[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 11 (Friday, January 16, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2647-2651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1082]
[[Page 2647]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Part 232
[FRA Docket No. PB-9, Notice No. 10]
RIN 2130-AB22
Two-Way End-of-Train Telemetry Devices and Certain Passenger
Train Operations
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FRA proposes to revise the regulations regarding the use and
design of two-way end-of-train telemetry devices (two-way EOTs) to
specifically address certain passenger train operations where multiple
units of freight-type equipment, material handling cars, or express
cars are part of a passenger train's consist. Trains of this nature are
currently being operated by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak), and swift action is necessary to clarify and address the
applicability of the two-way EOT requirements to these types of
operations.
DATES: Written comments regarding this proposal must be filed no later
than February 2, 1998. Comments received after that date will be
considered to the extent possible without incurring additional expense
or delay.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should identify the docket number and the
notice number and must be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Clerk,
Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Stop 10,
Washington, D.C. 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Wilson, Motive Power and
Equipment Division, Office of Safety, RRS-14, FRA, 400 Seventh Street,
S.W., Stop 25, Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone 202-632-3367), or
Thomas Herrmann, Trial Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, RCC-12,
FRA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Stop 10, Washington, D.C. 20590
(telephone 202-632-3178).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 2, 1997, FRA published a final rule amending the
regulations governing train and locomotive power braking systems at 49
CFR part 232 to add provisions pertaining to the use and design of two-
way end-of-train telemetry devices (two-way EOTs). See 62 FR 278. The
purpose of the revisions was to improve the safety of railroad
operations by requiring the use of two-way EOTs on a variety of freight
trains pursuant to 1992 legislation, and by establishing minimum
performance and operational standards related to the use and design of
the devices. See Pub. L. No. 102-365 (September 3, 1992); 49 U.S.C.
20141. In this document, FRA proposes to revise the regulations on two-
way EOTs to specifically address certain passenger train operations
where numerous freight-type cars, material handling cars, or express
cars are part of a train's consist. Trains of this nature are currently
being operated by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak),
and prompt action is necessary to clarify and address the applicability
of two-way EOT requirements to these types of operations.
The current regulations regarding two-way EOTs provide an exception
from the requirements for ``passenger trains with emergency brakes.''
See 49 CFR 232.23(e)(9). The language used in this exception was
extracted in total from the statutory exception contained in the
statutory provisions mandating that FRA develop regulations addressing
the use and operation of two-way EOTs or similar technology. See 49
U.S.C. 20141(c)(2). A review of the legislative history reveals that
there was no discussion by Congress as to the precise meaning of the
phrase ``passenger trains with emergency brakes.'' Consequently, FRA is
required to effectuate Congress' intent based on the precise language
used in that and the other express exceptions and based on the overall
intent of the statutory mandate. See 49 U.S.C. 20141(c)(1)-(c)(5).
Furthermore, any exception contained in a specific statutory mandate
should be narrowly construed. See Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. v. United
States, 248 F. 85 (6th Cir. 1918) cert. den., 248 U.S. 580; DRG R.R. v.
United States, 249 F. 822 (8th Cir. 1918); United States v. ATSF Ry.,
156 F.2d 457 (9th Cir. 1946).
The intent of the statutory provisions related to two-way EOTs was
to ensure that trains operating at a speed over 30 mph or in heavy
grade territory were equipped with the technology to effectuate an
emergency application of the train's brakes starting from both the
front and rear of the train. The specific exceptions contained in the
statute were aimed at trains (i) that do not operate within the express
parameters or (ii) that are equipped or operated in a fashion that
provides the ability to effectuate an emergency brake application that
commences at the rear of the train without the use of a two-way EOT.
See 49 U.S.C. 20141(c)(1)-(c)(5). Based on the intent of the statute
and based upon a consistent and narrow construction of the specific
language used by Congress in the express exceptions, FRA believes it is
clear that Congress did not intend the phrase ``passenger trains with
emergency brakes'' to constitute a blanket exception for all passenger
trains. If that was Congress' intent, it would not have added the
qualifying phrase ``with emergency brakes.'' In FRA's view, this
language limits the specific statutory exception to passenger trains
equipped with a separate emergency brake valve in each car throughout
the train and, thus, to passenger trains possessing the ability to
effectuate an emergency application of the train's brakes from the rear
of the train. Therefore, passenger trains that include
RoadRailers, auto racks, express cars, or other similar
vehicles that are designed to carry freight that are placed at the rear
of the train, that are not equipped with emergency brake valves, would
not fall within the specific statutory or regulatory exception as they
are incapable of effectuating an emergency brake application that
commences at the rear of the train. Further, FRA does not believe that
Congress envisioned freight-type equipment being hauled at the rear of
passenger trains when the specific exception was included in the
statute.
FRA believes that Congress intended to except only those trains
traditionally considered to be passenger trains, which would include
passenger trains containing baggage and mail cars as these have
consistently been considered passenger equipment with emergency brakes.
However, passenger trains which operate with numerous inaccessible
baggage or mail cars attached to the rear of the train that lack any
ability to effectuate an emergency brake application from the rear of
the train would, in FRA's view, fall outside the specific statutory and
regulatory exception for ``passenger trains with emergency brakes.''
Subsequent to the issuance of the final rule and the period
permitted for the submission of petitions for reconsideration of the
rule, Amtrak raised concerns regarding the applicability of the final
rule to some of its passenger train operations, particularly those
which recently began to operate with numerous express, material
handling cars, or RoadRailers entrained in the consist.
These concerns focused on FRA's enforcement guidance provided to its
field inspectors, which stated that the exception for ``passenger
trains with emergency brakes'' was intended to apply only to trains
traditionally considered to be passenger trains, a category that would
include passenger trains containing a limited
[[Page 2648]]
number of baggage and mail cars at the rear of the train. This guidance
was based on the reasoning provided in the preceding discussion. Amtrak
contended that FRA's interpretive guidance was an improper reading of
the statutory and regulatory exception and did not adequately consider
the superior braking capabilities of passenger equipment. Although FRA
disagrees that its guidance was improper, FRA does agree that a closer
examination of the applicability of the two-way EOT requirements to
passenger trains needed to be performed in light of the superior
braking ratios of passenger cars and the presence of emergency brake
valves on the passenger cars in mixed train consists which provide
certain safety assurances that are not present in traditional freight
operations. Consequently, FRA agrees that the mixed passenger and
``express'' service currently being operated by Amtrak is unique and
needs to be handled separately from traditional freight operations.
None of the consists proposed to be excepted raises any issue with
respect to the ability to stop on grade using the rearmost available
conductor's valve. The issue is the ability to stop within normal
signal spacing after determining that there is a blockage in the train
line. To gain a perspective on the stopping characteristics and safety
implications of the ``mixed'' passenger train operations, FRA requested
the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe) to review the
information and procedures used by Amtrak in developing various
stopping distance calculations submitted to FRA. In addition, FRA
requested that Volpe develop and analyze its own data regarding these
types of ``mixed'' passenger trains. In making their calculations, both
Volpe and Amtrak used variables of grade; train configuration; and the
number, weight, and types of cars and locomotives expected to be used
in these types of operations. Although all of the calculations were
based on worse-case scenarios (e.g., the angle cock was assumed to be
closed just behind the last car with an accessible emergency brake
valve, and only friction braking--tread or disc brakes of locomotives
and cars--was considered available to stop the train), all stops were
achieved on the specified grade used in the calculation.
In making its calculations Volpe used a MathCad program to compute
stopping distances. Volpe used the results of its calculations as a
check against the results Amtrak had produced and submitted to FRA.
Volpe concluded that Amtrak's procedures predicted longer (more
conservative) stopping distances than the approach taken by Volpe.
Amtrak's results were also compared to the requirements of the Amtrak
Communication and Signal Department, Specification S-603, Curve 8,
which is used to determine stopping distances for passenger equipment
for signal block spacing. Curve 8 values for stopping distances are
augmented by a factor of 25 percent to account for conditions which may
impair brake performance. The absolute (actual) signal block spacing on
the Northeast Corridor is actually greater than any of the stopping
distances produced by either Volpe or Amtrak in their calculations.
Therefore, stopping distances within established signal blocks should
not be a problem. The process Amtrak used was sufficiently conservative
so that predicted stopping distances were greater than would be
experienced in reality. Nevertheless, FRA has worked with Amtrak to
define further limitations adequate to ensure safety under identified
worst-case conditions, and these limitations are set forth in this
proposal.
Need for 15-Day Comment Period
As previously discussed, Amtrak currently operates a number of
trains that include numerous material handling cars, express cars, auto
racks, mail cars, and/or RoadRailer equipment. These types
of rolling equipment are either not equipped with emergency brake
valves or, if equipped with such valves, they are not accessible to any
member of the train crew. Amtrak expects that the operation of this
type of rolling equipment will continue to grow and that many of its
trains will eventually have a number of these vehicles in their
consists. As explained earlier, FRA believes that a passenger train
operated with this rolling equipment falls outside the statutory and
regulatory exception to the two-way EOT requirement for ``passenger
trains with emergency brakes,'' and thus, would be required under the
existing rules to be equipped with an operative two-way EOT or
alternative technology. However, FRA also recognizes the unique nature
of these types of ``mixed'' operations and realizes that the safety
assurances provided by the braking ratios and the presence of emergency
brake valves at various locations through much of the consist on
certain mixed passenger trains make requiring the use of a two-way EOT
unnecessary.
As will be further clarified, FRA believes that swift action must
be taken with regard to the provisions proposed in this document and
that a lengthy comment period would be impracticable, unnecessary, and
contrary to the public interest. A number of freight railroads are
currently expressing concern and apprehension over permitting these
``mixed'' passenger trains to operate over their rails in light of
FRA's above-mentioned interpretive guidance. In fact, at least one
instance has occurred in which a ``mixed'' Amtrak train was detained
for six hours by a freight railroad until a two-way EOT was applied
because the freight railroad refused to permit the train to operate
without the device. In addition, requiring Amtrak to acquire a number
of two-way EOTs and operate under the provisions of the current
regulatory scheme during a lengthy comment period would impose a
substantial and unwarranted financial and operational burden without
improving the safety of Amtrak operations. Furthermore, the proposals
contained in this document include certain restrictions on the
operation and make-up of certain passenger trains that are proposed for
exception from the two-way EOT requirements, restrictions that FRA
believes enhance the safety of those operations and that are not
currently mandated.
The current situation mandates swift action to address both safety
concerns and practical operating concerns. On the one hand, Amtrak is
continuing to take delivery of express and other equipment and to build
this line of business in order to close its operating deficit and to
support continued intercity rail passenger service in a time of
declining support from the public treasury. The public's interest in
continued rail passenger service warrants reasonable flexibility to
achieve this business objective. This development has corresponded with
the implementation of two-way EOT requirements, rapidly complicating
what appeared at the outset to be a relatively straightforward issue.
Prior to the effective date of the rule, Amtrak had implemented a two-
way EOT system on its AutoTrain, previously the only Amtrak train
operated with any significant number of unoccupied cars at the rear of
the train. Anticipating the need to equip other trains as the express
business grows, Amtrak is equipping over 100 locomotives and deploying
rear-end units at appropriate points along its lines where trains are
built. Meanwhile, Amtrak has committed to FRA to operate cars with
cables for head-end power transmission (such as mail and baggage cars)
at the front of trains where practicable given constraints on loading
and unloading, in order limit the number of cars to the rear of the
train
[[Page 2649]]
that are beyond the last car with an accessible emergency valve. As
noted above, passenger trains have historically operated with small
numbers of unoccupied cars at the rear and without difficulty from the
point of view of effective braking. However, as express service grows
and Amtrak builds trains responsive to that growth (a phenomenon that
is well underway), the danger increases that Amtrak's own internal
policies for use of available two-way EOT systems may not be honored in
the field through oversight. That is, having clear and certain Federal
requirements becomes essential to public safety. FRA recognizes that
previous interpretive guidance has been excessively narrow in relation
to the safety issues presented by mixed consists.
In conclusion, FRA believes that prompt action is necessary in
order to alleviate and avoid the concerns noted above. Consequently,
FRA is issuing this NPRM with a comment period of only 15 days in order
to quickly address the applicability of the two-way EOT requirements to
``mixed'' passenger train operations.
FRA wishes to make clear that if no substantive adverse comments
are received on this proposal within the 15-day comment period, it will
immediately issue a final rule containing the provisions of this
proposal. Any comments received during this 15-day comment period will
be fully considered prior to the issuance of a final rule. FRA intends
for any final rule issued to take effect immediately upon publication.
FRA is now soliciting comments on this proposal and will consider those
comments in determining whether there is a need to amend the proposal
at the final rule stage. It should be noted that, FRA will continue to
exercise its enforcement discretion pursuant to 49 CFR part 209,
Appendix A, and not require strict adherence to the current
requirements by certain ``mixed'' passenger train operations in order
to prevent further confusion within the industry regarding FRA's
previous interpretative guidance while ensuring the continued safety of
such operations.
Section-by-Section Analysis
FRA proposes to amend Sec. 232.23 by revising paragraphs (e) and
(g) and by adding a new paragraph (h) to specifically address passenger
train operations that include using cars that do not have readily
accessible emergency brake valves.
Paragraph (e) of Sec. 232.23 contains a listing of the trains that
are excepted from the two-way EOT requirements. FRA proposes conforming
changes to paragraphs (e)(8) and (e)(9). In paragraph (e)(9) FRA
proposes to retain the exception for passenger trains in which all of
the cars in the train are equipped with a readily accessible emergency
brake valve, as discussed in detail above.
In paragraph (e)(10) FRA proposes an exception to the requirements
regarding two-way EOTs for passenger trains that operate with a car
placed at the rear of the train that is equipped with an emergency
brake valve readily accessible to a crew member in radio communication
with the locomotive engineer of the train. FRA intends for this
proposed exception to be applicable to passenger trains containing cars
that do have a readily accessible emergency brake valve at the rear of
the train. FRA believes this proposed exception is justified as it is
virtually identical to the exception granted to freight trains with an
occupied caboose (contained in paragraph (e)(3)) since it would permit
an emergency application of brakes to be initiated from the occupied
car at the rear of the passenger train.
In paragraph (e)(11) FRA proposes to except certain passenger
trains that have cars placed at the rear of the train that do not have
readily accessible emergency brake valves. This proposed exception is
intended to recognize the safety of these types of trains if configured
and operated in accordance with the provisions of this exception. The
proposed exception contained in this subparagraph applies only to
trains of twenty-four (24) cars or fewer. Therefore, passenger trains
that have more than 24 cars in the consist and that do not fall within
the exceptions contained in subparagraphs (e)(9) or (e)(10) would be
required to be equipped with an operative two-way EOT device or
alternative technology. It should be noted that FRA intends that each
bogie used in RoadRailer operation be counted as a car for
purposes of calculating the number of cars in a passenger train
consist. Furthermore, FRA proposes that a locomotive that is not
designed to carry passengers should not be considered a car for
purposes of these calculations.
Based on data and information submitted by Amtrak and reviewed by
Volpe and based upon Volpe's independent analysis regarding passenger
train braking ratios and the response of passenger train brakes, FRA
believes that certain ``mixed'' passenger trains can be safely operated
without being required to be equipped with a two-way EOT or alternative
technology provided certain operational and train configuration
restrictions are maintained. Paragraph (e)(11)(i) proposes that if the
total number of cars in a passenger train consist is twelve (12) or
fewer, a car located no less than halfway through the consist must be
equipped with an emergency brake valve readily accessible to a crew
member. For example, in a consist containing twelve (12) cars, the
sixth (6th) car (or a car closer to the rear) in the consist must have
a readily accessible emergency brake valve; likewise, in an eleven (11)
car consist, the sixth (6th) car (or a car closer to the rear) must
have a readily accessible emergency brake valve, since all half numbers
will be rounded up. Paragraph (e)(11)(ii) proposes that if the total
number of cars in a passenger train consist is from thirteen (13) to
twenty-four (24), a car located no less than two-thirds (\2/3\) of the
way through the consist (counting from the first car in the train) must
be equipped with an emergency brake valve readily accessible to a crew
member. For example, in a twenty-one (21) car consist, the fourteenth
(14th) car (or a car closer to the rear) must have a readily accessible
emergency brake valve.
In addition to these train-configuration requirements, paragraphs
(e)(11)(iii) and (iv) contain certain proposed operating requirements
that must be followed by any passenger train operating pursuant to this
specific exception. Such trains would be required to have a train crew
member occupy the rearmost car equipped with a readily accessible
emergency brake valve and remain in constant radio communication with
the locomotive engineer whenever the train is operating over a section
of track with an average grade of two percent or higher over two
continuous miles. FRA recommends that the engineer alert the train crew
member approximately ten (10) minutes prior to descending the heavy
grade, so the crew member will be in place at the crest of the grade.
Furthermore, FRA proposes that the crew member not leave his or her
position until the locomotive engineer advises that the train has
traversed the grade. FRA believes that these proposed operational
requirements will ensure that immediate action can be taken by a member
of the train crew to effectuate an emergency brake application whenever
the train is descending a heavy grade.
FRA proposes to amend paragraph (g) to indicate that the operating
limitations that will be imposed on a passenger train required to be
equipped with a two-way EOT that experiences an en route failure of the
device will be
[[Page 2650]]
contained in paragraph (h). It should be noted that FRA intends that
the criteria contained paragraph (g) to determine when a loss of
communication between the front and rear units will be considered an en
route failure will be applicable to passenger train operations.
Paragraph (h) contains the operational limitations and restrictions
that are proposed to be placed on passenger trains that experience en
route failures of two-way EOTs. Due to the time-sensitive nature of
passenger operations, FRA believes that placing a speed restriction on
these trains would not be the most effective method of handling en
route failures of a device. Rather, FRA believes that other operating
restrictions can be imposed to ensure the safety of these trains. FRA
believes that in order to realize the benefits of a two-way EOT as
contemplated by Congress, the device must be operative when the train
descends a heavy grade. Therefore, FRA proposes that if a passenger
train is required to be equipped with an operable device, it shall not
be permitted to descend an average grade of two percent or more for two
continuous miles until an operable device is installed or an
alternative method of initiating an emergency brake application from
the rear of the train is achieved. However, FRA further proposes that
passenger trains that develop an en route failure of the two-way EOT
may continue to operate over track that is not in heavy grade territory
as long as a crew member occupies the rearmost car with a readily
accessible emergency brake valve and remains in constant radio
communication with the locomotive engineer. FRA also believes that
since the train no longer has the safety assurances provided by a two-
way EOT, the engineer must periodically test the braking
characteristics of the train by making running brake tests. If the
engineer suspects the brakes are not functioning properly, immediate
action shall be taken to bring the train to a stop until corrections
can be made. FRA also proposes that all en route failures of the
devices must be corrected either at the next location where the
necessary repairs can be made or at the next location where a required
brake test of the train is to be conducted, whichever point the train
arrives at first.
Regulatory Impact
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This proposal has been evaluated in accordance with existing
policies and procedures. Because the requirements contained in this
proposal clarify the applicability of the two-way EOT regulations to a
specific segment of the industry and generally reduce the regulatory
burden on these operators, FRA has concluded that this NPRM does not
constitute a significant rule under either Executive Order 12866 or
DOT's policies and procedures.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires a review of rules to assess their impact on small entities.
FRA certifies that this proposal does not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities. Because the requirements
contained in this proposal clarify the applicability of the two-way EOT
regulations to a specific segment of the industry and generally reduce
the regulatory burden on these operators, FRA has concluded that there
are no substantial economic impacts for small units of government,
businesses, or other organizations.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposal does not change any information collection
requirements.
Environmental Impact
FRA has evaluated this proposal in accordance with its procedures
for ensuring full consideration of the potential environmental impacts
of FRA actions, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental statutes, Executive
Orders, and DOT Order 5610.1c. It has been determined that this
proposal does not have any effect on the quality of the environment.
Federalism Implications
This proposal does not have a substantial effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national government on the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. Thus, in accordance with Executive Order 12612,
preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted.
Request for Public Comments
FRA proposes to revise part 232 regarding two-way EOTs as set forth
below. FRA is contemplating eventually moving the two-way EOT
requirements related to passenger train operations to proposed part 238
containing the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards and would
potentially seek the consultation of the working group currently
involved with finalizing those standards on the issues addressed in
this proposal. Consequently, FRA solicits comments on all aspects of
this proposal whether through written submissions, participation in the
passenger equipment working group, or both.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 232
Penalties, Railroad power brakes, Railroad safety, Two-way end-of-
train devices.
The Proposal
In consideration of the foregoing, FRA proposes to amend part 232,
title 49, Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:
PART 232--RAILROAD POWER BRAKES AND DRAWBARS
1. The authority citation for part 232 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102, 20103, 20107, 20108, 20110-20112,
20114, 20133, 20141, 20301-20304, 20701-20703, 21301, 21302, 21304,
and 21311; and 49 CFR 1.49 (c), (g), and (m).
2. Section 232.23 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)
introductory text, (e)(8), and (e)(9); adding a new sentence to the
beginning of the introductory text of paragraph (g) and adding and
reserving paragraph (g)(2); and adding new paragraphs (e)(10), (e)(11),
and (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 232.23 Operations requiring use of two-way end-of-train devices;
prohibition on purchase of nonconforming devices.
* * * * *
(e) The following types of trains are excepted from the requirement
for the use of a two-way end-of-train device:
* * * * *
(8) Trains that operate exclusively on track that is not part of
the general railroad system;
(9) Passenger trains in which all of the cars in the train are
equipped with an emergency brake valve readily accessible to a crew
member;
(10) Passenger trains that have a car at the rear of the train,
readily accessible to one or more crew members in radio contact with
the engineer, that is equipped with an emergency brake valve readily
accessible to such a crew member; and
(11) Passenger trains that have twenty-four (24) or fewer cars (not
including locomotives) in the consist and that are equipped and
operated in accordance with the following:
(i) If the total number of cars in a passenger train consist is
twelve (12) or fewer, a car located no less than halfway through the
consist (counting from the first car in the train) must be equipped
with an emergency brake valve readily accessible to a crew member;
(ii) If the total number of cars in a passenger train consist is
thirteen (13) to
[[Page 2651]]
twenty-four (24), a car located no less than two-thirds (\2/3\) of the
way through the consist (counting from the first car in the train) must
be equipped with an emergency brake valve readily accessible to a crew
member;
(iii) Prior to descending a section of track with an average grade
of two percent or greater over a distance of two continuous miles, the
engineer of the train shall communicate with the conductor, to ensure
that a member of the crew with a working two-way radio is stationed in
the car with the rearmost readily accessible emergency brake valve on
the train when the train begins its descent; and
(iv) While the train is descending a section of track with an
average grade of two percent or greater over a distance of two
continuous miles, a member of the train crew shall occupy the car that
contains the rearmost readily accessible emergency brake valve on the
train and be in constant radio communication with the locomotive
engineer. The crew member shall remain in this car until the train has
completely traversed the heavy grade.
* * * * *
(g) Except on passenger trains required to be equipped with a two-
way end-of-train device (which are provided for in paragraph (h) of
this section), en route failures of a two-way end-of-train device shall
be handled in accordance with this paragraph. * * *
* * * * *
(2) [Reserved]
(h) A passenger train required to be equipped with a two-way end-
of-train device that develops an en route failure of the device (as
explained in paragraph (g) of this section) shall be operated in
accordance with the following:
(1) The train shall not operate over a section of track with an
average grade of two percent or greater over a distance of two
continuous miles until an operable two-way end-of-train device is
installed on the train;
(2) A member of the train crew will be immediately positioned in
the car which contains the rearmost readily accessible emergency brake
valve on the train and shall be equipped with an operable two-way radio
that communicates with the locomotive engineer;
(3) The locomotive engineer shall periodically make running tests
of the train's air brakes until the failure is corrected; and
(4) Each en route failure shall be corrected at the next location
where the necessary repairs can be conducted or at the next location
where a required brake test is to be performed, whichever is reached
first.
3. Appendix A to Part 232, ``Schedule of Civil Penalties,'' is
amended by revising the heading of the entry for Sec. 232.23 and
revising the entry for Sec. 232.23(g) and adding an entry for
Sec. 232.23(h), to read as follows:
Appendix--A to Part 232--Schedule of Civil Penalties
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Willful
Section Violation violation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
* * *
232.23 Operating standards:
* * * *
* * *
(g) En route failure, freight............... 5,000 7,500
(h) En route failure, passenger............. 5,000 7,500
* * * *
* * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 12, 1998.
Jolene M. Molitoris,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-1082 Filed 1-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4901-06-P
