Passenger Equipment Safety Standards; Miscellaneous Amendments and Attachments of Safety Appliances on Passenger Equipment, 73070-73095 [05-23672]

Agencies

• Federal Railroad Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 235 (Thursday, December 8, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73070-73095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23672]



[[Page 73069]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of Transportation





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Federal Railroad Administration



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



49 CFR Parts 229 and 238



Passenger Equipment Safety Standards; Miscellaneous Amendments and 
Attachments of Safety Appliances on Passenger Equipment; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 73070]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Parts 229 and 238

[Docket No. FRA-2005-23080, Notice No. 1]
RIN 2130-AB67


Passenger Equipment Safety Standards; Miscellaneous Amendments 
and Attachments of Safety Appliances on Passenger Equipment

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to clarify and amend its existing regulations 
in an effort to address various mechanical issues relevant to the 
manufacture, efficient utilization, and safe operation of passenger 
equipment and trains that have arisen since FRA's original issuance of 
the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards. FRA proposes miscellaneous 
amendments to its existing regulations in five areas by: Clarifying the 
terminology related to piston travel indicators; providing alternative 
design and additional inspection criteria for new passenger equipment 
not designed to allow inspection of the application and release of the 
brakes from outside the equipment; permitting some latitude in the use 
of passenger equipment with redundant air compressors when a limited 
number of the compressors become inoperative; recognizing current 
locomotive manufacturing techniques by permitting an alternative 
pneumatic pressure test for main reservoirs; and adding provisions to 
ensure the proper securement of unattended equipment. FRA is also 
clarifying the existing regulatory requirements related to the 
attachment of safety appliances and is proposing an identification and 
inspection protocol to address passenger equipment containing welded 
safety appliances or welded safety appliance brackets or supports. 
Finally, FRA is proposing to permit railroads the ability to apply out-
of-service credit to certain periodic maintenance requirements.

DATES: (1) Written comments must be received by February 17, 2006. 
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 January 17, 2006, 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.

ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2005-23080, may 
be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: https://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
     Fax: 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 https://
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 https://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.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to https://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: George Scerbo, Office of Safety 
Assurance and Compliance, Motive Power & Equipment Division, RRS-14, 
Mail Stop 25, Federal Railroad Administration, 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

    In September of 1994, the Secretary of Transportation convened a 
meeting of representatives from all sectors of the rail industry with 
the goal of enhancing rail safety. As one of the initiatives arising 
from this Rail Safety Summit, the Secretary announced that DOT would 
begin developing safety standards for rail passenger equipment over a 
five-year period. In November of 1994, Congress adopted the Secretary's 
schedule for implementing rail passenger equipment regulations and 
included it in the Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994 
(the Act), Public Law 103-440, 108 Stat. 4619, 4623-4624 (November 2, 
1994). Section 215 of the Act, is now codified at 49 U.S.C. 20133.
    The Secretary of Transportation has delegated these rulemaking 
responsibilities to the Federal Railroad Administrator. See 49 CFR 
1.49(m).

II. Proceedings to Date

    On June 17, 1996, FRA published an advanced notice of proposed 
rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning the establishment of comprehensive safety 
standards for railroad passenger equipment. See 61 FR 30672. The ANPRM 
provided background information on the need for such standards, offered 
preliminary ideas on approaching passenger safety issues, and presented 
questions on various passenger safety topics. Following consideration 
of comments received on the ANPRM and advice from FRA's Passenger 
Equipment Working Group, FRA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) on September 23, 1997, to establish comprehensive safety 
standards for railroad passenger equipment. See 62 FR 49728. In 
addition to requesting written comment on the NPRM, FRA also solicited 
oral comment at a public hearing held on November 21, 1997. FRA 
considered the comments received on the NPRM and prepared a final rule 
establishing safety standards for passenger equipment, which was 
published on May 12, 1999. See 64 FR 25540.
    After publication of the final rule, interested parties filed 
petitions seeking FRA's reconsideration of some of the requirements 
contained in the final rule. These petitions generally related to the 
following subject areas: Structural design; fire safety; training; 
inspection, testing, and maintenance; and movement of defective 
equipment. On July 3, 2000, FRA issued a response to the petitions for 
reconsideration relating to the inspection, testing, and maintenance of 
passenger equipment,

[[Page 73071]]

the movement of defective passenger equipment, and other miscellaneous 
mechanical-related provisions contained in the final rule. See 65 FR 
41284. On April 23, 2002 and June 25, 2002, FRA published two 
additional responses to the petitions for reconsideration addressing 
the remaining issues raised in the petitions. See 67 FR 19970, and 67 
FR 42892.
    Subsequent to the issuance of these responses, FRA and interested 
industry members began identifying various issues related to the new 
passenger equipment safety standards with the intent that FRA would 
address the issues through FRA's Railroad Safety Advisory Committee 
(RSAC). On May 20, 2003, FRA presented, and the RSAC accepted, the task 
of reviewing existing passenger equipment safety needs and programs and 
recommending consideration of specific actions useful to advance the 
safety of rail passenger service. The RSAC established the Passenger 
Equipment Working Group (Working Group) to handle this task and develop 
recommendations for the full RSAC to consider. Due to the variety of 
issues involved the Working Group established a number of smaller task 
forces, with specific expertise, to develop recommendations on various 
subject-specific issues. One of these task forces, the Mechanical 
Issues Task Force (Task Force), was assigned the job of identifying and 
developing issues and recommendations specifically related to the 
inspection, testing, and operation of passenger equipment as well as 
concerns related to the attachment of safety appliances on passenger 
equipment.
    This proposal is the result of FRA's review and consideration of 
the recommendations of the Working Group and the full RSAC. With the 
exception of the proposed provisions related to the attachment of 
safety appliances on passenger equipment and the proposed provision 
involving out-of-service credit, FRA has accepted and now proposes the 
consensus recommendations made by the Working Group and adopted by the 
full RSAC as its recommendation to FRA. At the October 26-27, 2004, 
meeting of the full Working Group, FRA withdrew the task related to the 
consideration of handling the attachment of safety appliances on 
passenger equipment from the RSAC. FRA determined that consensus on 
this issue could not be reached in the RSAC process and determined that 
it would have to proceed with a proposal on its own. Therefore, FRA 
developed the proposed provisions related to the attachment of safety 
appliances unilaterally based on its own expertise in the area and 
based on discussions and information developed by the Working Group and 
Task Force. FRA also did not seek consensus in the RSAC process for the 
proposed provision related to out-of service credit. This issue is 
being addressed on FRA's own accord in response to the American Public 
Transportation Association's petition for rulemaking dated March 28, 
2005. Consequently, FRA did not and will not seek RSAC consensus on 
these issues nor will it discuss any comments received on these 
proposed provisions with the Working Group or RSAC when developing a 
final rule on those matters. In order to conserve agency resources and 
prevent duplicative production of rulemaking documents, FRA has 
included its proposed provisions related to safety appliances on 
passenger equipment and out-of-service credit in this notice.

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 Association (ATDA).
Association of American Railroads (AAR).
Association of Railway Museums (ARM).
Association of State Rail Safety Managers (ASRSM).
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET).
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division (BMWED).
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS).
Federal Transit Administration (FTA).*
High Speed Ground Transportation Association (HSGTA).
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
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 Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak).
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).*
Railway Supply Institute (RSI).
Safe Travel America (STA).
Secretaria de Communicaciones y Transporte.*
Sheet Metal Workers International Association (SMWIA).
Tourist Railway Association Inc.
Transport Canada.*
Transport Workers Union of America (TWU).
Transportation Communications International Union/BRC (TCIU/BRC).
United Transportation Union (UTU).
*Indicates associate membership.

    When appropriate, FRA assigns a task to the RSAC, and after 
consideration and debate, RSAC may accept or reject the task. If 
accepted, the 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 and 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 judgment 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 the RSAC is unable to

[[Page 73072]]

reach consensus on recommendations for action, FRA moves ahead to 
resolve the issue through traditional rulemaking proceedings.
    On May 20, 2003, FRA presented, and the RSAC accepted, the task of 
reviewing existing passenger equipment safety needs and programs and 
recommending consideration of specific actions useful to advance the 
safety of rail passenger service. The Working Group was established to 
handle this task and develop recommendations for the full RSAC to 
consider. Members of the Working Group, in addition to FRA, included 
the following:
     AAR, including members from BNSF Railway Company (BNSF); 
CSX Transportation, Incorporated (CSX); and Union Pacific Railroad 
Company (UP);
     APTA, including members from Illinois Commuter Rail 
Corporation (METRA); Long Island Rail Road (LIRR); Metro-North Railroad 
(MNR); Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA); 
Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA); Saint Gobian Sully 
NA; LDK Engineering; and Herzog Transit Services, Incorporated;
     Amtrak; AAPRCO; AASHTO; BLET; BRS; HSGTA; IBEW; NARP; RSI; 
SMWIA; STA; TCIU/BRC; TWU; and UTU.
    The NTSB met with the Working Group and provided staff advisors 
when possible. In addition, staff from the U.S. DOT Volpe National 
Transportation Systems Center (Volpe) attended many of the meetings and 
contributed to the technical discussions. Due to the variety of issues 
involved, the Working Group established a number of smaller task 
forces, with specific expertise, to develop recommendations on various 
subject-specific issues. Members of the task forces included various 
representatives from various organizations that were part of the larger 
Working Group. One of these task forces, the Mechanical Issues Task 
Force (Task Force), was assigned the job of identifying and developing 
issues and recommendations specifically related to the inspection, 
testing, and operation of passenger equipment as well as concerns 
related to the attachment of safety appliances on passenger equipment.
    The Working Group and the related Task Force created by the Working 
Group 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. As discussed above, FRA withdrew the 
task related to the consideration of handling the attachment of safety 
appliances on passenger equipment from the RSAC on October 27, 2004. 
FRA also did not seek consensus in the RSAC process for the proposed 
provision related to out-of-service credit. This issue is being 
addressed on FRA's own motion in this proceeding in response to APTA's 
petition for rulemaking dated March 28, 2005. Thus, the Working Group 
did not reach consensus on the proposed provisions related to these 
issues, and no recommendation was provided to the full RSAC. FRA 
unilaterally developed the proposed language related to the attachment 
of safety appliances and safety appliance arrangements on new and 
existing passenger equipment and did not seek Working Group or full 
RSAC consensus. The Working Group did reach full consensus on the 
proposed regulatory provisions addressing the other mechanical issues 
contained in this proposal on October 26 and 27, 2004, and on September 
7, 2005. The Working Group presented its recommendations to the full 
RSAC for its concurrence on January 26, 2005 and October 11, 2005. All 
of the members of the full RSAC in attendance at those meetings 
accepted the regulatory recommendations submitted by the Working Group. 
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. FRA subsequently completed the development and 
drafting of this proposal based on the broad regulatory recommendations 
made by the full RSAC.
    Throughout the preamble discussion of this proposal, FRA refers to 
comments, views, suggestions, or recommendations made by members of the 
Working Group or related Task Force. 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. 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

A. Redundancy of Air Compressors

    One of the issues identified for consideration by the Working Group 
related to recognition of redundant systems or components on certain 
types of passenger equipment and providing potential relief when these 
redundant systems or components become inoperative or ineffective. The 
LIRR through APTA initially requested a rule change concerning electric 
multiple unit (MU) locomotives operated in train sets that by design 
have redundancy of systems or components such as air compressors and 
auxiliary power inverters. These parties recommended that if one of 
these types of redundant components or systems was found inoperative or 
ineffective during a calendar day exterior mechanical inspection, it 
should be permitted to remain in service until the next calendar day 
exterior mechanical inspection; provided, the safety and integrity of 
the train set is not compromised as verified by a qualified mechanical 
person. The Task Force discussed the issue in detail and determined 
that the only redundant components that should be provided some leeway 
when found defective were air compressors on MU passenger locomotives 
operated in train sets. At the May 11 and 12, 2004, meeting, the 
Working Group approved the Task Force's substantive approach and agreed 
to have the Task Force draft a recommendation for its approval. The 
Task Force developed a proposed recommendation which was approved by 
the Working Group on October 26, 2004 and by the full RSAC on January 
26, 2005. FRA reviewed and agrees with the recommendation and has 
included it in this proposal.
    MU passenger locomotives are generally operated as married pairs, 
but in some cases they can be operated as single or triple units. In 
the case of the married pairs, each pair of MU locomotives share a 
single air compressor. When operated in triple units, the three MU 
locomotives generally share two air compressors, and single-unit MU 
locomotives are equipped with their own air compressor. The amount of 
air required to be produced by the air compressors is based on the size 
of the brake pipe and the brake cylinder reservoirs, the size of which 
is based on the calculated number of brake application-and-release 
cycles the train will encounter. In addition, the compressed air 
produced by the air compressors is shared within

[[Page 73073]]

the consist either by utilizing a main reservoir equalizing pipe or, in 
single pipe systems, by utilizing the brake pipe which is then diverted 
to the brake cylinder supply reservoir and other air-operated devices 
by use of a governor arrangement. Therefore, a passenger train set 
consisting of numerous MU locomotives will have multiple air 
compressors providing the train consist with the necessary compressed 
air. FRA agrees with the determinations of the Task Force that a loss 
of compressed air from a limited number of air compressors in such a 
train will not adversely effect the operation of the train's brakes or 
other air-operated components on the train.
    At the Task Force meetings, the railroads and air brake 
manufacturers provided information demonstrating that the safety of a 
train set is not compromised when a pre-determined number of 
inoperative air compressors are allowed to continue to operate in 
service on a MU train set. On such train sets, the air compressors are 
applied by technical specification to a certain number of cars such as 
one per married pair, two per triplet, and so on. The technical 
specifications for these air compressors generally allow for a duty 
cycle (percentage of operating capacity) for each air compressor that 
is something less than 50 percent. In fact, some technical 
specifications limit the air compressor duty cycle to 33 percent. This 
means that on MU train sets the available air compressors are required 
to operate at only 33 to 50 percent of their operational capacity. One 
of the major reasons for imposing these low duty cycles is to ensure 
that adequate air pressure is available if one or more of the other air 
compressors in the train set is not operating properly. Thus, these 
systems are currently designed to function properly even in the event 
that a limited number of air compressors become inoperative while the 
train is in service. Moreover, even in the unlikely event that an MU 
passenger train set would lose all of its air compressors, then the air 
brakes would apply and would remain applied until sufficient compressed 
air is restored to the system. Consequently, FRA does not see any 
adverse impact on the operational safety of these types of trains if 
they are permitted to operate for a relatively short period of time 
with a limited number of air compressors being inoperative or 
ineffective.
    This NPRM proposes to permit the continued operation of MU train 
sets with a limited number of inoperative or ineffective air 
compressors to continue to be used in passenger service until the next 
exterior calendar day mechanical inspection when found at such an 
inspection. The proposal would require a railroad to determine through 
data, analysis, or actual testing the number of inoperative or 
ineffective air compressors that could be in an MU train set without 
compromising the integrity or safety of the train set based on the size 
and type of train and the train's operating profile. The railroad would 
be required to submit the maximum number of air compressors permitted 
to be inoperative or ineffective on its various trains to FRA before it 
could begin operation under the proposed provision and would be 
required to retain and make available to FRA any data or analysis 
relied on to make those determinations. The proposal would also require 
a qualified maintenance person (QMP) to verify the safety and integrity 
of any train operating with inoperative or ineffective air compressors 
before the equipment continues in passenger service. In addition, the 
proposal requires notification to the train crew of any inoperative or 
ineffective air compressors and requires that a record be maintained of 
the defective condition. FRA believes these proposed provision will 
ensure the safety of passenger operations while providing the railroads 
additional flexibility in handling defective or inoperative equipment.
    FRA seeks comment from interested parties regarding any safety 
concerns related to the proposed flexibility for continuing to operate 
MU train sets with a minimal number of inoperative air compressors for 
an additional calendar day.

B. Pneumatic Testing of Locomotive Main Reservoirs

    The current regulations contained at 49 CFR 229.31(a) relating to 
main reservoir tests requires that a hydrostatic (water) test of a main 
reservoir be conducted before it is originally placed in service or 
before an existing main reservoir is placed back in service after being 
drilled as provided for in Sec.  229.31(c). At the Working Group and 
Task Force meetings, the manufacturers of main reservoirs requested the 
ability to conduct a pneumatic (air) test of the reservoirs in lieu of 
the currently required hydrostatic test. The request was limited to 
providing relief only for those tests required before a main reservoir 
is originally placed in service and after an existing main reservoir is 
drilled.
    The companies that manufacture reservoirs for the rail industry, 
whether the reservoir is utilized as a main reservoir or reservoir(s) 
utilized for other purposes, must have an American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) certification. The reservoirs, both main 
and other, manufactured by these companies are designed and certified 
to meet the requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. 
In addition, reservoirs utilized as main reservoirs on locomotives are 
also manufactured and certified to meet the requirements for such 
contained in part 229 of the Federal regulations. Currently, all 
passenger car reservoirs are pneumatically tested after fabrication and 
before the application of an interior protective coating. This process 
is utilized so that reservoirs may be repaired if the reservoir does 
not pass the initial test requirements. If the interior protective 
coating is applied prior to testing, any weld repairs cannot be 
performed, as the interior coating would be damaged.
    The rationale for originally requiring that the main reservoirs be 
tested hydrostatically was based on the safety concerns should a main 
reservoir catastrophically fail during the testing. The likelihood of 
injury is minimized by having the reservoir filled with a liquid rather 
than air. However, since the original drafting of the locomotive 
regulations, manufacturers of reservoirs have implemented and developed 
both equipment and procedures to ensure that test personnel are 
adequately shielded when conducting the testing. The manufacturers have 
been performing pneumatic testing on reservoir for years and FRA is not 
aware of any injury related to such testing in manufacturer-controlled 
facilities. Thus, the safety concerns originally attached to pneumatic 
testing have been minimized, if not eliminated, when conducted at 
properly equipped manufacturer facilities.
    The ASME code currently utilized by all manufacturers of main 
reservoirs allows for the pneumatic testing of the reservoirs when the 
introduction of liquid cannot be tolerated. The introduction of water 
to perform hydrostatic testing on main reservoirs creates a problem 
because if the liquid is not completely removed and the reservoir 
interior completely dried, the moisture results in poor adhesion or a 
lower coating of film than required. This condition has the potential 
of causing interior corrosion and premature failure of the reservoir. 
Thus, rather than creating this potential, FRA agrees with the 
recommendation of the RSAC that it would be both safer and more 
efficient to permit the manufacturers of main reservoirs to utilize 
pneumatic testing to meet the requirements contained in 49 CFR 229.31. 
Consequently, FRA is

[[Page 73074]]

proposing to permit pneumatic testing of newly manufactured main 
reservoirs and reservoirs that are newly drilled and tested at a 
manufacturer's facility.
    It should be noted that FRA is limiting the ability to conduct 
pneumatic testing of the main reservoirs at only those facilities with 
appropriate safeguards in place to ensure the safety of the personnel 
conducting the testing. After a reservoir is installed on a locomotive, 
FRA believes that hydrostatic testing would be the only testing method 
that adequately ensures the safety and protection of the personnel that 
are performing the test or working near the installed reservoir. In 
order to make this intent clear, FRA has modified the language of the 
recommendation made by the RSAC. FRA has added language to at the end 
of proposed paragraph (c) of Sec.  229.31 to make clear that pneumatic 
testing of a reservoir currently in use and newly drilled may only be 
conducted by a manufacturer of main reservoirs in a safe environment. 
In other circumstances, the proposal makes clear a hydrostatic test of 
the reservoir must be conducted.
    FRA seeks comment and information from interested parties regarding 
the proposal to permit the manufacturers of main reservoirs to 
pneumatically test the reservoirs to meet the requirements of 49 CFR 
part 229. Specifically, FRA seeks comment or information on the 
following:
    1. Are there any safety hazards or any known injuries or accidents 
related to conducting pneumatic testing as proposed in this notice?
    2. Are there any additional restrictions or requirements that 
should be imposed when conducting pneumatic testing of main reservoirs 
as proposed in this notice?
    3. Are the estimated economic costs and benefits associated with 
proposed flexibility accurate?

C. Design of New Passenger Equipment.

    The manufacturers and railroad representative on the Working Group 
and Task Force sought clarification of the provision contained in 49 
CFR 238.231(b). This section requires the brake systems on equipment 
ordered on or after September 8, 2000, or placed in service on or after 
September 9, 2002, to be designed so as not to require an inspector to 
go on, under, or between the equipment to observe the brake actuation 
or release. At the Task Force meetings, FRA made clear that this 
requirement is a design standard and was not intended to prohibit or 
limit the conduct of brake or mechanical inspections required to be 
conducted in part 238. FRA realizes that in order to perform many of 
the brake and mechanical inspections required by the regulations an 
inspector will have to go on, under, or between the equipment. FRA has 
acknowledged this practice and railroads have effectively conducted 
these types of inspections in this manner for decades.
    The plain language of Sec.  238.231(b) requires new equipment to be 
designed to allow direct observation of the brake actuation and release 
without fouling the equipment. The preamble to the final rule discusses 
alternative design approaches using some type of piston travel 
indicator or piston cylinder pressure indicator on equipment whose 
design makes it impossible to meet this requirement. See 64 FR 25612 
(May 12, 1999). FRA's intent was that this piston travel indicator 
could be a device similar to the definition of ``actuator'' contained 
in Sec.  238.5 or some sort of piston cylinder pressure indicator. The 
rule text and related preamble make clear that the actuation and 
release of the brake (or a direct indication of such) be able to be 
observed without an inspector going on, under, or between the 
equipment. FRA does not believe that truck pressure indicators (which 
provide no information on piston travel or piston cylinder pressure) 
meet this requirement. FRA recognized that the envisioned 
``indicators'' discussed in the preamble to Sec.  238.231(b) may be 
ahead of the technological curve for passenger equipment currently 
being delivered and that which may be delivered in the near future. 
Thus, FRA noted its willingness to discuss interim inspection protocols 
in lieu of applying piston travel indicators on such equipment.
    The Task Force discussed the issue in detail as a number of 
railroads were in the process of receiving new equipment, such as bi-
level coaches and other low-slung equipment, the design of which does 
not allow observation of the brake actuation and release of the brake 
without going on, under, or between the equipment. Several railroads 
and manufacturers noted that the type of piston travel indicators 
envisioned by FRA to meet the Sec.  238.231(b) requirement were not 
currently available and even if they could be developed in the near 
future, they would likely be a maintenance problem and unreliable. 
Representatives of rail labor also questioned the viability and need 
for the type of piston travel indicators discussed in the preamble to 
the final rule. These participants did not believe that any type of 
mechanical indicator should take the place of direct visual inspection 
of the brake system components. Consequently, the members of the Task 
Force believed that the best approach to the issue was to provide 
additional inspection protocols for new equipment that are designed in 
a manner that makes observation of the actuation and release of the 
brakes impossible from outside the plane of the equipment rather than 
mandating the use of untested and potentially unreliable piston travel 
indicators.
    FRA and the Task Force believe that the brake system and mechanical 
components on bi-level and other low-slung passenger equipment can be 
adequately inspected through the daily brake and mechanical inspections 
currently required in the Federal regulations; provided, appropriate 
blue signal protections are established for the personnel required to 
perform such inspections. These daily inspections permit a visual 
inspection of a large percentage of the brake and mechanical components 
and over a period of a few days all portions of the brake system and 
mechanical components will be visually observed. However, because the 
necessary design of some new equipment makes the daily inspections of 
the equipment more difficult, does not permit visual observation of the 
brake actuation and release from outside the plane of the vehicle, and 
because no reliable mechanical device is currently available to provide 
a direct indication of such, FRA and the Task Force believe it is 
necessary to adopt additional inspection protocols for this type of 
equipment.
    The inspection regimen being proposed in this notice will be 
applicable to equipment placed in service on or after September 9, 
2002, the design of which does not permit actual visual observation of 
the brake actuation and release. The proposed requirements related to 
this type of equipment are similar to those contained in a FRA Safety 
Board letter dated October 19, 2004, granting that portion of the 
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's (MBTA) waiver petition 
seeking relief from the requirements of Sec.  238.231(b) for 28 
Kawasaki bi-level coaches. See Docket Number FRA-2004-18063. The 
proposed provisions would require such equipment to be equipped with 
either piston travel indicators or brake indicators as defined in Sec.  
238.5. The equipment would also be required to receive a periodic brake 
inspection by a QMP at intervals not to exceed five in-service days and 
the proposed inspection would have to be performed while the equipment 
is over an inspection pit or on a raised track. In addition, the 
railroad performing the

[[Page 73075]]

proposed inspection would be required to maintain a record of the 
inspection consistent with the existing record requirements related to 
Class I brake tests. FRA believes that these proposed inspection 
requirements will ensure the safety and proper operation of the brake 
system on equipment which does not permit actual visual observation of 
the brake actuation and release without fouling the vehicle.

D. Safety Appliances

    Several issues regarding the attachment of safety appliances on 
passenger equipment have arisen over the last decade. These issues 
generally involve the method by which safety appliances on existing 
passenger equipment are required to be attached, either directly to the 
car or locomotive body or by use of a bracket or support. It has come 
to FRA's attention, due to the investigation of these issues, that a 
significant number of existing passenger cars and locomotives contain 
some safety appliances that are attached to the equipment by some form 
of welding, typically the welding of a bracket or plate to which the 
safety appliance is then mechanically fastened. In the last two 
decades, manufacturers of certain passenger equipment have used welding 
on some of the safety appliance arrangements of newly built equipment. 
Some segments of the passenger industry believe welding of these 
arrangements is acceptable and have sought a review of FRA's historical 
prohibition on the welding of safety appliance arrangements. These 
parties believe that new and improved welding technology, the 
implementation of new tracking standards, proper quality control, and 
historical documentation support the use of welding on safety appliance 
arrangements.
    Historically, FRA has required that safety appliances be 
mechanically fastened to the car structure. FRA has also historically 
required that any brackets or supports applied to a car structure 
solely for the purpose of securing a safety appliance must be 
mechanically fastened to the car body. See MP&E Technical Bulletin 98-
14 (June 15, 1998). FRA's prohibition on the weldment of safety 
appliances and their supports is based on its longstanding 
administrative interpretation of the regulatory ``manner of 
application'' provisions contained in 49 CFR part 231 which require 
that safety appliances be ``securely fastened'' with a specified 
mechanical fastener. See e.g., 49 CFR Sec. Sec.  231.12(c)(4); 
231.13(b)(4); 231.14(b)(4) and (f)(4)). FRA's prohibition on the 
welding of safety appliances is based on its belief that welds are not 
uniform, are subject to failure, and are very difficult to inspect to 
determine if the weld is broken or cracked. Mechanical fasteners, by 
contrast, are generally easy to inspect and tend to become noticeably 
loose prior to failure.
    Generally, FRA's longstanding interpretation of the regulation 
prohibiting the welding of safety appliances has not been seriously 
questioned or opposed since its inception. Virtually all railcars 
manufactured for use in the United States have their safety appliances 
and their safety appliance brackets and supports mechanically fastened 
to the car body, unless a specific exception has been provided by FRA 
or the regulations. FRA acknowledges that it has permitted limited 
welding of certain safety appliances or their brackets and supports on 
locomotives and tanks cars. See MP&E Technical Bulletins 98-48 and 00-
06 (June 15, 1998 and August 7, 2000, respectively). These exceptions 
were provided because there were no other alternative methods available 
for mechanically fastening these safety appliance arrangements.
    Currently, freight railroad equipment complies with the existing 
regulations and FRA's interpretation of those provisions. 
Traditionally, FRA has not permitted welding of safety appliance 
arrangements on freight equipment. In addition, the AAR does not permit 
the welding of safety appliance arrangements. FRA continues to believe 
that, except in limited circumstances, the safety appliances on freight 
equipment should not be attached with welding under any condition. This 
is primarily due to the extreme differences in use and inspection 
between passenger and freight equipment. Thus, FRA does not intend to 
permit welded safety appliances or their attachment in that segment of 
the industry. Consequently, FRA is limiting any relief being proposed 
in this proceeding to safety appliance arrangements on passenger 
equipment.
    Although FRA has remained consistent in its prohibition on the 
weldment of safety appliances and their supports, a significant amount 
of passenger equipment has been manufactured and used in revenue 
service for a number of years with safety appliances being attached to 
the car body using some form of welding. Currently, FRA is aware of 
approximately 3,000 passenger cars or locomotives that have safety 
appliances or safety appliance brackets or supports welded to the body 
of the equipment. Some units of this equipment were introduced into 
service within the last few years; others have been in service for more 
than a decade. Some of the 3,000 units noted above have been the 
subject of formal waiver requests pursuant to the provisions contained 
in 49 CFR part 211. See Docket Numbers FRA-2000-8588 and FRA-2000-8044.
    In an effort to fully develop the issues relating to the welding of 
safety appliances on existing passenger equipment, FRA conducted an 
informal safety inquiry and subsequently submitted the issue to RSAC in 
this proceeding. On June 17, 2003, a informal safety inquiry was held 
in Washington, DC, where all interested parties were permitted to 
express their concerns relating to FRA's long-standing interpretation 
prohibiting welded of safety appliance arrangements. Representatives 
from APTA, AAR, consultants, manufacturers, and union representatives 
gave presentations or provided comments expressing their points of 
interests or concerns. FRA also referred the issue to the RSAC process 
in this proceeding, which in turn assigned the issue to the mechanical 
Task Force, to aid in developing and determining if there is a 
practical application where welding may be suitable and to consider 
methods by which FRA could revise or clarify its position for future 
guidance and regulatory standards. Although the Task Force engaged in 
productive discussions and developed considerable information relating 
to the issue, the Task Force could not reach a consensus on any 
recommendation. Consequently, on October 27, 2004, FRA withdrew the 
task related to the consideration of handling the attachment of safety 
appliances on passenger equipment from the RSAC and decided to proceed 
with the development of a regulatory proposal unilaterally.
    At the safety inquiry and the discussions within the Task Force, 
ATPA and its primary members all indicated that FRA needs to provide 
clarity and guidance to the industry relating to passenger car safety 
appliance arrangements, particularly in the area of attaching brackets 
and supports. FRA has always believed that the industry knew exactly 
what was intended by FRA's interpretation of the regulations related to 
``mechanical fastening.'' FRA believes that in all instances where it 
has permitted welding, the allowance was the direct result of not 
having any another available option for attaching the required safety 
appliances. Examples, such as tank cars, locomotives, and other 
situations mentioned above, indicate that FRA has allowed or

[[Page 73076]]

permitted the use of welding in certain very limited circumstances.
    FRA considered issues ranging from the initial manufacturing stage 
to the actual expected life cycle of a weld and the environment in 
which the equipment operates. FRA is cognizant of the fact that the 
inspection of welds is at best difficult and potentially costly 
depending on the type of inspection that might be required. Moreover, 
the failure mode of welds is very difficult to detect visually and the 
effects of stress and fatigue may cause welded applications to have 
higher failure rates towards the end of the life cycle of the 
equipment. FRA acknowledges that freight and passenger operations 
involve significantly different environments from a safety appliance 
standpoint, and likely justifies an allowance for welded safety 
appliance brackets and supports, at least on existing equipment, and in 
other instances where the design of a vehicle necessitates such use. In 
most cases, passenger equipment is inspected on a more regular basis, 
generally used in captive type service, and experiences far less 
coupling and uncoupling associated with switching moves inherent in 
freight operations. FRA also recognizes that it would be extremely 
costly to the passenger industry to require existing equipment to be 
retrofitted with new safety appliances when the existing welded 
attachments have not shown a proclivity for failure at this time.
    At the informal safety inquiry and during the Task Force meetings, 
FRA received information and engaged in discussions relating to the 
following issues:
     The safety implications related to the continued use of 
existing passenger equipment with welded safety appliances or welded 
safety appliance brackets or supports;
     Criteria for determining when an existing piece of 
passenger equipment with a welded appliance or welded bracket or 
support is defective or unsafe or both;
     Alternative approaches to mandatory modification of 
existing equipment (e.g., inspection protocols) and the economic 
implication of any suggested approach;
     Clarification of existing regulatory requirements as they 
relate to the welding of safety appliances and their brackets or 
supports;
     The safety implications and standards that should or could 
be addressed, were FRA to consider some latitude in allowing existing 
passenger equipment with welded safety appliances or welded safety 
appliance supports or brackets, such as:
     What part or parts of an appliance should FRA allow to be 
welded?
     What quality control standards should apply to the welding 
process (e.g., industry recognized welding standards)?
     What qualifications/training should the individual 
performing the welding or inspecting a weld need to possess?
     How should field or shop repairs or both be conducted on 
equipment with welded safety appliances or supports?
     When should a weld be considered defective?
     What visual and non-destructive inspection techniques or 
industry recognized standards are appropriate for welds?
     At what interval should welds be inspected?
     What records, if any, should be maintained of these 
inspections?
    Based on the information and views provided at both the informal 
safety inquiry and through the RSAC process, FRA continues to believe 
that mechanical fastening provides the best method of attaching safety 
appliance arrangements and ensures that the safety of railroad 
employees and the public is not compromised. For this reason, FRA will 
continue to require the mechanical fastening of safety appliance 
arrangement wherever possible and proposes to provide alternative 
solutions for use of welding only on existing passenger equipment and 
in circumstances when mechanically fastening is not practical due to 
the design of the vehicle. However, FRA does agree that there may have 
been some misunderstanding within the passenger rail industry with 
regard to safety appliance application and that some leeway needs to be 
provided for existing passenger equipment with welded safety appliance 
brackets or supports in lieu of retrofitting nearly one-third of the 
fleet. Thus, in this NPRM, FRA is proposing to provide clarification of 
the requirements related to the attachment of safety appliance under 49 
CFR part 231. In addition, FRA is proposing to permit the continued use 
of existing passenger equipment with welded safety appliance brackets 
or supports provided such equipment is identified, inspected, and 
handled in accordance with the proposed requirements. In developing 
this proposal, FRA weighed and considered many different factors and 
concerns, as noted above, relating to welding safety appliances and 
their brackets or supports.
    An additional issue raised by APTA and its member railroads relates 
to the ability of the industry to develop standards relating to the 
safety appliance arrangements on new cars of special construction. 
Throughout the Railroad Safety Appliance Standards, currently contained 
in 49 CFR part 231; specifically, Sec.  231.12--Passenger-train cars 
with wide vestibules; Sec.  231.13--Passenger-train cars with open-end 
platforms; Sec.  231.14--Passenger-train cars without end platforms; 
and Sec.  231.23--Unidirectional passenger-train cars adaptable to van-
type semi-trailer use, there may be inconsistencies and/or 
opportunities for clarification in the construction of newly built 
passenger equipment. Many times, it is necessary to reference two or 
more sections of 49 CFR part 231 to determine if a newly constructed 
passenger vehicle meets the minimum requirements of the Federal 
regulations. However, criteria for most of today's new types of 
passenger car construction are found within 49 CFR 231.18--Cars of 
special construction. This results from the fact that modern technology 
in construction of car-building often does not lend itself to ready 
application of the current 49 CFR 231 requirements. Rather, the 
designer must adapt several different requirements to meet as closely 
as possible construction of specific safety appliance arrangements in 
order to obtain compliance.
    Most passenger cars today are constructed outside the United 
States, and this has exacerbated the problem of varying interpretations 
of regulations and resulting safety appliance arrangements. At times, 
different requirements are applied to cars of similar design where both 
could have been constructed in the same manner. Substantial resources 
are spent on a regular basis by all parties concerned in review 
sessions to determine if a car is in compliance prior to construction; 
and even when the cars are delivered, problems have arisen.
    In an attempt to limit these problems, FRA is proposing a method by 
which the industry may request approval of safety appliance 
arrangements on new equipment considered to be cars of special 
construction under 49 CFR part 231. The proposal would permit the 
industry to develop standards to address many of the new types of 
passenger equipment introduced into service. The proposal would require 
these standards, and supporting documentation to be submitted to FRA 
for agency approval pursuant to the special approval process already 
contained in the regulation. The proposal makes clear that any approved 
standard would be enforceable against any person who violates or causes 
the violation of the approved standards and that the penalty schedule 
contained in Appendix A to 49 CFR part 231 would

[[Page 73077]]

be used as guidance in assessing any applicable civil penalty. The goal 
of this proposal is to develop consistent safety appliance standards 
for each new type of passenger car not currently identified in the 
Federal regulations that ensures the construction of suitable safety 
appliance arrangements in compliance with 49 CFR part 231. FRA believes 
the proposal will reduce or eliminate reliance upon criteria for cars 
of special construction, will improve communication of safety appliance 
requirements to the industry, and will facilitate regulatory compliance 
where clarification or guidance is necessary.
    Portions of the proposal relating to new passenger equipment are 
already progressing. By letter dated September 2, 2005, FRA requested 
APTA to determine if it is feasible to form a group to specifically 
develop potential safety appliance standards for newly manufactured 
passenger equipment and provide guidance where existing Federal 
regulations are not specific to the design of a passenger car or 
locomotive. On October 11, 2005, APTA informed FRA that it is willing 
to undertake this effort and is tentatively planning its initial 
meeting in the beginning of 2006. FRA believes this approach provides 
an excellent avenue to take advantage of the knowledge and expertise 
possessed by rail operators and equipment manufacturers when 
considering safety appliance arrangements on new passenger equipment of 
unique design. Under the provisions proposed in this NPRM, the 
standards and guidance developed by this group would need to be 
submitted to and approved by FRA pursuant to the special approval 
provisions contained at Sec.  238.21.
    FRA seeks comments and views from interested parties relating to 
the proposed handling of safety appliances on both existing and new 
passenger equipment. Specifically, FRA seeks information and comment on 
the following:
     Are there other industry recognized standards relating to 
welding or the qualifications of persons conducting such welding that 
should be considered by FRA?
     Are the welding standards referenced by FRA accurately 
identified and are they the most recent version of the standards?
     Can a standard be developed for determining when a safety 
appliance bracket or support to which a safety appliance is 
mechanically attached becomes part of the car body?
     Should it be based on the linear amount of weld?
     To what must the support or bracket be welded?
     Is there a particular type of weld that should be used?
     Are there specific qualifications or standards related to 
performing such welds?
     Are the cost estimates associated with FRA's proposal 
relating to existing equipment accurate?
     Is there any other relevant information that should be 
considered by FRA?

E. Securement of Unattended Equipment

    At FRA's suggestion, the Task Force considered issues related to 
the securement of unattended equipment. FRA noted its concern that 
existing part 238 failed to adequately address either the inspection of 
hand or parking brakes or the issues related to the securement of 
unattended equipment. FRA believes that the rationale for addressing 
these issues on freight operations is equally applicable to passenger 
operations. The preamble to the final rule related to 49 CFR part 232 
contains an in-depth discussion of the need to address these issues. 
See 66 FR 4156-58 (January 17, 2001). The approach proposed in this 
proceeding is also consistent with the guidance contained in FRA Safety 
Advisory 97-1. See 62 FR 49046 (September 15, 1997). Further, FRA is 
aware of several incidents on passenger and commuter operation 
involving the running away or inadvertent movement of unattended 
equipment.
    Using the provisions contained in the freight power brake 
regulations at 49 CFR part 232 as a guideline, the Task Force developed 
a recommendation to address these outstanding issues raised by FRA. As 
passenger train consists are much shorter and do not possess the 
tonnage associated with freight trains, the Task Force's recommendation 
modified the provisions contained in 49 CFR part 232 to make them more 
readily applicable to passenger operations. The recommendations 
developed by the Task Force and submitted by the full RSAC are 
consistent with and based directly on current passenger industry 
practice. Thus, in FRA's view, they will have no economic or 
operational impact on passenger operations but will ensure that these 
best practices currently adopted by the industry are followed and 
complied with by making them part of the Federal regulations.
    The Task Force presented its recommendation on these issues to the 
full Working Group on September 7, 2005. The Working Group reached 
consensus on the recommendation and presented the recommendation to the 
full RSAC and received unanimous concurrence from such on October 11, 
2005. FRA has reviewed the recommendations of the full RSAC and has 
adopted them without change in this proposal.
    In this NPRM, FRA proposes a set of requirements to address the 
securement of unattended equipment. The proposed provisions will 
require that unattended equipment be secured by applying a sufficient 
number of hand or parking brakes to hold the equipment and will require 
railroads to develop and implement a process or procedure to verify 
that the applied hand or parking brakes will hold the equipment. The 
proposal will also prohibit a practice known as ``bottling the air'' in 
a standing cut of cars. The practice of ``bottling the air'' occurs 
when a train crew sets out cars from a train with the air brakes 
applied and the angle cocks on both ends of the train closed, thus 
trapping the existing compressed air and conserving the brake pipe 
pressure in the cut of cars they intend to leave behind. This practice 
has the potential of causing, first, an unintentional release of the 
brakes on these cars and, ultimately, a runaway. A full discussion of 
the hazards related to this practice is contained in the preamble to 
the final rule related to freight power brakes. See 66 FR 4156-57. 
Virtually all railroads prohibit this practice in their operating 
rules, thus FRA does not believe any burden is being imposed on the 
railroads by including it in this proposal.
    The NPRM also proposes a minimum number of hand or parking brakes 
that must be applied on an unattended locomotive consist or train. Due 
to the relatively short length and low tonnage associated with 
passenger trains, FRA does not believe that the more stringent 
provisions contained in Sec.  232.103(n)(3) are necessary in a 
passenger train context. Thus, the proposal would require that at least 
one hand or parking brake be applied in these circumstances; however, 
the number of applied hand or parking brakes will vary depending on the 
process or procedures developed and implemented by each covered 
railroad. In addition, this proposal also contains provisions requiring 
railroads to develop and implement procedures for securing locomotives 
not equipped with a hand or parking brake and instructions for securing 
any locomotive left unattended. As noted previously, FRA is not aware 
of any railroad which does not already have the proposed procedures or 
processes in place. Thus, FRA believes that these proposed requirements 
will impose no burden on

[[Page 73078]]

passenger operations covered by 49 CFR part 238.
    In addition to addressing specific issues relating to securing 
unattended equipment, this NPRM also incorporates and adopts the 
industry's best practices related to the inspection and testing of hand 
and parking brakes. FRA proposes to require that the hand or parking on 
other than MU locomotives be inspected no less frequently than every 
368 days and that a record (either stencil, blue card, or electronic) 
be maintained and provided to FRA upon request. The proposal would also 
require the application and release of the hand or parking brake at 
each periodic mechanical inspection of passenger cars and unpowered 
vehicles under Sec.  238.307 and would require a complete inspection of 
these components every 368 days, with a record being maintained of this 
annual inspection. The inspection and testing intervals as well as the 
stenciling and record keeping requirements proposed in this document 
are consistent with the current practices in the industry and will 
impose no additional burden on the industry.

V. Section-by-Section Analysis

Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part 229

Section 229.5 Definitions

    FRA is proposing a technical clarification to the definition of 
``MU locomotive'' contained in this section. Existing Sec.  229.5 
contains a number of definitions to define different types of 
locomotives covered by the various provisions contained in part 229. 
These include the general definition of ``locomotive'' as well as 
various types of locomotives including: ``control cab locomotive,'' 
``DMU locomotive,'' and ``MU locomotive.'' At the Task Force meetings 
representatives of various railroads and equipment manufacturers 
expressed concern over these definitions, contending that they were 
confusing and contained some overlap making it difficult to determine 
which category a particular locomotive fell within. Of particular 
concern was the current definition of ``MU locomotive.''
    The definition of ``MU locomotive'' was recently reissued in its 
full length when the final rule on Locomotive Event Recorders was 
published on June 30, 2005. See 70 FR 37939. Subparagraph (2) of the 
current definition identifies an MU locomotive as ``a multiple unit 
operated electric locomotive * * * (2) without propelling motors but 
with one or more control stands.'' This portion of the MU locomotive 
definition is identical to the definition of ``control cab 
locomotive.'' In an effort to add clarity and to definitively 
distinguish an MU locomotive from a control cab locomotive, FRA 
proposes to add some limiting language to the definition of what 
constitutes an MU locomotive. Historically, FRA has only considered a 
locomotive without propelling motors to be an MU locomotive if it has 
the ability to pick up primary power from a third rail or a pantograph. 
Consequently, FRA is proposing to add this language to the existing 
definition of MU locomotive as it is consistent with FRA's historical 
enforcement and interpretation of the regulation.

Section 229.31 Main Reservoir Tests

    FRA is proposing to amend paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section to 
provide the manufacturers of main reservoirs the option to test main 
reservoirs pneumatically rather than hydrostatically as currently 
mandated. The proposed modification would permit a main reservoir to 
receive a pneumatic test before it is originally placed in service or 
before an existing main reservoir is placed back in service after being 
drilled. As discussed in detail in section B of the Technical 
Background portion of this document, the ASME code currently utilized 
by all manufacturers of main reservoirs allows for the pneumatic 
testing of the reservoirs when the introduction of liquid cannot be 
tolerated. The introduction of water to perform hydrostatic testing on 
main reservoirs creates a problem because if the liquid is not 
completely removed and the reservoir interior completely dried, the 
moisture results in poor adhesion or a lower coating of film than 
required. This condition has the potential of causing interior 
corrosion and premature failure of the reservoir.
    The rationale for originally requiring that the main reservoirs be 
tested hydrostatically was based on the safety concerns should a main 
reservoir catastrophically fail during the testing. The likelihood of 
injury is minimized by having the reservoir filled with a liquid rather 
than air. However, since the original drafting of the locomotive 
regulations, manufacturers of reservoirs have implemented and developed 
both equipment and procedures to ensure that test personnel are 
adequately shielded when conducting the testing. The manufacturers have 
been performing pneumatic testing on reservoirs for years and FRA is 
not aware of any injury related to such testing in manufacturer-
controlled facilities. Thus, the safety concerns originally attached to 
pneumatic testing have been