97-14497. Two-Way End-of-Train Telemetry Devices  

  • [Federal Register Volume 62, Number 107 (Wednesday, June 4, 1997)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 30461-30464]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 97-14497]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    
    Federal Railroad Administration
    
    49 CFR Part 232
    
    [FRA Docket No. PB-9, Notice No. 7]
    RIN 2130-AA73
    
    
    Two-Way End-of-Train Telemetry Devices
    
    AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
    
    ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: On January 2, 1997, FRA published a final rule revising the 
    regulations governing train and locomotive power braking systems at 49 
    CFR part 232 to include provisions pertaining to the use and design of 
    two-way end-of-train telemetry devices (two-way EOTs). See 62 FR 278. 
    The revisions were intended to improve the safety of railroad 
    operations by requiring the use of two-way EOTs on a variety of freight 
    trains, in accordance with legislation enacted in 1992, and by 
    providing minimum performance and operational standards related to the 
    use and design of the devices. In this document, FRA responds to 
    concerns raised in two petitions for reconsideration of the final rule.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 1997.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Peacock, Motive Power and 
    Equipment Division, Office of Safety, RRS-14, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, 
    SW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-632-3345), or Thomas Herrmann, 
    Trial Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, RCC-12, FRA, 400 Seventh 
    Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-632-3167).
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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. In response to the final rule, two 
    petitions for reconsideration were submitted.
        On February 11, 1997, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARC) 
    requested reconsideration of the July 1, 1997, effective date contained 
    in the final rule based on the limited availability of the hardware 
    necessary for compliance. On March 4, 1997, the American Short Line 
    Railroad Association (ASLRA), on behalf of its member railroads, filed 
    a petition for reconsideration seeking an extension of the effective 
    date to December 1, 1997, and seeking elimination of the tonnage 
    limitation contained in the rule's definition of ``local and work 
    train.'' See 49 CFR 232.23(a)(3) and 232.23(a)(4). As the ARC is 
    specifically named in the petition submitted by the ASLRA and
    
    [[Page 30462]]
    
    because both petitions seek an extension of the effective date of the 
    final rule on similar grounds, FRA will address ARC's petition 
    primarily in the context of the ASLRA's petition for reconsideration.
    
    A. Summary of Concerns Raised in the Petitions for Reconsideration and 
    FRA's Responses
    
        FRA's rules of practice at 49 CFR part 211 state that FRA must 
    decide to grant or deny, in whole or in part, each petition for 
    reconsideration not later than four months after receipt by FRA's 
    Docket Clerk. See 49 CFR 211.31. In this case, FRA's decision on the 
    petitions for reconsideration is due no later than June 11, 1997. If 
    FRA grants a petition for reconsideration, a notice of this decision 
    must appear in the Federal Register. To provide a fuller explanation of 
    the issues, this document addresses both grants and denials of the 
    petitions for reconsideration. Accordingly, a copy of this document is 
    being mailed to all petitioners.
    
    1. Extension of the Effective Date of the Final Rule to December 1, 
    1997 for Class II and Class III Railroads
    
        Both the ASLRA and the ARC submitted petitions for reconsideration 
    seeking an extension of the effective date of the final rule. 
    Currently, the final rule becomes effective for all covered railroads 
    on July 1, 1997. The ASLRA requested an extension of the effective date 
    to December 1, 1997 for all Class II and Class III railroads. See 
    Surface Transportation Board regulations at 49 CFR part 1201; General 
    Instructions 1-1 for a description of Class II and III railroads. The 
    ASLRA specifically named 12 railroads,1 including the ARC, 
    in its petition, claiming they are representative of all Class II and 
    Class III railroads affected by the final rule. The petition cites 
    several reasons why an extension of the effective date for these 
    operations is necessary. The petition contends that the current 
    effective date does not provide sufficient time for these smaller 
    railroads to purchase and obtain a sufficient number of two-way EOTs 
    due to the limited number of suppliers and the volume of acquisition 
    orders submitted by Class I railroads. The petition also appears to 
    allege that the current effective date imposes a financial hardship on 
    some small railroads in that these operations are not being provided 
    sufficient time to generate the necessary cash flow needed for the 
    acquisition and installation of the devices. The ASLRA petition further 
    contends that because most smaller railroads have a limited number of 
    locomotives in their fleets, the ability to schedule the out-of-service 
    time necessary for the installation of the front unit of a two-way EOT 
    within the time frame of the current effective date of the final rule 
    imposes additional operational and financial hardships on these smaller 
    railroads. Lastly, although not raised in the ASLRA petition, the ARC 
    notes that smaller railroads need some time to train their employees on 
    the use, installation, and testing of the devices once they are 
    received.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\ The following railroads were specifically named in ASLRA's 
    petition: Birmingham Southern Railroad Company; the Bay Line 
    Railroad, L.L.C.; Iowa Interstate Railroad Ltd.; Central Railroad of 
    Indiana; Central Railroad Company of Indianapolis; Alaska Railroad 
    Corporation; St. Lawrence & Atlantic Railroad Company; Gateway 
    Western Railway; Northeast Kansas & Missouri Railroad; Wheeling & 
    Lake Erie Railway Company; Dequeen & Eastern Railroad Company; and 
    Lake Superior & Ishpeming Railroad Company.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        In the preamble to the final rule, FRA recognized that Class I, II, 
    and III railroads voluntarily committed to equip the vast majority of 
    the trains covered by the final rule by the effective date of the 
    requirements. See 62 FR 288-289. However, it should be noted that the 
    final rule requires the use of two-way EOTs on a larger number of 
    trains than the industry voluntarily committed to equip by the 
    effective date of the final rule. Furthermore, FRA stated that it would 
    consider extending the effective date of the final rule in the event 
    that manufacturing delays result in a railroad's inability to secure an 
    adequate number of the devices, but would not extend the effective date 
    beyond the statutorily mandated date of December 31, 1997. Id., 49 
    U.S.C. 20141. The concerns and hardships alleged in the ASLRA and ARC 
    petitions for reconsideration are based on the inability of Class II 
    and III railroads to acquire a sufficient number of devices within a 
    reasonable time period prior to the effective date of the final rule in 
    order to properly install the equipment and adequately train their 
    employees on the use of the devices. Consequently, the burdens that the 
    petitions allege are being imposed on Class II and III railroads are 
    precisely the type of concerns FRA stated it would consider in 
    determining whether to grant an extension of the effective date of the 
    final rule. Furthermore, ASLRA's petition proposes an extension of the 
    effective date only to December 1, 1997, which is still 30 days prior 
    to the statutorily mandated date.
        In order to verify the concerns raised in the petitions for 
    reconsideration, FRA conducted its own investigation of the impact of 
    the effective date on Class II and III railroads. Although ASLRA's 
    petition seeks an extension of the effective date for all Class II and 
    Class III railroads, FRA has determined that some larger Class II 
    railroads, particularly those reporting two million or more man-hours 
    to FRA for calendar year 1995, have acquired or will acquire a 
    sufficient number of two-way EOTs to equip all of the trains covered by 
    the final rule well before the July 1, 1997 effective date. Therefore, 
    FRA will not extend the effective date of the final rule for those 
    Class II and III railroads that reported two million or more man-hours 
    for calendar year 1995 pursuant to 49 CFR part 225. Consequently, FRA 
    specifically denies ASLRA's petition as it relates to an extension of 
    the effective date of the final rule for Class II or III railroads 
    reporting two million or more man-hours to FRA for calendar year 1995.
        However, as noted above, the final rule does require a greater 
    number of short line trains to be equipped with two-way EOTs than these 
    railroads envisioned and planned for when they voluntarily committed to 
    equip their fleets by July 1, 1997. As a result, many of the short line 
    operations covered by the final rule did not order a sufficient number 
    of devices to equip all the trains that are now covered by the final 
    rule. In addition, some short line operations that were not originally 
    covered by the industry's voluntary commitment have just recently 
    discovered that some of their trains will require the use of the 
    devices. Furthermore, the ability of these smaller operations to 
    generate the capital necessary for acquiring the devices on such short 
    notice is somewhat limited. Therefore, many of the Class II and Class 
    III railroads covered by the final rule have just recently ordered the 
    devices from the manufacturers or, due to financial limitations, will 
    be ordering the devices in the near future as soon as sufficient 
    capital is available.
        After discussions with the manufacturers' of two-way EOTs, it 
    appears that the delivery time for the devices from receipt of an order 
    ranges anywhere from 60 to 120 days or more, depending on the 
    manufacturer. Therefore, if the short line railroads were forced to 
    order the devices from the manufacturer with the shortest lead time, 
    then most likely a two or three month extension of the effective date 
    would probably be sufficient. However, FRA recognizes that forcing 
    railroads to acquire the devices based solely on delivery time is not 
    necessarily good business practice and may not enhance safety in the 
    long term. Railroads should not only have the ability to benefit from 
    competitive procurement, but should
    
    [[Page 30463]]
    
    also be afforded the ability to acquire a device which best suits their 
    operation and existing equipment. For example, the most readily 
    available device may not be compatible with the devices a railroad has 
    already acquired or may not provide the options most desired by a 
    railroad.
        In addition to a delivery time that could exceed four months, FRA 
    also agrees that these smaller railroads need some extra time to 
    install the devices once they are delivered. As the petition points 
    out, most smaller railroads have very limited locomotive fleets and, 
    thus, will need extra time to schedule out-of-service time in order to 
    install the front units of the devices. Furthermore, some additional 
    time must also be afforded for these smaller railroads to adequately 
    train their employees on the use, installation, and testing of the 
    devices. Consequently, after careful consideration of the petitions for 
    reconsideration and for the reasons set forth above, FRA has decided to 
    grant ARC's petition to extend the effective date of the final rule and 
    ASLRA's petition to extend the effective date of the final rule 
    specifically to December 1, 1997 for all Class II and Class III 
    railroads reporting less than two million man-hours to FRA for calendar 
    year 1995 pursuant to 49 CFR part 225.
    
    2. Eliminate the Tonnage Limitation in the Definitions of Local and 
    Work Trains.
    
        The ASLRA's petition for reconsideration also objects to the final 
    rule's definitions of local and work train, which contain a limitation 
    of 4,000 trailing tons. For the reasons stated below, FRA denies this 
    request in the ASLRA petition. The ASLRA petition contends that the 
    tonnage limitation fails to recognize the inherent operating 
    characteristics of local and work trains and that FRA ignored the clear 
    intent of Congress to exclude these types of operations. The petition 
    further contends there is no basis in the hearing record or any safety 
    statistics that supports the definitions contained in the final rule. 
    The petition stresses the impracticality of requiring the use of two-
    way EOTs in local train operations. The ASLRA notes that a typical 
    local train will drop off and pick up cars at various points, thus 
    reducing and increasing the train length and tonnage several times 
    throughout its operation. The petition contends that the removal and 
    reinstallation of the rear-end device in each instance is time 
    consuming and creates the potential for damaging the rear-end device. 
    Finally, the petition asserts that FRA should not have used the final 
    rule on two-way EOTs to decide the definition of local train, as it 
    could have unknown consequences in future regulatory proceedings, and 
    should allow the issue to be argued in the pending freight power brake 
    rulemaking.
        In the statutory provision, Congress stated that two-way EOTs shall 
    be required ``on road trains other than locals, road switchers, or work 
    trains * * *.'' See 49 U.S.C. 20141(b)(1). However, the statute does 
    not define the terms ``locals, road switchers, or work trains'' and 
    does not include them in the specific exclusions contained in the 
    legislation. See 49 U.S.C. 20141(c). As stated in the preamble to the 
    final rule, FRA does not believe Congress intended to except trains 
    merely based on a label placed on the operation. FRA believes that 
    Congress intended for the terms ``locals, road switchers, or work 
    trains'' to be narrowly construed by FRA and not so broadly defined 
    that the requirements for two-way EOTs are rendered meaningless in many 
    circumstances. Therefore, contrary to the assertions contained in the 
    petition, FRA has effectuated Congress' intent by narrowly defining the 
    terms ``local'' and ``work train'' to ensure consistent and logical 
    application of the requirements for the use of two-way EOTs.
        In the NPRM on power brakes, FRA attempted to narrowly construe the 
    ``local and work train'' exception by proposing to require the use of 
    two-way EOTs on local or work trains that exceeded 30 mph. See 59 FR 
    47726 (September 16, 1994). At the Public Regulatory Conference 
    conducted on March 5, 1996, several parties, including the ASLRA, 
    objected to the speed limitation placed on the local and work train 
    exemption contending it was inconsistent with the statutory mandate. 
    Other participants, however, strongly recommended that the terms local 
    and work trains be narrowly defined in order to prevent the creation of 
    a loophole wherein a carrier could designate all their trains as local 
    and, thus, circumvent the two-way EOT requirements. Furthermore, 
    several commenters also objected to special treatment of local and work 
    trains as they incur similar operational difficulties and pose the same 
    threat to safety as road trains. Therefore, not only did FRA propose a 
    narrow exception for local and work trains in the NPRM but there was 
    substantial discussion regarding the exception of local and work trains 
    at the Public Regulatory Conference conducted prior to the issuance of 
    the final rule. See transcript of public hearing, March 5, 1996. 
    Although it is clear from the above that FRA as well as other 
    commenters sought to narrowly construe the local and work train 
    exception, not one commenter in a written submission, including the 
    ASLRA, provided any alternative method for defining the terms which 
    would address the concerns raised by various parties noted above, nor 
    does the ASLRA propose such an alternative in its petition. 
    Consequently, FRA in the final rule reconsidered the exception for 
    local and work trains based upon the limited written comments received 
    on the issue, its own review of the accident data, and its extensive 
    knowledge of railroad operations.
        After a review of the available accident data, FRA determined that 
    the trains which are most likely to benefit from the use of two-way 
    EOTs are heavier tonnage trains and trains that operate over heavy 
    grades. The accident data also indicated that the vast majority of the 
    potentially preventable accidents involved trains that were operating 
    with greater than 4,000 trailing tons or that were operating on grades 
    of two percent or greater and that, as the tonnage of the train 
    increased, the steepness of the grade became a more important factor. 
    Furthermore, in FRA's view there is no logical or rational basis for 
    concluding that a local or work train operating with greater than 4,000 
    trailing tons or in heavy grades is any less susceptible to the 
    operational problems and difficulties faced by any other road train. 
    Consequently, FRA believes the definition of local and work train is 
    consistent with the accident data, Congress' intent, and FRA's 
    rationale expressed with regard to defining heavy grades. Furthermore, 
    FRA believes the definitions recognize the operational necessity for 
    the services these types of trains provide and the nature of the duties 
    they engage in when en route, while preventing the potential for 
    confusion or abuse of the terms local or work train, and ensuring that 
    those trains most likely to benefit from the added safety provided by 
    two-way EOTs are so equipped.
        Although FRA recognizes that the final rule's definitions of local 
    and work train may impose some additional operational burdens on the 
    railroads, FRA believes that the ASLRA has overstated the operational 
    impact of the requirements on Class II and III railroads. In its 
    written submissions to FRA, the ASLRA indicated that the vast majority 
    of Class II and III railroads operate trains with less than 4,000 
    trailing tons. In addition, contrary to the contention contained in the 
    petition, the rear-end unit of an EOT device would not have to be 
    removed and reinstalled every time a local train picks up or drops off 
    cars. If the rear car, on which
    
    [[Page 30464]]
    
    the rear unit of the EOT is attached, remains a part of the train after 
    conducting these switching operations, the communication between the 
    front unit and the rear unit should remain intact even after a cut of 
    cars is added or removed from the train. Furthermore, many local trains 
    currently operate with rear-end marking devices or one-way EOTs which 
    would have to be reinstalled if the rear car were removed from the 
    train. Additionally, if a train is not equipped with a one-way EOT then 
    an inspection of the ``set and release'' of the rear car must performed 
    when cars are added or removed from a train; thus, someone would have 
    to be at the rear to conduct this inspection. See 49 CFR 232.13. 
    Consequently, in FRA's view, the increased time burdens and the 
    potential damage to the rear units are greatly overstated in the 
    petition when compared with current practice. We believe these actual 
    and potential costs can be greatly minimized and should be incurred in 
    only a limited number of circumstances.
        FRA further considers to be without merit the ASLRA's contention 
    that the definition of local train should not have been decided in the 
    context of the proceeding to issue the two-way EOT final rule. The 
    final rule text explicitly states that the definition of local train is 
    intended solely for the purpose of identifying operations subject to 
    the requirements for the use of two-way EOTs. See 62 FR 294. FRA does 
    not intend for the definitions used in this final rule to change or 
    otherwise impinge on other possible definitions of the term local train 
    when used in another context. Therefore, the definition used in this 
    final rule should have no impact on future regulatory proceedings. 
    Consequently, after careful consideration of the ASLRA's petition for 
    reconsideration and for the reasons set forth above, FRA has decided to 
    deny ASLRA's request to change the definitions of local and work trains 
    contained in Sec. 232.23(a)(3) and (a)(4) of the final rule on two-way 
    EOTs.
    
        Issued in Washington, DC, on May 29, 1997.
    Jolene M. Molitoris,
    Federal Railroad Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 97-14497 Filed 6-3-97; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
7/1/1997
Published:
06/04/1997
Department:
Federal Railroad Administration
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.
Document Number:
97-14497
Dates:
July 1, 1997.
Pages:
30461-30464 (4 pages)
Docket Numbers:
FRA Docket No. PB-9, Notice No. 7
RINs:
2130-AA73: Power Brake Regulations: Two-way End-of-Train Telemetry Devices
RIN Links:
https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/2130-AA73/power-brake-regulations-two-way-end-of-train-telemetry-devices
PDF File:
97-14497.pdf
CFR: (1)
49 CFR 232