraph 

(b) and (c)(1) of this section shall be 

tagged in accordance with § 229.9(a). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 27, 

2007. 

Joseph H. Boardman, 

Federal Railroad Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E7–3885 Filed 3–5–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS