[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-5371]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: March 10, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Part 215
[Docket No. RSFC-7, Notice 1]
Freight Car Safety Standards; Maintenance-of-Way Equipment
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FRA is proposing in this document to amend the Freight Car
Safety Standards by making all maintenance-of-way vehicles subject to
the Standards with the exception of stenciled cars not used in revenue
service and restricted to a speed of less than 20 miles per hour. This
proposal would add to the present regulation an additional condition
which must be met before a freight car in maintenance-of-way service
can be operated without complying with the Freight Car Safety
Standards: the equipment must be operated at a speed of less than 20
mph.
DATES: Written comments must be received no later than April 11, 1994.
Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent
possible without incurring additional delay or expense.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted to the Docket Clerk,
Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, 400 Seventh
Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. Persons desiring to be notified that
their written comments have been received should submit a stamped,
self-addressed postcard with their comments. The Docket Clerk will
indicate the date on which the comments were received and will return
the postcard to the addressee. Written comments will be available for
examination during regular business hours in room 8201 of the Nassif
Building located at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phil Olekszyk, Deputy Associate
Administrator, Office of Safety, Federal Railroad Administration, 400
Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-366-4094), or
Kyle M. Mulhall, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad
Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590
(telephone: 202-366-0628).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FRA proposes to revise its Freight Car
Safety Standards to make all maintenance-of-way vehicles subject to
these Standards with the exception of any stenciled maintenance-of-way
car operated at a speed less than 20 miles per hour and not used in
revenue service.
The Freight Car Safety Standards, at 49 CFR 215.3(c)(3), excluded
maintenance-of-way equipment from the requirements of Part 215, ``if
that equipment is not used in revenue service and is stenciled in
accordance with section 215.305.''
When it revised these rules in 1979, FRA proposed that equipment
used exclusively in work train service be excluded from the requirement
of the proposed rules (44 FR 1419). The theory of this proposal was
that if a car were limited to work train service, with its slow speed
and low mileage operations, safety considerations would not necessitate
bringing the car up to the same maintenance levels needed for safe high
speed mainline revenue service cars. All other equipment would be
included.
Commenters urged that FRA not adopt the proposal. They indicated
that having to confine such equipment to work train service would
impose such stringent operational restrictions as to effectively force
railroads to replace between 200 and 3,000 cars at a cost of about
$30,000 each. It was asserted that these costs were not required from a
safety standpoint, since there were no accidents attributable to such
equipment.
FRA accepted the commenters' arguments on the theory that since
cars in work train service are not freely interchanged and each
railroad knows the condition of its own cars, an appropriate level of
operational constraint, tailored to a particular car's condition, can
be effectively imposed by individual railroads. FRA concluded that, if
such cars were excluded from revenue service and were identified by
reporting marks stenciled on the equipment, compliance with the
regulation was not necessary from a safety standpoint. Accordingly, in
adopting the revised regulation in 1979, FRA made the Freight Car
Safety Standards inapplicable to any freight car that is ``maintenance-
of-way'' equipment provided that it is not used in revenue service and
is marked to indicate its status. FRA did not specifically prohibit use
of non-complying maintenance-of-way equipment in revenue trains, only
that it be excluded from revenue service.
By proceeding in this manner there was no need to define what
constitutes maintenance-of-way equipment. In the absence of such a
regulatory definition, the railroad industry has identified as
``maintenance-of-way'' cars an extensive group of company service cars
when that equipment does not directly produce revenue for the railroad.
Typical examples of this broad variety of freight cars include flat
cars assigned to move railroad wheels, hopper cars in ballast service,
covered hoppers in locomotive sand service, tank cars in locomotive
fuel service, and box cars designated as mobile warehouses and
containing a wide variety of supplies needed by the railroad in its
daily operations. The designation of such cars as ``maintenance-of-
way'' equipment is a departure from a historical industry practice that
reserved this designation only for cars assigned to the railroad's
engineering departments. These cars were used only in limited service
to repair or maintain the track, bridge, and signal installations owned
by the railroad and were largely of unique designs tailored to perform
a specific function.
Although the Freight Car Safety Standards have not generally
applied to ``maintenance-of-way equipment,'' FRA's Safety Appliance and
Power Brake rules do apply to this equipment. Thus, the condition of
such cars has been monitored as part of FRA's overall compliance
program. In addition, during a special inspection effort in February
1983, FRA inspected 2,849 cars stenciled as ``maintenance-of-way''
cars. Two hundred twenty three (7.8%) had safety appliance violations
and 518 (18.2%) had power brake violations. In addition, of 677 cars
inspected for potential compliance with the freight car safety
standards, 224 (33%) were found with defects that would have been
violations of these standards. Effective remedial action was taken by
the individual railroads in each instance, but the need for continued
review was underscored by a significant accident that occurred on July
18, 1983 at Crystal City, Missouri.
Investigation of that accident indicated that the derailed train
was operating at a normal speed for a revenue freight train despite the
presence of 17 hopper cars in ``maintenance-of-way'' service, all of
which were in a deteriorated condition. A cracked and displaced
centerplate was present under one of these cars and is believed to have
been a major contributing cause to the accident.
During another extensive effort in 1984, FRA inspected 3,933
maintenance-of-way cars, finding fewer non-complying conditions:
Approximately 279 safety appliance violations (7%), 439 power brake
violations (11.2%), and 823 defects that would have been freight car
safety violations (20.9%) if these cars were required to comply with
the freight car standards. In 1986, a third inspection survey of 25% of
the nation's fleet of these cars revealed 700 safety appliance (7%) and
878 power brake (8.8%) violations, and 1,730 defects that would have
been freight car safety violations (17.2%).
Several salient facts emerge from FRA's monitoring effort. Although
each successive inspection has found that the percentage of cars with
safety problems has decreased, the percentage of cars found with safety
problems remains significantly higher for this group of cars than for
the national fleet. In all instances, the railroads have taken remedial
action once the non-complying conditions have been identified. However,
after repairing a defective car on a repair track, railroads often
elect to place the car back in service without correcting conditions
that are substandard according to the freight car standards. For
example, a car shopped for repair of a brake defect may be sent back
into service without attention being given to broken and missing truck
springs, despite the obvious and serious nature of that condition.
Railroads differ as to whether to impose operational constraints on
this type of equipment or limit speed or train makeup. For instance,
FRA has observed ballast cars with both broken centerplates and broken
or missing truck springs placed in a relatively high-speed revenue
train and coupled to a car containing hazardous materials. Nothing in
current FRA regulations prevents this from happening. Similarly, ample
evidence emerged that these cars are being interchanged among railroads
fairly extensively.
To identify the role that these cars may play in causing accidents,
FRA has reviewed its accident data to find accidents caused by freight
cars that were in ``maintenance-of-way'' service and to isolate those
that can be attributed to conditions that would constitute
noncompliance with the Freight Car Safety Standards. FRA has isolated
26 accidents involving maintenance-of-way cars between January 1, 1980
and July 1, 1987 in which defective components, which would otherwise
have been regulated by these standards, were the probable cause of the
accident.
These accidents resulted in property damage exceeding $1 million.
Because of data limitations regarding identification of maintenance-of-
way cars, the study could not include any maintenance-of-way cars
entering the fleet since 1984. That limitation, together with the fact
that our field inspection forces report increasing observation of such
cars used in revenue trains, leads to the conclusion that the risk is
substantial today and likely to grow in the future.
One further reason for concern relates to a recent change in
industry requirements regarding cars with friction bearings. The
Association of American Railroads (AAR) has changed its field manual of
interchange rules, effective January 1, 1994, to require that ``all
cars must be equipped with journal roller bearings and may not be
equipped with friction (plain) bearings.'' AAR Interchange Rule 88,
Item 17(b). Although this change does not specifically address MOW
equipment, the majority of these cars are equipped with friction
bearings. The AAR prohibition of interchanging cars equipped with
friction bearings will greatly reduce the the number of locations on
the railroads where personnel are capable of performing frequent
inspections of the bearing components and application of lubrication.
Reduced inspection could lead to increases in journal burn offs, hot
boxes, and derailments.
In summary, several factors call into question FRA's prior decision
not to bring company-service-type equipment under the Freight Car
Safety Standards: The increasing size of the ``maintenance-of-way'' car
fleet; carrier decisions to minimize the level of repair work being
performed on these cars rather than to voluntarily improve their
general condition; fewer operational constraints for this fleet; and an
accident history attributable to these cars. But the strongest argument
for this proposal is simple common sense. FRA has required every car
moving in a revenue service train to meet certain safety standards
because it recognizes that equipment failure on a single car can derail
an entire train. This is as true of maintenance-of-way vehicles as it
is with any other type of car. Exempting maintenance-of-way vehicles
from the freight car safety standards and allowing them to move at high
speeds in trains which often carry hazardous materials does not appear
logical in safety terms. This exemption appears to have contributed to
at least 26 accidents, and mere chance appears to be responsible for
the fact that none of these accidents produced catastrophic
consequences. Because we do not believe that public safety can continue
to be predicated on luck, FRA is proposing to remove this anomaly from
the freight car safety standards.
The Proposed Rule
FRA proposes to revise Sec. 215.3(c)(3) to exclude from the
application of the Freight Car Safety Standards freight cars assigned
to maintenance-of-way service only if that equipment is: (1) Not used
in revenue service; (2) operated at a speed of less than 20 miles per
hour; and (3) stenciled in accordance with Section 215.305. All three
of these conditions would have to be met before the car is excluded
from the application of the rules.
This proposal would add to the present regulation an additional
condition which must be met before a freight car in maintenance-of-way
service can be operated without complying with the Freight Car Safety
Standards: the equipment must be operated at a speed of less than 20
mph. Under this approach, if a railroad wants to continue its current
practice of operating a maintenance-of-way car at track speeds in
revenue trains, the railroad will either have to bring the car into
compliance with the Freight Car Safety Standards or substitute a car
that is in compliance. However, a railroad could operate a non-
complying stenciled maintenance-of-way car in a revenue train as long
as that train travelled less than 20 miles per hour.
This proposal would not prohibit stenciled, non-complying
maintenance-of-way cars from being used in revenue trains as long as
those trains operate at speeds less than 20 miles per hour. We
specifically request comments on this aspect of the proposal. Should
the permissible conditions for operating non-complying maintenance-of-
way equipment be further limited by prohibiting use in all revenue
trains as well as in revenue service? In view of the possibility that a
car being used in restricted service might derail, fouling an adjacent
track and leading to a raking collision, should all maintenance-of-way
cars be required to comply with the provisions of the Freight Car
Safety Standards?
The proposed language does not change the regulation's effect on
self-propelled maintenance-of-way equipment except insofar as that
equipment would also have to comply with the Freight Car Safety
Standards if operated at a speed of 20 miles per hour or more.
FRA data indicates that freight cars specially modified for
maintenance service constitute only a small segment of the group of
cars that would be affected by this proposal. The vast majority of
affected cars are unmodified cars that could just as easily be used in
revenue service. Indeed, FRA investigations disclosed at least one
railroad that was routinely employing in revenue service equipment
stenciled for maintenance service. Given the potential for such
alternative service, these cars should either be brought into
compliance or replaced. Even if a railroad elects to replace all of its
current equipment in this category, there does not appear to be any
lack of equipment available for this purpose at minimal cost since the
industry has a large number of freight cars in storage.
FRA estimates that approximately 40,000 freight cars stenciled to
indicate their potential use as maintenance-of-way cars would, to the
degree railroads choose to use them in revenue trains at speeds of 20
miles per hour or higher, be brought into compliance with the Freight
Car Safety Standards if this proposed amendment is adopted. To place
that number in context, the national freight car fleet now includes
more than 1.5 million cars. FRA estimates that less than three percent
of the entire fleet would be affected by this proposal.
Regulatory Impact
This proposed rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing
regulatory policies. The proposed rule does not constitute a major rule
under Executive Order 12291, but is a significant rule under DOT
regulatory policies and procedures due to industry and public interest.
The proposed rule will have a direct economic impact only on
railroads. If a railroad plans its maintenance activities in a manner
that necessitates operating its MOW equipment at the same speed as
normal revenue service trains, this proposal will have an adverse
economic impact in that a railroad will either have to upgrade the
condition of their equipment or replace that equipment with stored cars
that comply with the standards. FRA estimates the cost of repairing the
railroad industry's maintenance-of-way fleet to be $1,576,000 the first
year and $1,733,600 the second year of compliance, with $315,200 in
increased annual maintenance costs thereafter.
Operating MOW cars at low speeds in dedicated MOW trains will
considerably reduce the threat of derailments. When MOW equipment is
operated at high speed in trains that may well contain large quantities
of hazardous materials, any derailment could have grave consequences.
Preventing just one accident from causing substantial loss of life or
property would result in benefits well above those identifiable in a
review of past accidents. A full regulatory evaluation has been placed
in the public docket and is available for inspection.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 was enacted by Congress to
ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily and disproportionately
burdened by Government regulations. FRA certifies that this proposal
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
The proposed rule will not have any significant impact on small
entities because the limited speed provision will allow small railroads
to continue to operate their equipment at current speeds since
virtually all small railroads have very low operating speeds. The
proposed rule does not contain any new or altered provisions that will
affect the information collection requirements contained in the
existing regulation.
Federalism Implications
The proposed rulemaking action would not 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. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, FRA has determined that this
notice does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
preparation of a Federalism assessment.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 215
Railroad safety.
The Proposed Rule
In consideration of the foregoing, FRA proposes to amend part 215,
title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 215--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 215 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 45 U.S.C. 431 and 438, as amended; Pub. L. 100-342;
and 49 CFR 1.49(m).
2. In section 215.3, paragraph (c)(3) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 215.3 Application
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) Maintenance-of-way equipment (including self-propelled
maintenance-of-way equipment) if it is not used in revenue service, is
operated at a speed of less than 20 miles per hour, and is stenciled in
accordance with Sec. 215.305 of this part.
Issued in Washington, DC on March 3, 1994.
Donald M. Itzkoff,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-5371 Filed 3-9-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
