[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 30, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39774-39795]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-14636]
[[Page 39773]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part V
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Railroad Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
49 CFR Part 229
Locomotive Event Recorders; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 30, 2004 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 39774]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Part 229
[Docket No. FRA-2003-16357, Notice No. 1]
RIN 2130-AB34
Locomotive Event Recorders
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To improve the crashworthiness of railroad locomotive event
recorders and to enhance the quality of information available for post-
accident investigations, FRA proposes to amend its existing regulations
in four major ways: By requiring that new locomotives have event
recorders with ``hardened'' memory modules, proven by a requirement
that the memory modules preserve stored data throughout a sequence of
prescribed tests; by requiring that new locomotives have an event
recorder that collects certain additional types of information; by
simplifying standards for inspecting, testing, and maintaining event
recorders; and by requiring the phasing out, over a six-year period, of
event recorders that use magnetic tape as a data storage medium. FRA is
also proposing to revise the definitions contained in the existing
regulation to remove the letter designations so that the defined terms
are presented in alphabetical order.
DATES: (1) Written comments must be received by August 31, 2004.
Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent
possible without incurring additional expenses or delays.
(2) FRA anticipates being able to resolve this rulemaking without a
public, oral hearing. However, if FRA receives a specific request for a
public, oral hearing prior to August 15, 2004, one will be scheduled
and FRA will publish a supplemental document in the Federal Register to
inform interested parties of the date, time, and location of any such
hearing.
ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2003-16357, may
be submitted by any of the following methods:
Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://dms.dot.gov including any personal information. Please
see the Privacy Act heading in the ``Supplementary Information''
section of this document for Privacy Act information related to any
submitted comments or materials.
Public Hearing: FRA anticipates being able to resolve this
rulemaking without a public, oral hearing. However, if FRA receives a
specific request for a public, oral hearing prior to August 15, 2004,
one will be scheduled and FRA will publish a supplemental notice in the
Federal Register to inform interested parties of the date, time, and
location of any such hearing.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to PL-401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward W. Pritchard, Director, Office
of Safety Assurance and Compliance, RRS-10, Mail Stop 25, Federal
Railroad Administration, Department of Transportation, 1120 Vermont
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-6247), or Thomas
J. Herrmann, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, Mail Stop 10,
Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-6036).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Statutory Background
Sections 10 and 21 of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 1988
(RSIA), Public Law 100-342, 102 Stat. 624 (June 22, 1988), provide as
follows:
SEC. 10. EVENT RECORDERS.
Section 202 of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(m)(1)(A) The Secretary shall, within 18 months after the date
of the enactment of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 1988, issue
such rules, regulations, standards, and orders as may be necessary
to enhance safety by requiring that trains be equipped with event
recorders within 1 year after such rules, regulations, orders, and
standards are issued.
``(B) If the Secretary finds that it is impracticable to equip
trains as required under subparagraph (A) within the time limit
under such subparagraph, the Secretary may extend the deadline for
compliance with such requirement, but in no event shall such
deadline be extended past 18 months after such rules, regulations,
orders, and standards are issued.
``(2) For the purpose of this subsection, the term `event
recorders' means devices that--
``(A) record train speed, hot box detection, throttle position,
brake application, brake operations, and any other function the
Secretary considers necessary to record to assist in monitoring the
safety of train operation, such as time and signal indication; and
``(B) are designed to resist tampering.''
* * * * *
SEC. 21. TAMPERING WITH SAFETY DEVICES.
Section 202 of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(o)(1) The Secretary shall * * * issue such rules,
regulations, orders, and standards as may be necessary to prohibit
the willful tampering with, or disabling of, specified railroad
safety or operational monitoring devices.
* * * * *
Codified at 49 U.S.C. 20137-20138, superseding 45 U.S.C. 431(m) and
(o).
II. Proceedings to Date
On November 23, 1988, FRA published an ANPRM (Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking) in FRA Docket No. LI-7, soliciting comments on how
to implement these statutory mandates concerning event recorders. See
53 FR 47557. On June 18, 1991, FRA published an NPRM in that docket,
setting forth proposed regulations on event recorders, the elements
they were to record, and the preservation of data from the event
recorder in the event of an accident. See 56 FR 27931. Two public
hearings were held in order to facilitate public participation; the
written comments submitted in response to the NPRM were extensive,
detailed, and helpful.
FRA prescribed final event recorder rules, effective May 5, 1995
(58 FR 36605, July 8, 1993) and issued a response to petitions for
reconsideration (60 FR 27900, May 26, 1995); they were codified
principally at 49 CFR 229.135. In issuing the final rules, FRA noted
the need to provide more refined technical standards. The National
Transportation
[[Page 39775]]
Safety Board (NTSB) had previously noted the loss of data from event
recorders in several accidents due to fire, water, and mechanical
damage. NTSB proposed performance standards and agreed to serve as co-
chair for a joint industry/government working group that would refine
technical standards for next-generation event recorders. FRA conducted
a meeting of an informal working group comprised of railroad labor and
management representatives and co-chaired by NTSB on December 7, 1995,
to consider development of technical standards. At the July 24-25, 1996
meeting of FRA's Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), the
Association of American Railroads (AAR) agreed to continue the inquiry
and on November 1, 1996, reported the status of work on proposed
industry standards to the RSAC.
On March 5, 1997, the NTSB issued several recommendations regarding
testing and maintenance of event recorders as a result of its findings
in the investigation of an accident on February 1, 1996, at Cajon Pass,
CA. As the Board noted in its recommendation to FRA, the train that
derailed in Cajon Pass ``had an event recorder that was not fully
operational. The self-diagnostic light on the unit was insufficient to
fully examine the unit and ensure that it was recording the data.'' The
Board recommended that inspection and testing of event recorders
``include, at a minimum, a review of the data recorded during actual
operations of the locomotive to verify parameter functionality. * * *''
See NTSB Recommendation R-96-70.
III. RSAC Overview
In March 1996, FRA established the RSAC, which provides a forum for
developing consensus recommendations on rulemakings and other safety
program issues. The Committee includes representation from all of the
agency's major customer groups, including railroads, labor
organizations, suppliers and manufacturers, and other interested
parties. A list of member groups follows:
American Association of Private Railroad Car Owners (AARPCO)
American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials
(AASHTO)
American Public Transportation Association (APTA)
American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA)
American Train Dispatchers Department/Brotherhood of Locomotive
Engineers (ATDD/BLE)
National Passenger Railroad Corporation (Amtrak)
Association of American Railroads (AAR)
Association of Railway Museums (ARM)
Association of State Rail Safety Managers (ASRSM)
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE)
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees (BMWE)
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS)
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)*
High Speed Ground Transportation Association
Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers and Blacksmiths
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA)*
League of Railway Industry Women*
National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP)
National Association of Railway Business Women*
National Conference of Firemen & Oilers
National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)*
Railway Progress Institute (RPI)
Safe Travel America
Secretaria de Communicaciones y Transporte*
Sheet Metal Workers International Association
Tourist Railway Association Inc.
Transport Canada*
Transport Workers Union of America (TWUA)
Transportation Communications International Union/BRC (TCIU/BRC)
United Transportation Union (UTU)
*Indicates associate membership.
When appropriate, FRA assigns a task to RSAC, and after
consideration and debate, RSAC may accept or reject the task. If
accepted, RSAC establishes a working group that possesses the
appropriate expertise and representation of interests to develop
recommendations to FRA for action on the task. These recommendations
are developed by consensus. A working group may establish one or more
task forces to develop facts options on a particular aspect of a given
task. The task force then provides that information to the working
group for consideration. If a working group comes to unanimous
consensus on recommendations for action, the package is presented to
the RSAC for a vote. If the proposal is accepted by a simple majority
of the RSAC, the proposal is formally recommended to FRA. FRA then
determines what action to take on the recommendation. Because FRA staff
has played an active role at the working group level in discussing the
issues and options and in drafting the language of the consensus
proposal, FRA is often favorably inclined toward the RSAC
recommendation. However, FRA is in no way bound to follow the
recommendation and the agency exercises its independent judgement on
whether the recommended rule achieves the agency's regulatory goal, is
soundly supported, and is in accordance with policy and legal
requirements. Often, FRA varies in some respects from the RSAC
recommendation in developing the actual regulatory proposal. If the
working group or RSAC is unable to reach consensus on recommendations
for action, FRA moves ahead to resolve the issue through traditional
rulemaking proceedings.
On March 24, 1997, the RSAC indicated its desire to receive a task
to consider the NTSB recommendations with regard to crash
survivability, testing, and maintenance. A task was presented to, and
accepted by, the RSAC on June 24, 1997. The Working Group on Event
Recorders was formed and a Task Force established. Members of the
Working Group, in addition to FRA, included the following:
AAR, including members from
The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF),
Canadian National Railway Company (CN),
Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CP),
Consolidated Rail Corporation (CR)
CSX Transportation, Incorporated (CSX),
Florida East Coast Railway Company (FEC),
Illinois Central Railroad Company (IC),
Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS),
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP),
APTA, including members from Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority (SEPTA)
Amtrak,
Bach-Simpson,
BLE
EDI,
General Motors Corporation/Electro-Motive Division (EMD)
IBEW,
Pulse/Wabco,
Q-Tron,
TCIU/BRC, and
UTU.
The NTSB met with the Working Group and provided staff advisors. In
addition, GE-Harris, STV Incorporated, and
[[Page 39776]]
Peerless Institute attended many of the meetings and contributed to the
technical discussions.
The Working Group and related Task Force conducted a number of
meetings and discussed each of the matters proposed in this NPRM.
Minutes of these meetings have been made part of the docket in this
proceeding. The Working Group reached full consensus on the proposal on
October 20, 2003, and transmitted the document as its recommendation to
the full RSAC for its concurrence via mail ballot on October 23, 2003.
By November 12, 2003, the deadline set for casting a ballot in this
matter, thirty-five of the forty-eight voting members of the full RSAC
had returned their ballots on the regulatory recommendation submitted
by the Working Group. All thirty-five of the voting members concurred
with and accepted the Working Group's recommendation. Thus, the Working
Group's recommendation became the full RSAC's recommendation to FRA in
this matter. After reviewing the full RSAC's recommendation, FRA
adopted the recommendation with minor changes for purposes of clarity,
and responsiveness to certain comments made by Working Group and RSAC
members when submitting their concurrences.
During the final development of the Working Group's recommendation,
FRA received written suggestions and recommendations from LTK
Engineering Services (through APTA) and AAR. In addition, the BLE when
entering its vote on the Working Group's recommendation to the full
RSAC, concurred with the recommendation but provided separate written
comments on the recommendation. FRA permits Working Group members to
either ``non-concur,'' ``concur,'' or ``concur with comment'' when
voting on any Working Group recommendation. In cases where a Working
Group member ``concurs with comment,'' the verbatim comment is provided
to the full RSAC for consideration with the Working Group's
recommendation and the comment is incorporated into the preamble
discussion of any developed regulatory document, if FRA believes it to
be appropriate. In this instance, the written submissions of APTA, AAR,
and BLE have been incorporated into the preamble discussion and have
been made part of the docket in this proceeding.
Throughout the preamble discussion of this proposal, FRA refers to
comments, views, suggestions, or recommendations made by members of the
Working Group. When using this terminology, FRA is referring to views,
statements, discussions or positions identified or contained in either
the minutes of the Working Group and Task Force meetings or the
specific written submissions discussed above. These documents have been
made part of the docket in this proceeding and are available for public
inspection as discussed in the preceding ADDRESSES portion of this
document. These points are discussed to show the origin of certain
issues and the course of discussions on those issues at the task force
or working group level. We believe this helps illuminate factors FRA
has weighed in making its regulatory decisions, and the logic behind
those decisions. The reader should keep in mind, of course, that only
the full RSAC makes recommendations to FRA, and it is the consensus
recommendation of the full RSAC on which FRA is acting.
IV. Technical Background
The AAR Universal Machine Language Equipment Register (UMLER) file
had approximately 28,000 locomotives registered as of January 1, 2000,
including locomotives operated by shortline and regional railroads,
Canadian and Mexican railroads, and Amtrak. Portions of the Canadian
and Mexican fleet operate in the United States. Every major railroad
uses event recorders, and no railroads report a difficulty in complying
with the 1995 regulations requiring event recorders on the lead
locomotive of any train operated faster than 30 miles per hour. As
noted above, this proceeding builds on the current regulations in Part
229 and adds requirements for crash survivability and enhanced data
collection by event recorders. In addition, this proposed rule would
require the installation of these current ``state-of-the-art'' event
recorders in new locomotives and would require that, if a locomotive
with an event recorder is remanufactured, it be equipped with a
certified survivable version of its previous event recorder.
During the discussions and review of draft language leading to the
development of this document, members of the RSAC Working Group on
Event Recorders and the full RSAC raised a number of important issues.
A. Adoption of Alternate, or Industry, Standards
Several members of the RSAC Working Group suggested that FRA adopt
crashworthiness or data collection/accuracy standards already existing
within the industry. One standard, in particular, was advanced by the
Vehicular Technology Society. It is the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard 1482.1-1999, the IEEE Standard
for Rail Transit Vehicle Event Recorders. A technically advanced
standard, the crashworthiness requirements of the IEEE standard were
claimed to be significantly less expensive to meet than some of the
other potential standards considered by the Working Group. For example,
FRA staff originally suggested that the Working Group adopt a fire
standard based on earlier work used to validate the thermal protective
insulation on tank cars transporting flammable and toxic gases; this
standard was based on the heat of a flame fueled by liquified petroleum
gas. While that standard is entirely appropriate for tank cars that
often travel in combination with other tank cars similarly laden, the
practical truth is that the typical and most likely fuel for a fire
impinging on a locomotive-mounted event recorder is diesel fuel from
the locomotive's own tanks. Consequently, the proposed performance
criteria for certifying event recorders as crashworthy and contained in
Appendix D of this NPRM has been amended to include the open flame burn
temperature of diesel fuel. FRA also proposes adopting many of the data
elements contained in the IEEE standard as applicable to heavy electric
commuter (MU) operations. FRA considered removing the requirements for
certifying a crashworthy event recorder memory module (proposed in
Appendix D of this document) and simply cross-referencing a voluntary
industry (AAR) standard that the industry would ``expeditiously
consider'' adopting. However, FRA is not willing to withdraw a major
portion of this proposal and wait for an industry consensus standard
that does not now exist and may never exist.
B. Record Retention
Although the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce
Act (Pub. L. 106-229, 114 Stat. 464, June 30, 2000) requires that
regulated entities be allowed to keep records electronically, in
appropriate circumstances. FRA believes that the tenor and language of
this proposed rule make it unnecessary to discuss the specifics of
whether or not the Electronic Signatures Act applies to the subject
matter of this proposed rule because nothing in this rule is intended
to circumvent the requirements of that act. With the exception of the
``maintenance instructions of the manufacturer, supplier, or owner'' of
the event recorder (see proposed Sec. 229.25(e)), and any notations
this rule proposes to require on the ``cab card'' (Form FRA F6180-49A),
all other records required
[[Page 39777]]
by this proposed rule may be kept electronically. Proposed Sec.
229.25(e) requires that the maintenance instructions for the event
recorder may be kept electronically, but must be available in hard copy
at the maintenance/repair point so they can be used by workers on the
shop floor, at the point of testing and repair. Maintenance
instructions printed from an electronically maintained master copy
would satisfy this requirement. The proposed ``hard copy'' requirement
tracks common quality assurance (QA) program requirements; for example,
the QA requirements applicable to tank cars contained at 49 CFR
179.7(d). The applicable cab card provisions are existing regulatory
requirements that are not being amended by this rulemaking and are
intended to establish whether the locomotive is ``equipped'' or not, in
the field, without requiring reference or access to a data base at some
other location.
C. Throttle Position
There is considerable controversy within the railroad industry
about the use of the term ``throttle position.'' Among the earliest
mechanical engines were those powered by steam: A pound of water
occupies .2 cubic feet of space. Apply heat and convert that pound of
water into steam and the result occupies 27 cubic feet of space (at
atmospheric pressure). If the steam remains in the same vessel it was
heated in, pressure will rise--and from this pressure differential,
power can be generated either directly by moving a piston, or
indirectly by spinning a turbine and generating electricity. The early
throttle was a means to control, or limit, the amount of steam leaving
the generating chamber and entering the device in which work would be
performed. (Imagine a locomotive that always ran at top speed; stopping
at a station to load passengers or freight would be impossible.) The
control handle, called the ``throttle handle,'' manipulated a valve to
direct the steam, and to determine the quantity so directed, either
into the working mechanism or into the atmosphere, wasted. Over time,
the ``throttle handle'' used to control the flow of steam was shortened
to today's ``throttle,'' but the process remained the same--controlling
the output of the locomotive. As electric and diesel-electric
locomotives came into use, the physical controlling device gained an
additional name, ``master controller.'' Other than the few remaining
historic and tourist steam locomotives, the two names are synonymous.
Ignoring for the purposes of this discussion those master
controllers--``throttles''--which combine brake control and power
control in a single-handle design, the function of the throttle handle
is unchanged over history: to control the power output of the
locomotive. The vast majority of the master controllers which are used
to perform the throttle control function do so by creating discrete
positions of the throttle handle which in turn send electric-current
specific combinations of train line wire energization patterns. These
train line wire energization patterns are interpreted by the engine or
propulsion control systems as the locomotive engineer's request for a
specific speed/tractive effort characteristic. In most diesel-electric
freight locomotives used in the United States, the throttle arc is
divided into nine discrete positions: ``Idle,'' and eight ``notches''
of energization.
The point that the throttle handle positions--``notches''--
correspond to speed/tractive effort characteristics is important and
should not be overlooked. It is convenient to say that they correspond
to an engine's revolutions per minute (RPM), and, for diesel-electric
locomotives, that is correct. However, to extend that to say that they
correspond to power is only correct in a non-rigorous use of the term.
For purposes of this rule, FRA will consider that the ``throttle''
controls speed/tractive effort characteristics rather than ``power.''
Over most--but not all--of the operating speed range of a diesel-
electric locomotive, the speed/tractive effort characteristic is
approximately a constant horsepower characteristic. Unfortunately, the
same is not true of electric locomotives, be they locomotives in the
conventional sense or electric multiple unit (EMU) locomotives.
Application of speed/tractive effort characteristics instead of
``power'' as the result of throttle handle position will enable
coverage of all types of locomotives.
Almost all throttles have at least a few discrete output positions,
and some have continuously variable segments as well. Those discrete
positions do not, unfortunately, correspond to uniform fractions of
maximum engine RPM or current. For diesel-electric locomotives, they do
correspond roughly to uniform fractions of the maximum speed/tractive
effort characteristic, but the actual diesel engine speed schedule
utilized to achieve a given speed/tractive effort characteristic will
be tailored by the manufacturer based on a number of design
considerations. For electric locomotives, especially EMU locomotives,
the throttle positions often reflect the design configuration of the
EMU's propulsion system, and may reflect such things as motor
connections (series versus series-parallel, for example), motor field
strength, transformer tap position, and the like.
For those throttles with continuously variable segments, the
output, and ``power requested'' corresponding thereto, vary from
minimum to maximum. Minimum may be ``zero,'' or it may be a small, non-
zero positive value of the control variable. ``Maximum'' depends on the
design of the master controller, and may be some level of DC or AC
control current, some control voltage, or some percentage pulse-width-
modulation value of a control output current or voltage approaching or
equal to 100 percent. It may also be a stream of binary bits,
interpreted by the engine and/or propulsion control system as a control
variable. The ``power'' equivalent to the maximum output value of the
control variable will be the maximum speed/tractive effort
characteristic of which the locomotive is capable.
In order to give a meaningful resolution of such continuously
variable outputs for recording purposes, and to be consistent with
digital communications that are emerging in the industry, digital to
analog (or vice versa) conversion of no less than eight-bit resolution
would appear appropriate, and FRA solicits comments on this concept.
Some existing EMU locomotives have fewer than eight discrete throttle
``power'' positions. For example, the SEPTA Silverliner IV EMUs have
four. It would be both physically impossible and meaningless to
artificially require these locomotives to have event recorders which
capture one-eighth of the full output, as these EMU's cannot physically
operate at intermediate levels of speed/tractive effort other than the
four provided by their propulsion systems. Historically, some
locomotives have had more than eight discrete throttle positions. The
number of such locomotives remaining in service and subject to the
proposed rule is believed to be quite small and may, in fact, be zero.
While FRA may wish to limit the resolution of the discrete throttle
positions to one-eighth of full power, it does not appear burdensome to
require that all available discrete positions be recorded. FRA seeks
comments and suggestions from all interested parties on this issue.
D. Post-accident Data Preservation
In this rulemaking, FRA proposes a modification to the current
standard. As Sec. 229.135(d) is now written, after an accident, a
railroad may ``extract and analyze'' data from the event recorder, if
the railroad preserves ``the original or
[[Page 39778]]
a first-order accurate copy'' of the data. Experience since the present
event recorder rule became effective shows that the phrase ``first-
order accurate copy'' is not easily understood by those first on scene
at a derailment. First responders must primarily deal with wrecked
equipment, the potential need for life-saving actions, and the ever-
present danger--especially if hazardous materials are present--of fire,
smoke, and explosion. FRA believes it has clarified the requirement.
The proposal here permits the railroad to extract and analyze such
data, provided the original downloaded data file, or an unanalyzed
exact copy of it, is retained subject to the direction and control of
FRA or the NTSB. In the case of microprocessor-based machines, the
``original'' copy of the data will not show any immediately prior
downloads, while the ``copies'' may show that previous downloads have
occurred. Certainly this is not a requirement to put a ``marker,'' or
some indication in the downloaded data to show the ``order'' in which
multiple downloads were made; the proposed rule would, as does the
present requirement, mandate that the original download be preserved
for analysis by FRA or NTSB.
Both the current rule and this proposal require efforts, ``to the
extent possible,'' and ``to the extent consistent with safety,'' to
preserve all the data stored in any locomotive-mounted recording device
designed to record information concerning the functioning of the
locomotive or train. FRA is well aware of the difficulty of performing
field downloads of data retention devices not so designed; FRA is also
aware that such downloads may be more dangerous, especially in an
accident situation, than extracting the data from a crash-hardened
event recorder memory module designed for easy field downloads. FRA's
experience is that those who serve as the railroad's incident
commanders are well schooled in safety and the preservation of life and
property, and this agency is comfortable with the decisions they will
make about the safety of entering a hostile atmosphere to gather
knowledge about the dynamics immediately preceding an accident.
E. Data Element--Horn Control
One data element proposed in this Notice for new locomotives with
new event recorders generated a significant amount of controversy--the
recording of the horn control handle activation. FRA believes this data
element will enhance the investigatory tools available in highway-rail
grade crossing accidents. Users of event recorder data for purposes
other than accident investigation (such as supporting claims in
accident-related litigation) should bear in mind that the event
recorder samples what is going on in the locomotive and there are gaps
between the time the recorder first ``looks'' for the data from the
horn switch activation sensor and the time it next takes that ``look.''
Even a gap of a second, at main line track speeds, can yield an
inaccurate, false record of when, exactly, or where, exactly, the horn
was blown. Further, horns are air-operated on freight locomotives and,
once the switch is activated, there is a lag--short, to be sure--before
the horn blows; the horn may also fail en route and the engineer
activate its switch only to have no sound come out. As reported in the
daily press, emergency responders complain that automobile drivers with
their windows up, radios on, and air conditioning on often do not react
to the sirens or air horns on fire trucks. The same phenomena exist
when a railroad engineer blows his horn at an automobile starting
across a crossing with too little time to clear. Finally, the
locomotive horn is external to the cab of the locomotive and subject to
becoming blocked by snow or sleet in the wintertime.
To summarize: FRA proposes to require the recording of the horn
control handle activation because it will provide one tool, among many,
in the investigation of railroad accidents and in the monitoring of
equipment and the people who operate it. FRA believes that the use of
the data for other purposes should be made only after fully considering
the limited usefulness of such data as briefly discussed above. This
proposal reflects FRA's responsibility to implement 49 U.S.C. 20153.
The Working Group and the full RSAC were not able to reach a
recommendation regarding this issue.
F. Inspection and Maintenance
Older styled event recorders used eight-track tape cartridges as
their recording medium; while this proposed rule will ``sunset'' such
equipment, it needs to be maintained in order to perform
satisfactorily. The present rule provides for this, at 49 CFR
229.25(e). Microprocessor-based event recorders, typified by virtually
all of the recorders now being installed in locomotives, are similar to
many consumer solid state electronic devices; either they work or they
do not. Maintenance consists of checking for satisfactory operation
and, if there is a failure, replacing either the failed component or
the entire unit.
What further complicates the newest installations is that there is
no ``black box,'' as such. Rather, the entire locomotive is wired with
sensors and, as an illustration, those elements necessary for routine
maintenance of the locomotive are routed to one collection point and
those required for accident analysis are routed to another. There are
also ways to retrieve any particular subset of data out of a single
data port by using what is popularly called a ``smart card'' to query
the computer for a predetermined set of data. Accident investigators
would get the data elements specified in proposed Sec. 229.135(b),
locomotive electrical maintainers would get the set of data applicable
to their work, and a person evaluating the engineer's performance over
the last run would download a data set preprogramed for that purpose.
Data necessary for accident analysis, as proposed here, would be routed
to a crash-hardened memory module.
Essentially all modern event recorder systems are also equipped
with self-test circuitry that constantly compares data flowing in with
the data being stored and signals (a red light is typical) when there
is a fault. In a sense, maintenance is simple: If the red light is off
(and the unit is still receiving power), the unit is in good working
order. However, experts in the field, and there are no experts more
familiar with black boxes than the NTSB, warn that the whole event
recorder system needs to be verified to know that the recorder is
capturing ``real'' data. Recorders, sensors, and cables all fail, and
at unpredictable intervals. To ensure that the recorder is indeed
capturing data representative of the locomotive's actual operations,
this proposal requires that, sometime within 30 days of each annual
periodic inspection, the railroad download and review the data required
by Sec. 229.135(b), as captured by the event recorder's crashworthy
memory module. This download might be part of any other download a
railroad might choose to perform, whether as a part of locomotive
maintenance, employee monitoring, service planning, or whatever. The
downloaded data would be compared to the known operations of the
locomotive over the past 48 hours and, if all required channels were
recording and the required elements were representative of actual
operations, the recorder--assuming always that the fault light is not
on--would require no further maintenance or checking. This added
flexibility in the proposed rule could mean that locomotives equipped
with microprocessor-based event recorders need never visit a shop just
to check the recorder.
[[Page 39779]]
G. New Technologies
FRA is well aware of the pace at which technology is changing.
Locomotives, once controlled by mechanical levers and wheels, now read
the ``input'' of a moved lever and adjust multiple aspects of their
operating systems to produce the desired result; they can accept a
cruise control setting and adjust power to maintain a constant speed as
the grade increases. New methods for monitoring and controlling train
operations, some of them using global-positioning satellites as the
basis for position determination, are now being deployed. Where these
technologies affect the operation and safety of trains, the event
recorder needs to be able to capture data elements that will enable
analysis of the locomotive's operations. As just one example, if a
positive train control system (PTC) ``took away'' control of a
locomotive to enforce train separation protocols, the recorder needs to
capture the information that an input from outside the cab caused the
train to speed up or slow down.
With PTC, the recorder needs to identify both the fact of an
incoming signal and the response to it, whether automated or an
engineer override. Just as the recording of cab signals is relatively
easy because the signal system's aspect is already on board, so too it
should be easy to capture a PTC signal and record any display elements
on which the engineer is expected to rely and any commands sent to
initiate braking and knock down power. The existing regulation requires
that the cab signal display be recorded, but this technology may be
superseded in the future. In the Working Group meetings, the
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers has consistently raised a concern
with respect to determining the source of penalty brake applications
initiated by innovative train control systems (i.e., not only what was
the source of the brake application, but what indication was displayed
to the engineer and on what basis this was determined). Although it may
not be possible to specify clearly all of the information that would be
required to determine the basis for every penalty application, given
the wide variety of possible system architectures, FRA proposes to
require that the following be recorded:
Applications and operations of the train automatic air
brake, including emergency applications. The system shall record, or
provide a means of determining, that a brake application or release
resulted from manipulation of brake controls at the position normally
occupied by the locomotive engineer. In the case of a brake application
or release that is responsive to a command originating from or executed
by an on-board computer (e.g., electronic braking system controller,
locomotive electronic control system, or train control computer), the
system shall record, or provide a means of determining, the involvement
of any such computer; and
Safety-critical train control data routed to the
locomotive engineer's display with which the engineer is required to
comply, specifically including text messages conveying mandatory
directives, and maximum authorized speed. The format, content, and
proposed duration for retention of such data shall be specified in the
product safety plan submitted for the train control system under
subpart H of part 236 of this chapter, subject to FRA approval under
this paragraph. If it can be calibrated against other data required by
this part, such train control data may, at the election of the
railroad, be retained in a separate certified crashworthy memory
module.
These proposed provisions are discussed in greater detail in the
section-by-section analysis related to Sec. 229.135(b)(3).
FRA seeks information and comments from interested parties
regarding whether the data elements that are required to be entered
into the system should be recorded and retained in the memory module
where a train's braking system utilizes braking algorithms. Although
the current rule and this proposal require that the ``applications and
operations'' of the train's braking system be recorded, FRA does not
currently require the recording of all the data related to such
``applications and operations.'' If braking algorithms are dependent on
or dictated by track profile information, or train and consist data, is
there a need for FRA to specifically mandate that the data or
information actually entered into the system also be recorded and
retained in the memory module? Similarly, in order to ensure accurate
analysis, should FRA require that the braking algorithm software
version (and identifying number, as appropriate) be recorded or
derivable from external data? FRA seeks comments from interested
parties regarding the need, capability, and costs associated with
capturing this type of data.
As electronics improve, and, with it, the ability to remotely
control large and complex machinery, it is imperative that any such
operations within the scope of this proceeding be recorded. The
existing event recorder rule, and this proposed amendment, require
event recorders on locomotives when operated at speeds of more than
thirty miles per hour. If locomotive remote control systems can
function at speeds greater than 30 miles per hour, it is only logical
to require the recording of both the commands issued by the operator as
well as the response by the locomotive to those commands. FRA has not
included specific data elements in proposed Sec. 229.135(b)(3) or (4)
but is prepared to if comments warrant. In one view, locomotive remote
control systems are like cruise control: Unless rendered incapable of
operation above 30 miles per hour, it is vital that data on their use
be recorded.
H. Data Accuracy, Resolution, and Sampling Rates
In its first event recorder rulemaking, FRA Docket No. LI-7 (58 FR
36605, July 8, 1993), FRA mandated the installation of event recorders
on trains traveling faster than 30 mph. In this rulemaking, FRA is
proposing requirements for the capture of additional data elements and
for crash-hardening the event recorder memory module. In both
proceedings, the topics of data accuracy, resolution, and sampling rate
have been raised. In this proceeding, as in the first, FRA notes the
current requirements for the accuracy of brake system air gauges and
for speed indicators, 49 CFR 229.53 and 229.117. The issues of
accuracy, resolution, and sampling rate remain unresolved in this
proposal. The Working Group concentrated on the crashworthiness aspects
of the event recorder memory module, together with enhancing the kind
of data to be collected for post-accident analysis. FRA believes that
this was both an ordering of priorities and a recognition that the
industry has an economic and operational incentive to make the data as
accurate as possible. What the event recorder stores are data that are,
first and foremost, indispensable to the operation of the locomotive.
Because the railroads have operational needs for the same data elements
that are also vital to accident analysis, the ``numbers'' tend to be
accurate and, with microprocessor-based event recorders, the data thus
generated during the ordinary course of business are not diminished in
accuracy just because they are stored. Finally, microprocessor-based
event recorders run so fast that the sampling intervals are naturally
short, and they may be adjusted differently for different elements.
The Rail Transit Vehicle Interface Standards Committee of the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers has developed the
IEEE Standard for Rail Transit Vehicle Event Recorders (IEEE
[[Page 39780]]
Std 1482.1-1999). While, as noted elsewhere, this standard is not
applicable to the railroad industry, FRA seeks comments on whether or
not the agency should adopt a requirement similar to the IEEE's
standard for sampling and storage rates, from paragraph 4.2 of that
standard:
4.2 Sampling and storage rate(s)
The event recorder shall be capable of sampling signals at a
maximum of 20 ms intervals (minimum 50 samples per second) to ensure
that changes that affect operation are detected.
Signals shall be processed and stored to ensure that changes
that affect operation are captured. Repetitive samples of identical
information reflecting no state change may be stored at a lower
storage rate than other signals. The storage rate depends on the
individual rate of change under operating or failure conditions for
each signal. Thresholds, ranges, and durations for defining state
changes shall be determined for each signal. Signals shall be stored
at least once per second.
To conserve memory, stored data more than 10 hours old may be
reprocessed to eliminate data samples that reflect no change from
consecutive samples to a minimum storage rate of 1 sample per 15
seconds.
Crashworthy nonvolatile memory shall preserve a minimum of 48
hours worth of data.
One member of the Working Group, in a written submission to FRA,
suggests that if FRA adopts requirements for data accuracy, resolution,
and sampling rates, then any such requirements should not force the
manufacture of distinctly different event recorders for transit and
railroad operations in those instances where the devices could
otherwise be the same, particularly with regard to hardware. This
member notes that commonality of equipment between transit and rail
operations is expected to result in reduced costs and more mature
designs. If there are particular technical needs for railroads, then it
is suggested that FRA work with the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) to determine whether common requirements
could be developed. While the difference between railroad and transit
equipment will force differences in event recorders, the principle of
commonality, wherever possible, is desirable.
I. Distributed Power
A distributed power system places locomotives within the train
consist to add their tractive and braking effort to the movement of,
typically, long and heavy trains. The locomotives ``distributed'' back
in the train are controlled by signals from the lead locomotive. The
Working Group agreed not to include a proposed requirement that new
event recorders capture ``miscompare'' messages between the lead
locomotive and the remotely distributed locomotive due to the extremely
high costs associated with monitoring and capturing such data. One
member of the Working Group, in a written submission to FRA, disagreed
with the removal of this data element but agreed to move forward with
the rulemaking with the opportunity to further discuss this issue at
the final rule stage. This member voiced concern that locomotive
engineers should be given an opportunity to show that they were not
responsible for the failure of a remote control locomotive to respond
properly to a control input because of a problem with the communication
link or other failure originating from software or hardware faults on a
locomotive.
This member seeks to introduce the term ``Locomotive Engineer
Coupling'' (LEC) which is based on the term ``Aircraft-Pilot Coupling''
(APC) used in the aviation industry where the phenomenon it describes
is found to exist in modern aircraft flown ``by wire'' (electronic or
radio controlled). It is contended that the operation of locomotives
``by wire'' is becoming commonplace in the industry and is utilized in
distributed power. The term ``Discordant APC'' is used to describe the
loss of control phenomena resulting from dynamic distortion of the
pilot-aircraft control system, which will occur in two areas: 1. In the
information upon which the pilot judges the aircraft's response to his
control input (the feedback loop); and 2. in the actual response of the
aircraft to the pilot's control inputs (the feed forward loop).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A Case for Higher Data Rates, Ralph A. `Harrah HQ; George
Kaseote, FAA HQ; at page 2 of the proceedings of the International
Symposium on Transportation Recorders on May 3-5, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This member notes the similarity between APC and LEC especially
with respect to remotely controlled distributed power locomotives. The
locomotive engineer expects the control input to be executed as
requested and many control inputs do not immediately feedback to the
engineer. When something goes wrong the only feedback may be an
emergency application of the train's braking system. The absence of a
record of the control input sent by the locomotive engineer will leave
the engineer vulnerable to accusation that any resulting mishap was due
to that individual's negligence. This member further asserts that the
investigation of accidents that have occurred while the lead locomotive
consist is doing one thing and the distributed power is doing something
different from what the engineer intended have revealed that the
distributed power locomotives indicated a communication loss.
Due to the type of confusion described above, this member believes
that FRA should require fully operational locomotive event recorders on
all lead distributed power locomotives and requests that FRA ensure
that any final rule apply to such locomotives. This individual strongly
believes that the rule must avoid an injustice to individuals when the
technology they have been given fails and no record of that failure can
be made.
Based on the above, FRA seeks further comments from all interested
parties on the need and the ability to capture ``miscompare'' messages
between the lead locomotive and the remotely distributed locomotive as
well as any information on the potential economic consequences of any
such requirement. FRA also seeks comments and information on the issue
of whether remotely distributed locomotives (or the unit that receives
signals from the head end and relays them to the other remote
locomotives) should also be required to be equipped with an event
recorder to capture not only the receipt of a message from the lead
locomotive but also the remote locomotive's response to that message.
This would allow not only the capture of miscompare messages but would
also allow an analysis of those messages.
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 229.5
In this proposed section, the existing section is being entirely
rewritten to remove the letter designations for the subparagraphs so
that the terms defined in this section are simply presented in
alphabetical order. In addition, the definitions of two terms have been
substantially revised, and definitions of several new terms are added.
The substantive changes to the existing section are limited to the
following provisions:
Cruise control is an added definition that describes the device
that controls locomotive power output to maintain a targeted speed.
Primarily used on through-route passenger equipment, this device allows
the engineer a choice between automated controls or the traditional
throttle handle. Devices that only function at or below 30 miles per
hour, such as those used in the loading/unloading of unit trains of
bulk commodities, or those used to move equipment through car or
locomotive
[[Page 39781]]
washers, are not considered cruise controls for purposes of this part.
Data element is an added definition to clarify that the data
recorded may be directly passed through or they may be derived from
other data. As an example, speed may be calculated from time and
distance; the event recorder may capture ``speed'' by calculating that
value using the common formula of dividing distance by time. An
alternative term ``data parameter'' is not used in this proposal
because a ``parameter'' connotes one value standing for all others of a
class and an ``element'' is a discrete value. Data may be derived from
both recorded and unrecorded ``facts'' in the memory module. For
instance, the distance element in the calculation of speed may be
derived from a count of the wheel revolutions (data from the memory
module) and the wheel diameter or wheel circumference (data measured
directly from a physical component and, thus, not stored in the memory
module).
Distributed power system is an added definition that describes a
system to allow the engineer in the lead unit to automatically control
locomotive power units placed within the train consist. Typically, a
radio link is established between the lead unit and the remote power
consist so that a single engineer can control several locomotives not
directly coupled to the lead unit.
Event recorder is a revised definition. The definition that is
currently in the regulations is modified so that the list of data
elements to be recorded will now appear in rewritten Sec. 229.135(b).
This change is necessary because the event recorders proposed to be
required on new locomotives will record more data elements than the
recorders now required by the regulation.
Event recorder memory module is a new definition that describes the
portion of the event recorder that will be required to meet the
crashworthy standard proposed in Appendix D to Part 229.
Lead locomotive is a definition moved from current Sec. 229.135(a)
and revised to reflect current industry practice and to make it clear
that ``lead locomotive'' describes a set position in the train rather
than the locomotive from which the crew is operating the train. This
change was necessary, among other reasons, to accurately record the
signal indications displayed to the crew of the train.
Mandatory directive is a definition also contained in Sec. 220.5
of this chapter and is being included in this part to aid in
understanding the type of data that is to be captured by the event
recorder when a railroad utilizes a train control system pursuant to
Part 236 of this chapter.
Remanufactured locomotive is a new definition added to clarify when
an existing event recorder-equipped locomotive must be equipped with a
crashworthy event recorder.
Self-monitoring event recorder is a new definition added to clearly
state the conditions under which an event recorder does not require
periodic maintenance. One member of the Working Group, in a written
submission to FRA, suggests that this definition be slightly altered to
state that a self-monitoring event recorder is one that has the ability
to monitor its own operation and to display an indication to the
locomotive operator when any data required to be stored are not stored
or when the input signal or stored signal is detected as out-of-range.
This commenter stated that there is no way to verify whether the stored
data matches the data received from the sensor or data collection point
as described in the proposed definition. Examples of this are when a
sensor fails open and the locomotive computer does not pass that
information to the event recorder, or when a speed sensor is not
producing any output due to certain failure modes. However, certain
data elements can be programmed with a minimum or maximum range and if
the sensor input is outside that range then an appropriate indication
can be provided to the operator. FRA seeks comments from all interested
parties on this suggested change to the definition of self-monitoring
event recorder.
Throttle position is a new definition added to capture the industry
understanding about this parameter of locomotive operation. As
discussed in more detail earlier, while typical diesel-electric freight
locomotives have positions, or ``notches'' for eight power positions
and ``Idle,'' many other locomotives, especially those in passenger and
heavy electric passenger service, do not. The proposed definition calls
for measuring the power requested by the engineer/operator at any and
all of the discrete output positions of the throttle. If the throttle
quadrant on a locomotive has continuously variable segments, the
recorder would be required to capture the exact level of speed/tractive
effort requested, on a scale of zero (0) to 100 percent (100%) of the
output variable or a value converted from a percentage to a comparable
0 to 8 digital system. FRA does not believe that there is a need to
specify the specific parameters by which throttle position is recorded.
FRA realizes, based on Working Group discussions, that some parties
believe these parameters should be specified and recorded. Therefore,
FRA seeks comments from interested parties on the need to include the
specific methods contained in this definition for reporting and
recording the power requested by an engineer or operator.
Section 229.25
This proposed rule would amend Sec. 229.25(e) by moving the
language dealing with microprocessor-based event recorders from
subparagraph (e)(2) to the lead paragraph and providing that
microprocessor-based event recorders with a self-monitoring feature are
exempt from the 92-day periodic inspection and are to be inspected
annually as required under proposed Sec. 229.27(d). Other types of
event recorders would require inspection and maintenance at 92-day
intervals, as before. FRA recognizes that railroads cannot test event
recorders over the full range of recorded parameters. Such testing
might require operating locomotives at speeds far higher than safe over
a particular railroad's track and some events, such as EOT valve
failure are extremely rare. The proposed rule would require ``cycling,
as practicable, all required recording elements * * * '' in recognition
of the above stated fact. Although the proposed regulatory text does
not specify how records of successful tests are to be maintained, FRA
has no objection to keeping the records electronically, provided; the
electronic ``record'' is the full and complete ``data verification
result'' required by this proposed section, the record is secure, the
record is accessible to FRA for review and monitoring, and the record
is made available upon request to FRA or any other governmental agent
with the authority to request them.
Section 229.27
This proposed rule would amend the introductory text of this
section for clarity and to add a specific reference to proposed
paragraph (d), dealing with the annual maintenance requirements for
microprocessor-based event recorders with a self-monitoring feature.
Proposed paragraph (d) has two potential triggers for required
maintenance. A self-monitoring microprocessor-based event recorder
would require ``maintenance'' in the sense of opening the box and
making adjustments only if either or both of the following occurred:
(1) The event recorder displayed an indication of a failure, or (2) the
railroad has downloaded and reviewed the data for the past 48 hours of
the locomotive's use and found that any required
[[Page 39782]]
channels were not recording data representative of the actual
operations of the locomotive during this time period.
The proposed rule recognizes that certain data elements do not
regularly recur and may not, in fact, have been seen for a long time.
Such elements might include EOT emergency applications, EOT
communications loss, EOT valve failure, and specific channels devoted
to distributed power operations when such operations have not occurred
to the locomotive within the past 48 hours. FRA has eased the burden of
specific ``annual test dates'' by proposing that any time an event
recorder is downloaded, reviewed for the relevant elements as required
in Sec. 229.135(b), and successfully passes that review, a new 368-day
interval begins. (Non-self-monitoring recorders require maintenance at
quarterly intervals, under the requirements of Sec. 229.25.)
The users and vendors of self-monitoring event recorders have
discovered that, in common with many electronic devices, either the
unit works or it does not. If it is working--if it is recording all the
data it is required to record and if it is accurately storing the data
sent by the sensors or other data collection points--no tweaking,
lubricating, adjusting, or other traditional maintenance practice will
make it work better or more accurately. If a self-monitoring event
recorder is not working, that fact will be displayed, and the
experience of the users and builders is that a circuit board, or other
electronic component, will have to be exchanged. By the same token, the
NTSB has strongly urged that maintenance of locomotive event recorders
verify that the entire event recorder system--including the recorder,
the memory module, the cabling, and the sensors--is accurately
recording what the locomotive has actually done. The regulatory
proposal here would require a review of the past 48 hours of the
locomotive's operations because that is the required recording period
for the current (and the proposed) rule. Although the proposed
regulatory text does not specify how records of successful tests are to
be maintained, FRA has no objection to keeping the records
electronically, provided the electronic ``record'' is the full and
complete ``data verification result'' required by this proposed
section, the record is secure, the record is accessible to FRA for
review and monitoring, and the record is made available upon request to
FRA or any other governmental agent with the authority to request them.
Section 229.135
Paragraph (a) is essentially unchanged, except as necessary to
accommodate the proposed changes or additions to subsequent paragraphs
in Sec. 229.135. This proposed paragraph does modify the existing
provision by requiring the make and model of the event recorder to be
entered on Form FRA F6180-49A (blue card). Some members of the Working
Group, at meetings and in written submissions to FRA, questioned the
need to record this information on the blue card as there is no known
instance where a problem was encountered downloading data or locating
appropriate analysis software. These members assert that railroads and
event recorder manufacturers are well aware of the type of event
recorder installed on a locomotive and which software to employ for
downloads. This item was requested by NTSB, and based on NTSB's stated
need for the information, FRA has decided to include the provision in
this proposal. FRA believes there is very little burden placed on the
railroads by requiring the information to be recorded as the presence
of any such recorder is already required under the existing regulation
and the benefit to an accident investigator may be considerable. FRA
seeks comment from interested parties regarding the benefits and costs
associated with including this requirement in the final rule.
Paragraph (b) is totally rewritten to detail the proposed new
requirements for when a new or remanufactured locomotive must be
equipped with a certified crashworthy memory modules and details the
information that must be captured and stored by both new and existing
event recorders. In order to avoid confusion when locomotives are re-
sold after the original purchase from the manufacturer (i.e., sold from
one user to another), the proposed rule specifies that the equipment
required on a specific locomotive is determined by the date it was
originally manufactured. The introductory text is new and would require
that the data recorded be at least as accurate as the data required to
be displayed to the engineer. Further, the rule would require the
crashworthy event recorder memory module to be mounted for its maximum
protection, stating that a module mounted behind the collision posts
and above the platform will be deemed to be appropriately mounted.
Several members of the Working Group, in meetings and in written
submissions to FRA, emphasized that the language contained in this
proposed provision regarding the placement of the crashworthy event
recorder memory module may be interpreted to limit the placement of the
module. They assert that the placement of the module in an electrical
cabinet may not necessarily be below the top of the collision posts and
yet such placement would provide adequate protection and would actually
provide superior crush resistance, be more fire resistant, and be a
longer distance from the point of impact. Similarly, a module located
in the nose of the locomotive may not be above the platform level and
yet it would be sufficiently protected. The illustration contained in
the proposed provision was intended to provide one example of a module
properly mounted for its maximum protection. FRA agrees that there may
be other mounting options that provide at least equal protection, and
has added language to the proposed rule text making this point very
clear. FRA seeks suggestions and comments from interested parties
regarding potential language or approaches to this issue that address
the concerns of these Working Group members.
The proposed requirements relating to when a new locomotive is
required to be equipped with the crashworthy event recorder memory
module is based on the date that the locomotive was originally ordered.
Paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) propose that any locomotive ordered one
year after the effective date of the final rule must be equipped with a
crashworthy event recorder memory module. FRA notes that no outside
parameter has been included in this proposal. Thus, as the proposal is
currently written, any locomotive ordered prior to the one-year period
would not be required to be equipped with a crashworthy event recorder
even if not delivered and placed in service until ten years later. FRA
believes there should be a placed-in-service date included in the final
rule after which any new locomotive must be properly equipped. For
example, most of FRA's regulations that contain a design requirement
for new equipment generally define the new equipment as any that is
ordered after a certain date or that is placed in service after a
certain date. See 49 CFR part 232 and 238. Generally these two dates
are several years apart in order to provide sufficient time for an
equipment order to be fully manufactured and placed in service. Rather
than include an arbitrary date, FRA seeks comments and suggestions from
interested parties as to an appropriate date to include in the final
rule for ensuring that any applicable locomotive placed in service
after that
[[Page 39783]]
date is properly equipped with a crashworthy memory module.
Subparagraph (b)(1) restates the equipment requirements for current
event recorders that use a recording medium other than magnetic tape.
This section proposes to permit the continued use of these current
event recorders on any locomotive manufactured until one year after the
effective date of a final rule in this proceeding. At the initial
meetings with the RSAC Working Group, FRA made clear that this rule was
not intended to involve the retrofitting of existing locomotives with
event recorders containing crashworthy memory modules. FRA continues to
believe that, except for the need to replace event recorders using
magnetic tape to record information, any significant retrofit
requirement of existing locomotive event recorders cannot be justified
from a cost/benefit perspective. In addition to the cost of the
crashwothy event recorder, it would be cost prohibitive to retrofit
many existing locomotives with the ability to monitor many of the data
elements described in this paragraph. Consequently, except for
remanufactured locomotives and locomotives equipped with an event
recorder utilizing magnetic tape, this proposal does not contain any
provision requiring a locomotive manufactured prior to one year from
the effective date of any final rule issued in this proceeding to be
equipped with an event recorder containing a crashworthy memory module
described in Appendix D of this proposal.
Although this proposal does not require the retrofitting of
existing locomotives in most cases, FRA believes that the industry and
the marketplace will dictate that as older style event recorders fail
they will be replaced with event recorders containing crashworthy
memory modules. In addition, the operational benefits derived from the
newer crashworthy event recorders will likely drive the railroads'
decisions when acquiring replacement event recorders for existing
locomotives. Moreover, as the newer crashworthy event recorders become
more prevalent and are manufactured in greater numbers, the costs of
the recorders will likely be more comparable to currently produced
event recorders and thus, many railroads may find it economically
advantageous to purchase the new crashworthy event recorders as
replacements for the older model event recorders on existing
locomotives.
With these thoughts in mind, FRA seeks comments from interested
parties as to whether a provision could or should be added to this rule
which establishes a specific date after which any replacement event
recorder on an existing locomotive must have a crashworthy memory
module pursuant to Appendix D of this proposal. FRA wishes to make
clear that any such provision would only be applied to existing
locomotives when the event recorder with which it is equipped is
replaced and it is not FRA's intention to increase the data elements
required to be captured. It should be noted that FRA is not proposing
to ``sunset'' the use of event recorders using magnetic tape until six
years after the effective date of the final rule in this proceeding.
Thus, any provision related to other current event recorders should
probably not apply until at least that time. To summarize: FRA seeks
comments or information from interested parties as to whether there is
some future date, that would impose little or no cost burden to the
industry, after which any event recorder that is replaced on an
existing locomotive should be replaced with an event recorder
containing a crashworthy memory module described in Appendix D of this
proposal.
Subparagraph (b)(2) proposes a ``sunset'' date for current event
recorders using magnetic tape as their recording medium. Because it is
essentially impossible to make a crashworthy event recorder memory
module that uses magnetic tape, the proposed rule would establish that,
six years after the effective date of a final rule, all such recorders
must be replaced with recorders using ``hardened'' memory modules, but
recording the same elements as they do now. The principal supplier of
this type of equipment has ceased manufacturing it and has recently
discontinued supplying replacement recording media. Accordingly, FRA
believes that this provision should not constitute a significant
burden. FRA seeks comments and information from all interested parties
regarding any significant burden imposed by this proposed provision.
Subparagraph (b)(3) contains the proposed standards for new event
recorders and make new event recorders that meet these standards
mandatory equipment for freight (diesel) locomotives (other than MU
locomotives) manufactured one year after the effective date of a final
rule in this proceeding. The new recorder would have a certified
crashworthy event recorder memory module and would record the following
data elements in addition to the data elements recorded by current
event recorders:
emergency brake applications initiated by the engineer or
by an on-board computer;
a loss of communications from the EOT (End of train)
device;
messages related to the ECP (electronic controlled
pneumatic) braking system;
EOT messages relating to ``ready status,'' an emergency
brake command, and an emergency brake application, valve failure
indication, end-of-train brake pipe pressure, the ``in motion'' signal,
the marker light status, and low battery status;
the position of the switches for headlights and for the
auxiliary lights on the lead locomotive;
activation of the horn control;
the locomotive number;
the automatic brake valve cut in;
the locomotive position (lead or trail);
tractive effort;
the activation of the cruise control; and
safety-critical train control display elements with which
the engineer is required to comply.
Two of the data elements proposed in this subparagraph and in
subparagraph (b)(4) are somewhat controversial and deserve additional
explanation and clarification. FRA seeks comments, information, and
suggestions from interested parties on both of the proposed data
elements discussed below as well as any of the other proposed data
elements contained in subparagraph (b)(3) and (b)(4).
The proposed data element contained in subparagraphs (b)(3)(vi) and
(b)(4)(vi) requires that the system record, or provide a means of
determining, that a brake application or release resulted from
manipulation of brake controls at the position normally occupied by the
locomotive engineer. In the case of a brake application or release that
is responsive to a command originating from or executed by an on-board
computer (e.g., electronic braking system controller, locomotive
electronic control system, or train control computer), the system would
have to record, or provide a means of determining, the involvement of
any such computer.
These additional proposed requirements concerning the operation of
the automatic braking system are necessary in order to take into
account the proliferation of processor-based technology that is now
extensively used to control the functions of locomotives, including on-
board computers constituting subsystems of train control systems. When
the present event recorder rule was being prepared, the
[[Page 39784]]
automatic brake on most locomotives functioned by mechanical and
pneumatic means, responding directly to manipulations of the controls
by the locomotive engineer; and train control (where provided)
addressed braking and power ``knock down'' functions very directly as
well. Increasingly, braking functions are controlled electronically
based on requests from the control stand, and the electronic commands
themselves may pass through a second locomotive computer before being
executed. Major manufacturers of locomotives have plans to run braking
software on their own host processors. Further, some developing train
control projects contemplate routing commands through other on-board
computers.
In general, new electronic systems have functioned well, but there
have been notable failures. It is obviously a dangerous situation when
service braking is not available (requiring the engineer to employ the
emergency braking feature). The unintended application of train brakes
can also constitute a safety hazard, particularly in freight operations
where management of in-train forces is a significant challenge. In the
event of an accident, it is critical that data be logged in the event
recorder memory module that is sufficient to determine the source of
brake applications and releases. It should be known whether or not they
were requested, and whether or not they occurred as requested, from the
control stand. In the event no action was taken at the control stand
that can explain the brake application, it is important to know
(insofar as is feasible) the source of the application. While not every
source of an unintended brake application can be determined in real
time and monitored electronically, on-board computers capable of
issuing a command for application or release of the brakes or executing
such commands should be monitored to determine their role.
The proposed data element contained in subparagraphs (b)(3)(xxv)
and (b)(4)(xxii) requires that safety-critical train control data
routed to the locomotive engineer's display, with which the engineer is
required to comply, be recorded. The data to be recorded would in every
case include text messages conveying mandatory directives and maximum
authorized speed. It may be necessary to record other data elements
depending on the design of the train control system and the type of
information displayed to the engineer (e.g., distance to a ``target''
at which a particular action must be taken). The format, content, and
proposed duration for retention of such data would be specified by the
railroad in the product safety plan (PSP) submitted for the train
control system under the new subpart H of 49 CFR Part 236, subject to
FRA approval under this paragraph. FRA would expect to approve this
element of the PSP if it was clear that data sufficient to determine
the proper functioning of the train control system is routed to the
memory module and retained for a sufficient period to support accident
investigation. FRA anticipates that railroads will elect to record
additional train control data elements in a crashworthy module (e.g.,
train consist data entered by the crew that is critical to the
correctness of the braking curve), and FRA will welcome inclusion of
this additional data.
Train control systems are still evolving, and it is therefore
difficult to anticipate what should be selected for recording;
consequently, it may be difficult to plan for such eventualities. FRA
believes that the proposed rule provides flexibility to address these
future needs by determining data recording needs appropriate to various
systems, including a shorter duration for data retention if appropriate
to the subject matter. Contemporary solid state recorders are
programmable and should be capable of receiving and retaining the
necessary data. If, for some reason not presently foreseen, data
retention requirements for a train control system exceed the capacity
of the primary memory modules, secondary modules associated with the
on-board train control computer could be used to meet the need.
The proposed provision uses the term ``safety-critical'' which is
intended to have a meaning consistent with the meaning assigned in 49
CFR Sec. 236.903. That section provides that ``safety-critical,'' as
applied to a function, a system, or any portion thereof, means the
correct performance of which is essential to safety of personnel and/or
equipment, or the incorrect performance of which could cause a
hazardous condition, or allow a hazardous condition which was intended
to be prevented by the function or system to exist. In the present
context, then, safety-critical data would be data displayed to the
locomotive engineer that is integral to a safety-critical train control
function (such as avoiding over-speed operation, preventing a
collision, or preventing an incursion into a work zone). The safety-
critical functions of a new train control system are defined by the
railroad in the requirements section of the PSP (consistent with the
assumptions specified in the accompanying risk assessment). In
addition, the term ``mandatory directive,'' as used in this provision,
has the meaning assigned to the term in 49 CFR Sec. 220.5 (``any
movement authority or speed restriction that affects a railroad
operation'') and that definition has been duplicated in proposed Sec.
229.5.
Subparagraph (b)(4) is a similar set of proposed new requirements
for MU locomotives manufactured after one year from the effective date
of the rule. Differences between subparagraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4)
reflect the differences between freight locomotives and heavy electric
commuter equipment, primarily in the particular brake application data
required to be stored.
Subparagraph (b)(5) would require, when a locomotive equipped with
an event recorder is remanufactured, that it be equipped with a
certified crashworthy event recorder memory module capable of capturing
the same data as the recorder on the pre-remanufactured locomotive.
Paragraph (c) is essentially the same as current paragraph (c),
modified for clarity and to reflect the specific equipment requirements
in paragraph (b).
Paragraph (d) is essentially the same as the current paragraph (b),
rewritten to clarify that its provisions apply notwithstanding the duty
to equip specified in paragraph (a).
Paragraph (e) combines and simplifies current paragraphs (d) and
(d)(1). This paragraph proposes the requirement that, while the
railroad may download the event recorder immediately following an
accident/incident, the original downloaded data file must be preserved
for FRA or the NTSB.
Paragraph (f) is the present paragraph (d)(2). It was separated for
clarity and ease of citation.
Paragraph (g) is the present paragraph (e).
Appendix D. Appendix D contains the proposed criteria for
certification of an event recorder memory module (ERMM) as crashworthy.
Its elements were the result of the collaborative efforts of a task
group of the RSAC Event Recorder Working Group and were adopted by the
full RSAC in its recommendation to FRA. FRA agrees with the
recommendation of the full RSAC This appendix establishes the general
requirements, the testing sequence, and the required marking for memory
modules certified by their manufacturers as crashworthy. This appendix
also contains the proposed performance criteria for survivability from
fire, impact shock, crush, fluid immersion, and hydrostatic pressure.
The proposed performance criteria contained in Section C of
Appendix D
[[Page 39785]]
are presented in two tables which represent alternative performance
criteria under which an ERMM could be tested for crashworthiness.
During the development of this proposal the Working Group discussed and
reviewed various performance criteria which some manufacturers of event
recorders began using in an effort to pre-qualify their ERMMs. Rather
than penalizing these manufacturers by including only the final draft
performance criteria contained in Table 1, FRA also provides the
performance criteria contained in Table 2 as an acceptable alternative.
FRA expects that ERMMs built to Table 2 criteria would survive more
extreme conditions than those built under Table 1. FRA is also advised
by manufacturers that have already designed and tested Table 2 ERMMs
that the incremental cost of event recorders built to those more
rigorous criteria will be less than the incremental cost of Table 1
ERMMs (for which the differential associated with increased fire
protection over the IEEE criteria is said to be the cost driver).
The proposed performance criteria contained in Table 1 of this
appendix are adapted from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Inc., IEEE Std 1482.1-1999, IEEE Standard for Rail Transit
Vehicle Event Recorders. Virtually all of the criteria contained in
this table are included in Section 4.5 of the above noted IEEE
standard. FRA has slightly modified the fire criteria to make it
consistent with the conditions an event recorder would encounter in
actual operation. FRA increased the IEEE high temperature fire standard
from 650 degrees Celsius to 750 degrees Celsius because the higher
temperature is consistent with the temperature at which locomotive
diesel fuel burns. FRA also did not include IEEE's penetration standard
as FRA finds it unnecessary for purposes of an event recorder mounted
inside a locomotive. Although FRA and the Working Group explored other
performance criteria, FRA believes that the criteria proposed in Table
1 are most likely to be acceptable to the vast majority of the parties
participating in and affected by this regulation. Several
manufacturer's of event recorders noted that they currently manufacture
or are capable of manufacturing a crashworthy ERMM consist with IEEE's
standard. Furthermore, the NTSB indicated its potential acceptance of
the criteria contained in this proposal.
Table 2 of this appendix contains alternative performance criteria
to those adapted from IEEE's standard. FRA has included the performance
criteria contained in this table based on comments received from
certain manufacturers indicating that they were currently producing
crashworthy ERMMs based on the criteria contained in this table. The
performance criteria contained in Table 2 are based on discussions
conducted with the Working Group, were accepted by the full RSAC, and
were contained in its recommendation to FRA. FRA considers them to be
superior to those contained in Table 1. Thus, in order to accommodate
those manufacturer's that took the lead in developing crashworthy
ERMMs, FRA believes it is appropriate to include the criteria
previously discussed and considered by the Working Group and
recommended to FRA by the full RSAC as an alternative to the adapted
IEEE standards. Therefore, manufacturers that have developed
crashworthy ERMMs based on the criteria proposed in Table 2, would not
need to retest their devices under the criteria contained in Table 1.
Table 2 contains two options for meeting the Impact Shock
performance criteria. When using Table 2 criteria, crashworthy ERMMs
may utilize either the IEEE impact shock performance criteria or the
impact shock criteria developed by the Working Group. FRA believes that
either impact shock criteria would be acceptable. FRA recognizes that
the duration of the impact pulse proposed by the Working Group may be
far more expensive to produce than that contained in the IEEE standard
and that there are only a few testing laboratories capable of
performing a test for that duration. FRA realizes that there is a
trade-off between a higher impact value for a short duration as opposed
to a lower impact pulse for a longer duration. FRA sees merit in both
criteria and is not willing to espouse the benefits of either criterion
over the other, and is therefore purposing to permit the use of either
criterion when testing the ERMM.
FRA is proposing the performance criteria in Table 1 and 2 as
alternative methods of certifying an ERMM as crashworthy. FRA seeks
comments, information, and potential cost estimates for both sets of
performance criteria from interested parties. Based on the comments
received in response to this notice, FRA may seek to require the use of
one or both sets of performance criteria (as may be suitable for a
given segment of the railroad industry) or may develop different
parameters altogether.
It should be noted that each set of criteria is a performance
standard and FRA has not included any specific test procedures to
achieve the required level of performance. Although FRA and the Working
Group considered specific testing criteria, FRA does not believe it is
necessary to include specific testing criteria in this regulation. FRA
believes that the industry and the involved manufacturers are in the
best position to determine the exact methods by which they will test
for the specified performance parameters. The Working Group did
consider the testing criteria contained in the following international
standards: (1) The European Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment
(EUROCAE), ED-55, Minimum Operational Performance Specification for
Flight Data Recorder System (May 1990); (2) EUROCAE ED-56A, Minimum
Operational Requirement for Cockpit Voice Recorder System (December
1993); and (3) The Fluid Immersion Test Procedures contained in the
National Fire Protection Association's Fire Protection Handbook, 18th
Edition. Although FRA endorses the use of any of the above standards,
FRA is not proposing to mandate their use at this time. Appendix D
makes clear that any testing procedures employed by a manufacturer must
be documented, recognized, and acceptable. FRA seeks comments from any
interested parties regarding the need to include specific testing
criteria. Such comments should specifically identify the testing
procedures sought to be included and provide a detailed analysis
indicating the need for such inclusion.
FRA wishes to inform all interested parties that they may obtain a
copy of the standards noted in the above discussion through the
following: (1) The EUROCAE standards may be obtained from The European
Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment, 17, rue Hamelin, 75783 PARIS
CEDEX 16, France; (2) the Fire Protection Handbook, 18th Edition, may
be obtained from the National Fire Protection Association, 1
Batterymarch Park, PO Box 9101, Quincy, MA 02269-9101; and (3) the IEEE
Standard for Rail Transit Event Recorders, IEEE Std 1482.1-1999, may be
obtained from The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
Inc., 345 East 47th Street, New York, NY 10017-2394. Interested parties
may also inspect a copy of any of these materials during normal
business hours at the Federal Railroad Administration, Docket Clerk,
Suite 7000, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20590.
Section E of appendix D contains a proposed testing exception for
new model crashworthy ERMMs that represent an evolution or upgrade of
an older model ERMM meeting the performance criteria contained in this
appendix. FRA has included this
[[Page 39786]]
exception based on its determination that there is no reason to subject
a new model ERMM to the proposed testing where no material change has
been made to the unit that would impact any of the performance
criteria. For example, if a memory chip is modified but the remainder
of the box is left unchanged, there would likely be no reason to
subject the unit to all or any of the required tests. In this example,
the only performance criteria, if any, potentially affected might be
the fire standard. This proposed section makes clear that the new model
ERMM need only be tested for compliance with those performance criteria
contained in Section C of appendix D that are potentially affected by
the upgrade or modification. FRA will consider a performance criteria
to not be potentially affected if a preliminary engineering analysis or
other pertinent data establishes that the modification or upgrade will
not affect the crashworthy performance criteria established by the
older model ERMM. The proposed provision requires the manufacturer to
retain and make available to FRA upon request any analysis or data
relied upon to make a determination relating to the crashworthiness
impacts of any upgrade or modification to an older model ERMM.
VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This proposed rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing
policies and procedures, and determined to be significant under both
Executive Order 12866 and DOT policies and procedures (44 FR 11034;
Feb. 26, 1979). FRA has prepared and placed in the docket a regulatory
evaluation addressing the economic impact of this rule. Document
inspection and copying facilities are available at the Department of
Transportation Central Docket Management Facility located in Room PL-
401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590. Access to the docket may also be obtained
electronically through the Web site for the DOT Docket Management
System at http://dms.dot.gov. Photocopies may also be obtained by
submitting a written request to the FRA Docket Clerk at Office of Chief
Counsel, Stop 10, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20590; please refer to Docket No. FRA-2003-16357.
FRA invites comments on this regulatory evaluation.
Event recorders have successfully improved the safety of rail
operations by monitoring railroad operations and by capturing the pre-
accident inputs to the train control. This impartial collection of data
has improved the ability of the railroads and the railroad operating
employees, the ability of the railroads and governmental agencies to
investigate accidents, and the ability of FRA and the States to
regulate railroad operations. These contributions have, in turn, tended
to reduce the number and severity of incidents, accidents, and
resulting damage and casualties. The higher standards proposed in this
NPRM can be expected to produce even greater safety progress.
Therefore, dilution of the existing standards or rejection of the
higher standards proposed in this NPRM would create the potential for
an increase in property damage, injuries, and fatalities resulting from
rail accidents.
The Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) developed in connection with
this proposed rule uses a break-even analysis approach to assessing the
monetary impacts and safety benefits of this proposal. This approach is
appropriate for this particular rule because event recorders do not
directly prevent accidents. Event recorders may indirectly prevent
future accidents by allowing for in-depth accident causation analysis
to take place using complete information, thereby allowing accurate
causation determinations, and the development of appropriate and
effective countermeasures. Because event recorders also allow the
railroad to monitor train handling performance and rules compliance in
a widespread and economical way, FRA believes that event recorders
might have the potential of increasing skillful train handling and
encouraging rules compliance. The extent of the event recorders'
contribution to accident analyses, train handling, and rules compliance
is somewhat open to interpretation and argument. FRA is not in a
position to claim a particular degree of improvement in these areas
from event recorders. Therefore, the RIA simply states the level of
effectiveness (avoided accidents, etc.) that event recorders would have
to reach such that the cost of the proposed rule would be ``paid for''
by the benefits expected to be achieved. It should be noted that the
accident figures used in FRA's analysis do not include the costs of
environmental cleanup or evacuations related to human factor caused
accidents.
FRA expects that overall the rule will not impose a significant
additional cost on the rail industry over the next twenty years. FRA
believes it is reasonable to expect that several accidents, injuries,
and fatalities will be avoided as a result of implementing this
proposed rule. FRA believes that this safety benefit alone justifies
the measures proposed in this document. FRA also believes that the
safety of rail operations will be compromised if this rule is not
implemented. The RIA indicates that an accident reduction of
approximately 2 percent (2%) annually during the first twenty years
``breaks-even'' with the expected costs of the proposed rule. In FRA's
judgement this level of Human Factor Accident reduction is clearly
achievable, and is likely to be exceeded. This is all the more likely
if one or more of the accidents prevented is a passenger train
accident. Passenger train accidents usually have more casualties than
other types of train accidents, just based on the fact that more people
are exposed to the dangers and damages of the accident. Also, those
types of accidents tend to be much more disastrous than a typical
freight train accident, such as a derailment or an accident that does
not involve hazardous materials, thus costing much more than the
assigned average value of a human factor accident.
Although FRA believes this proposed regulation is justified by
safety benefits alone, the addition of clear and substantial business
benefits makes the proposal obviously justified. For example, the
estimated savings resulting from just the proposed requirement of the
floating year approach to the inspection period is a total 20-year
benefit of approximately $ 1.2 million. In addition to this quantified
business benefit there are other benefits which may result from this
proposed rule that are not quantified in the RIA. For example, the
quality and quantity of information gained by recorded data resulting
in increased knowledge of train handling and pre-accident inputs
(events occurring just prior to impact which may have contributed to
the cause) and the public perception that the railroads offer higher
levels of safety and efficiency are not easily quantified benefits.
The following table presents estimated twenty-year monetary impacts
associated with the proposed new requirement for crashworthy event
recorders. The table contains the estimated costs and benefits
associated with this NPRM and provides the total 20-year value as well
as the 20-year net present value (NPV) for each indicated item. The
dollar amounts presented in this table have been rounded to the nearest
thousand. For exact estimates, interested parties should consult the
[[Page 39787]]
RIA that has been made part of the docket in this proceeding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20-year
Description total($) 20-year NPV($)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs: .............. ..............
Replacement of Magnetic Tape 6,310,000 4,976,000
Recorders:.........................
Crashworthy ERMM no new parameters:. 558,000 296,000
Crashworthy ERMM new parameters:.... 16,494,000 8,706,000
Maintenance/Inspections:............ 16,107,000 8,281,000
Total Costs:...................... 39,469,000 22,258,000
Benefits: .............. ..............
Safety: Reduction of Human Factor 42,808,000 22,675,000
accidents and injuries (2%
effectiveness):....................
Business: Magnetic tape inspection 1,751,000 1,201,000
savings:...........................
Total Benefits:................... 44,559,000 23,876,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and Executive
Order 13272 require a review of proposed and final rules to assess
their impact on small entities. FRA has prepared and placed in the
docket an Analysis of Impact on Small Entities (AISE) that assesses the
small entity impact of this proposal. Document inspection and copying
facilities are available at the Department of Transportation Central
Docket Management Facility located in Room PL-401 on the Plaza level of
the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Docket material is also available for inspection on the Internet at
http://dms.dot.gov. Photocopies may also be obtained by submitting a
written request to the FRA Docket Clerk at Office of Chief Counsel,
Stop 10, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20590; please refer to Docket No. FRA-2003-16357.
``Small entity'' is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601 as a small business
concern that is independently owned and operated, and is not dominant
in its field of operation. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA)
has authority to regulate issues related to small businesses, and
stipulates in its size standards that a ``small entity'' in the
railroad industry is a railroad business ``line-haul operation'' that
has fewer than 1,500 employees and a ``switching and terminal''
establishment with fewer than 500 employees. SBA's ``size standards''
may be altered by Federal agencies, in consultation with SBA and in
conjunction with public comment.
Pursuant to that authority FRA has published a final statement of
agency policy that formally establishes ``small entities'' as being
railroads that meet the line-haulage revenue requirements of a Class
III railroad. See 68 FR 24891 (May 9, 2003). Currently, the revenue
requirements are $20 million or less in annual operating revenue. The
$20 million limit is based on the Surface Transportation Board's
(STB's) threshold of a Class III railroad carrier, which is adjusted by
applying the railroad revenue deflator adjustment (49 CFR part 1201).
The same dollar limit on revenues is established to determine whether a
railroad, shipper, or contractor is a small entity. FRA uses this
alternative definition of ``small entity'' for this rulemaking.
The AISE developed in connection with this NPRM concludes that this
proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Thus, FRA certifies that this proposed rule
is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act or
Executive Order 13272.
While about 645 of the approximately 700 railroads operating in the
United States are considered small businesses by FRA, this proposed
rule would only apply to railroads that operate passenger or freight
trains at speeds greater than 30 mph. Very few of these smaller
railroads conduct operations on track that is suitable for top speeds
of greater than 30 mph, i.e., track maintained above Class 2 standards;
thus, FRA believes that the vast majority of small railroads would not
be impacted by the proposed rule. Further, most small railroads own
older locomotives and, thus, would not be affected by the new equipment
requirements of this rule. FRA estimates that approximately only 350
locomotives operated by these smaller railroads would be affected by
the provisions contained in this proposed rule. The AISE associated
with this proposal estimates that the economic impact on these
operations will have an NPV of less than $400,000 over a 20-year
period. Representatives of small railroads participated in the RSAC
discussion that provided the basis for this proposal. FRA seeks
comments and input from all interested parties regarding the estimates
contained in the AISE developed in connection with this NPRM.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
The sections that contain the new information collection requirements
and the estimated time to fulfill each requirement are as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average time Total annual
CFR Section Respondent universe Total annual responses per response burden hours Total annual burden cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
229.9--Movement of Non-Complying 685 Railroads........... 21,000 tags............. 1 minute 350 $12,250.
Locomotives.
229.17--Accident Reports............. 685 Railroads........... 1 report................ 15 minutes .25 $10.
229.21--Daily Inspection............. 685 Railroads........... 5,655,000 rcds.......... 1 or 3 min. 263,383 $10,798,703.
Form FRA F 6180.49A Locomotive Insp/ 685 Railroads........... 14,750 forms............ 2 minutes 492 $17,220.
Repair Rcd.
210.31--Locomotive Noise Emission 685 Railroads........... 100 tests/remarks....... 15 minutes 25 $850.
Test.
[[Page 39788]]
229.23/229.27/229.29/229.31--Periodic 685 Railroads........... 87,000 tests............ 8 hours 696,000 $24,360,000.
Inspection/Annual Biennial Tests/
Main Res. Tests.
229.33--Out-of Use Credit............ 685 Railroads........... 1,000 notations......... 5 minutes 83 $2,822.
229.25(1)--Test: Every Periodic 685 Railroads........... 200 amendments.......... 15 minutes 50 $1,700.
Insp.--Written Copies of Instruction.
229.25(2)--Duty Verification Readout 685 Railroads........... 4,025 records........... 30 minutes 2,013 $58,377.
Record.
229.25(3)--Pre-Maintenance Test-- 685 Railroads........... 700 notations........... 30 minutes 350 $10,150.
Failures.
229.135(A.)--Removal From Service.... 685 Railroads........... 1,000 tags.............. 1 minute 17 $578.
229.135(B.)--Preserving Accident Data 685 Railroads........... 100 reports............. 15 minutes 25 $850.
--------------------------------------
NEW REQUIREMENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
229.27--Annual Tests................. 685 Railroads........... 700 Test Records........ 90 minutes 1,050 $30,450.
229.135(b)(1) & (2)--Equipment 685 Railroads........... 850 Cert. Mem Modules... 2 hours + 200 1,900 Included in RIA.
Rqmnts--Mag Tap Replacements. hours
229.135(b)(3)--Equipment Rqmnts--Lead 685 Railroads........... 600 Cert. Mem Modules... 2 hours 1,200 Included in RIA.
Locomotives.
229.135(b)(4)--Equipment Rqmnts--MU 685 Railroads........... 255 Cert. Mem Modules... 2 hours 510 Included in RIA.
Locomotives.
229.135(b)(5)--Equipment Rqmnts-- 685 Railroads........... 1,040 Cert. Mem Modules. 2 hours 2,080 Included in RIA
Other Locomotives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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), the FRA solicits comments concerning: whether these
information collection requirements are necessary for the proper
performance of the function 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 Robert Brogan at 202-
493-6292.
FRA believes that soliciting public comment will promote its
efforts to reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens associated
with the collection of information mandated by Federal regulations. In
summary, FRA reasons that comments received will advance three
objectives: (i) Reduce reporting burdens; (ii) ensure that it organizes
information collection requirements in a ``user friendly'' format to
improve the use of such information; and (iii) accurately assess the
resources expended to retrieve and produce information requested. See
44 U.S.C. 3501.
Comments must be received no later than September 28, 2004.
Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
collection of information requirements should direct them to Robert
Brogan, Federal Railroad Administration, RRS-21, Mail Stop 17, 1120
Vermont Ave., NW., MS-17, Washington, DC 20590. Comments may also be
sent to Robert Brogan via e-mail at the following address:
[email protected].
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information requirements contained in this proposed rule 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. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
FRA cannot impose a penalty on persons for violating information
collection requirements which 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 a final rule. The OMB
control number, when assigned, will be announced by separate notice in
the Federal Register.
Federalism Implications
FRA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, issued on
August 4, 1999, which directs Federal agencies to exercise great care
in establishing policies that have federalism implications. See 64 FR
43255. This proposed rule will not have a substantial effect on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
various levels of government. This proposed rule will not have
federalism implications that impose any direct compliance costs on
State and local governments.
FRA notes that the RSAC, which endorsed and recommended this
proposed rule to FRA, has as permanent members two organizations
representing State and local interests: the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Association
of State Rail Safety Managers (ASRSM). Both of these State
organizations concurred with the RSAC recommendation endorsing this
proposed rule. The RSAC regularly provides recommendations to the FRA
Administrator for solutions to regulatory issues that reflect
significant input from its State members. To date, FRA has received no
indication of concerns about the Federalism implications of this
rulemaking from these representatives or of any other representatives
of State government. Consequently, FRA concludes that this proposed
rule has no federalism implications, other than the preemption of state
laws covering the subject matter of this proposed rule, which occurs by
operation of law under 49 U.S.C. 20106 whenever FRA issues a rule or
order.
[[Page 39789]]
Environmental Impact
FRA has evaluated this regulation in accordance with its
``Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts'' (FRA's Procedures)
(64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999) as required by the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental statutes,
Executive Orders, and related regulatory requirements. FRA has
determined that this regulation is not a major FRA action (requiring
the preparation of an environmental impact statement or environmental
assessment) because it is categorically excluded from detailed
environmental review pursuant to section 4(c)(20) of FRA's Procedures.
64 FR 28547, May 26, 1999. Section 4(c)(20) reads as follows:
(c) Actions categorically excluded. Certain classes of FRA
actions have been determined to be categorically excluded from the
requirements of these Procedures as they do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. * *
* The following classes of FRA actions are categorically excluded:
* * *
(20) Promulgation of railroad safety rules and policy statements
that do not result in significantly increased emissions or air or
water pollutants or noise or increased traffic congestion in any
mode of transportation.
In accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of FRA's Procedures, the
agency has further concluded that no extraordinary circumstances exist
with respect to this regulation that might trigger the need for a more
detailed environmental review. As a result, FRA finds that this
proposed regulation is not a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Pursuant to Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency ``shall, unless
otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory
actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector
(other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in law).'' Section 202 of the Act
(2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that ``before promulgating any general
notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the
promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may
result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $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.
The proposed rule would not result in the expenditure, in the
aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and thus
preparation of such a statement is not required.
Energy Impact
Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a
Statement of Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' 66
FR 28355 ( May 22, 2001). Under the Executive Order, a ``significant
energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency (normally
published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to
lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including
notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices
of proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) that is a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or
use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy
action. FRA has evaluated this NPRM in accordance with Executive Order
13211. FRA has determined that this NPRM is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Consequently, FRA has determined that this regulatory action is
not a ``significant energy action'' within the meaning of Executive
Order 13211.
Privacy Act
FRA wishes to inform all potential commenters that anyone is able
to search the electronic form of all comments received into any agency
docket by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing
the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70;
Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 229
Accident investigation, Data preservation, Event recorders,
Locomotives, National Transportation Safety Board, Penalties, Railroad
safety, Railroads, Reporting and record keeping requirements.
The Proposed Rule
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Railroad
Administration proposes to amend part 229 of chapter II, subtitle B of
Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 229--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 229 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-03, 20107, 20133, 20137-38, 20143,
20701-03, 21301-02, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2401, note; and 49 CFR
1.49(c),(m).2. Section 229.5 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 229.5 Definitions.
As used in this part--
Break means a fracture resulting in complete separation into parts.
Cab means that portion of the superstructure designed to be
occupied by the crew operating the locomotive.
Carrier means railroad, as that term is defined below.
Commuter Service means the type of railroad service described under
the heading ``Commuter Operations'' in 49 CFR part 209, appendix A.
Commuter work train is a non-revenue service train used in the
administration and upkeep service of the commuter railroad.
Control cab locomotive means a locomotive without propelling motors
but with one or more control stands.
Crack means a fracture without complete separation into parts,
except that castings with shrinkage cracks or hot tears that do not
significantly diminish the strength of the member are not considered to
be cracked.
Cruise control means a device that controls locomotive power output
to obtain a targeted speed. A device that functions only at or below 30
miles per hour is NOT considered a ``cruise control'' for purposes of
this part.
Data element means data point(s) or value(s) reflecting on-board
train operations at a particular time. Data may be actual or ``passed
through'' values or may be derived from a combination of values from
other sources.
Dead locomotive means--
(1) A locomotive, other than a control cab locomotive, that does
not have any traction device supplying tractive power; or
(2) A control cab locomotive that has a locked and unoccupied cab.
Distributed power system means a system that provides automatic
control of a number of locomotives dispersed throughout a train from a
controlling locomotive located in the lead position. The system
provides control of the rearward locomotives by command signals
originating at the lead locomotive and transmitted to the remote
(rearward) locomotives.
[[Page 39790]]
Electronic air brake means a brake system controlled by a computer
which provides the means for control of the locomotive brakes or train
brakes or both.
Event recorder means a device, designed to resist tampering, that
monitors and records data, as detailed in Sec. 229.135(b), over the
most recent 48 hours of operation of the electrical system of the
locomotive on which the device is installed. However, a device,
designed to resist tampering, that monitors and records the specified
data only when the locomotive is in motion meets this definition if the
device was installed prior to November 5, 1993 and if it records the
specified data for the last eight hours the locomotive was in motion.
Event recorder memory module means that portion of the event
recorder used to retain the recorded data as detailed in Sec.
229.135(b).
High voltage means an electrical potential of more than 150 volts.
In-service event recorder means an event recorder that was
successfully tested as prescribed in Sec. 229.27(d) and whose
subsequent failure to operate as intended, if any, is not actually
known by the railroad operating the locomotive on which it is
installed.
Lead locomotive means the first locomotive proceeding in the
direction of movement.
Lite locomotive means a locomotive or a consist of locomotives not
attached to any piece of equipment or attached only to a caboose.
Locomotive means a piece of on-track equipment other than hi-rail,
specialized maintenance, or other similar equipment--
(1) With one or more propelling motors designed for moving other
equipment;
(2) With one or more propelling motors designed to carry freight or
passenger traffic or both; or
(3) Without propelling motors but with one or more control stands.
Mandatory directive means any movement authority or speed
restriction that affects a railroad operation.
Modesty lock means a latch that can be operated in the normal
manner only from within the sanitary compartment, that is designed to
prevent entry of another person when the sanitary compartment is in
use. A modesty lock may be designed to allow deliberate forced entry in
the event of an emergency.
MU locomotive means a multiple operated electric locomotive--
(1) With one or more propelling motors designed to carry freight or
passenger traffic or both; or
(2) Without propelling motors but with one or more control stands.
Other short-haul passenger service means the type of railroad
service described under the heading ``Other short-haul passenger
service'' in 49 CFR part 209, Appendix A.
Potable water means water that meets the requirements of 40 CFR
part 141, the Environmental Protection Agency's Primary Drinking Water
Regulations, or water that has been approved for drinking and washing
purposes by the pertinent state or local authority having jurisdiction.
For purposes of this part, commercially available, bottled drinking
water is deemed potable water.
Powered axle is an axle equipped with a traction device.
Railroad means all forms of non-highway ground transportation that
run on rails or electromagnetic guideways, including commuter or other
short-haul rail passenger service in a metropolitan or suburban area,
and high speed ground transportation systems that connect metropolitan
areas, without regard to whether they use new technologies not
associated with traditional railroads. Such term does not include rapid
transit operations within an urban area that are not connected to the
general railroad system of transportation.
Remanufactured locomotive means a locomotive rebuilt or refurbished
from a previously used or refurbished underframe (``deck''), containing
fewer than 25 percent previously used components (weighted by dollar
value of the components).
Sanitary means lacking any condition in which any significant
amount of filth, trash, or human waste is present in such a manner that
a reasonable person would believe that the condition might constitute a
health hazard; or of strong, persistent, chemical or human waste odors
sufficient to deter use of the facility, or give rise to a reasonable
concern with respect to exposure to hazardous fumes. Such conditions
include, but are not limited to, a toilet bowl filled with human waste,
soiled toilet paper, or other products used in the toilet compartment,
that are present due to a defective toilet facility that will not flush
or otherwise remove waste; visible human waste residue on the floor or
toilet seat that is present due to a toilet that overflowed; an
accumulation of soiled paper towels or soiled toilet paper on the
floor, toilet facility, or sink; an accumulation of visible dirt or
human waste on the floor, toilet facility, or sink; and strong,
persistent chemical or human waste odors in the compartment.
Sanitation compartment means an enclosed compartment on a railroad
locomotive that contains a toilet facility for employee use.
Self-monitoring event recorder means an event recorder that has the
ability to monitor its own operation and to display an indication to
the locomotive operator when any data required to be stored are not
stored or when the stored data do not match the data received from
sensors or data collection points.
Serious injury means an injury that results in the amputation of
any appendage, the loss of sight in an eye, the fracture of a bone, or
the confinement in a hospital for a period of more than 24 consecutive
hours.
Switching service means the classification of railroad freight and
passenger cars according to commodity or destination; assembling cars
for train movements; changing the position of cars for purposes of
loading, unloading, or weighing; placing locomotives and cars for
repair or storage; or moving rail equipment in connection with work
service that does not constitute a train movement.
Throttle position means any and all of the discrete output
positions indicating the speed/tractive effort characteristic requested
by the operator of the locomotive on which the throttle is installed.
Together, the discrete output positions shall cover the entire range of
possible speed/tractive effort characteristics. If the throttle has
continuously variable segments, the event recorder shall capture
either:
(1) The exact level of speed/tractive effort characteristic
requested, on a scale of zero (0) to one hundred percent (100%) of the
output variable; or
(2) A value converted from a percentage to a comparable 0 to 8
digital signal.
Time means either ``time-of-day'' or ``elapsed time'' (from an
arbitrarily determined event) as determined by the manufacturer. In
either case, the recorder must be able to convert to an accurate time-
of-day with the time zone stated unless it is GMT(UTC).
Toilet facility means a system that automatically or on command of
the user removes human waste to a place where it is treated,
eliminated, or retained such that no solid or non-treated liquid waste
is thereafter permitted to be released into the bowl, urinal, or room
and that prevents harmful discharges of gases or persistent offensive
odors.
Transfer service means a freight train that travels between a point
of origin and a point of final destination not exceeding 20 miles and
that is not performing switching service.
[[Page 39791]]
Unsanitary means having any condition in which any significant
amount of filth, trash, or human waste is present in such a manner that
a reasonable person would believe that the condition might constitute a
health hazard; or strong, persistent, chemical or human waste odors
sufficient to deter use of the facility, or give rise to a reasonable
concern with respect to exposure to hazardous fumes. Such conditions
include, but are not limited to, a toilet bowl filled with human waste,
soiled toilet paper, or other products used in the toilet compartment,
that are present due to a defective toilet facility that will not flush
or otherwise remove waste; visible human waste residue on the floor or
toilet seat that is present due to a toilet that overflowed; an
accumulation of soiled paper towels or soiled toilet paper on the
floor, toilet facility, or sink; an accumulation of visible dirt or
human waste on the floor, toilet facility, or sink; and strong,
persistent chemical or human waste odors in the compartment.
Washing system means a system for use by railroad employees to
maintain personal cleanliness that includes a secured sink or basin,
water, antibacterial soap, and paper towels; or antibacterial waterless
soap and paper towels; or antibacterial moist towelettes and paper
towels; or any other combination of suitable antibacterial cleansing
agents.
3. Section 229.25 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 229.25 Tests: Every periodic inspection.
* * * * *
(e) Event Recorder. A microprocessor-based self-monitoring event
recorder, if installed, is exempt from periodic inspection under
paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(5) of this section and shall be inspected
annually as required by Sec. 229.27(d). Other types of event
recorders, if installed, shall be inspected, maintained, and tested in
accordance with instructions of the manufacturer, supplier, or owner
thereof and in accordance with the following criteria:
(1) A written or electronic copy of the instructions in use shall
be kept at the point where the work is performed and a hard-copy
version, written in the English language, shall be made available upon
request of a governmental agent empowered to request it.
(2) The event recorder shall be tested before any maintenance work
is performed on it. At a minimum, the event recorder test shall include
cycling, as practicable, all required recording elements and
determining the full range of each element by reading out recorded
data.
(3) If the pre-maintenance test does not reveal that the device is
recording all the specified data and that all recordings are within the
designed recording elements, this fact shall be noted, and maintenance
and testing shall be performed as necessary until a subsequent test is
successful.
(4) When a successful test is accomplished, a copy of the data-
verification results shall be maintained in any medium with the
maintenance records for the locomotive until the next one is filed.
(5) A railroad's event recorder periodic maintenance shall be
considered effective if 90 percent of the recorders on locomotives
inbound for periodic inspection in any given calendar month are still
fully functional; maintenance practices and test intervals shall be
adjusted as necessary to yield effective periodic maintenance.
4. Section 229.27 is amended by revising the introductory text and
by adding a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 229.27 Annual tests.
A locomotive, except for an MU locomotive, shall be subjected to
the tests and inspections prescribed in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of
this section. An MU locomotive shall be subjected to the tests and
inspections prescribed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. A
locomotive, including an MU locomotive, equipped with a microprocessor-
based event recorder that includes a self-monitoring feature, shall be
subjected to the tests and inspections prescribed in paragraph (d) of
this section, at intervals that do not exceed 368 calendar days.
* * * * *
(d) A microprocessor-based event recorder with a self-monitoring
feature equipped to verify that all data elements required by this part
are recorded, requires further maintenance only if either or both of
the following conditions exist:
(1) The self-monitoring feature displays an indication of a
failure. If a failure is displayed, further maintenance and testing
must be performed until a subsequent test is successful. When a
successful test is accomplished, a record, in any medium, shall be made
of that fact and of any maintenance work necessary to achieve the
successful result. This record shall be available at the location where
the locomotive is maintained until a record of a subsequent successful
test is filed.
(2) A download of the event recorder, taken within the preceding 30
days and reviewed for the previous 48 hours of locomotive operation,
reveals a failure to record a regularly recurring data element or
reveals that any required data element is not representative of the
actual operations of the locomotive during this time period. If the
review is not successful, further maintenance and testing shall be
performed until a subsequent test is successful. When a successful test
is accomplished, a record, in any medium, shall be made of that fact
and of any maintenance work necessary to achieve the successful result.
This record shall be kept at the location where the locomotive is
maintained until a record of a subsequent successful test is filed. The
download shall be taken from information stored in the certified
crashworthy crash hardened event recorder memory module if the
locomotive is so equipped.
5. Section 229.135 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 229.135 Event recorders.
(a) Duty to equip and record. Except as provided in paragraphs (c)
and (d) of this section, a train operated faster than 30 miles per hour
shall have an in-service event recorder, of the type described in
paragraph (b) of this section, in the lead locomotive. The presence of
the event recorder shall be noted on Form FRA F6180-49A (by writing the
make and model of event recorder with which the locomotive is equipped)
under the REMARKS section, except that an event recorder designed to
allow the locomotive to assume the lead position only if the recorder
is properly functioning is not required to have its presence noted on
Form FRA F6180-49A. For the purpose of this section, ``train'' includes
a locomotive or group of locomotives with or without cars. The duty to
equip the lead locomotive may be met with an event recorder located
elsewhere than the lead locomotive provided that such event recorder
monitors and records the required data as though it were located in the
lead locomotive. The event recorder shall record the most recent 48
hours of operation of the electrical system of the locomotive on which
it is installed.
(b) Equipment requirements. Event recorders shall monitor and
record data elements required by this paragraph with at least the
accuracy required of the indicators displaying any of the required
elements to the engineer.
(1) A lead locomotive originally manufactured before [date one (1)
year after the effective date of the final rule],
[[Page 39792]]
including a controlling remote distributed power locomotive and an MU
locomotive, except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this
section, shall have an in-service event recorder that records the
following data elements:
(i) Train speed;
(ii) Selected direction of motion;
(iii) Time;
(iv) Distance;
(v) Throttle position;
(vi) Applications and operations of the train automatic air brake;
(vii) Applications and operations of the independent brake;
(viii) Applications and operations of the dynamic brake, if so
equipped; and
(ix) Cab signal aspect(s), if so equipped and in use.
(2) A locomotive originally manufactured before [date one (1) year
after the effective date of the final rule] and equipped with an event
recorder that uses magnetic tape as its recording medium shall have the
recorder removed from service on or before [date six (6) years after
the effective date of the final rule] and replaced with an event
recorder with a certified crashworthy event recorder memory module that
meets the requirements of appendix D of this part and that records at
least the same number of data elements as the recorder it replaces.
(3) A lead locomotive and a controlling remotely distributed power
locomotive, other than an MU locomotive, originally ordered on or after
[date one (1) year after effective date of the final rule] shall be
equipped with an event recorder with a certified crashworthy event
recorder memory module that meets the requirements of appendix D of
this part. The certified event recorder memory module shall be mounted
for its maximum protection. (Although other mounting standards may meet
this standard, an event recorder memory module mounted behind and below
the top of the collision posts and above the platform level is deemed
to be mounted ``for its maximum protection.'') The event recorder shall
record, and the certified crashworthy event recorder memory module
shall retain, the following data elements:
(i) Train speed;
(ii) Selected direction of motion;
(iii) Time;
(iv) Distance;
(v) Throttle position;
(vi) Applications and operations of the train automatic air brake,
including emergency applications. The system shall record, or provide a
means of determining, that a brake application or release resulted from
manipulation of brake controls at the position normally occupied by the
locomotive engineer. In the case of a brake application or release that
is responsive to a command originating from or executed by an on-board
computer (e.g., electronic braking system controller, locomotive
electronic control system, or train control computer), the system shall
record, or provide a means of determining, the involvement of any such
computer;
(vii) Applications and operations of the independent brake;
(viii) Applications and operations of the dynamic brake, if so
equipped;
(ix) Cab signal aspect(s), if so equipped and in use;
(x) End-of-train (EOT) device loss of communication front to rear
and rear to front;
(xi) Electronic controlled pneumatic braking (ECP) message (and
loss of such message), if so equipped;
(xii) EOT armed, emergency brake command, emergency brake
application;
(xiii) Indication of EOT valve failure;
(xiv) EOT brake pipe pressure (EOT and ECP devices);
(xv) EOT marker light on/off;
(xvi) EOT ``low battery'' status;
(xvii) Position of on/off switch for headlights on lead locomotive;
(xviii) Position of on/off switch for auxiliary lights on lead
locomotive;
(xix) Horn control handle activation;
(xx) Locomotive number;
(xxi) Locomotive automatic brake valve cut in;
(xxii) Locomotive position in consist (lead or trail);
(xxiii) Tractive effort;
(xxiv) Cruise control on/off, if so equipped and in use; and
(xxv) Safety-critical train control data routed to the locomotive
engineer's display with which the engineer is required to comply,
specifically including text messages conveying mandatory directives,
and maximum authorized speed. The format, content, and proposed
duration for retention of such data shall be specified in the product
safety plan submitted for the train control system under subpart H of
part 236 of this chapter, subject to FRA approval under this paragraph.
If it can be calibrated against other data required by this part, such
train control data may, at the election of the railroad, be retained in
a separate certified crashworthy memory module.
(4) An MU locomotive originally ordered on or after [date one (1)
year after effective date of the final rule] shall be equipped with an
event recorder with a certified crashworthy event recorder memory
module that meets the requirements of Appendix D of this part. The
certified event recorder memory module shall be mounted for its maximum
protection. (Although other mounting standards may meet this standard,
an event recorder memory module mounted behind the collision posts and
above the platform level is deemed to be mounted ``for its maximum
protection.'') The event recorder shall record, and the certified
crashworthy event recorder memory module shall retain, the following
data elements:
(i) Train speed;
(ii) Selected direction of motion;
(iii) Time;
(iv) Distance;
(v) Throttle position;
(vi) Applications and operations of the train automatic air brake,
including emergency applications. The system shall record, or provide a
means of determining, that a brake application or release resulted from
manipulation of brake controls at the position normally occupied by the
locomotive engineer. In the case of a brake application or release that
is responsive to a command originating from or executed by an on-board
computer (e.g., electronic braking system controller, locomotive
electronic control system, or train control computer), the system shall
record, or provide a means of determining, the involvement of any such
computer;
(vii) Applications and operations of the independent brake, if so
equipped;
(viii) Applications and operations of the dynamic brake, if so
equipped;
(ix) Cab signal aspect(s), if so equipped and in use;
(x) Emergency brake application(s);
(xii) Wheel slip/slide alarm activation (with a property-specific
minimum duration);
(xiii) Lead locomotive headlight activation switch on/off;
(xiv) Lead locomotive auxiliary lights activation switch on/off;
(xv) Horn control handle activation;
(xvi) Locomotive number;
(xvii) Locomotive position in consist (lead or trail);
(xviii) Tractive effort;
(xix) Brakes apply summary train line;
(xx) Brakes released summary train line;
(xxi) Cruise control on/off, if so equipped and used; and
(xxii) Safety-critical train control data routed to the locomotive
engineer's display with which the engineer is required to comply,
specifically including text messages conveying mandatory directives,
and maximum authorized speed. The format, content, and proposed
duration for retention of such data shall be specified in the product
safety plan submitted for the train control system under subpart H of
[[Page 39793]]
part 236 of this chapter, subject to FRA approval under this paragraph.
If it can be calibrated against other data required by this part, such
train control data may, at the election of the railroad, be retained in
a separate certified crashworthy memory module.
(5) A locomotive equipped with an event recorder that is
remanufactured, as defined in this part, on or after [date two (2)
years after effective date of the final rule], shall be equipped with
an event recorder with a certified crashworthy event recorder memory
module that meets the requirements of Appendix D to this part and is
capable of recording, at a minimum, the same data as the recorder that
was on the locomotive before it was remanufactured.
(c) Removal from service. Notwithstanding the duty established in
paragraph (a) of this section to equip certain locomotives with an in-
service event recorder, a railroad may remove an event recorder from
service and, if a railroad knows that an event recorder is not
monitoring or recording required data, shall remove the event recorder
from service. When a railroad removes an event recorder from service, a
qualified person shall record the date that the device was removed from
service on Form FRA F6180-49A, under the REMARKS section, unless the
event recorder is designed to allow the locomotive to assume the lead
position only if the recorder is properly functioning.
(d) Response to defective equipment. Notwithstanding the duty
established in paragraph (a) of this section to equip certain
locomotives with an in-service event recorder, a locomotive on which
the event recorder has been taken out of service as provided in
paragraph (c) of this section may remain as the lead locomotive only
until the next calendar-day inspection. A locomotive with an
inoperative event recorder is not deemed to be in improper condition,
unsafe to operate, or a non-complying locomotive under Sec. Sec. 229.7
and 229.9, and, other than the requirements of appendix D of this part,
the inspection, maintenance, and testing of event recorders are limited
to the requirements set forth in Sec. Sec. 229.25(e) and 229.27(d).
(e) Preserving accident data. If any locomotive equipped with an
event recorder, or any other locomotive-mounted recording device or
devices designed to record information concerning the functioning of a
locomotive or train, is involved in an accident/incident that is
required to be reported to FRA under part 225 of this chapter, the
railroad that was using the locomotive at the time of the accident
shall, to the extent possible, and to the extent consistent with the
safety of life and property, preserve the data recorded by each such
device for analysis by FRA. This preservation requirement permits the
railroad to extract and analyze such data, provided the original
downloaded data file, or an unanalyzed exact copy of it, shall be
retained in secure custody and shall not be utilized for analysis or
any other purpose except by direction of FRA or the National
Transportation Safety Board. This preservation requirement shall expire
30 days after the date of the accident unless FRA or the Board notifies
the railroad in writing that the data are desired for analysis.
(f) Relationship to other laws. Nothing in this section is intended
to alter the legal authority of law enforcement officials investigating
potential violation(s) of State criminal law(s), and nothing in this
chapter is intended to alter in any way the priority of National
Transportation Safety Board investigations under 49 U.S.C. 1131 and
1134, nor the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to
investigate railroad accidents under 49 U.S.C. 5121, 5122, 20107,
20111, 20112, 20505, 20702, 20703, and 20902.
(g) Disabling event recorders. Except as provided in paragraph (c)
of this section, any individual who willfully disables an event
recorder is subject to civil penalty and to disqualification from
performing safety-sensitive functions on a railroad as provided in
Sec. 218.55 of this chapter, and any individual who tampers with or
alters the data recorded by such a device is subject to a civil penalty
as provided in appendix B of part 218 of this chapter and to
disqualification from performing safety-sensitive functions on a
railroad if found unfit for such duties under the procedures in part
209 of this chapter.
6. A new appendix D is added to part 229 to read as follows:
Appendix D to Part 229--Criteria for Certification of Crashworthy Event
Recorder Memory Module
Section 229.135(b) requires that certain locomotives be equipped
with an event recorder that includes a certified crashworthy event
recorder memory module. This appendix prescribes the requirements
for certifying an event recorder memory module (ERMM) as
crashworthy, including the performance criteria and test sequence
for establishing the crashworthiness of the ERMM as well as the
marking of the event recorder containing the crashworthy ERMM.
A. General Requirements
1. Each manufacturer that represents its ERMM as crashworthy
shall, by marking it as specified in Section B of this appendix,
certify that the ERMM meets the performance criteria contained in
this appendix and that test verification data are available to a
railroad or to FRA upon request.
2. The test verification data shall contain, at a minimum, all
pertinent original data logs and documentation that the test sample
preparation, test set up, test measuring devices and test procedures
were performed by designated, qualified personnel using recognized
and acceptable practices. Test verification data shall be retained
by the manufacturer or its successor as long as the specific model
of ERMM remains in service on any locomotive.
3. A crashworthy ERMM shall be marked by its manufacturer as
specified in Section B of this appendix.
B. Marking Requirements
1. The outer surface of the event recorder containing a
certified crashworthy ERMM shall be colored international orange. In
addition, the outer surface shall be inscribed, on the surface
allowing the most visible area, in black letters on an international
orange background, using the largest type size that can be
accommodated, with the words CERTIFIED DOT CRASHWORTHY, followed by
the ERMM model number (or other such designation), and the name of
the manufacturer of the event recorder. This information may be
displayed as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JN04.006
[[Page 39794]]
Marking ``CERTIFIED DOT CRASHWORTHY'' on an event recorder
designed for installation in a railroad locomotive is the
certification that all performance criteria contained in this
appendix have been met and all functions performed by, or on behalf
of, the manufacturer whose name appears as part of the marking,
conform to the requirements specified in this appendix.
2. Retro-reflective material shall be applied to the edges of
each visible external surface of an event recorder containing a
certified crashworthy ERMM.
C. Performance Criteria for the ERMM
An ERMM is crashworthy if it has been successfully tested for
survival under conditions of fire, impact shock, static crush, fluid
immersion, and hydro-static pressure contained in one of the two
tables contained in this section of appendix D. (See Tables 1 and 2
of this appendix.) Each ERMM must met the individual performance
criteria in the sequence established in Section D of this appendix.
Performance criteria are deemed to be met if the ERMM has preserved
all of the data stored in it. The data set stored in the ERMM to be
tested shall include all the recording elements required by Sec.
229.135(b). The following tables describe alternative performance
criteria that may be used when testing an ERMM's crashworthiness. A
manufacturer may utilize either table during its testing but may not
combine the criteria contained in the two tables.
Table 1.--Acceptable Performance Criteria--Option A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Value Duration Remarks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire, High Temperature............... 750[deg]C (1400[deg]F). 60 minutes............. Heat source: Oven.
Fire, Low Temperature................ 260[deg]C (500[deg]F).. 10 hours...............
Impact Shock......................... 55g.................... 100 ms................. \1/2\ sine crash pulse.
Static Crush......................... 110kN (25,000 lbf)..... 5 minutes..............
Fluid Immersion...................... 1 Diesel...... Any single fluid, 48
hours.
2 Diesel
Water
Salt Water
Lube Oil
Fire Fighting Fluid.... 10 minutes, following Immersion followed by
immersion above. 48 hours in a dry
location with out
further disturbance.
Hydrostatic Pressure................. Depth equivalent = 15 48 hours at nominal
m. (50 of ft.). temperature of
25[deg]c (77[deg]F).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Acceptable Performance Criteria--Option B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Value Duration Remarks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire, High Temperature............... 1000[deg]C (1832[deg]F) 60 minutes............. Heat source: Open
flame.
Fire, Low Temperature................ 260[deg]C (500[deg]F).. 10 hours............... Heat source: Oven.
Impact Shock--Option 1............... 23gs................... 250 ms.................
Impact Shock--Option 2............... 55gs................... 100 ms................. \1/2\ sine crash pulse.
Static Crush......................... 111.2kN (25,000lbf).... 5 minutes..............
445.5kN (10,000lbf).... (single ``squeeze'')... Applied to 25% of
surface of largest
face.
Fluid Immersion...................... 1 Diesel...... 48 hours each..........
2 Diesel
Water
Salt Water
Lube Oil
Fire Fighting Fluid
Hydrostatic Pressure................. 46.62 psig (= 30.5 m. 48 hours at nominal
or 100 ft.). temperature of
25[deg]c (77[deg]F).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Testing Sequence
In order to reasonably duplicate the conditions an event
recorder may encounter, the ERMM shall meet the various performance
criteria, described in Section C of this appendix, in a set
sequence. (See Figure 1). If all tests are done in the set sequence
(single branch testing), the same ERMM must be utilized throughout.
If a manufacturer opts for split branch testing, each branch of the
test must be conducted using an ERMM of the same design type as used
for the other branch. Both alternatives are deemed equivalent, and
the choice of single branch testing or split branch testing may be
determined by the party representing that the ERMM meets the
standard.
E. Testing Exception
If a new model ERMM represents an evolution or upgrade from an
older model ERMM that was previously tested and certified as meeting
the performance criteria contained in Section C of this appendix,
the new model ERMM need only be tested for compliance with those
performance criteria contained in Section C of this appendix that
are potentially affected by the upgrade or modification. FRA will
consider a performance criteria to not be potentially affected if a
preliminary engineering analysis or other pertinent data establishes
that the modification or upgrade will not affect the crashworthy
performance criteria established by the older model ERMM. The
manufacturer shall retain and make available to FRA upon request any
analysis or data relied upon to make a determination relating to the
crashworthiness impacts of any upgrade or modification to an older
model ERMM.
[[Page 39795]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JN04.005
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 23, 2004.
Betty Monro,
Acting Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-14636 Filed 6-29-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P