Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43467 

5Under this definition, the EPA treats as 

reservations trust lands validly set aside for the use 

of a Tribe even if the trust lands have not been 

formally designated as a reservation. 

promulgated or revised Radionuclides 

NEHAPs by the following streamlined 

process: (1) WDOH will send a letter to 

the EPA requesting delegation for such 

new or revised Radionuclides NESHAPs 

which WDOH has adopted by reference 

into Washington regulations, reference 

its previous demonstration, and reaffirm 

that it still meets the criteria for any full 

approval and delegation of the 

NESHAPs; (2) the EPA will send a letter 

of response back to WDOH granting 

approval of the delegation request (or 

explaining why the EPA cannot grant 

the request), and publish notice of the 

EPA’s approval in the Federal Register; 

(3) WDOH does not need to send a 

response back to the EPA. 

11. Although WDOH is not obligated 

to request or receive future delegations 

of the Radionuclides NESHAPs, the EPA 

encourages WDOH, on an annual basis 

if the Federal standards have changed, 

to revise its rules to incorporate by 

reference newly promulgated or revised 

Radionuclides NESHAPs and request 

updated delegation of those standards. 

V. Summary of Proposed Action 

The EPA proposes to fully approve 

WDOH’s request for approval and 

delegation of authority to implement 

and enforce the Radionuclides 

NESHAPs. Pursuant to the authority of 

section 112(l) of the CAA, this approval 

is based on the EPA’s finding that State 

law, regulations, and agency resources 

meet the requirements for full straight 

program approval and delegation of 

authority as specified in 40 CFR 63.91. 

The purpose of this full approval and 

delegation is to acknowledge WDOH’s 

ability to implement a Radionuclides 

NESHAPs program within the State of 

Washington (except with respect to 

Indian country, as discussed in Section 

VI. of this preamble, and to continue the 

transfer of primary implementation and 

enforcement responsibility for this 

program from the EPA to WDOH. 

Although the EPA will look to WDOH 

as the lead for implementing delegated 

Radionuclides NESHAPs for its sources, 

the EPA retains authority under section 

113 of the CAA to enforce any 

applicable emission standard or 

requirement, if needed. With this 

approval, WDOH may request newly 

promulgated or revised Radionuclides 

NESHAPs by way of a streamlined 

process. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator 

has the authority to approve NESHAP 

delegation requests that comply with 

CAA section 112(l) and applicable 

Federal regulations. In reviewing 

NESHAP delegation requests, the EPA’s 

role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria and 

objectives of the CAA and the EPA’s 

implementing regulations. Accordingly, 

this proposed action would merely 

approve the State’s request as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements under 

the CAA beyond those imposed by State 

law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practical and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

This proposed full approval and 

delegation of the Radionuclides 

NESHAPs would not apply to sources or 

activities located in Indian country, as 

defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151.5 Consistent 

with previous Federal program 

approvals or delegations, the EPA will 

continue to implement the NESHAPs in 

Indian country in Washington because 

WDOH has not adequately 

demonstrated authority over sources 

and activities located within the exterior 

boundaries of Indian reservations and in 

other areas of Indian country. In those 

areas of Indian country, this proposed 

rule does not have tribal implications 

and will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). The one exception is within the 

exterior boundaries of the Puyallup 

Indian Reservation, also known as the 

1873 Survey Area. Under the Puyallup 

Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 

25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly 

provided State and local agencies in 

Washington authority over activities on 

non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey 

Area. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Radionuclides, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: July 15, 2022. 

Casey Sixkiller, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2022–15553 Filed 7–20–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Part 224 

[Docket No. FRA–2021–0080, Notice No. 1] 

RIN 2130–AC77 

Reflectorization of Rail Freight Rolling 

Stock; Codifying Existing Waivers 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: FRA proposes to amend its 

standards for Reflectorization of Rail 

Freight Rolling Stock (Reflectorization 

Standards) to codify waivers and 

remove the outdated implementation 

schedule. The proposed changes are 

expected to enhance safety, promote 

innovation, clarify existing 

requirements, and reduce unnecessary 

paperwork burdens. The proposed 

amendments are consistent with the 

mandate of the Infrastructure 

Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which 

requires FRA to review and analyze 

certain longstanding waivers to 

determine whether incorporating the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
43468 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

waivers into FRA’s regulations is 

justified. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule 

must be received by September 19, 

2022. Comments received after that date 

will be considered to the extent 

practicable. 

ADDRESSES: 

Comments: Comments related to 

Docket No. FRA–2021–0080 may be 

submitted by going to https://

www.regulations.gov and following 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 https://

www.regulation.gov; this includes 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 https://

www.regulations.gov and follow the 

online instructions for accessing the 

docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Check Kam, Mechanical Engineer, 

Office of Railroad Safety, at telephone: 

(202) 366–2139 or email: check.kam@

dot.gov; or Michael Masci, Senior 

Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, at 

telephone: (202) 493–6037 or email: 

michael.masci@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Abbreviations and Terms Used in This 

Document 

AAR—Association of American Railroads 

ASLRRA—American Short Line and Regional 

Railroad Association 

ASTM—ASTM International (formerly 

known as American Society for Testing 

and Materials) 

CE—Categorical Exclusion 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

DOT—Department of Transportation 

EA—Environmental Assessment 

EIS—Environmental Impact Statement 

FHWA—Federal Highway Administration 

FR—Federal Register 

FRA—Federal Railroad Administration 

GS—General Schedule 

IIJA—Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 

(Pub. L. 117–58) 

IRFA—Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

LED—Light-Emitting Diode 

MOW—Maintenance of Way 

NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act 

NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

OMB—Office of Management and Budget 

PRA—The Paperwork Reduction Act 

RIT—Run-Into-Train 

RRA—Running Repair Agent 

S–916—AAR’s Standard S–916; 

Retroreflective Comparator Panel 

Requirements 

SCABT—Single Car Air Brake Test 

SIA—Specific Intensity per unit Area 

STB—Surface Transportation Board 

THEERP—Tourist, Historic, Excursion, 

Educational, Recreational, or Private 

TTI—Texas A&M Transportation Institute 

UMLER—Universal Machine Language 

Equipment Register 

U.S.C.—United States Code 

Volpe—Volpe National Transportation 

Systems Center 

Table of Contents for Supplementary 

Information 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Statutory and Regulatory Background 

A. Existing Reflectorization Requirements 

B. Waivers Excluding From Part 224 Rail 

Freight Rolling Stock Used Only for 

Tourist, Historic, Excursion, 

Educational, Recreational, or Private 

(THEERP) Purposes, Except for 

Incidental Freight Service 

C. Waivers Allowing Development and 

Testing of Alternative Methods To 

Determine When To Replace 

Retroreflective Sheeting 

III. Overview and Technical Discussion of 

Proposed Requirements 

A. Proposal To Exclude From Part 224 Rail 

Freight Rolling Stock Used Only for 

THEERP Purposes, Except for Incidental 

Freight Service 

B. Proposal To Allow Alternative Methods 

To Determine When To Replace 

Retroreflective Sheeting 

1. The Existing 10-Year Replacement Cycle 

Ensures Effective Retroreflective 

Sheeting, but May Require Replacement 

Sooner Than Necessary 

2. FRA Worked Closely With The 

Association of American Railroads 

(AAR) and Texas A&M Transportation 

Institute (TTI) To Develop a Comparator 

Panel That Could Be Used With the 

Reflectorization Standards 

3. FRA Approved a Pilot Program To Test 

AAR’s Standard S–916; Retroreflective 

Comparator Panel Requirements (S–916) 

in Service 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis 

V. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive 

Order 13272 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. Federalism Implications 

E. International Trade Impact Assessment 

F. Environmental Impact 

G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental 

Justice) 

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

I. Energy Impact 

J. Privacy Act Statement 

I. Executive Summary 

Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

FRA periodically reviews, and 

proposes amendments to, its regulations 

to identify ways to enhance safety, and 

update regulatory requirements. This 

proposed rule is expected to enhance 

safety, promote innovation, reduce 

unnecessary costs, and clarify existing 

requirements. Moreover, FRA expects 

reduced environmental waste resulting 

from not needlessly replacing 

retroreflective sheeting prior to the end 

of its useful life. 

This proposed rule would respond to 

the mandate of section 22411 of the IIJA 

(Pub. L. 117–58) which requires the 

Secretary to review and analyze existing 

waivers issued under 49 U.S.C. 20103 

that have been in continuous effect for 

a 6-year period to determine whether 

issuing a rule consistent with the waiver 

is in the public interest and consistent 

with railroad safety. After conducting 

the appropriate analysis, if the Secretary 

concludes that it would be in the public 

interest and consistent with railroad 

safety to initiate a rulemaking to 

incorporate into the regulations the 

relevant aspects of the waivers 

analyzed, section 22411 specifically 

authorizes the Secretary to initiate such 

a rulemaking. 

Summary of the Regulatory Action 

The Reflectorization of Rail Freight 

Rolling Stock (Reflectorization 

Standards or Part 224) contain 

minimum safety requirements to help 

motor vehicle operators contain 

minimum safety requirements to help 

motor vehicle operators see rail freight 

rolling stock at night and under 

conditions of poor visibility. Part 224 

was designed to reduce the number and 

severity of highway-rail grade crossing 

accidents and deaths, injuries, and 

property damage resulting from those 

accidents. Generally, FRA has provided 

two types of relief from part 224’s 

requirements: (1) relief to THEERP 

operations, because they do not 

typically travel over low visibility 

highway-rail grade crossings at 

nighttime; and (2) relief to allow the use 

of a performance-based method 

(comparator panels) to determine when 

to replace reflectorization sheeting. FRA 

proposes to codify these waivers for two 

reasons: (1) freight rolling stock used 

exclusively for THEERP purposes do not 

typically travel over low visibility 

highway-rail grade crossings at 

nighttime; and (2) to allow the 

replacement of retroreflective sheeting 

to be based on alternative methods of 

evaluating its effectiveness. Allowing 

for performance-based methods of 

reflectorization evaluation and 

replacement is a more reliable and 

accurate way to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the retroreflectivity of 

the required sheeting than part 224’s 

current 10-year default replacement 

cycle. Codifying these waivers is 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43469 

1 70 FR 144, January 3, 2005. 

2See e.g., Docket Numbers FRA–2005–2308 

(Strasburg Railroad Company) and FRA–2008–0021 

(Lavacot Locomotive Works). 

3A list of active waivers FRA has issued to 

THEERP operations is available in the docket. 4 70 FR 145, January 3, 2005. 

expected to enhance safety (i.e., by 

ensuring retroreflective sheeting is 

replaced when it is no longer effective), 

promote innovation, and reduce 

unnecessary paperwork burdens for 

both industry and FRA by eliminating 

the need to continue to use the waiver 

process for relief. Codifying these 

waivers would also provide the railroad 

industry with regulatory certainty as to 

the applicability of part 224 to 

equipment used for THEERP purposes, 

while enhancing safety. 

Finally, FRA proposes to remove 

§ 224.107, which has become outdated. 

Section 224.107 requires the locomotive 

fleet population to be fully equipped 

with part 224 compliant retroreflective 

sheeting by November 28, 2010, and the 

freight car fleet to be compliant by 

November 28, 2015. FRA is proposing to 

remove this section, because the 

implementation dates have passed and 

are no longer necessary to have in the 

regulation. 

Costs and Benefits of the Proposed 

Regulatory Action 

The proposed rule would eliminate 

the need for railroads to submit waiver 

petitions (and repeated extensions of 

those waivers every 5 years) from part 

224 for certain older railroad equipment 

used in THEERP operations, and 

eliminate the Federal Government’s 

need to review and approve the waiver 

petitions and extension requests. In 

addition, the proposed rule would allow 

railroads and private car owners to 

replace retroreflective sheeting based on 

performance, instead of time, thus 

increasing efficient use of resources and 

reducing environmental waste from 

discarding retroreflective sheeting prior 

to the end of its useful life. FRA 

estimates there will be minor costs for 

purchasing and recalibration of the 

comparator panels used to evaluate 

retroreflective sheeting, and training 

employees in their use (about 0.2% of 

total NPRM costs). 

FRA expects the proposed rule to 

enhance safety, promote innovation, 

clarify existing requirements, and 

reduce unnecessary burdens. Entities 

that have been operating under the 

THEERP waivers and performancebased waivers using a comparator panel 

to evaluate retroreflective sheeting have 

not shown an increase in accidents/ 

incidents. Also, retroreflective sheeting 

that is performing poorly would likely 

be replaced sooner under the NPRM 

than under the existing 10-year 

replacement cycle, better ensuring 

continued effectiveness of the sheeting. 

Overall FRA estimates the proposed rule 

will result in net benefits in terms of 

businesses benefits. FRA’s estimates of 

benefits for the NPRM are shown in the 

table below. 

TABLE ES–1—SUMMARY OF TOTAL BENEFITS OVER THE 20-YEAR PERIOD

[2020 Dollars] 

Impact Undiscounted Present value 

7% 

Present value 

3% 

Annualized 

7% 

Annualized 

3% 

Baseline Cost ....................................................................... $540,747,953 $286,435,001 $402,248,463 $27,037,438 $27,037,415 

Baseline Costs consist of Visual Inspection & Replacement, 10-Year Renewal, Transportation of Cars Typically not Interchanged, and Waivers. 

NPRM Cost .......................................................................... $436,091,940 $231,038,590 $324,420,840 $21,808,408 $21,806,176 

NPRM Costs for Visual Inspection & Replacement; Periodic Evaluation & Retroreflective Sheeting Replacement (Performance-Based); Transportation of Cars Typically not Interchanged; 10-Year Renewal (@15% of Cars, Provides Flexibility for Small Entities); and Comparator Panel 

Purchase, Recalibration, and Employee Training. 

Net Benefits ......................................................................... $104,656,013 $55,396,411 $77,827,623 $5,229,029 $5,231,239 

Government Costs for Waivers (Baseline) .......................... $167,171 $89,183 $124,739 $8,418 $8,384 

Qualitative Benefit: Reduced environmental waste from not replacing effective reflective sheeting prematurely. 

II. Statutory and Regulatory 

Background 

A. Existing Reflectorization 

Requirements 

The Reflectorization Standards 

require retroreflective sheeting on the 

sides of rail freight rolling stock to 

enhance the visibility of trains. The 

final rule establishing the 

Reflectorization Standards in 2005 did 

not discuss how it would apply to 

equipment used for THEERP purposes.1

By default, THEERP operations were 

required to comply with the 

Reflectorization Standards in the same 

manner as conventional railroads. 

THEERP operations did not comment 

during the rulemaking proceeding and 

FRA did not anticipate the challenges 

THEERP operations would encounter 

when attempting to bring their 

equipment into compliance with the 

Reflectorization Standards. THEERP 

operations began requesting relief 

through FRA’s waiver process shortly 

after FRA published the Reflectorization 

Standards.2 Their petitions for waiver 

explained the operational differences 

between THEERP entities and 

conventional railroads and the relative 

corresponding disutility of 

reflectorization during such operations. 

After more fully considering these 

differences, FRA granted a series of 

waivers excluding equipment used for 

THEERP purposes from the 

Reflectorization Standards.3

Currently, reflectorization is required 

to be replaced after no more than 10 

years of service, regardless of its 

condition at the time of replacement (49 

CFR 224.111). FRA’s research when 

developing the Reflectorization 

Standards concluded that the durability 

and adhesive properties of the 

microprismatic retroreflective material 

could provide adequate luminance 

intensity levels and be sustained for up 

to 10 years with minimum 

maintenance.4 At the time, it was not 

clear how the sheeting would withstand 

real-world railroad operating conditions 

or whether it could be effective for 

longer than 10 years. In 2015, after using 

the sheeting for close to 10 years, it 

became evident, that under certain 

circumstances, it could continue to 

perform as required beyond 10 years. To 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
43470 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

5 Docket Number FRA–2015–0105, Document No. 

1 (available at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document/FRA-2015-0105-0001). 

6 Docket Number FRA–2015–0105, Document No. 

22 (available at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document/FRA-2015-0105-0022). 

7 Docket Number FRA–2015–0105, Document No. 

1 (available at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document/FRA-2015-0105-0001). 

8A retroreflectometer is an instrument (typically 

handheld) capable of accurately and reliably 

measuring the retroreflective properties of 

retroreflective sheeting materials. 

9https://www.regulations.gov/document/FRA2015-0105-0009. 

10https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/ 

night_visib/sign_retro_4page.pdf. 

11https://www.regulations.gov/document/FRA2015-0105-0021. 

12 Docket Number FRA–2015–0105, Document 

No. 22 (available at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document/FRA-2015-0105-0022). 

better tailor the reflectorization 

requirements to the actual condition of 

the sheeting, the railroad industry began 

developing an alternate method to 

evaluate the effectiveness of the 

sheeting. After successful initial results, 

AAR, on behalf of its member railroads, 

petitioned FRA for relief from the 

Reflectorization Standards to use an 

alternate method to determine when to 

replace the retroreflective sheeting.5

FRA granted a waiver to AAR to 

develop alternate methods of evaluating 

the effectiveness of the sheeting and to 

implement a pilot program for in-service 

testing.6

B. Waivers Excluding From Part 224 

Rail Freight Rolling Stock Used Only for 

THEERP Purposes, Except for Incidental 

Freight Service 

As of 2022, the Safety Board has 

granted relief from part 224 in response 

to 14 waiver petitions from 12 different 

railroads that operate rail freight rolling 

stock used exclusively for THEERP 

purposes. In some rare instances, the 

subject equipment is also used for 

incidental freight services when no 

other equipment is available. Railroads 

petitioned for relief, because adding 

retroreflective sheeting to their 

equipment would detract from its 

aesthetic or historical nature. Such 

equipment is typically not 

interchangeable, generally does not 

travel in the dark, and operates at low 

speeds and on rail lines not connected 

to the general railroad system. In 

addition, such equipment often travels 

over crossings protected by automatic 

warning gates and flashing lights, or the 

equipment travels over crossings at a 

much lower frequency than freight 

equipment. These operating conditions 

significantly reduce the benefit of 

retroreflective sheeting, which increases 

visibility of trains primarily during 

nighttime conditions and at passive 

grade crossings. When deciding these 

waivers, the Safety Board reviewed 

available records and found that the 

specific railroad operations and 

operating environments demonstrated 

no history of accidents at grade 

crossings resulting from low visibility. 

While monitoring implementation of 

these waivers, FRA reviewed all 

accident and incident reports from 

railroads operating under the waivers, 

and identified no injuries or deaths that 

were attributable to the lack of part 224 

reflectorization. Given the railroad 

industry’s long-term success in safely 

operating under these waivers, FRA is 

proposing to codify them in part 224. 

This change would eliminate the need 

for further waivers and the associated 

employee hours spent on their 

documentation and renewal every five 

years. 

C. Waivers Allowing Development and 

Testing of Alternative Methods 

(Comparator Panel Evaluation) To 

Determine When To Replace 

Retroreflective Sheeting 

On September 22, 2015, AAR 

petitioned FRA 7 for a waiver from 

compliance with 49 CFR 224.111. That 

section requires retroreflective sheeting 

to be replaced with new sheeting no 

later than 10 years after the date of 

initial installation, regardless of the 

sheeting’s condition at the time of 

replacement. In support of the petition, 

AAR contracted with TTI to test and 

evaluate retroreflective sheeting on 

approximately 900 freight cars and 

approximately 100 locomotives in 

service. That testing found that 

generally sheeting that had been applied 

to rail cars more than nine years before 

met or exceeded the Reflectorization 

Standards. This data, collected in 2012 

and in 2014 using a RoadVista 922 

retroreflectometer,8 showed the 

performance of the retroreflective 

sheeting on both rail cars and 

locomotives is more a function of 

material condition and cleanliness than 

it is of the amount of time passed since 

the application date. In particular, the 

sheeting demonstrated that, after more 

than nine years in service, it performed 

effectively (above the minimum 

thresholds outlined in Table 1 to 

subpart B of part 224) and should be 

allowed to remain in service if properly 

maintained. The field data collected by 

AAR supported using an alternative 

method in lieu of the 10-year 

replacement cycle for retroreflective 

sheeting on rail freight rolling stock, 

provided that the sheeting is 

undamaged and maintained in a 

relatively clean condition. Thus, AAR 

sought a waiver to extend the 

replacement requirement for at least 

three years to develop an alternate 

evaluation method. On November 25, 

2015, the Safety Board granted AAR 

relief from the 10-year replacement 

cycle for three years.9

A retroreflectometer, like the handheld RoadVista 922 that AAR and TTI 

used to gather data in support of their 

waiver petition, is the most direct form 

of measuring sheeting’s retroreflective 

value. Retroreflectometers are costly 

(approximately $10,000 or more per 

unit) and are cumbersome to use, and 

therefore are not currently practical for 

regular use in a railroad shop or field 

environment. For a more practical 

option, the AAR Equipment Engineering 

Committee looked to the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) 

Comparison Panel Method. FHWA 

indicates that the comparison panels are 

fabricated to have retroreflectivity 

values at or above the minimum 

required levels and are used to assess 

highway signs that have marginal 

retroreflectivity.10 AAR proposed to 

develop a standard comparator panel 

that could be used to assess rail freight 

rolling stock retroreflective sheeting to 

the minimally required photometric 

performance requirements of part 224. 

This standard comparator panel would 

be fabricated to have retroreflectivity 

values at or above the minimum 

photometric values outlined in 

§ 224.103. 

After approximately three years of 

development, AAR finalized the design, 

specifications, and procedures for a 

standard comparator panel for 

evaluating the effectiveness of 

retroreflective sheeting on rail freight 

rolling stock, and on July 27, 2018, AAR 

petitioned FRA for final approval to use 

its comparator panel process in lieu of 

the 10-year replacement cycle.11 On 

October 10, 2018, the Safety Board 

granted the petition finding that the 

comparator panel could be used to 

reliably evaluate the effectiveness of the 

installed retroreflective sheeting and 

that the design and specifications of 

AAR’s proposed comparator panel met 

the minimum photometric performance 

requirements in § 224.103.12


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43471 

13Carroll, A.A., Multer, J., Williams, D., & Yaffee, 

M.A. Safety of Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings: 

Freight Car Reflectorization. DOT/FRA/ORD–98/11, 

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems 

Center, January 1999. 

14 49 CFR 224.3(c). 

15 70 FR 149. 

16 Docket Number FRA–2015–0105, Document 

No. 9 (available at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document/FRA-2015-0105-0009). 

17The units of cd/fc/ft 2 are equivalent to the 

units of cd/lux/m 2 (candela per lux per square 

meter) and are often used interchangeably, and the 

Specific Intensity per unit Area (SIA) is another 

notation for referencing retroreflection values, 

which is expressed in the units above. 

18 Docket Number FRA–2015–0105, Document 

No. 10 (available at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document/FRA-2015-0105-0010). 

19 Docket Number FRA–2015–0105, Document 

No. 22 (available at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document/FRA-2015-0105-0022). 

20 70 FR 157. 

III. Overview and Technical Discussion 

of Proposed Requirements 

A. Proposal To Exclude From Part 224 

Rail Freight Rolling Stock Used Only for 

THEERP Purposes, Except for Incidental 

Freight Service 

The Reflectorization Standards 

require retroreflective sheeting on the 

sides of rail freight rolling stock to 

enhance the visibility of trains. These 

standards were developed, generally, 

because low visibility, particularly at 

highway-rail grade crossings, can 

contribute to motorists colliding with 

rail equipment. According to data from 

1992 through 2001, gathered from the 

FRA Office of Safety Analysis’ crossing 

accident database, the number of 

accidents involving motor vehicles 

running into trains occupying grade 

crossings accidents (RIT accidents) was 

roughly 23% of all highway-rail grade 

crossing accidents. Almost 80% of these 

RIT accidents occurred during nighttime 

conditions (dusk, dawn, or darkness) 

and involved the highway vehicle 

striking the train after the first two units 

of the consist. Adding reflectorization to 

rail equipment reduces the likelihood of 

RIT accidents. When developing the 

Reflectorization Standards, FRA relied 

on a report from the John A. Volpe 

National Transportation Systems Center 

(Volpe Center Report) 13 to develop 

specific retroreflectivity requirements 

based on minimum threshold 

detectability levels by motorists. The 

Volpe Center Report defined Category 1 

RIT accidents as accidents or collisions 

involving a highway vehicle striking the 

train after the lead unit and reported 

roughly 70% of the Category 1 RIT 

accidents (from 1975 to 1996) occurred 

during nighttime conditions. Category 1 

RIT accidents during nighttime 

conditions at crossings with passive 

warning devices accounted for 3.0% of 

the total accidents during this 22-year 

period. This became the intended target 

population for the Reflectorization 

Standards. 

The Reflectorization Standards 

exclude locomotives and passenger cars 

used exclusively in passenger service,14

because generally, the conspicuity of 

equipment used in conventional 

passenger service is significantly better 

than the conspicuity of equipment used 

in freight service.15 For example, 

highway-rail grade crossings along 

passenger routes are typically better 

protected than crossings used 

exclusively in freight service. Also, 

many passenger cars have bright 

exteriors or are painted in contrasting 

colors and are maintained in a much 

cleaner condition than freight cars. In 

addition, passenger cars typically have 

inside lights which are visible through 

the side windows that run the entire 

length of the car. Due to enhanced 

conspicuity and better protected 

crossings, reflectorization is not 

necessary for locomotives and passenger 

cars used exclusively for passenger 

service. Such equipment is currently 

operating without retroreflective 

sheeting and FRA is unaware of any 

accidents or incidents involving this 

equipment that would have been 

mitigated by the presence of 

reflectorization. 

Similarly, retroreflective sheeting 

provides no clear safety benefit for 

equipment used exclusively for THEERP 

purposes because like other passenger 

equipment, equipment used exclusively 

for THEERP purposes is more highly 

visible than conventional railroad 

equipment and, as discussed above, is 

used in a more protected operating 

environment. For these reasons, FRA 

proposes to exclude equipment used for 

THEERP purposes from the 

Reflectorization Standards. 

B. Proposal To Allow Alternative 

Methods (Comparator Panel Evaluation 

or Retroreflectometer Measurement) To 

Determine When To Replace 

Retroreflective Sheeting 

As noted above, in 2015, FRA granted 

AAR’s waiver petition providing relief 

from the replacement requirement in 

§ 224.111 for three years, allowing time 

for AAR to develop an alternate method 

for evaluating the effectiveness of 

retroreflective sheeting more than 10 

years old.16 AAR initially proposed to 

adopt a minimum performance level of 

45 candela per foot-candle per square 

foot (cd/fc/ft2) 17 for a yellow 

comparator panel, which AAR stated 

was consistent with the 

recommendation provided by the Volpe 

Center Report, but did not mirror the 

complete specifications in § 224.103. 

After FRA expressed concerns about the 

proposed specifications, AAR agreed to 

develop standard comparator panels 

that would meet the complete minimum 

photometric performance requirements 

in § 224.103 (i.e., 45 cd/fc/ft2 for yellow 

or fluorescent yellow sheeting and 75 

cd/fc/ft2 for white sheeting with a 

specific condition of a 30° entrance 

angle and a 0.5° observation angle).18

Following development, FRA agreed to 

allow a pilot program for AAR to test 

the comparator panel method in 

service.19 A trained railroad inspector 

would place a comparator panel 

immediately adjacent to, or overlapping, 

retroreflective sheeting installed on rail 

freight rolling stock, and determine its 

relative brightness. When the 

comparator panel was equal to, or 

brighter than, the installed sheeting, it 

was replaced. Testing showed the 

comparator panel is an accurate and 

easy way to determine when 

retroreflective sheeting needs to be 

replaced in compliance with the 

Reflectorization Standards. Similarly, a 

retroreflectometer device can be used to 

take direct measurements of the 

sheeting and be an effective 

performance-based method for 

evaluating retroreflectivity. As such, 

FRA proposes to add comparator panel 

evaluation and direct measurements 

with a retroreflectometer, as alternative 

options to determine compliance with 

the Reflectorization Standards. These 

methods would provide flexibility for 

the rail industry while, in most 

instances, enhancing safety because 

allowing for alternative methods of 

reflectorization evaluation and 

replacement is a more reliable and 

accurate way to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the retroreflective 

sheeting than part 224’s current 10-year 

default replacement cycle. 

1. The Existing 10-Year Replacement 

Cycle Ensures Effective Retroreflective 

Sheeting, but Often Requires 

Replacement Sooner Than Necessary 

Currently, all retroreflective sheeting, 

required by part 224, must be replaced 

with new sheeting after 10 years of 

service, regardless of its condition at the 

time of replacement. FRA established 

the 10-year replacement cycle based on 

the 10-year useful life of the sheeting 

according to most manufacturers.20 This 

means the retroreflective sheeting is 

expected to maintain its performance for 

no less than 10 years. As such, sheeting 

that complies with the Reflectorization 

Standards, when installed, is expected 

to continue to comply throughout the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
43472 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

21 Docket FRA–2015–0105, Document No. 1 

(available at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document/FRA-2015-0105-0001) Appendix B: 

Supporting Documentation from AAR Equipment 

Engineering Committee. 

22 Docket FRA–2015–0105, Document No. 23. 

23 Docket FRA–2015–0105, Document No. 24. 24 (774,000 freight cars) × [(14 sheets) × ($1.31 per 

sheet) + (50 minutes) × ($2.36 per minute)] = 

$105,527,000. 

25 (1,143,500 freight cars) × [(0.71 sheets) × ($1.31 

per sheet) + (6 minutes + 9.2642 minutes) × ($2.36 

per minute)] = $42,323,000. 

26AAR estimates the industry median time in 

2020 between SCABT is approximately 25.6 

months. 

27 Docket FRA–2015–0105, Document No. 24. 

10-year cycle despite inevitable 

accumulations of dirt and 

environmental aging. This regulatory 

approach helps ensure rail freight 

rolling stock is equipped with effective 

retroreflective sheeting, but it may also 

result in railroads unnecessarily 

replacing sheeting that continues to be 

effective beyond 10 years of service. 

When the initial 10-year replacement 

deadline approached, and in support of 

AAR’s petition to the FRA, AAR 

conducted testing on retroreflective 

sheeting of approximately 900 railcars 

and approximately 100 locomotives 

using a RoadVista 922 

retroreflectometer.21 The installation 

dates for retroreflective sheeting in the 

sampling were from 2005 to 2014. Based 

on the performance measurements, AAR 

believed the sheeting could continue to 

comply with the Reflectorization 

Standards for a significant amount of 

time beyond 10 years of service. 

On January 27, 2017, AAR submitted 

a status report to FRA on its 

reflectorization waiver,22 providing 

field measurement data for 

retroreflective sheeting evaluated ‘‘as is’’ 

and ‘‘after cleaning’’ for service ages 

ranging from 1 to nearly 10 years of age. 

Prior to AAR’s field measurements, FRA 

did not have any data showing the 

performance of retroreflective sheeting 

in the field, but expected it would 

perform at or above the minimum 

detectable threshold levels required by 

the Reflectorization Standards 

throughout its useful life. The data 

confirmed that retroreflective sheeting 

can perform well up to, and perhaps 

beyond, 10 years, especially when 

periodically cleaned. The data also 

showed that not all initially applied 

compliant material performs equally 

well throughout its anticipated useful 

life and can be affected by the type of 

service or commodity (salt, coal, 

chemicals, etc.) and environmental 

conditions (multiple freeze-thaw cycles, 

extreme cold or heat, high humidity, 

etc.) that the equipment endures. Under 

the more extreme of these 

circumstances, samples yielded 

measurements, after being cleaned, that 

were below the minimum proposed 

comparator panel values just 1 to 2 

years after application. One cause for 

the poor performing samples was found 

to be internal degradation of the 

sheeting due to damage or delamination, 

which can lead to mold or mildew 

growth over the microprismatic layer. 

Such poor performing or internally 

degraded material, could be identified 

early on through use of the proposed 

comparator panel or direct 

measurements with a retroreflectometer, 

allowing for earlier replacement. 

Overall, this would lead to better 

performing sheeting in service, resulting 

in an increase in safety compared to a 

blanket application of a 10-year 

replacement cycle. 

AAR estimates the number of freight 

cars (not including locomotives) that 

would need full replacement of 

retroreflective sheeting based on the 10- 

year age limit was 283,500 freight cars 

in 2016, 152,000 freight cars in 2017, 

149,000 freight cars in 2018, 96,500 

freight cars in 2019, and 93,000 freight 

cars in 2020.23 These figures are for 

freight cars only and do not include 

locomotives. In 2020, AAR estimated 

the average cost of one retroreflective 

sheet (4 inches by 18 inches) at $1.31 

and the average labor rate to be 

approximately $141.38 per hour ($2.36 

per minute). AAR also estimated that 

the length of time allotted for the 

application of the first sheet per side of 

a car is 9.2642 minutes and 2.6197 

minutes for each additional sheet. 

Assuming each freight car is equipped 

with a minimum 3.5 square feet of 

retroreflective material, this equates to a 

minimum of 25 minutes per side for 

each car. Thus, by 2020 it would have 

cost an estimated $105 million or more 

for full replacement of retroreflective 

sheeting based on the 10-year age limit 

during that 5-year period.24 The cost 

estimate for 2019 and 2020, alone, was 

approximately $26 million. However, 

between the 4th quarter of 2018 through 

3rd quarter of 2020 when AAR was 

implementing the comparator panel 

process, AAR estimated that 1,143,500 

cars were evaluated with the comparator 

panel during a single-car airbrake test 

(SCABT) and that an average of 0.71 

sheets per car was replaced for all cars 

under this procedure. AAR indicated 

that, with the comparator panel 

evaluation, it takes about 3.2743 

minutes to clean and 2.7574 minutes to 

inspect retroreflective material per car 

(6 minutes total). Thus, the cost estimate 

between the 4th quarter of 2018 through 

3rd quarter of 2020 for using the 

comparator panel during SCABT was 

approximately $42 million.25 This 

estimate may include sheeting that was 

replaced as a result of being damaged, 

missing, or obscured during the SCABT, 

as required under § 224.109, and 

therefore does not entirely reflect the 

sole cost of sheeting that was replaced 

as a result of failing the comparator 

panel, and does not include the cost of 

the comparator panels themselves. To 

better understand the efficacy of the 

comparator panels, FRA seeks comment 

from the industry regarding the 

proportion of sheets that were replaced 

as a direct result of not meeting the 

performance criteria versus sheets that 

were replaced under § 224.109. When 

FRA granted AAR relief from the 

Reflectorization Standards to develop 

and test the comparator panel method, 

AAR avoided unnecessarily replacing 

584,500 pieces of effective 

retroreflective sheeting that would have 

cost approximately $79 million during 

those first three years. Codifying the 

performance-based method will avoid 

requiring railroads to unnecessarily 

replace the sheeting on approximately 

1.5 million freight cars over the next 10 

years. 

In addition, FRA believes railroads 

may be unnecessarily replacing 

compliant retroreflective sheeting 

because the inspection and replacement 

process can be cumbersome, and 

detailed tracking is not required. 

Section 224.109 requires retroreflective 

sheeting to be visually inspected for 

presence and condition at the time of 

SCABT26 or annual locomotive 

inspection and replaced at that time, if 

more than 20% of the required area is 

missing, damaged, or obscured. It is 

unclear to FRA, if, or how, railroads 

update Universal Machine Language 

Equipment Register (UMLER) or other 

records to show the date that 

retroreflective sheeting is replaced 

based on inspection results. On October 

1, 2020, FRA sent an inquiry to AAR 

with questions regarding the 

reflectorization replacement process 

before and after the waiver was 

granted.27 FRA asked how the UMLER 

system is updated with the date of 

installation or replacement if only a 

portion of retroreflective sheeting is 

replaced during the SCABT or annual 

locomotive inspection. AAR responded 

that updates have been inconsistent 

because the industry no longer relies on 

the information provided by the UMLER 

fields (because relief from the 10-year 

replacement cycle was in place). Thus, 

it is FRA’s understanding that the date 

of installation is not updated when only 

a portion of the minimum required 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43473 

28 Docket Number FRA–2015–0105; comments 

from Railroad Supply Institute, Colorado Springs 

Utilities, and North America Freight Car 

Association. 

29ASTM D 4956–01a: Standard Specification for 

Retroreflective Sheeting on Traffic Control. 

sheeting area is replaced under 

§ 224.109. Accordingly, when the 10- 

year replacement becomes due on the 

remaining retroreflective sheeting that 

was initially installed on a piece of rail 

freight rolling stock, without knowing a 

portion of the sheeting was recently 

replaced, railroads may replace the 

almost new retroreflective sheeting 

along with the retroreflective sheeting 

due for the 10-year replacement. In this 

scenario, replacing the almost new 

retroreflective sheeting may be 

premature and unnecessary per the 

regulation and likely without any safety 

benefit. 

During the approximately 3-year 

period of relief from the 10-year 

replacement requirement from 2015 to 

2018, and prior to AAR implementing 

the pilot program to test its 

performance-based method, the majority 

of retroreflective sheeting in service on 

AAR-member railroads was installed in 

2005 and continued in service beyond 

10 years. After reviewing pertinent 

records, FRA is unaware of any 

reportable RIT accidents attributable to 

under-performing retroreflective 

sheeting. Once the pilot program was 

approved to test the comparator panel 

method on in-service equipment, all 

sheeting on equipment within AAR 

interchange was evaluated using the 

comparator panels whenever the 

equipment underwent the SCABT or 

annual locomotive inspection, and 

replaced as necessary when sheeting 

failed the comparator evaluation. By 

gradually replacing retroreflective 

sheeting as needed, a significant amount 

performed effectively beyond 10 years 

and was allowed to continue in service 

beyond 10 years. These findings help 

confirm AAR’s conclusion that 

retroreflective sheeting can perform 

effectively beyond 10 years of service. 

Thus far, only AAR-member railroads 

have participated in the pilot program to 

test the comparator panel method, but 

FRA anticipates additional railroads 

would choose to use it, if codified. In 

response to the public notice FRA 

published related to AAR’s waiver 

petition, three commenters expressed 

concurrence with the proposal of an 

alternative method in lieu of the 10-year 

replacement cycle and suggested relief 

should be applied to all railroads.28

However, FRA could not apply the relief 

to all railroads at that time, because not 

all railroads were party to the waiver 

petition. Thus, short line railroads, 

private car owners, and other entities 

not affiliated with AAR are still subject 

to the 10-year replacement cycle. 

FRA believes allowing an alternative 

evaluation of installed retroreflective 

sheeting would better tailor the 

replacement requirements to the 

condition of the sheeting. The 

retroreflective sheeting has a finite 

service life and performance-based 

methods of evaluation will help ensure: 

(1) sheeting that continues to perform 

well after the 10 years of service can 

remain in service; and (2) sheeting that 

underperforms before the 10 years of 

service can be identified and replaced 

on a more frequent, as needed basis. 

FRA understands that not all railroads 

may benefit from the use of alternative 

methods because of the financial burden 

of procuring a comparator panel or 

retroreflectometer device and related 

training for employees, particularly for 

some small railroads with limited 

equipment. Such railroads may prefer to 

continue to utilize the 10-year 

replacement cycle. Therefore, FRA 

proposes to retain the 10-year 

replacement cycle as an option. 

2. FRA Worked Closely With AAR and 

TTI To Develop a Comparator Panel 

That Could Be Used With the 

Reflectorization Standards 

Over approximately three years, FRA 

worked closely with AAR and TTI to 

develop a comparator panel that could 

evaluate retroreflective sheeting and 

determine whether it complies with 

existing photometric performance 

requirements outlined in § 224.103. The 

Reflectorization Standards (Table 1 to 

subpart B of part 224) included 

minimum photometric performance 

requirements (i.e., minimum SIA) for 

both yellow and white retroreflective 

material at observation angles of 0.2° 

and 0.5° and light entrance angles of 

¥4° and 30° based on typical grade 

crossing configurations and the 

standards in ASTM D 4956–01a.29 The 

Volpe Center Report established that the 

minimum threshold SIA of 45 cd/fc/ft2

is sufficient for detectability and 

recognition of a crossing train by an 

approaching motorist. This value was 

derived from the example of a vehicle 

traveling 50 mph on wet level 

pavement, a 2.5 second driver reaction 

time, and a necessary stopping distance 

of 500 feet to bring the vehicle to a safe 

stop without hitting the crossing train. 

In many cases, the reflected light 

received by the observer is reduced by 

three factors: the incidence (or entrance 

angle), the divergence (or observation) 

angle, and the properties of the 

retroreflecting material. 

Appendix H of the Volpe Center 

Report further showed the observation 

angle on a level road at a detection 

distance of 500 feet ranges from 0.15° 

for small passenger cars to 0.55° for cabover-engine trucks, as the elevation from 

the driver to the headlight increases. 

The observation angle has a greater 

effect on reflectivity than does the 

entrance angle. The entrance angle is 

also a function of the approach of the 

vehicle with respect to the crossing. 

Appendix H also indicated that FRA’s 

Grade Crossing Inventory identified 

approximately 80% of all crossings 

having a crossing angle between 60° and 

90°, 16% between 30° and 59°, and only 

4% are between 0° and 29°. In essence, 

80% of all crossings will have a vehicle 

(light) entrance angle of between 0° and 

30° (with 0° being the head-on 

approach). Thus, the real-world 

scenarios outlined in the Volpe Center 

Report support the typical entrance and 

observation angles outlined in ASTM D 

4956–01a for retroreflective material. 

Additionally, in determining these 

minimum photometric performance 

requirements for the Reflectorization 

Standards, FRA extrapolated test data 

detailed in the Volpe Center Report out 

by 10 years, which is the manufacturer’s 

stated useful life of the material. This 

extrapolation demonstrated that the 

forecasted SIA levels remained well 

above the minimum detection level 

established in the Volpe Center Report 

(45 cd/fc/ft2). Furthermore, Table 1 to 

subpart B of part 224 specifies only the 

minimum values, as initially applied, 

for the retroreflectivity values for the 

given combinations of entrance (¥4° 

and 30°) and observation angles (0.2° 

and 0.5°). The rule does not require that 

these initial values be retained for any 

particular length of time, e.g., 5 or 10 

years. However, it is reasonable to 

expect the material to perform well up 

to the manufacturer’s stated useful life 

(i.e., 10 years). 

AAR began the development process 

by applying methodology similar to 

FHWA’s comparison panels used for 

evaluating retroreflective materials 

(discussed in section II D above). The 

comparator panel was constructed by 

adding a set of fine dot matrix markings 

such that the target reflectivity was 

achieved at the desired boundary 

conditions. AAR planned an evaluation 

process that would allow a field 

inspector to view the comparator panel 

next to, or on top of, existing sheeting 

from a prescribed distance away with a 

light source perpendicular to the plane 

of the sheets. AAR believed this would 

most likely resemble the ¥4° entrance 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
43474 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

30ASTM D 4956–01a: Standard Specification for 

Retroreflective Sheeting on Traffic Control. 

31 Docket FRA–2015–0105, Document No. 21. 

32 Docket FRA–2015–0105, Document No. 22. 

angle and 0.2° observation angle 

configuration. Therefore, developing a 

comparator panel with sufficient 

retroreflectivity at this configuration 

would also inherently contain the 

minimum detection level (45 cd/fc/ft2) 

at the more oblique angles (30° entrance 

angle and 0.5° observation angle 

configuration) and would eliminate the 

need for a field inspector to evaluate 

sheeting at various angles and off center 

from the installed sheeting. 

To find an appropriate target 

retroreflectivity for the comparator 

panel, AAR and TTI sampled part 224 

compliant sheeting from various 

manufacturers and gathered the 

retroreflectivity measurements (with the 

922 RoadVista) at each entrance and 

observation angle configuration. 

Correlation ratios were obtained 

between the two entrance angles (¥4° 

and 30°) for each corresponding 

observation angle (0.2° and 0.5°) for all 

the samples. The lowest correlation 

ratio between all samples of 0.50 was 

then applied to the minimum threshold 

retroreflectivity of 45 cd/fc/ft2, which 

relates to the 30° entrance angle, to 

obtain a corresponding retroreflectivity 

value at the ¥4° entrance angle. 

Because the apparent surface area of 

sheeting reduces as the angle at which 

it is viewed increases, a cosine 

correction factor was applied to 

compensate for the reduction of 

apparent size at the 30° entrance angle 

compared to ¥4° entrance angle. A 

standard sheet of reflectorization is 

typically 4-inches by 18-inches and has 

a total surface area of 72 square inches, 

but when viewed from 30 degrees off 

normal the apparent surface area is 

reduced to approximately 85% of the 

true total surface area, or 62 square 

inches. Taking the correlation ratio and 

cosine correction into consideration and 

applying it to the minimum threshold 

retroreflectivity of 45 cd/fc/ft2, a 

minimum retroreflectivity value is 

obtained at for the ¥4° entrance angle 

and 0.2° observation angle configuration 

for a yellow comparator panel. To 

provide some assurance that the applied 

sheeting being evaluated remains 

suitable for a period after the SCABT or 

locomotive annual inspection is 

performed, AAR and FRA agree upon a 

minimum threshold value of 150 cd/fc/ 

ft2 (or cd/lux/m2). Also, to make 

manufacturing the comparator panel 

more feasible, a range was provided 

which set a maximum at 170 cd/fc/ft2. 

The same methodology was applied to 

obtain the minimum retroreflectivity 

values for a white comparator panel 

which corresponded to minimum 

retroreflectivity value of 250 cd/fc/ft2

and a maximum of 285 cd/fc/ft2 for the 

¥4° entrance angle and 0.2° observation 

angle configuration. 

Both AAR and FRA felt it was 

necessary to define what the minimum 

retroreflectivity value is for the 30° 

entrance angle and 0.5° observation 

angle configuration because the 

comparator panels are typically 

manufactured by adding fine dot matrix 

layers to part 224 compliant 

reflectorization to reduce the overall 

retroreflectivity and achieve the desired 

level of retroreflectivity. This ensured 

that while the overall retroreflectivity 

was being reduced at the ¥4° entrance 

angle and 0.2° observation angle 

configuration to a target retroreflectivity 

value of 150 cd/fc/ft2, it did not 

inadvertently drop below 45 cd/fc/ft2

for the 30° entrance angle and 0.5° 

observation angle configuration. As 

previously mentioned, the existing 

Reflectorization Standards do not 

require that all initial retroreflectivity 

values be retained for a set period; 

however, it is reasonable to expect the 

sheeting to perform as intended for its 

useful life. Industry practice requires 

that the sheeting retain at least 80% of 

its initial values when subjected to 36 

months of accelerated weathering.30

Therefore, both AAR and FRA felt it was 

reasonable to require the comparator 

panels to have 80% of the minimum 

retroreflectivity value at the 30° 

entrance angle and 0.5° observation 

angle configuration, or 35 cd/fc/ft2 for 

yellow panels and 60 cd/fc/ft2 for white 

panels. 

With the specifications for the 

retroreflective comparator panels 

established, AAR solicited samples from 

various retroreflective sheeting 

manufacturers made to the comparator 

panel specifications. AAR procured six 

sample comparator panels from one 

manufacture for evaluation and took 

measurements of the retroreflectivity 

with the 922 RoadVista. The results 

show that the six samples of comparator 

panels average an SIA value of about 

160 cd/fc/ft2 at the ¥4°/0.2° 

configuration and about 55 cd/fc/ft2 at 

the 30°/0.5° configuration. While these 

values were from one single 

manufacturer, both AAR and FRA were 

confident that the specifications 

outlined for the comparator panel could 

be achieved from other manufacturers as 

well. 

3. FRA Approved a Pilot Program To 

Test AAR’s Standard S–916; 

Retroreflective Comparator Panel 

Requirements (S–916) in Service 

On July 27, 2018, AAR petitioned 

FRA for approval of a pilot program to 

test its newly developed standard 

comparator panel and process for using 

it to evaluate retroreflective sheeting for 

compliance with the Reflectorization 

Standards instead of the 10-year 

replacement cycle required by 

§ 224.111.31 The Safety Board found the 

design and specifications of AAR’s 

proposed comparator panel were 

acceptable and noted that when viewed 

at ¥4° entrance angle and 0.2° 

observation angle (¥4°/0.2°), the 

comparative panel achieved the 

equivalent minimum detectable SIA, as 

referenced in the Volpe Center Report 

(45 cd/fc/ft2 for yellow material or 75 

cd/fc/ft2 for white material), at an 

entrance angle of 30° and observation 

angle of 0.5° (30°/0.5°), or reasonably at 

a service worn estimate of 80 percent of 

these values. On October 10, 2018, the 

Safety Board approved of AAR’s 

proposed pilot program.32 To facilitate 

the pilot program, AAR finalized and 

adopted AAR Standard S–916, 

Retroreflective Comparator Panel 

Requirements, prescribing the 

requirements for comparator panels to 

be used in the performance evaluation 

of retroreflective sheeting on freight cars 

and locomotives. The pilot program is 

currently ongoing. Throughout the pilot 

program, within AAR interchange, 

comparator panel evaluations have 

been, and will continue to be, required 

for all retroreflective sheeting on 

freights cars during each SCABT and on 

locomotives during each annual 

inspection. 

Currently, Table 3.1 of S–916 

provides the following specifications for 

a comparator panel: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43475 

In addition to the retroreflectivity 

specifications, S–916 also provided a 

comprehensive list of other aspects of 

the comparator panel. To maintain 

sufficient surface area for 

retroreflectivity, and for ease of use and 

versatile placement of the comparator 

panel on various parts of rail freight 

rolling stock, S–916 specifies that the 

retroreflective surface of the panels shall 

measure 4 inches by 4 inches and be 

equipped with a magnetic backing. 

Unlike the miscroprismatic 

retroreflective material required for rail 

freight rolling stock, the comparator 

panels shall be constructed of glassbeaded material or other material that 

displays uniform appearance when 

rotated and viewed with a light source. 

Because part 224 allows for horizontal 

and vertical placement of retroreflective 

sheeting, this helps eliminate the slight 

directional dependency of the panel that 

would otherwise be exhibited in 

prismatic material; however, this does 

not diminish the amount of 

retroreflectivity for the same given 

value. 

AAR and FRA agreed that the 

comparator panels would need to 

contain pertinent information about the 

panel so that individuals using the 

panel could easily verify it was valid, 

i.e., calibrated and/or certified. Thus, as 

a condition of FRA’s approval of the 

comparator panels, FRA required the 

panels to have a waterproof and dustproof label on the back side that 

contained the phrase ‘‘Retroreflective 

Comparator Panel—Yellow’’ or 

‘‘Retroreflective Comparator Panel— 

White;’’ and the name of the 

manufacturer, the part, model, or serial 

number, the date the panel was 

manufactured, the target retroreflectivity 

level to which the panel was 

manufactured (measured in cd/lx/m2), 

and a space provided for future 

recalibration date sticker(s). FRA and 

AAR concluded that a recalibration 

sticker would help ensure the panels 

stay within the specified 

retroreflectivity levels. Initially, an 

expiration date was considered, 

however, setting an expiration on a 

comparator panel that may continue to 

function as intended is contrary to the 

purpose for developing comparator 

panels to evaluate the sheeting. Thus, 

AAR built a recalibration requirement 

into S–916, to ensure that comparator 

panels are checked or recalibrated 

periodically to confirm they remain 

within the manufactured specifications 

for continued use. Specifically, S–916 

requires the use of a sticker attached to 

the back of each comparator panel with 

a recalibration date specified. 

To help implement its comparator 

panel standard, AAR published 

Specification M–944, Retroreflective 

Sheeting Inspection Procedure (M–944). 

M–944 provides the process for 

conducting a performance evaluation of 

retroreflective sheeting on railroad 

freight cars and locomotives using a 

comparator panel or electronic 

handheld retroreflectometer. An initial 

inspection of the car or locomotive 

includes cleaning and examination of 

sheeting with a light source 

approximately 15 feet away as a 

preliminary screening to determine if 

further inspection is necessary. If the 

perceived reflected light intensity of the 

entire installed sheeting appears 

brighter than that of the comparator 

panel, it does not need to be further 

evaluated with the comparator panel. 

Sheeting that has signs of condemnable 

degradation (i.e., internal mold or 

mildew growth) also do not need to be 

further evaluated with the comparator 

panel, as they are simply replaced. If the 

perceived reflected light intensity of the 

entire installed sheeting does not appear 

brighter than that of the comparator 

panel and does not have signs of 

condemnable degradation (typically 

exhibiting dull or otherwise 

questionable retroreflectivity) it is 

evaluated by a comparator panel for 

evaluation (or a handheld 

retroreflectometer). The comparator 

panel is placed adjacent to or 

overlapping the target sheeting, and 

both are evaluated with a light source 

adjacent to the inspector’s eye and from 

approximately 15 feet away. Sheeting 

that appears brighter than the 

comparator panel does not need to be 

further evaluated and does not need to 

be replaced. If the comparator panel 

appears brighter than the sheeting, or if 

the inspector cannot distinguish one as 

being brighter than the other, the 

sheeting shall be replaced. A handheld 

annular retroreflectometer can also be 

used to directly evaluate sheeting. The 

minimum retroreflective value to 

continue in service is 150 cd/lux/m2 for 

yellow sheeting and 250 cd/lux/m2 for 

white sheeting, when measured at ¥4° 

entrance angle and 0.2° observation 

angle. Sheeting that yields 

retroreflective values below these 

minimums shall be replaced. 

AAR incorporated the specifications 

of the comparator card and inspection 

procedures into AAR Interchange Rule 

66, Reflective Sheeting. Rule 66 also 

established a new billing repair ‘‘Why 

Made Code: 1F’’ related to use of the 

comparator panel and replacing 

reflective sheeting for not meeting the 

minimum reflectivity levels per Rule 66. 

The existing ‘‘Why Made Code: 49’’ is 

still valid for reflective sheeting lacking 

FRA–224 stamp, damaged, obscured, or 

missing, for use with Job Codes 5500 

and 5502. FRA seeks comment from 

AAR regarding the proportion of ‘‘Why 

Made Code: 1F’’ to ‘‘Why Made Code: 

49’’ that was billed during freight car 

SCABT or locomotive annual 

inspection. 

Since late 2018, AAR’s alternate 

method has been widely used by 

industry (specifically within 

interchange among AAR member 

railroads). FRA understands the 

standard has been successful and has no 

record of accidents, incidents, or 

violations related using the standard. 

FRA is proposing to codify the current 

elements of the standard in this 

rulemaking proceeding and requests 

comments on whether the elements of 

the standard should be codified to 

continue use of the standard for 

complying with part 224 and make it an 

option for the entire railroad industry. 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis 

Section 224.3 Applicability 

Section 224.3 sets forth the scope and 

application of part 224. Part 224 

generally applies to all railroad freight 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP21JY22.033</GPH>

Table 3.1 ~ requiremente 

Required RetroretlKtMtr {~------~ Required Retroreffectivlty (_;.-_· ••. ~ 

Color at -4°entfance and of 8.2° at 30° entrance and of0.6° 

obMrvaUon angles obeervation anglw 

Minimum Maximum Minimum 

While 250 285 60 

Yellow 150 170 35 
43476 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

33 Docket FRA–2010–0171, Document No. 9. 

34 Docket FRA–2012–0024, Document No. 4. 

cars and locomotives that operate over 

a public or private highway-rail grade 

crossing and are used for revenue or 

work train service. Existing paragraphs 

(a) through (d) of § 224.3 exclude from 

part 224’s applicability, certain types of 

equipment and operations because they 

present a low risk of RIT collisions. FRA 

proposes to add paragraph (e) to exclude 

rail freight rolling stock used solely for 

THEERP purposes, except for incidental 

freight service. FRA is proposing to 

exclude equipment used only for 

THEERP purposes because (as discussed 

further in Section II C. and III A. of the 

supplementary materials above) those 

operations present a low risk of RIT 

collisions. Incidental freight service 

would include when a railroad uses rail 

freight rolling stock for other than 

THEERP purposes only on rare 

occasions as necessary to facilitate some 

of their operations. For example, 

California State Railroad Museum 

requested relief from part 224 for two 

locomotives used primarily for yard 

switching, freight service, and rarely in 

passenger (excursion) train service, but 

only when its steam locomotives fail.33

In another instance, The Everett 

Railroad Company stated that its 

caboose car is retained primarily for use 

on excursion trains, historical and 

public relation events, along with 

possible, but very infrequent, use as a 

crew caboose or shoving platform.34 For 

these particular instances, the freight 

train consist, as well as the railroad 

trackage, are short, and the trains 

operate at much lower speeds than 

typical freight service. 

Section 224.107 Implementation 

Schedule 

FRA proposes to remove this section. 

On November 28, 2005, when the 

Reflectorization Standards took effect, 

railroads operating rail freight rolling 

stock subject to this part, were required 

to commit to an implementation 

schedule for equipping their fleet with 

reflectorization. This section required 

such railroads to submit an 

implementation schedule to FRA for 

approval, or adopt FRA’s proposed 

implementation schedule, equipping 

10% of total freight fleet per year for 10 

years, and 20% of total locomotive fleet 

per year for 5 years. This meant that by 

November 28, 2015, 100% of the freight 

fleet population would be fully 

equipped with part 224 compliant 

retroreflective sheeting. Similarly, by 

November 28, 2010, 100% of the 

locomotive fleet population would be 

fully equipped with part 224 compliant 

retroreflective sheeting. With the 

passage of time, railroads are no longer 

required to submit an implementation 

schedule or adopt FRA’s proposed 

implementation schedule. Therefore, 

this section is outdated and FRA is 

proposing to remove the language to 

shorten and simplify part 224. 

Section 224.109 Inspection, Repair, 

and Replacement 

FRA proposes to revise paragraphs (a) 

and (b) to remove any references to 

§ 224.107, because that section’s 

requirements are outdated, and in this 

rulemaking proceeding FRA is 

proposing to remove it. Specifically, 

FRA proposes to remove the following 

language ‘‘(§ 224.107 in the case of 

freight cars subject to § 224.107(a)(3))’’ 

from paragraph (a), and the following 

language ‘‘(§ 224.107 in the case of 

locomotives subject to § 224.107(b)(3))’’ 

from paragraph (b). 

Section 224.111 Renewal 

FRA proposes to retitle this section 

from ‘‘Renewal’’ to ‘‘Evaluation, and 

replacement of 10-year old or 

underperforming retroreflective 

sheeting.’’ The existing title, ‘‘Renewal,’’ 

reflects the only current replacement 

option, which is to renew the 

retroreflective sheeting after 10 years, 

regardless its condition. The proposed 

title would indicate two options for 

replacing the retroreflective sheeting: 

the same 10-year replacement cycle; or 

using a performance-based method to 

determine when replacement is 

required. 

In paragraph (a), FRA proposes to 

identify two options for replacing 

retroreflective sheeting: a 10-year 

replacement cycle; and an alternative 

method to determine when replacement 

is required. FRA proposes to include the 

existing 10-year replacement option in 

paragraph (b) and the alternative option 

in paragraph (c). 

FRA proposes to retain the 10-year 

replacement option in paragraph (b), 

because some short line railroads or 

individual car owners may not want to 

invest in the equipment and training 

needed to switch to an alternative 

method. As discussed above, it is not 

clear if, or how, railroads are able to 

distinguish between replacement 

sheeting and previously installed 

sheeting on the same piece of 

equipment. According to AAR, UMLER 

system updates have been inconsistent, 

because the railroad industry no longer 

relies on the information provided by 

the UMLER fields. FRA requests 

comment from the railroad industry on 

how records are created and maintained 

to track the installation date of sheeting 

when only a portion of the required 

sheeting is replaced prior to 10-years 

from the date of original installation. 

Proposed paragraph (c) would require 

railroads to evaluate retroreflective 

sheeting during the SCABT and annual 

locomotive inspection. Proposed 

paragraph (c)(1) provides the 

specifications for an acceptable 

comparator panel to carry out the 

evaluation. Proposed paragraph (c)(2) 

sets forth the process and criteria for 

evaluating the existing sheeting using a 

comparator panel under paragraph 

(c)(1). Proposed paragraph (c)(3) permits 

the use of a handheld retroreflectometer 

to perform the required evaluation. As 

part of FRA’s routine compliance 

oversight, the agency expects to review 

railroads’ inspection records to verify an 

alternative evaluation was conducted. 

As proposed, the retroreflectivity, 

color, and construction requirements in 

paragraph (c)(1)(i) through (iii) are the 

same as the current S–916. The 

proposed labeling requirement in 

subparagraph (c)(1)(iv) is also the same 

as the current S–916, with the 

additional requirement that a panel’s 

label include information on the 

calibration status of the panel. Since 

AAR indicated that the median time 

between SCABT is 25.6 months, FRA 

proposes to have the comparator panels 

recalibrated at least every two years (i.e., 

no more than two years from its 

manufactured date or previous 

recalibration date, whichever is most 

recent). FRA seeks comment on this 

proposed timeframe and how much 

downtime is expected while a panel is 

out for recalibration. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would 

establish the same comparator panel 

evaluation process and criteria as the 

current M–944. M–944 recommends 

evaluating installed sheeting with a 

comparator panel from 15 feet. FRA 

understands that 15 feet provides an 

appropriate amount of space to perform 

the evaluation, but also understands 

that during a SCABT or locomotive 

annual inspection it may not be 

practicable for an inspector to stand 15 

feet from the equipment. To provide 

some flexibility, proposed paragraph 

(c)(2)(iv) would require sheeting to be 

evaluated from a distance of between 10 

and 20 feet, with a 15-foot distance 

being preferable. FRA seeks comments 

on whether a range of 10 to 20 feet is 

sufficient to properly evaluate 

retroreflective sheeting and whether the 

proposed range provides sufficient 

flexibility. 

Consistent with M–944, proposed 

paragraph (c)(2)(v) sets forth the process 

for conducting the evaluation (e.g., with 

light source positioned adjacent to the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43477 

35Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 17, 2003). 

Available: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/

whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf. 

36Association of American Railroads (AAR), FRA 

Data Request for Docket FRA–2015–0105 (Nov. 3, 

2020). 

inspector’s eye and directed at the 

sheeting and comparator panel, the 

inspector compares the reflected light 

intensity of the entire installed sheeting 

to that of the comparator panel). 

Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(v)(A) 

provides that if the perceived reflected 

light intensity of the entire installed 

sheeting appears brighter than that of 

the comparator panel, the installed 

sheeting passes the evaluation. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(v)(B) provides 

that if the perceived reflected light 

intensity of the entire installed sheeting 

does not appear brighter than the 

comparator panel or if the two are 

indistinguishable, the installed sheeting, 

does not pass the evaluation. If the two 

are indistinguishable, the installed 

sheeting is already at or near the 

minimum threshold to comply with this 

section and would only continue to 

degrade below the threshold if allowed 

to continue in service until the next 

evaluation required by this section. 

Therefore, as proposed, FRA would 

require such sheeting to be replaced. 

In paragraph (c)(3), FRA proposes to 

allow the use of handheld 

reflectometers to evaluate retroreflective 

sheeting and determine when it is 

required to be replaced under this part. 

FRA understands that reflectometers 

can be used to evaluate retroreflective 

sheeting easily, reliably, and accurately. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(3) would require 

use of an annular reflectometer, placed 

directly against the retroreflective 

sheeting. FRA is requiring an annular 

device, if a reflectometer is used, 

because it is easier to ensure an accurate 

evaluation compared to other types of 

devices that require multiple 

measurements from different angles to 

properly evaluate the sheeting. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii) sets forth 

the minimum allowable retroreflective 

values and necessary measurement 

angles if a reflectometer is used. Due to 

the current high cost of a handheld 

reflectometer, FRA does not anticipate 

widespread use of reflectometers 

initially. However, if the cost 

diminishes overtime, railroads may 

prefer it. 

V. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 

The proposed rule is a nonsignificant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ FRA made this determination 

as the economic effects of the proposed 

rulemaking would not exceed the $100 

million annual threshold defined by 

Executive Order 12866. FRA estimates 

this proposed rule would result in 

benefits over a 20-year period from not 

replacing retroreflective sheeting prior 

to the end of its useful life, while 

potentially improving safety by 

replacing in less than 10 years sheeting 

that has already reached the end of its 

useful life. 

1. Need for Regulatory Action 

The Reflectorization Standards were 

promulgated in 2005; in the over-15 

years since their publication, FRA has 

learned that the reflective sheeting 

applied to rail freight rolling stock can 

remain effective beyond the 10 years 

initially thought at the time the 

Reflectorization Standards were 

developed. This rulemaking updates the 

Reflectorization Standards in light of 

this new information by allowing the 

use of an alternative method to evaluate 

retroreflective sheeting. The alternative 

method, currently implemented by 

using a comparator panel (under 

waiver), allows railroads and private car 

owners to replace retroreflective 

sheeting as needed, based on 

performance, instead of a mandatory 

replacement based on length of time. 

The proposed rule also recognizes a 

segment of the regulated entities that 

operate THEERP freight rolling stock 

and extends the exclusion from the 

Reflectorization Standards to THEERP 

operations, as they pose a low risk of 

highway-rail grade crossing incidents. 

For both stakeholders that choose to use 

the comparator panel, and those that 

operate THEERP freight rolling stock, 

the proposed rule promotes regulatory 

certainty and efficiency. Unnecessary 

paperwork burdens would also be 

reduced by no longer needing to 

periodically file waivers with FRA for 

relief from their respective sections of 

part 224. 

The proposed rulemaking amends 

part 224 in two substantive ways. First, 

the proposed rule codifies waivers 

excepting THEERP operations from 

reflectivity standards in § 224.3. Second, 

the proposed rule codifies the AAR 

waiver allowing railroads to use an 

alternative method (i.e., the comparator 

panel) for determining when 

retroreflective sheeting needs 

replacement. The comparator panel 

would be added as an option to the 

existing 10-year replacement cycle 

under § 224.111. 

2. Baseline 

The typical baseline scenario from 

which benefits and costs of the 

regulation are measured is the no-action 

baseline, which is an assessment of the 

railroad world without the proposed 

rule.35 Without the NPRM, it is likely 

that the railroads will continue to file 

waivers and waiver renewals for using 

the alternative method and exclusion of 

THEERP freight rolling stock from the 

Reflectorization Standards. One possible 

baseline would assume FRA approves 

most of these waivers with conditions, 

as it has in the past. In comparing this 

baseline to the NPRM, the benefit from 

the NPRM would be the removal of 

unnecessary paperwork burdens of 

having to file future waivers and 

renewals with FRA. 

However, another baseline might offer 

more information about the impacts of 

the proposed rule. The waiver to use the 

comparator panel is relatively recent 

(2018), and many of the THEERP 

waivers are also less than 10 years old. 

The comparator-panel waiver covers 

almost all the rail freight rolling stock. 

Another baseline would describe a 

scenario absent the comparator-panel 

waiver, that is, in which approval of the 

waiver is uncertain and reflective 

sheeting is replaced per the 10-year 

renewal cycle in existing § 224.111. FRA 

proposes to use this baseline to better 

estimate the substantive impacts of the 

NPRM. The baseline is accounted for as 

a separate alternative under the Costs 

section below. FRA invites comment on 

the appropriate baseline to use for the 

regulatory analysis. 

3. Costs 

a. Methodology 

Since the retroreflective sheeting is 

applied per rail car, this analysis used 

the per-car cost as the basis to estimate 

much of the costs related to 

retroreflective sheeting. The costs for 

preparing waiver petitions were 

estimated based on the labor costs of 

those employees preparing the waivers. 

FRA requested data from AAR about 

the railroads’ experiences under the 

approved waiver using the comparator 

panel. FRA reviewed the data supplied 

by AAR and incorporated it into the cost 

estimates below. AAR provided data for 

before and after the comparator panel 

waiver.36

In its estimates, AAR used an average 

labor rate of $140.38 per hour or $2.34 

per minute, in 2020 dollars, which may 

be based on interchange billing rates. 

For its regulatory analyses, however, 

FRA uses standardized labor rates 

which the Class I railroads report to the 

Surface Transportation Board (STB). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
43478 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

37Surface Transportation Board (STB), Quarterly 

Wage A&B Data (2020). Annual composite for All 

Railroads. Available: https://www.stb.gov/reportsdata/economic-data/quarterly-wage-ab-data/. 

Calculations: For Group 200 employees, $44.25 per 

hour STB average straight time rate × 1.75 fringe 

benefit multiplier = $77.44 per hour burdened wage 

rate. Similarly, for Group 400 employees, $34.22 × 

1.75 = $59.89 per hour burdened wage rate. 

38Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Salary 

Table 2020–DCB (Jan. 2020). Available: https://

www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/

salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2020/DCB_h.pdf. 

Calculation: $65.88 per hour GS–14 Step 5 rate × 

1.75 fringe benefit multiplier = $115.29 per hour 

burdened rate. 

39Preston, Howard, Traffic Sign Life Expectancy 

(St. Paul, MN: 2014). Report No. MN/RC 2014–20. 

Minnesota Dept. of Transportation. Available: 

https://www.lrrb.org/pdf/201420.pdf. 

40Calculation: 1,658,334 fleet size/26 months = 

63,782 SCABT cars per month. Then 63,782 cars 

per month × 12 months = 765,385 cars per year that 

undergo a SCABT, or about 46% of the fleet. 

Source: FRA Data Request, 2020. 

These rates are burdened by 75 percent 

for any fringe benefits. (The Class I 

railroads report service hours and 

compensation to STB under 49 CFR 

1245.2.) For this analysis FRA used the 

STB wage rates for the relevant 

employee groups. These are STB Group 

200 employees consisting of Executives, 

Officials, & Staff Assistants who likely 

complete waiver petitions for the 

railroads, and Group 400 Maintenance 

of Equipment & Stores employees who 

inspect and apply the reflective 

sheeting. The Executives, Officials, & 

Staff Assistants burdened rate is $77.44 

per hour or $1.29 per minute, and the 

Maintenance of Equipment & Stores 

employees burdened rate is $59.89 per 

hour or $1.00 per minute (in 2020 

dollars).37

To estimate Government costs and 

benefits resulting from reviewing and 

approving waivers, FRA used the 

General Schedule (GS) pay rates for 

grade GS–14 step 5 employees in the 

Washington, DC area. The Federal pay 

rate was also burdened by 75 percent 

yielding a Federal pay rate of $115.29 

per hour.38

AAR provided counts of the 

maintenance of way (MOW) cars and 

locomotives that would be covered 

under part 224; however, FRA focused 

on freight rail cars to simplify the 

analysis. Given that MOW cars and 

locomotives represent a small portion of 

all freight rail cars (about 2.5 percent 

and 1.6 percent respectively), including 

them in the analysis would not 

significantly affect the results. 

FRA used a 20-year period of analysis 

for this rulemaking because 

retroreflective sheeting appears to have 

an effective service life beyond 10 years 

(based on data from the AAR 

comparator panel waiver). FRA also 

identified one study that estimated 

prismatic sheeting used on traffic signs 

may last 15 to 30 years, which may be 

a reasonable proxy for similar sheeting 

used on rail cars.39 However, for the rail 

freight rolling stock used in THEERP 

operations, a 10-year period of analysis 

may be a better ‘‘fit’’ because overage 

equipment may only be actively used 

for an additional 5 to 10 years. Since the 

provision permitting use of the 

comparator panel covers most of the rail 

car fleet, FRA chose to use a 20-year 

period of analysis. 

First, the baseline scenario costs were 

determined, followed by the NPRM 

costs. The difference between the two 

costs represents the estimated net 

benefits (or costs) of the NPRM: Baseline 

costs¥NPRM costs = Net benefits (or 

costs). 

The costs and benefits associated with 

the NPRM are summarized in Table V– 

1 below. 

TABLE V–1—SUMMARY OF TOTAL BENEFITS OVER THE 20-YEAR PERIOD

[2020 Dollars] 

Impact Undiscounted Present value 

7% 

Present value 

3% 

Annualized 

7% 

Annualized 

3% 

Baseline Cost ....................................................................... $540,747,953 $286,435,001 $402,248,463 $27,037,438 $27,037,415 

NPRM Cost .......................................................................... 436,091,940 231,038,590 324,420,840 21,808,408 21,806,176 

Net Benefits ......................................................................... 104,656,013 55,396,411 77,827,623 5,229,029 5,231,239 

Government Costs for Waivers (Baseline) .......................... 167,171 89,183 124,739 8,418 8,384 

Qualitative Benefit: Reduced environmental waste from not replacing effective reflective sheeting prematurely. 

The impacts are described in detail 

below. 

b. Baseline Costs 

Absent this NPRM, both THEERP 

operations and other railroads to which 

the Reflectorization Standards apply 

will incur costs for the following 

requirements: 

• Cost for inspection and replacement 

of missing, damaged, or obscured 

retroreflective sheeting (‘‘sheeting’’) 

under § 224.109. 

• Cost to renew, i.e., replace sheeting 

no later than 10 years after installation 

under § 224.111. The baseline assumes 

sheeting will be replaced periodically 

every 10 years. 

• Incidental cost for transporting rail 

cars that would not typically appear on 

a repair track or shop for a SCABT to 

renew sheeting under § 224.111. 

• Cost of petitioning FRA for waivers 

from the Reflectorization Standards. 

These cost elements may be 

represented by the equation: Baseline 

cost = Visual inspection & sheeting 

replacement + 10-year renewal + 

Transport + Waiver. 

The cost for inspection and 

replacement of missing, damaged, or 

obscured sheeting was determined by 

the cost of a visual inspection and 

sheeting replacement multiplied by the 

number of cars undergoing a SCABT. 

The SCABT serves as the triggering 

event for the inspection and 

replacement of sheeting under 

§ 224.109. To determine the number of 

cars undergoing a SCABT per month, 

FRA used the median time between 

SCABTs of 25.6 months, and the average 

annual number of freight cars of 

1,658,334 (an average over the recent 

period 2016–2020). The cars per month 

were multiplied by 12 months to yield 

an estimated 765,385 cars per year 

undergoing a SCABT.40

Further, the cost of the visual 

inspection and sheeting replacement 

was determined by the sum of the cost 

of the visual inspection and cost to 

replace missing, damaged, or obscured 

sheeting. AAR indicated the time for a 

visual inspection was 0.83 minutes, the 

time to replace the first sheet per side 

was 9.3 minutes, the average number of 

sheets replaced during SCABTs was 

0.71 sheets, and the cost per sheet was 

$1.31. Accounting for the labor time 

using the STB Maintenance of 

Equipment & Stores wage rate of $1.00 

per minute results in a per-car cost of 

$11.00. Then the cost under § 224.109 

was calculated by multiplying the 

estimated cars undergoing a SCABT by 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43479 

41Calculations: Per-car cost for visual inspection 

and sheet replacement = 0.83 min. × $1 per min. 

visual inspection + 9.3 min. × $1 per min. sheeting 

replacement + 0.71 sheets × $1.31 per sheet = 

$11.00. Total cost for visual inspection and sheeting 

replacement = 765,385 cars × $11 per car = 

$8,423,025 per year. 

42Calculation: Cost to renew sheeting after 10 

years = 154,800 cars × $68.21 per car = $10,558,758 

per year on average. 

43Railinc, Running Repair Agents—Active. 

Available: https://findusrail.railinc.com/#/home. 

44AAR, Railroad Facts: 2020 Edition 

(Washington: 2020) 53. 

45Calculation: 1¥765,385 SCABT cars/1,658,334 

average fleet size = 1¥0.46 = 0.54, or about 50 

percent of cars not likely to appear on a repair track 

or shop for a SCABT. 

46Calculation: Expected (transportation cost per 

car) = probability (car would need 10-year sheeting 

renewal) × transportation cost = 0.1 × $3,500 = 

$350.) 

the cost per car, resulting in a cost of 

$8,423,025 per year.41

Similarly, the cost to renew the 

sheeting after 10 years was determined 

by the number of cars affected 

multiplied by the cost of renewal. The 

average number of cars that would need 

full renewal was 154,800 per year based 

on the average over the years 2016 to 

2020 (FRA Data Request, 2020). That 

represents about 10 percent of the fleet 

per year, which is expected given the 

10-year renewal period. The cost for 

sheeting material per car was estimated 

given 14 sheets (of 0.5 square-foot each) 

would be needed for 2 sides of the rail 

car (less than 50-foot car, 7 sheets per 

side), for a cost of $18.34 per car. AAR 

provided that the time to apply the 

sheeting was 9.3 minutes for the first 

sheet per side, and 2.6 minutes for each 

additional sheet, totaling almost 50 

minutes for both sides of a rail car and 

$50 in labor costs (using the STB 

Maintenance of Equipment & Stores 

wage rate of $1.00 per minute). The cost 

per car for sheeting renewal is the sum 

of the material cost and labor 

application costs ($18.34 + $49.87 = 

$68.21 per car). Then the renewal cost 

for all affected cars is $10,558,758 

annually.42

In order to model the impacts more 

accurately under the baseline, FRA 

estimated the potential costs for 

transporting rail cars, that in their 

normal operations, would not appear on 

a repair track or shop (for a SCABT). 

These cars may be owned by private car 

owners that do not own repair shops, 

MOW cars that are not regularly 

interchanged, older cars that are not 

regularly interchanged, stored cars, and 

seasonally used cars. These cars may 

incur additional expense for 

transportation to a repair shop when 

their sheeting needs renewal after 10 

years. However, this situation is 

mitigated by mobile repair units or a 

railroad’s Running Repair Agent (RRA) 

that can perform SCABTs and replace 

sheeting.43 Nevertheless, FRA 

accounted for the transportation costs 

for some cars that may need to be 

moved for sheeting replacement because 

of scheduling issues with mobile repair 

agents or operational issues. As a proxy 

estimate for the number of cars 

requiring transport, FRA used the 

23,000 freight cars that have interchange 

restrictions as reported by AAR; these 

cars are usually older cars.44 Another 

way to estimate the number of affected 

cars is to consider the conditional 

probability of not undergoing a SCABT 

on a repair track or shop and cars that 

would need full sheeting renewal. The 

probability of not undergoing a SCABT 

was found by dividing the number of 

cars undergoing a SCABT by the average 

fleet size, then subtracting from 1, for a 

result of 0.54 or about 50 percent.45

From the discussion above, the 

probability of renewal for a car is about 

10 percent or 0.1. The conditional 

probability is the product of the two 

probabilities, equaling about 0.05 or 5 

percent of the fleet, and representing 

89,295 rail cars. Qualitatively, the 

majority of these cars can be serviced by 

mobile repair agents and RRAs, and 

FRA used 23,000 cars as a reasonable 

estimate. 

For the transportation cost per car, 

FRA estimated the expected 

transportation cost as the probability 

that a car would need transportation for 

sheeting renewal multiplied by its 

transportation cost. FRA estimated a 

range of $3,000 for $4,000 to transport 

an empty car, or an average cost of 

$3,500 per car; the expected cost in any 

one year is $350.46 Then, the 

transportation cost for the rail car fleet 

is the estimated 23,000 affected cars 

multiplied by the expected 

transportation cost of $350, for an 

overall transportation cost of $8,050,000 

annually. Given the uncertainty about 

the number of cars affected, there is a 

higher degree of uncertainty about this 

cost estimate and FRA invites comment 

on the inputs used. 

The last cost element in the baseline 

scenario is the cost of petitioning FRA 

for waivers from the Reflectorization 

Standards. When approved, waivers 

generally provide regulatory relief for 

five years. For this analysis, FRA 

distinguished between waiver 

extensions and waiver renewals. 

Waivers extensions permit the railroad 

or individual car owners to continue to 

operate under the original waiver for 

another five years, and do not require 

preparation of a Federal Register notice. 

After 10 years, the railroad or individual 

car owner can no longer apply for an 

extension, but must instead request a 

renewal of the waiver. The renewal 

requires more administrative tasks 

including a Federal Register notice. The 

baseline waiver cost is the estimated 

number of new waivers plus waiver 

extensions and renewals, multiplied by 

the cost of filing waivers. This analysis 

estimated the waiver costs for both 

THEERP operations and the 

performance-based (i.e., comparatorpanel) waiver. 

In the case of waivers for THEERP 

operations, FRA has received and 

reviewed 22 waivers over 16 years, for 

a rate of 1.375 new waivers per year, 

which is rounded to 1.5 waivers for 

analysis. Therefore, over the 20-year 

period of analysis (years 2022 to 2041), 

FRA expects 30 new waiver petitions. 

Based on historical experience and FRA 

subject matter expert estimates, FRA has 

found that waiver extensions and 

renewals are subject to the following 

three conditions: 

• Railroads or individual car owners 

will likely not operate overage 

equipment beyond 10 years. 

• Railroads or individual car owners 

have not asked for renewals of waivers 

beyond 10 years. 

• FRA has approved 14 out of 22 

waivers for an approval rate of 64 

percent (i.e., 64 percent of 1.5 new 

waivers is about 1 new waiver per year). 

Moreover, there were 7 dismissed or 

denied waivers, and 1 double-counted 

waiver to complete the set of 22 

THEERP waivers). 

Applying these conditions to the 

number of new waivers, FRA estimated 

15 waiver extensions over the period of 

analysis. As explanation, new waivers 

approved during years 1 through 5 of 

the period of analysis (from calendar 

years 2022 through 2026) will likely 

receive extensions during years 6 

through 10 of the period of analysis 

(from calendar years 2027 through 2031) 

respectively, resulting in 5 extensions. 

(After 10 years, requests for waivers 

renewals are not likely under the first 

two conditions above.) Similarly, new 

waivers approved during years 6 

through 10 of the analysis will likely 

receive extensions during years 11 

through 15 of the analysis (from 2032 

through 2036) respectively, resulting in 

an additional 5 extensions. Finally, new 

waivers approved during years 11 

through 15 of the analysis will likely 

receive extensions during years 16 

through 20 of the analysis (from 2037 

through 2041) respectively, resulting in 

5 more extensions. In total, FRA expects 

15 waiver extensions. 

Also, THEERP operations that 

currently have waivers may request 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
43480 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

47Calculation: Cost for 1 waiver = 40 hrs. × 

$77.44 = $3,097.50. Then 1.5 new waivers × 

$3,097.50 per waiver = $4,646. 

extensions resulting in an additional 6 

waiver extensions. Of the 14 approved 

THEERP waivers, 4 did not request a 

waiver renewal and expired before year 

2022 (waivers FRA–2010–0148, 2010– 

0156, 2008–0021, and 2014–0082). Of 

the remaining 10 approved THEERP 

waivers, 1 is due for an extension in 

year 1 of the analysis, i.e., calendar year 

2022 (waiver FRA–2016–0110— 

approved in 2017). Four approved 

waivers are due for extensions in year 

3 of the analysis, i.e., year 2024 (waivers 

FRA–2018–0026, 2018–0086, 2019– 

0008, 2019–0047—all approved in 

2019). Finally, 1 approved waiver is due 

for an extension in year 4 of the 

analysis, i.e., year 2025 (waiver FRA– 

2020–0046—approved in 2020). In sum, 

FRA expects 6 waiver extensions. Four 

of the 10 approved waivers may request 

waiver renewals during the period of 

analysis but are unlikely to do so based 

on the above conditions. 

Thus, FRA expects THEERP 

operations to file 30 new waivers, 15 

extensions of these new waivers, and 6 

extensions of existing waivers. FRA 

estimated each new THEERP waiver 

petition requires 40 hours of labor, and 

each extension requires 8 hours of labor. 

Accounting for these labor hours at the 

STB Executives, Officials, & Staff 

Assistants burdened wage rate yields a 

new waiver cost of $3,097.50 per 

waiver, and a corresponding cost of 

$4,646 for 1.5 new waivers per year.47

The cost for a waiver extension is 

$619.50 per extension. The costs are 

scheduled according to the frequency of 

occurrence of new THEERP waivers (1.5 

per year), new THEERP waiver 

extensions (1 per year starting in year 6 

of the analysis), and currently-approved 

THEERP waiver extensions (1 in year 1 

of the analysis, 4 in year 4, and 1 in year 

5). The cost schedule also accounts for 

extensions and renewals of the 

performance-based waiver at $1,587 per 

extension or renewal (see below, 1 

extension expected in year 2 of the 

analysis, and thereafter 1 renewal per 

each year in years 7, 12, and 17). As an 

example, in year 2 of the analysis, FRA 

expects 1.5 new THEERP waivers 

($4,646), and 1 alternative waiver 

extension ($1,587), for a total estimated 

cost of $6,234. 

For regulated entities petitioning to 

use alternative methods to evaluate 

sheeting, FRA is not aware of any new 

methods in development and expects no 

new waiver filings. If a new 

performance-based waiver was filed, the 

cost to file such a waiver would be 

qualitatively high because it would 

likely involve extensive development 

and in-service testing like the 

comparator panel. Given the research to 

develop the comparator panel, FRA 

expects AAR will continue to file for 

extensions and renewals to extend the 

waiver’s relief. Over the period of 

analysis, FRA estimated 4 extensions 

and renewals, requiring 20.5 hours each 

at the same Executives, Officials, & Staff 

Assistants wage rate for a per-waiver 

cost of $1,587.47. FRA estimated the 

performance-based waiver extension 

requires more labor time than the 

THEERP-operations waiver extension 

because Class I railroads’ operations are 

more complex. (A THEERP-operations 

waiver renewal, however, may involve 

detailed descriptions of the subject 

equipment that may add to the time to 

file a potential renewal.) 

Furthermore, the Federal Government 

expends resources to review these 

waiver petitions. Depending on the 

waiver, FRA’s review will involve legal 

personnel, subject matter experts, 

administrative personnel, and railroad 

inspectors. FRA estimated these costs 

using the same respective labor hours as 

for THEERP-operations waivers and 

performance-based waivers above. For 

the wage rate, instead of using an 

average wage rate for the variety of 

personnel involved, FRA used a 

representative wage rate for GS–14 step 

5 employees of $115.29 per hour. The 

resulting FRA costs are $4,611.60 for a 

new THEERP-operations waiver, 

$922.32 for a THEERP-operations 

waiver extension, and $2,363.45 for the 

comparator-panel wavier extension and 

renewal. 

The following table presents the 

estimated baseline scenario cost 

elements. The Government costs are not 

included in the total baseline cost. 

TABLE V–2—BASELINE SCENARIO COSTS

[2020 Dollars] 

Baseline cost impact Undiscounted Present value 

7% 

Present value 

3% 

Annualized 

7% 

Annualized 

3% 

Visual Inspection & Replacement (§ 224.109) ..................... $168,460,499 $89,233,646 $125,313,342 $8,423,025 $8,423,025 

10-Year Renewal (§ 224.111) .............................................. 211,175,170 111,859,638 157,087,664 10,558,758 10,558,758 

Transportation for Non-SCABT Cars ................................... 161,000,000 85,281,815 119,763,673 8,050,000 8,050,000 

Waivers ................................................................................ 112,284 59,902 83,784 5,654 5,632 

Total Baseline ............................................................... 540,747,953 286,435,001 402,248,463 27,037,438 27,037,415 

Government Costs for Waivers ........................................... 167,171 89,183 124,739 8,418 8,418 

c. NPRM Costs 

The first substantive change under the 

NPRM would add freight rolling stock 

used for THEERP operations to the list 

of excepted equipment under § 224.3. 

These operations would no longer need 

to file waivers and waiver extensions 

with FRA and thus save the associated 

paperwork costs. The benefits would 

equal the baseline costs for waivers 

(when taken together with the similar 

type of benefits from codifying the 

comparator panel waiver). 

The largest change under the NPRM 

would be evaluating rail cars with a 

comparator panel instead of replacing 

sheeting under the 10-year renewal 

cycle. THEERP operations and other 

railroads to which the Reflectorization 

Standards apply will incur costs for the 

following requirements: 

• Cost for inspection and replacement 

of missing, damaged, or obscured 

retroreflective sheeting under § 224.109. 

This requirement is unchanged from the 

baseline except for removing old 

implementation dates. 

• Cost to evaluate and replace 

sheeting under § 224.111. The NPRM 

retains the option to use the 10-year 

replacement cycle. 

• Incidental cost for transporting rail 

cars that would not typically appear on 

a repair track or shop for a SCABT to 

renew sheeting under § 224.111. This 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43481 

48Calculation: Material cost per car = 0.72 sheets 

× $1.31 per sheet = $0.95. Labor cost per car = (2.8 

min. inspection + 3.3 min. cleaning + 9.3 min. first 

sheet application) × $1 per min. = $15.27. Material 

and labor costs per car = $0.95 + $15.27 = $16.21. 

Cost for evaluated cars = 571,750 cars × $16.21 per 

car = $9,270,750. 

49AAR, Railroad Facts (Washington: multiple 

editions 2017–2020) 65–80. Foran, Pat, & Stagl, Jeff, 

eds., ‘‘Fleet Stats,’’ Progressive Railroading 

(multiple editions 2016–2019, and 2021). Year 2020 

not available, 2019 Railroad Car Owners data 

carried over to 2020. Available: https://

www.progressiverailroading.com/keywords/ 

keywords.aspx?id=0&keywords=Fleet+

Stats&year=2017. (May require log-in for some 

years.) 

cost occurs under the baseline too but 

is adjusted for relief from the 10-year 

replacement cycle, and longer expected 

sheeting life. 

• Small entities that may use the 10- 

year replacement cycle option under 

§ 224.111 (estimated at 15 percent of 

small entities). 

• Cost of the comparator panel. 

• Cost to recalibrate the comparator 

panel under § 224.111. 

• Employee training to use the 

comparator panel as described in AAR 

Field Manual Rule 66. (The comparator 

panel inspection of reflective sheeting 

will become part of the SCABT and 

annual locomotive inspection.) 

These cost elements may be 

represented by the equation: NPRM Cost 

= Visual inspection & sheeting 

replacement + Periodic evaluation & 

sheeting replacement + Transport + 10- 

year renewal option estimated for small 

entities + Comparator panel + 

Comparator panel recalibration + 

Employee training. 

The cost for visual inspection and 

replacement of missing, damaged, or 

obscured sheeting remained the same as 

under the baseline scenario because 

FRA is only removing the references to 

the outdated implementation schedule. 

The substantive requirements remain 

the same. 

The primary change under the NPRM 

would be evaluating the sheeting on rail 

cars with a comparator panel. The cost 

of using the comparator panels is 

determined by the number of cars 

undergoing a SCABT and evaluated 

with the comparator panel multiplied 

by the material and labor costs per car. 

Based on data supplied by AAR, FRA 

estimated 571,750 cars will evaluated, a 

preliminary inspection will require 2.8 

minutes, cleaning will take 3.3 minutes, 

and the time to apply 1 sheet will 

require 9.3 minutes. AAR also found an 

average of 0.72 sheets renewed during 

their waiver at a cost of $1.31 per sheet. 

FRA applied the STB Group 400 

Maintenance of Equipment and Stores 

employee wage rate to estimate a cost 

per car of $16.21, and $9,270,752 per 

year for the affected cars. (In contrast, 

the estimated cost per car for sheeting 

renewal under the baseline scenario was 

$68.21 per car.) 48

The NPRM also allows use of a 

handheld retroreflectometer to directly 

evaluate the performance of sheeting. 

The retroreflectometer may be easier to 

use than the comparator panel, but 

given its current high cost ($10,000), its 

use will likely be minimal at this time. 

As in the baseline scenario, some rail 

cars may incur a transportation cost to 

renew sheeting because they may not 

periodically undergo a SCABT at a 

repair shop or track, or receive service 

from a mobile service agent. However, 

given the experience under the AAR 

comparator panel waiver showing 

reflective sheeting can likely remain 

effective beyond 10 years, these cars 

would need to be transported less 

frequently. These cars would no longer 

be subject to the 10-year renewal cycle. 

FRA used the estimates from Preston 

(2014) of an average reflector service life 

of about 20 years to calculate the 

reduced impact of cars needing 

transport for reflective sheeting 

replacement under the NPRM. Using a 

20-year service life reduced the 

probability that cars would need 

transport by half to 5 percent, and the 

resulting expected cost per car from 

$350 to $175. Given the same number of 

cars needing transport as under the 

baseline scenario (23,000 cars), yielded 

a transportation cost of $4,025,000 per 

year. 

The NPRM contains an option for 

railroad car owners to continue using a 

10-year replacement cycle for sheeting. 

FRA assumes that a portion of small 

entities will be most likely to choose 

this option to reduce their investment in 

the comparator panel and associated 

costs to implement it (such as training 

employees). Based on feedback from the 

American Short Line and Regional 

Railroad Association (ASLRRA), FRA 

understands most short line railroads 

are in fact using the comparator panel. 

However, for operations that find using 

the comparator panel costly, FRA 

estimated 15 percent of small entities 

will use the 10-year replacement option. 

To count the number of rail cars owned 

by small entities, FRA subtracted Class 

I railroad owned cars in North America, 

Class II railroad owned cars, and 

privately-owned cars from all freight 

cars—to estimate Class III railroads own 

54,766 rail cars on average (over the 

years 2016 to 2020). Thus, 15 percent of 

these Class III railroad cars is 8,215 cars. 

FRA used AAR Railroad Facts books 

and Progressive Railroading magazine 

‘‘Fleet Stats’’ for various years to 

determine car ownership.49 Using the 

same percent of cars that would need 

full renewal under the baseline scenario 

of 10 percent means about 821 cars per 

year would need sheeting renewal. FRA 

applied the same cost per car for 10-year 

sheeting replacement as under the 

baseline scenario ($68.21 per car) and 

estimated a cost of $56,033 per year 

under the NPRM. 

To estimate the number of comparator 

panels that may be purchased, FRA 

used the difference between the average 

number of shops and locations qualified 

to perform a SCABT and evaluate 

sheeting using a comparator panel, 

before and after the comparator panel 

waiver. AAR estimated an average of 

1,570 shops and locations qualified for 

SCABTs before the waiver, and 1,063 

shops and locations equipped with a 

comparator panel after the waiver; the 

difference of about 500 shops and 

locations represents the shops and 

locations that may purchase a 

comparator panel. AAR notes its 

estimates include shops and locations 

that performed five or more SCABT 

tests, so the actual counts may be 

higher. In addition, FRA internally 

estimated 300 shops and locations may 

need to purchase a comparator panel. 

FRA used an average of the two 

estimates for analysis, or 400 shops and 

locations. FRA assumed 1 comparator 

panel purchased per shop or location, 

and applied the $190 cost per panel to 

estimate a marginal cost of $76,000 for 

acquiring comparator panels. 

Furthermore, AAR offers these 

comparator panels may need 

replacement every 4 years (years 1, 5, 9, 

13, and 17 of the 20-year period of 

analysis). 

These comparator panels are also 

required to be periodically recalibrated 

(not later than 2 years) so that an 

accurate number of retroreflective sheets 

are replaced on rail cars. Given the 4- 

year average life of a comparator panel, 

a comparator panel will be typically 

recalibrated 1 time during its useful life. 

For example, if a comparator panel is 

purchased in year 1 of the period of 

analysis, it would be recalibrated in year 

3, and a new comparator panel 

purchased in year 5. Over the period of 

analysis, recalibration would occur in in 

years 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19. Additionally, 

AAR estimated a recalibration cost of 

$80 per panel with a discount if 

multiple panels are recalibrated per 

shop. As FRA does not know how many 

shops own multiple comparator panels, 

the cost of recalibrating one panel was 

used to estimate a cost of $32,000 for 

recalibrating 400 comparator panels. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
43482 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

50Avery Dennison, available: RR-ComparisonPanel-Kit_Overview.pdf (averydennison.com). 

51Calculation: 2.8 min. marginal training time × 

$1 per min. × 20,253 employees = $55,739. 

52The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) analysis 

for this proposal estimates a cost of $167,000 for 

recording and reporting obscured, damaged, or 

missing sheeting under § 224.109. This analysis 

assumes the stricter alternative would require 

railroads to record and report additional data. As 

an approximation, the additional burden is another 

5 minutes, or $167,000 annually. Also, Railinc 

would incur a cost for programming changes to the 

UMLER database to accommodate the new data 

fields. FRA inspectors would also spend more time 

reviewing these more detailed records. 

Employees inspecting and replacing 

reflective material likely would need 

training and instruction in these 

procedures. Rule 66, Reflective 

Sheeting, of the AAR Field Manual 

contains instructions for inspecting 

sheeting using the comparator panels. A 

manufacturer of comparator panels also 

provides step-by-step instructions on its 

website.50 FRA assumed these 

comparator panel instructions will be 

combined with existing training 

sessions on performing SCABTs and 

locomotive inspections. FRA estimated 

a marginal training cost using the same 

amount of time estimated to inspect 

reflective sheeting using a comparator 

panel of 2.8 minutes, applied to 20,253 

STB Group 400 Maintenance of 

Equipment and Stores employees at 

their wage rate, to calculate a training 

cost of $55,739. Only the first year of 

training is considered because the cost 

of subsequent training is covered under 

the training rule, 49 CFR part 243.51

The following table presents the 

estimated NPRM cost elements. 

TABLE V–3—NPRM COSTS

[2020 Dollars] 

NPRM cost impact Undiscounted Present value 

7% 

Present Value 

3% 

Annualized 

7% 

Annualized 

3% 

Visual Inspection & Replacement (§ 224.109) ..................... $168,460,499 $89,233,646 $125,313,342 $8,423,025 $8,423,025 

Periodic Evaluation & Sheeting Replacement (§ 224.111) .. 185,415,041 98,214,480 137,925,381 9,270,752 9,270,752 

Transportation for Non-SCABT Cars ................................... 80,500,000 42,640,907 59,881,836 4,025,000 4,025,000 

10-Year Renewal Option est. for Small Entities .................. 1,120,661 593,615 833,630 56,033 56,033 

Comparator Panel ................................................................ 380,000 221,151 295,326 20,969 19,851 

Comparator Panel Recalibration .......................................... 160,000 81,699 117,210 7,712 7,878 

Employee Training ............................................................... 55,739 52,092 54,115 4,917 3,637 

Total NPRM .................................................................. 436,091,940 231,038,590 324,420,840 21,808,408 21,806,176 

4. Alternatives 

FRA considered a few regulatory 

alternatives before deciding to offer 

stakeholders the option of using either 

the 10-year replacement cycle or the 

alternative method (comparator panels) 

as proposed. As a presumably lowercost alternative, FRA considered 

eliminating the 10-year replacement 

cycle completely given that most of the 

industry is using the comparator panel 

waiver. However, FRA assessed that 

some entities might incur higher costs 

for evaluating sheeting on MOW cars 

and other privately-owned cars using 

the comparator panel because these cars 

may not appear at a repair shop or on 

a repair track regularly for a SCABT. 

Some smaller entities with fewer cars 

may also find it easier to replace the 

retroreflective sheeting on their cars 

every 10 years. A pre-determined 

schedule for replacing sheeting provides 

regulatory simplicity for these entities 

and may be easier to implement than a 

comparator panel-based standard. 

Overall, including both alternatives as 

proposed increases regulatory flexibility 

for railroads and car owners. 

FRA also considered stricter 

alternatives that would help FRA 

enforce the Reflectorization Standards. 

For example, FRA could mandate 

railroads and private-car owners record 

and report when retroreflective sheeting 

is changed. FRA could also require the 

industry to report which standard for 

evaluation and replacement they are 

following (i.e., either the alternative 

replacement or the 10-year replacement 

cycle). As noted in the Overview section 

above, under the approved waiver for 

using the comparator panel, the 

industry has not been consistently 

recording in UMLER when and why 

sheeting is replaced. That makes it 

difficult to determine how much of the 

sheeting was replaced because of 

damage, and how much because of the 

passage of time. Given the size of the 

fleet and frequency of SCABTs, the 

record-keeping and reporting costs 

could be somewhat significant. 

Railroads would need to record and 

report information that is not currently 

required, including when the sheeting is 

replaced, why it is replaced (obscured, 

damaged, or missing), and how much of 

the rail car sheeting was replaced. FRA 

estimates this would cost at least 

$167,000 annually.52 In return, better 

records could facilitate FRA 

enforcement, for example, to check if 

the overall rate of sheeting replacement 

under the NPRM is in-line with 

expectations for the service life of 

sheeting in various operations and 

environments. As proposed, 

enforcement will generally rely on FRA 

inspectors visually inspecting sheeting 

and SCABT data, which, given the low 

accident risk under the waivers 

historically, would provide a less costly 

alternative to requiring more recordkeeping and reporting. For example, if 

an inspector observes sheeting to be in 

poor condition, and requests records 

from the railroad that list a recent 

SCABT, it would provide an indication 

the sheeting may not have been replaced 

when required. 

5. Sensitivity Analysis 

The cost and benefit estimates could 

change if the analysis’s underlying 

assumptions or inputs were to change. 

The largest categories of costs presented 

in Table V–3 are the pre-existing 

requirement to visually inspect and 

replace sheeting (§ 224.109), 

periodically evaluate and replace 

sheeting (§ 224.111), and transport cars 

that would not typically appear on a 

repair track or shop for a SCABT. The 

costs to visually inspect and replace 

sheeting, and to periodically evaluate 

and replace sheeting, depend primarily 

on the number of cars. The number of 

cars is about 750,000 and 500,000 

respectively for these cost estimates. If 

the number of cars used in calculating 

these estimates were to increase, then 

the estimated net business benefits 

would increase too. The number of 

active freight cars may increase if 

economic growth continues in the short 

run, likely increasing the demand for 

freight transportation. FRA used an 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43483 

average of recent freight cars counts 

(2016–2020) as a reasonable estimate in 

its cost estimates. 

Furthermore, for the cost to 

periodically evaluate and replace 

sheeting, if the cost for purchasing a 

retroreflectometer decreases over time, 

or a cheaper substitute method of 

directly measuring the reflectivity 

becomes available, the labor time to 

evaluate the sheeting on a car will 

decrease. The benefits from using an 

alternative method will then increase as 

well. 

For the transportation cost, the cost 

per car is a significant factor. FRA 

applied the probability of sheeting 

renewal to estimate this cost. As the 

actual service life of sheeting in 

different railroad operations and 

environments becomes better known, 

the need to transport cars to replace 

sheeting may further decrease, reducing 

this cost. Additionally, as mentioned, 

FRA used a proxy to estimate the 

number of cars that may need 

transportation, which is a source of 

uncertainty in the estimate, but 

conceptually represents the type of cars 

that may need transportation. 

FRA also used STB wage rates in its 

estimates, based on the Class I railroads’ 

reports to the STB. Using AAR wage 

rates will affect the scale of costs, but 

not the resources used in terms of 

capital (i.e., the number of cars and 

comparator panels), and labor time used 

to comply with the regulation. 

6. Conclusion 

As shown in Table V–1 above, FRA 

estimates the NPRM results in net 

benefits with a present value of $55 

million using a 7 percent discount rate 

and $78 million using a 3 percent 

discount rate (over a 20-year period of 

analysis in 2020 dollars). In annualized 

terms, the net benefits are $5 million per 

year using a 7 percent discount rate, and 

a similar $5 million using a 3 percent 

discount rate. In addition, the Federal 

Government would save the cost of 

reviewing and analyzing waivers of 

about $89,183 (present value, 7 percent 

discount rate); $124,739 (present value, 

3 percent discount rate), or $8,418 

(annualized, both 7 and 3 percent 

discount rates). 

FRA also estimates there may be 

ancillary benefits of the NPRM in terms 

of reduced environmental impact from 

disposing of reflective sheeting 

prematurely. Given reflective sheeting 

can remain effective more than 10 years, 

there would be less reflective sheeting 

replaced under the NPRM during the 

period of analysis. Based on the Preston 

(2014) study, if reflective sheeting lasts 

15 to 20 years, then there would be 50 

percent to 100 percent less reflective 

sheeting replaced and disposed of in 

comparison to the mandatory 10-year 

replacement. The benefit would be less 

environmental waste. Although FRA has 

not quantified this benefit, it could be 

important given the large number of rail 

cars affected. As in the regulation before 

this NPRM, reflective sheeting would 

still need replacement earlier than 10 

years if damaged or obscured. Also, in 

the long run, the reflective sheeting 

applied on all cars would need 

replacement and disposal eventually. 

FRA invites comment on these 

environmental benefits. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

Executive Order 13272 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and Executive 

Order 13272, ‘‘Proper Consideration of 

Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 

(67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002)) require 

agency review of proposed and final 

rules to assess their impacts on small 

entities. An agency must prepare an 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA) unless it certifies that a rule, if 

promulgated, would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

FRA has not determined whether this 

proposed rule would have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, and has 

therefore prepared this IRFA. FRA seeks 

comment from small entities on the 

economic impacts of this proposed rule. 

1. Reasons for Considering Agency 

Action 

FRA is initiating this rulemaking to 

codify two types of waivers that entities 

have submitted for relief from the 

Reflectorization Standards (or part 224). 

First, entities that operate rail freight 

rolling stock in THEERP operations 

have petitioned for exclusion from the 

Reflectorization Standards. Generally, 

FRA has found these operations do not 

operate their equipment under low-light 

conditions (i.e., at night) over highwayrail grade crossings. Therefore, these 

operations pose a low safety risk in 

terms of accidents/incidents preventable 

by retroreflective sheeting. By codifying 

waivers for equipment used in THEERP 

operations, FRA would provide relief 

from unnecessary paperwork burdens 

for these entities because they would no 

longer need to file these waivers. 

Second, the NPRM codifies a waiver 

granted to AAR to use an alternative 

method, specifically the comparator 

panel, to determine when to replace 

retroreflective sheeting. The existing 

Reflectorization Standards require 

replacement of retroreflective sheeting 

after 10 years of service, based on the 

best information available at the time 

the Reflectorization Standards were 

promulgated. Through its pilot program 

to test the comparator panel method, 

AAR has demonstrated that 

retroreflective sheeting can often 

perform effectively beyond 10 years. 

Using the comparator panel method 

allows retroreflective sheeting to be 

replaced as needed, resulting reduced 

costs and environmental waste. The 

comparator panel method may also 

result in replacing degraded or 

otherwise substandard sheeting sooner 

than it would have been under the 10- 

year replacement cycle, thus potentially 

increasing overall train visibility for 

motor vehicle drivers—and improving 

public safety. The proposed rule 

recognizes this more efficient method 

for evaluating retroreflective sheeting 

and makes it available to all entities 

operating freight rolling stock. In 

addition, the NPRM retains the option 

for entities to use the 10-year 

replacement cycle for entities that may 

find that method less burdensome for 

their particular operation. The proposed 

rule also removes outdated 

implementation schedules for 

retroreflective sheeting to improve 

regulatory clarity. 

2. A Succinct Statement of the 

Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the 

Proposed Rule 

The objective of this proposed rule is 

to enhance safety, promote innovation, 

and reduce the unnecessary paperwork 

burdens on the railroad industry. The 

provision to codify waivers for rail 

freight rolling stock used in THEERP 

operations would reduce paperwork 

costs for these operations. Except for 

larger railroads that operate older 

equipment as private business cars and 

for special events, most of the entities 

that operate rail cars used in THEERP 

operations are small entities. These 

small entities would benefit 

economically from the provision to 

codify THEERP-related waivers. The 

second provision to codify the 

alternative method (comparator panel) 

to determine when to replace 

retroreflective sheeting would reduce 

compliance costs for most of the 

railroad industry. ASLRRA indicated to 

FRA that most of the small railroads are 

using the comparator panel method; 

FRA estimates 85 percent of small 

entities are using the comparator panel, 

and 15 percent are using the 10-year 

replacement cycle. FRA has kept the 10- 

year replacement cycle as an alternative 

compliance method for that share of 

small entities that wish to use it. These 

small entities may have operations for 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
43484 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

53 ‘‘Size Eligibility Provisions and Standards,’’ 13 

CFR part 121, subpart A. 

54 68 FR 24891 (May 9, 2003) (codified at 

appendix C to 49 CFR part 209). 55The Class III railroad revenue threshold is 

$40.4 million or less, for 2020. (The Class II railroad 

threshold is between $40.4 million and $900 

million, and the Class I railroad threshold is $900 

million or more.) See Surface Transportation Board 

(STB), Data Issued in Regulatory Proceedings. 

Revenue Deflators. Available: https://www.stb.gov/ 

reports-data/economic-data/. See also STB 

Decision, Docket No. EP 748, Indexing the Annual 

Operating Revenues of Railroads, Decided June 10, 

2020. https://prod.stb.gov/reports-data/economicdata/railroad-revenue-deflator-factors/. 

56North American Industry Classification System 

(NAICS) Code 326113 signifies the Unlaminated 

Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) 

Manufacturing firms that would be affected by this 

proposal. Per SBA, any firm under NAICS code 

326113 that employs more than 750 employees 

cannot qualify as a small business. U.S. Small 

Business Administration, Table of Small Business 

Size Standards Matched to North American 

Industry Classification Codes (Jan. 2019). Available: 

https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-sizestandards. 

57Under the NPRM, railroads that operate 

equipment used in THEERP operations would save 

the cost of evaluating and applying retroreflective 

sheeting to their rail cars too, but since FRA has 

historically approved the majority of these waivers, 

the analysis accounts primarily for the savings from 

not having to file waivers. 

58Calculation: NPRM cost = $9,270,752/1,658,334 

avg. cars per year = $5.59 per car. Baseline cost = 

$10,558,758/1,658,334 = $6.37. Savings = 

$6.37¥$5.59 = $0.78 (annualized, 7%). The 

annualized costs were estimated using an 

which using the comparator panel may 

be burdensome, such as operating 

equipment that may not be regularly 

interchanged, and incurring the costs for 

purchasing and using the panel. Some 

small entities may also find it less 

burdensome and prefer the regulatory 

simplicity of following a predetermined 

replacement schedule for retroreflective 

sheeting. For entities using the 10-year 

replacement option, the cost to comply 

would remain the same as it is before 

the proposed rule. For the entities using 

the alternative replacement option, FRA 

estimates the costs to comply would 

decrease, while enhancing safety. 

The Secretary of Transportation has 

broad statutory authority to ‘‘prescribe 

regulations and issue orders for every 

area of railroad safety’’ under 49 U.S.C. 

20103, including reflectorization of rail 

freight rolling stock regulated in part 

224. FRA’s review and codification of 

existing waivers issued under 49 U.S.C. 

20103 is also responsive to section 

22411 of the Infrastructure Investment 

and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117–58). 

3. A Description of and, Where Feasible, 

an Estimate of the Number of Small 

Entities to Which the Proposed Rule 

Would Apply 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

requires a review of proposed and final 

rules to assess their impact on small 

entities, unless the Secretary certifies 

that the rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

‘‘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 

includes a for-profit ‘‘line-haul railroad’’ 

that has fewer than 1,500 employees 

and a ‘‘short line railroad’’ with fewer 

than 500 employees.53

Federal agencies may adopt their own 

size standards for small entities in 

consultation with SBA and in 

conjunction with public comment. 

Under that authority, FRA has 

published a final statement of agency 

policy that formally establishes ‘‘small 

entities’’ or ‘‘small businesses’’ as 

railroads, contractors, and hazardous 

materials shippers that meet the revenue 

requirements of a Class III railroad as set 

forth in 49 CFR part 1201, General 

Instruction 1–1, which is $20 million or 

less in inflation-adjusted annual 

revenues; and commuter railroads or 

small governmental jurisdictions that 

serve populations of 50,000 or less.54

The $20 million limit is based on the 

Surface Transportation Board’s revenue 

threshold for a Class III railroad carrier. 

Railroad revenue is adjusted for 

inflation by applying a revenue deflator 

formula in accordance with 49 CFR part 

1201, General Instruction 1–1. The 

current threshold is $40.4 million.55

FRA is using this definition for the 

proposed rule. 

Based on railroads that report to FRA 

under part 225 (Railroad Accidents/ 

Incidents), FRA estimates the universe 

of small railroads consists of 744 Class 

III railroads. The NPRM’s provision 

codifying waivers related to rail cars 

used in THEERP operations affects 

primarily the tourist railroads. FRA 

estimates there are 123 tourist railroads 

that are Class III railroads to which the 

NPRM would apply. Although some of 

these tourist railroads may have been 

excepted before this rulemaking because 

they are not on the general railroad 

system of transportation, and are 

excepted under existing § 224.3, it may 

have been unclear to stakeholders 

which railroads were exempt. For the 

provision codifying the alternative 

method, FRA estimates 85 percent of the 

Class III universe that chooses to use the 

comparator panel to evaluate sheeting 

will be affected, or about 632 small 

railroads. 

In addition, FRA knows of one 

manufacturer of comparator panels, 

specifically Avery Dennison Corp. 

Avery Dennison employs more than 750 

persons, the SBA 56 benchmark for large 

businesses. There are other 

manufacturers of retroreflective 

sheeting; FRA is aware of ORAFOL 

Americas, Inc, a subsidiary of the 

ORAFOL Group, that has purchased 

Reflexite Corp., and the 3M Co. Both 

manufacturers currently do not make 

comparator panels and are large 

businesses. 

4. A Description of the Projected 

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 

Compliance Requirements of the Rule, 

Including an Estimate of the Class of 

Small Entities That Will Be Subject to 

the Requirements and the Type of 

Professional Skill Necessary for 

Preparation of the Report or Record 

The NPRM would provide relief for 

the small entities that operate rail 

freight rolling stock used in THEERP 

operations by excluding these rail cars 

from the Reflectorization Standards in 

part 224. In the absence of the NPRM, 

the affected railroads would continue to 

submit waivers under part 224. As 

explained in the regulatory analysis 

above, FRA expects 30 new waiver 

submittals, 15 extensions of these 

waivers, and 6 extensions of existing 

THEERP associated waivers over the 20- 

year period of analysis. FRA estimated 

each new waiver costs $3,097.50, each 

waiver extension costs $619.50, and 

requires 40 hours of labor and 8 hours 

of labor respectively. FRA accounted for 

the labor time using the burdened STB 

wage rate for Professional and 

Administrative employees of $77.44 per 

hour. In annualized terms using a 7 

percent discount rate, the NPRM results 

in estimated paperwork reduction 

benefits of $5,654 per year. When 

divided by the class of 123 tourist 

railroads, each tourist railroad would 

save $45.79 per year.57

For the provision of the NPRM 

allowing use of an alternative method to 

evaluate and replace retroreflective 

sheeting, the compliance requirements 

for the small entities are the same as for 

all entities accounted for in the 

regulatory analysis above. This section 

generally uses annualized costs using a 

7 percent discount rate to express the 

compliance costs for small entities. The 

annualized cost for the substantive 

change in the NPRM of using a 

comparator panel was estimated at 

$5.59 per car, in comparison to a 

baseline 10-year replacement cost of 

$6.37 per car, a savings of about $1.00 

per car.58 The other significant cost 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43485 

undiscounted NPRM cost of $16.21 per car and an 

undiscounted baseline cost of $68.21 per car, for a 

difference of $50.00 per car. 

59 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

60Throughout the tables in this document, the 

dollar equivalent cost is derived from the 2020 

Surface Transportation Board’s Full Year Wage A&B 

data series using the appropriate employee group 

hourly wage rate that includes 75-percent overhead 

charges. 

factor of transporting cars that may not 

be regularly interchanged for replacing 

retroreflective sheeting was estimated at 

$2.43 per car, or one-half the baseline 

cost. The cost for visual inspection and 

replacement under § 224.109, a 

requirement that does not change under 

the NPRM and so is ‘‘a wash,’’ is $5.08 

per car. The costs for purchasing and 

recalibrating the comparator panel are 

negligible when divided by the many 

cars in the fleet. The cost for the 

comparator panel is also mitigated by its 

widespread use; FRA estimates 85 

percent of the small entities are using 

the comparator panel method. (In 

undiscounted terms, the cost of the 

comparator panel is $190 per panel and 

$80 for recalibration every 2 years.) For 

all railroads, training employees to use 

the comparator panel was estimated as 

a marginal addition to the training 

employees already receive for brake 

tests and locomotive inspections. FRA 

estimated the training time as the actual 

time to use the comparator panel, an 

addition of about 3 minutes per 

employee. For small entities, the cost to 

train employees may be higher if they 

cannot incorporate training to use the 

comparator panel as part of existing 

training. 

In annualized terms at 7 percent, the 

estimated total compliance costs under 

the NPRM are $13.15 per car, compared 

to baseline costs (i.e., without the 

NPRM) of $16.30 per car, a savings of 

$3.15 per car. FRA estimated Class III 

railroads own 54,766 cars on average 

over the years 2016 through 2020. Thus, 

the estimated benefits for the small 

entities is $172,760. When divided by 

the 632 railroads that would use the 

comparator panel method, each railroad 

would save $273 per year (inclusive of 

waiver savings). These costs were 

estimated on a per-car basis. The 

benefits per small entity depends on the 

number of cars it operates. 

5. Identification, to the Extent 

Practicable, of All Relevant Federal 

Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or 

Conflict With the Proposed Rule 

FRA is not aware of any Federal rule 

that duplicates, overlaps with, or 

conflicts with the proposed rule. 

6. A Description of Significant 

Alternatives to the Rule 

For railroads that find using the 

comparator panel burdensome for their 

operations and equipment, the NPRM 

permits the continued use of the 10-year 

replacement cycle. FRA retained the 10- 

year replacement cycle as an alternative 

compliance method specifically to 

reduce the potential economic impact 

on small entities (and for other entities 

that may have captive cars, i.e., cars that 

are not regularly interchanged). The 

estimated 15 percent of small entities 

that continue to use the 10-year 

replacement cycle will see no change in 

their compliance costs from the 

regulation existing before the NPRM. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

FRA is submitting the information 

collection requirements in this proposed 

rule to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.59The 

sections that contain the new or revised 

information collection requirements and 

the estimated time to fulfill each 

requirement are as follows: 

CFR section Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average 

time per 

response 

Total 

annual 

burden 

(hours) 

Total cost 

equivalent in 

U.S. dollar 

(A) (B) (C = A * B) (D = C * 

wage rates) 60

224.7—Waivers (Revised requirement due to proposed revision under § 224.3).722 railroads 

and freight 

car owners.

1 petition ......... 8 hours ................. 8 $619.52 

224.15(b)—Special approval procedures—Petitions for special 

approval of alternative standard.

2 manufacturers.1 petition ......... 40 hours ............... 40 $3,097.60 

—(d) Public comment on special approval procedures/petitions.Manufacturers, 

railroads, or 

general public.

3 comments on 

special petition.

1 hour ................... 3 $232.32 

—(d)(3) Hearing on the petition in accordance with the 

procedures provided in § 211.25.

FRA does not believe that it will not need any additional information to consider any submitted petitions under the above requirement. Consequently, there is no burden associated with this provision. 

—(e) Disposition of petitions ................................................ Exempted from PRA under 5 CFR 1320.4(2). 

224.101—General requirements ................................................. The burden for this requirement is covered under § 224.15. 

224.103(d)—Characteristics retroreflective sheeting—Certification.There would be no burden involved for new cars. Additionally, the cost for stamping, etching, molding, printing is included as part of the manufacturing process and consequently there is no burden 

associated. 

224.103(e)—Characteristics retroreflective sheeting—Alternative standards.The burden for this requirement is covered under § 224.15. 

224.109(a)—Inspection and replacement of missing, damaged, 

or obscured retroreflective sheeting—Railroad freight cars— 

Railroads notification to person responsible for reporting 

mark after visual inspection for presence and condition when 

freight car on either side has less than 80% reflective sheeting of the damaged, obscured, or missing sheeting (revised 

text, section heading).

AAR/400 car 

shops.

33,510.22 notifications of defect and restriction.5 minutes .............. 2,792.52 $167,244.02 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
43486 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

61Totals may not add due to rounding. 62 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999). 

CFR section Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average 

time per 

response 

Total 

annual 

burden 

(hours) 

Total cost 

equivalent in 

U.S. dollar 

(A) (B) (C = A * B) (D = C * 

wage rates) 60

—(b) Locomotive record of freight retroreflective sheeting 

defects found after inspection kept in locomotive cab or 

in railroad accessible electronic database that FRA can 

access upon request.

722 railroads 

and freight 

car owners.

2,459.70 

records of 

defect and 

restriction.

5 minutes .............. 204.98 $12,276.25 

224.111(c)—Evaluation and replacement of 10-year-old or 

underperforming retroreflective sheeting—Performancebased replacement.

The burden for this requirement is covered under 49 CFR 232.305 (2130–0008), or a locomotive receives an annual inspection required by 49 CFR 229.27 (OMB Control Number 2130–0004). 

224.111(c)(1)(iv)—Evaluation and replacement—Labeling ........ The cost of labeling is included as part of the manufacturing process and consequently there is no 

burden associated. 

Total 61 .................................................................................. 722 railroads 

and 400 car 

shops.

35,975 responses.N/A ....................... 3,049 $183,470 

All estimates include the time for 

reviewing instructions; searching 

existing data sources; gathering or 

maintaining the needed data; and 

reviewing the information. Pursuant to 

44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits 

comments concerning: Whether these 

information collection requirements are 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of FRA, including whether 

the information has practical utility; the 

accuracy of FRA’s estimates of the 

burden of the information collection 

requirements; the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and whether the burden of 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology, may be minimized. For 

information or a copy of the paperwork 

package submitted to OMB, contact Ms. 

Hodan Wells, Information Collection 

Clearance Officer, at 202–493–0440. 

Organizations and individuals desiring 

to submit comments on the collection of 

information requirements should direct 

them via email to Ms. Wells at 

Hodan.Wells@dot.gov. 

OMB is required to decide concerning 

the collection of information 

requirements contained in this 

rulemaking between 30 and 60 days 

after publication of this document in the 

Federal Register. Therefore, a comment 

to OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it within 30 days 

of publication. FRA is not authorized to 

impose a penalty on persons for 

violating information collection 

requirements that do not display a 

current OMB control number, if 

required. FRA intends to obtain current 

OMB control numbers for any new 

information collection requirements 

resulting from this rulemaking action 

prior to the effective date of the final 

rule. The OMB control number, when 

assigned, will be announced by separate 

notice in the Federal Register. 

D. Federalism Implications 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism,62

requires FRA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ are defined in 

the Executive order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, the agency may 

not issue a regulation with federalism 

implications that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

Government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments or the agency consults 

with State and local government 

officials early in the process of 

developing the regulation. Where a 

regulation has federalism implications 

and preempts State law, the agency 

seeks to consult with State and local 

officials in the process of developing the 

regulation. 

FRA has analyzed this proposed rule 

in accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132. FRA has determined that this 

proposed rule has no federalism 

implications, other than the possible 

preemption of State laws under 49 

U.S.C. 20106. Therefore, the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of Executive Order 13132 do not apply, 

and preparation of a federalism 

summary impact statement for the 

proposed rule is not required. 

E. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

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. This proposed rule is 

not expected to affect trade 

opportunities for U.S. firms doing 

business overseas or for foreign firms 

doing business in the United States. 

F. Environmental Impact 

FRA has evaluated this proposed rule 

consistent with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council of 

Environmental Quality’s NEPA 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

parts 1500–1508, and FRA’s NEPA 

implementing regulations at 23 CFR part 

771 and determined that it is 

categorically excluded from 

environmental review and therefore 

does not require the preparation of an 

environmental assessment (EA) or 

environmental impact statement (EIS). 

Categorical exclusions (CEs) are actions 

identified in an agency’s NEPA 

implementing regulations that do not 

normally have a significant impact on 

the environment and therefore do not 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43487 

63 40 CFR 1508.4. 64 23 CFR 771.116(b). 65See 16 U.S.C. 470. 66See Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 

as amended (Pub. L. 89–670, 80 Stat. 931); 49 U.S.C. 

303. 

67Public Law 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531. 

68 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). 

require either an EA or EIS.63

Specifically, FRA has determined that 

this proposed rule is categorically 

excluded from detailed environmental 

review pursuant to 23 CFR 

771.116(c)(15), ‘‘[p]romulgation of rules, 

the issuance of policy statements, the 

waiver or modification of existing 

regulatory requirements, or 

discretionary approvals that do not 

result in significantly increased 

emissions of air or water pollutants or 

noise.’’ 

The main purpose of this rulemaking 

is to revise FRA’s Reflectorization 

Standards to reduce unnecessary costs 

and provide regulatory flexibility while 

maintaining safety. This rulemaking 

would not directly or indirectly impact 

any environmental resources and would 

not result in significantly increased 

emissions of air or water pollutants or 

noise. In analyzing the applicability of 

a CE, FRA must also consider whether 

unusual circumstances are present that 

would warrant a more detailed 

environmental review.64 FRA has 

concluded that no such unusual 

circumstances exist with respect to this 

proposed rule and it meets the 

requirements for categorical exclusion 

under 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). 

Pursuant to Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act and 

its implementing regulations, FRA has 

determined this undertaking has no 

potential to affect historic properties.65

FRA has also determined that this 

rulemaking does not approve a project 

resulting in a use of a resource protected 

by Section 4(f).66

G. Executive Order 12898 

(Environmental Justice) 

Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations’’ require DOT 

agencies to achieve environmental 

justice as part of their mission by 

identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects, including 

interrelated social and economic effects, 

of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and 

low-income populations. The DOT 

order instructs DOT agencies to address 

compliance with Executive Order 12898 

and requirements within the DOT order 

in rulemaking activities, as appropriate, 

and also requires consideration of the 

benefits of transportation programs, 

policies, and other activities where 

minority populations and low-income 

populations benefit, at a minimum, to 

the same level as the general population 

as a whole when determining impacts 

on minority and low-income 

populations. FRA has evaluated this 

proposed rule under Executive Order 

12898 and the DOT order and has 

determined it would not cause 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health and environmental effects 

on minority populations or low-income 

populations. 

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Under section 201 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995,67 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 promulgation of any rule that 

includes any Federal mandate that may 

result in the expenditure by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 

or more (adjusted annually for inflation) 

in any 1 year, and before promulgating 

any final rule for which a general notice 

of proposed rulemaking was published, 

the agency shall prepare a written 

statement’’ detailing the effect on State, 

local, and tribal governments and the 

private sector. This proposed rule 

would not result in the expenditure, in 

the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more 

(as adjusted annually for inflation) in 

any one year, and thus preparation of 

such a statement is not required. 

I. Energy Impact 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ requires Federal 

agencies to prepare a Statement of 

Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant 

energy action.’’ 68 FRA evaluated this 

proposed rule under Executive Order 

13211 and determined that this 

regulatory action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ within the meaning of 

Executive Order 13211. 

J. Privacy Act Statement 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), 

DOT solicits comments from the public 

to better inform its rulemaking process. 

DOT posts these comments, without 

edit, to www.regulations.gov, as 

described in the system of records 

notice, DOT/ALL–14 FDMS, accessible 

through www.dot.gov/privacy. To 

facilitate comment tracking and 

response, we encourage commenters to 

provide their name, or the name of their 

organization; however, submission of 

names is completely optional. Whether 

or not commenters identify themselves, 

all timely comments will be fully 

considered. If you wish to provide 

comments containing proprietary or 

confidential information, please contact 

the agency for alternate submission 

instructions. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 224 

Penalties, Railroad safety, 

Reflectorization standards. 

The Proposed Rule 

For the reasons stated above, FRA 

proposes to amend part 224 of chapter 

II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal 

Regulations, as follows: 

PART 224—REFLECTORIZATION OF 

RAIL FREIGHT ROLLING STOCK 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 224 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20148 

and 21301; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; and 49 CFR 

1.89. 

■ 2. Amend § 224.3 by revising 

paragraphs (c) and (d) and adding 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 224.3 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(c) Locomotives and passenger cars 

used exclusively in passenger service; 

(d) Freight rolling stock that is subject 

to a reflectorization requirement 

promulgated by another Federal agency; 

or 

(e) Freight rolling stock used for only 

for tourist, historic, excursion, 

educational, recreational, or private 

purposes, except for incidental freight 

service. 

§ 224.107 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 3. Remove and reserve § 224.107. 

■ 4. Revise § 224.109 to read as follows: 

§ 224.109 Inspection and replacement of 

missing, damaged, or obscured 

retroreflective sheeting. 

(a) Railroad freight cars. 

Retroreflective sheeting on railroad 

freight cars subject to this part must be 

visually inspected for presence and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
43488 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

condition whenever a car undergoes a 

single car air brake test required under 

49 CFR 232.305. If at the time of 

inspection less than 80 percent of the 

amount of sheeting required under 

§ 224.105 on either side of a car is 

present, not damaged, and not obscured, 

the inspecting railroad or contractor 

shall promptly notify the person 

responsible for the reporting mark, as 

indicated in the Universal Machine 

Language Equipment Register, of the 

damaged, obscured, or missing sheeting 

(unless the inspecting railroad or 

contractor is the person responsible for 

the reporting mark). The inspecting 

railroad or contractor shall retain a 

written or electronic copy of each such 

notification made for at least two years 

from the date of the notice and shall 

make these records available for 

inspection and copying by the FRA 

upon request. Any person notified of a 

defect under this section shall have nine 

months (270 calendar days) from the 

date of notification to repair or replace 

the damaged, obscured, or missing 

sheeting. Where the inspecting railroad 

or contractor is the person responsible 

for the reporting mark, the person shall 

have nine months (270 calendar days) 

from the date of the inspection to repair 

or replace the damaged, obscured, or 

missing sheeting. 

(b) Locomotives. Retroreflective 

sheeting must be visually inspected for 

presence and condition when the 

locomotive receives the annual 

inspection required under 49 CFR 

229.27. If at the time of inspection, less 

than 80 percent of the amount of 

sheeting required under § 224.105 on 

either side of a locomotive is present, 

not damaged, and not obscured, the 

damaged, obscured, or missing sheeting 

must be repaired or replaced within 

nine months (270 calendar days) from 

the date of inspection, provided a record 

of the defect is maintained in the 

locomotive cab or in a secure and 

accessible electronic database to which 

FRA is provided access on request. 

■ 5. Revise § 224.111 to read as follows: 

§ 224.111 Evaluation and replacement of 

10-year old or underperforming 

retroreflective sheeting. 

(a) Replacement process. 

Retroreflective sheeting required by this 

part shall comply with the replacement 

process in either paragraph (b) or (c) of 

this section. 

(b) 10-year replacement cycle. 

Regardless of condition, retroreflective 

sheeting required by this part shall be 

replaced with new, undegraded, 

sheeting no later than 10 years after the 

initial installation date. At the time of 

replacement, it is not necessary to 

remove the previously installed sheeting 

unless it interferes with the placement 

of the replacement sheeting, as required 

by § 224.106, but the previously 

installed sheeting shall not be 

considered in calculating the required 

minimum area of retroreflective material 

required as shown in Table 2 to this 

subpart. 

(c) Replacement based on 

retroreflective comparator panel. Except 

as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this 

section, retroreflective sheeting shall be 

evaluated using a properly calibrated 

comparator panel, manufactured to the 

specifications outlined under paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section, whenever a car 

undergoes a single car air brake test 

required by 49 CFR 232.305, or a 

locomotive receives an annual 

inspection required by 49 CFR 229.27. 

(1) Retroreflective comparator panel 

specifications—(i) Retroreflectivity. 

Retroreflective comparator panels shall 

have the minimum (and maximum, if 

applicable) retroreflectivity values as 

outlined in Table 1 to paragraph 

(c)(1)(iv) of this section. 

(ii) Color. Retroreflective comparator 

panels shall be yellow or white as 

outlined in § 224.103(b). 

(iii) Construction. Retroreflective 

comparator panels shall be 4 inches 

wide by 4 inches high, be constructed 

with glass-beaded material or other 

material that displays uniform 

appearance when rotated and viewed 

with a light source, and have a magnetic 

backing so that the panel can be 

attached to rail freight rolling stock. 

(iv) Labeling. Retroreflective 

comparator panels shall have a 

waterproof and dust-proof label affixed 

to the backing. The label shall contain: 

the phrase ‘‘Retroreflective Comparator 

Panel—Yellow’’ or ‘‘Retroreflective 

Comparator Panel—White;’’ and the 

name of the manufacturer, the part, 

model, or serial number, the date the 

panel was manufactured, the target 

retroreflectivity level to which the panel 

was manufactured (measured in cd/lx/ 

m2), and a space provided for the 

certified recalibration date. 

Retroreflective comparator panels shall 

be recalibrated at least every two years 

and the date of a panel’s most recent 

recalibration must appear in the space 

provided on the label. 

(2) Retroreflective comparator panel 

evaluation process and criteria. Each 

retroreflective sheeting on rail freight 

rolling stock shall be evaluated on its 

performance through use of a properly 

calibrated comparator panel. The 

evaluation procedure shall consist of the 

following: 

(i) Retroreflective sheeting shall be 

visually evaluated with the use of a light 

source. The light source must be of 

sufficient intensity to illuminate and 

overcome ambient lighting conditions. 

A brighter light source (LED) is 

recommended in daylight conditions. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP21JY22.034</GPH>

Table 1 to§ 224.lll(c)(l)(iv)- Retroreflective Comparator Panel Requirements 

Color 

White 

Yellow 

Retroreflective Comparator Panel Requirements 

Required Retroreflectivity (cdAx/m2) Required Retroreflectivity (cdAx/m2) 

at -4° entrnace and of 0.2° observation at 30° entmace and of 0.5° observation 

angles angles 

Minimum Maximum Minimum 

250 285 60 

150 170 35 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43489 

(ii) Retroreflective comparator panels 

shall conform to the requirements 

outlined in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section, and the panel’s color shall 

match the color of the installed sheeting 

being evaluated. 

(iii) The comparator panel shall be 

placed directly adjacent to, or 

overlapping, the retroreflective sheeting 

being evaluated. The retroreflective 

sheeting shall also be cleaned, as 

necessary, before the evaluation begins. 

(iv) Retroreflective sheeting and the 

comparator panel shall be evaluated 

from a position perpendicular to the 

installed sheeting, preferably from a 

distance of 15 feet from the installed 

sheeting and the comparator panel. In 

the event conducting the evaluation 

from 15 feet away is not practicable, the 

evaluation may be conducted from a 

distance of between 10 and 20 feet. 

(v) The light source shall be 

positioned adjacent to the inspector’s 

eye (left or right) and directed at the 

sheeting and comparator panel, and a 

comparison of the reflected light 

intensity of the entire installed sheeting 

to that of the comparator panel shall be 

made. The installed sheeting shall pass 

or fail based on the following criteria: 

(A) If the perceived reflected light 

intensity of the entire installed sheeting 

appears brighter than that of the 

comparator panel, the installed sheeting 

passes the evaluation. 

(B) If the perceived reflected light 

intensity of the entire installed sheeting 

does not appear brighter than that of the 

comparator panel, or if it cannot be 

discerned if one is brighter than the 

other, the sheeting fails the evaluation 

and shall be replaced prior to the 

equipment returning to service. 

(C) Installed sheeting that is damaged, 

obscured, or missing, cannot be 

evaluated with the comparator panel 

and shall be replaced prior to the 

equipment returning to service. 

(3) Handheld retroreflectometers. A 

properly calibrated handheld 

retroreflectometer may be used in lieu of 

a comparator panel, subject to the 

following conditions: 

(i) The handheld retroreflectometer 

shall be an annular device. A single 

measurement on a strip of sheeting shall 

suffice with an annular device, provided 

that the sheeting is not damaged, 

obscured, or missing. 

(ii) The handheld device shall be 

placed directly against the reflective 

sheeting, and the measurement shall be 

made based on the device 

manufacturer’s recommendation. 

(iii) The minimum allowable 

retroreflective value is 150 cd/lx/m2 for 

yellow sheeting and 250 cd/lx/m2 for 

white sheeting, when measured at the 

¥4° entrance angle and 0.2° observation 

angle configuration. Sheeting that does 

not meet these minimum allowable 

retroreflectivity values shall be replaced 

prior to the equipment returning to 

service. 

Issued in Washington, DC. 

Amitabha Bose, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–15192 Filed 7–20–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2022–0100; Cost 

code FF06E00000, Fund 223, WBS 

FXES11130600000] 

RIN 1018–BG79 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Establishment of a 

Nonessential Experimental Population 

of the Gray Wolf in the State of 

Colorado; Environmental Impact 

Statement 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notification of intent, 

announcement of public meetings, and 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), intend to 

prepare an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to 

evaluate the potential environmental 

impacts of issuing a proposed rule 

requested by the State of Colorado for its 

reintroduction and management of the 

gray wolf (Canis lupus). As part of the 

reintroduction and management 

planning process, the State has 

requested that the Service designate an 

experimental population under section 

10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973. We are considering promulgating 

a section 10(j) rule to address 

components of the gray wolf restoration 

and management plan being developed 

by the State of Colorado. The proposed 

rule would set forth regulations to 

manage reintroduced gray wolves in 

Colorado and potentially adjoining 

States to reduce potential impacts to 

stakeholders while ensuring 

reintroduction and management of 

wolves is consistent with Federal 

regulations. We invite input from other 

Federal and State agencies, Tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, privatesector businesses, and members of the 

public on the scope of the EIS, 

alternatives to our proposed approaches 

for assisting in the reintroduction and 

management of the gray wolf in 

Colorado, and the pertinent issues that 

we should address in the EIS. 

DATES: 

Comment submission: To ensure 

consideration of written comments, they 

must be received on or before August 

22, 2022. Comments submitted online at 

https://www.regulations.gov (see 

ADDRESSES) must be received by 11:59 

p.m. eastern time on the closing date. 

Public meetings: We will hold public 

scoping open houses on August 2, 3, 

and 4, 2022. In addition, we will present 

a public webinar. Additional 

information regarding these scoping 

sessions, including the times, will be 

available on our website at https://

www.fws.gov/office/colorado-ecologicalservices-field-office. Persons wishing to 

participate in the public scoping 

meetings who need special 

accommodations should contact Nicole 

Alt at (303) 236–4773 or Colorado_wolf_

10j@fws.gov by July 27, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: 

Comment submission: You may 

submit written comments by one of the 

following methods. Please do not 

submit comments by both methods. 

• Online: https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments to 

Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2022–0100. 

• U.S. mail: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R6–ES–2022– 

0100; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls 

Church, VA 22041–3803. 

Please note in your submission that 

your comments are in regard to the 

Service’s designation of an experimental 

population of gray wolves in Colorado 

and/or issuance of ESA section 10 

permits. We will post all information 

received on https://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see 

Availability of Comments below for 

more information). 

Public meetings: We will hold public 

scoping open houses on August 2, 3, 

and 4 in the communities of Craig, 

Silverthorne, and Gunnison, Colorado. 

Additional information regarding these 

scoping sessions, including the venues, 

will be available on our website at 

https://www.fws.gov/office/coloradoecological-services-field-office. 

Comment forms will be provided for 

written comments. 

In addition, we will present a public 

webinar. Information regarding 

registration for the webinar can be 

found at https://www.fws.gov/office/

colorado-ecological-services-field-office. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1