Passenger Equipment Safety Standards; Miscellaneous Amendments and Attachment of Safety Appliances on Passenger Equipment, 61836-61864 [06-8611]

Agencies

• Federal Railroad Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 202 (Thursday, October 19, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61836-61864]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8611]



[[Page 61835]]

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

Part II





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Railroad Administration



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



49 CFR Parts 229 and 238



Passenger Equipment Safety Standards; Miscellaneous Amendments and 
Attachment of Safety Appliances on Passenger Equipment; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 202 / Thursday, October 19, 2006 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 61836]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Parts 229 and 238

[Docket No. FRA-2005-23080, Notice No. 2]
RIN 2130-AB67


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

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is amending 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. The miscellaneous amendments concentrate on 
the following five areas: 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 mandating an identification and inspection protocol 
to address passenger equipment containing welded safety appliances or 
welded safety appliance brackets or supports. Finally, FRA is amending 
the regulations to permit railroads the ability to apply out-of-service 
credit to certain periodic maintenance requirements related to 
passenger equipment.

DATES: Effective Date: December 18, 2006. The incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register as of December 18, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Petitions: Any petitions for reconsideration 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, Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel, 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 Number 103-440, 108 Stat. 4619, 4623-4624 
(November 2, 1994). Section 215 of the Act, as now codified at 49 
U.S.C. 20133, provides as follows:

    (a) MINIMUM STANDARDS.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
prescribe regulations establishing minimum standards for the safety 
of cars used by railroad carriers to transport passengers. Before 
prescribing such regulations, the Secretary shall consider--
    (1) the crashworthiness of the cars;
    (2) interior features (including luggage restraints, seat belts, 
and exposed surfaces) that may affect passenger safety;
    (3) maintenance and inspection of the cars;
    (4) emergency response procedures and equipment; and
    (5) any operating rules and conditions that directly affect 
safety not otherwise governed by regulations.
    The Secretary may make applicable some or all of the standards 
established under this subsection to cars existing at the time the 
regulations are prescribed, as well as to new cars, and the 
Secretary shall explain in the rulemaking document the basis for 
making such standards applicable to existing cars.
    (b) INITIAL AND FINAL REGULATIONS.--(1) The Secretary shall 
prescribe initial regulations under subsection (a) within 3 years 
after the date of enactment of the Federal Railroad Safety 
Authorization Act of 1994. The initial regulations may exempt 
equipment used by tourist, historic, scenic, and excursion railroad 
carriers to transport passengers.
    (2) The Secretary shall prescribe final regulations under 
subsection (a) within 5 years after such date of enactment.
    (c) PERSONNEL.--The Secretary may establish within the 
Department of Transportation 2 additional full-time equivalent 
positions beyond the number permitted under existing law to assist 
with the drafting, prescribing, and implementation of regulations 
under this section.
    (d) CONSULTATION.--In prescribing regulations, issuing orders, 
and making amendments under this section, the Secretary may consult 
with Amtrak, public authorities operating railroad passenger 
service, other railroad carriers transporting passengers, 
organizations of passengers, and organizations of employees. A 
consultation is not subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
U.S.C. App.), but minutes of the consultation shall be placed in the 
public docket of the regulatory proceeding.

    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

[[Page 61837]]

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, 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.
    The Task Force met several times between 2003 and late-2005 in 
order to develop detailed recommendations to the full Working Group. 
The Task Force recommendations became the recommendations of the 
Working Group and the full RSAC. The RSAC did not make any 
recommendations regarding the proposed provisions related to the 
attachment of safety appliances on passenger equipment and the proposed 
provision involving out-of-service credit. 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 these issues 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 was 
addressed on FRA's own accord in response to the American Public 
Transportation Association's (APTA) petition for rulemaking dated March 
28, 2005. Thus, FRA did not seek RSAC consensus on these issues. FRA 
reviewed and adopted the recommendations of the full RSAC and issued a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on December 8, 2005. See 70 FR 
73070.
    The comment period for the above noted NPRM closed on February 17, 
2006. FRA received comments from two parties, the Brotherhood of 
Railway Carmen and APTA. The comments of these two parties were 
concentrated almost exclusively on the proposed provisions related to 
the attachment of safety appliances on passenger equipment. As the 
involved provisions were not developed through the RSAC process and the 
comments on those provisions could not be discussed with the members of 
the Working Group or Task Force and because FRA received no significant 
comments on any of the RSAC developed provisions proposed in the NPRM, 
FRA determined that there was no need to hold any further RSAC meetings 
related to this proceeding.
    Moreover, because this final rule retains all of the RSAC-
recommended provisions proposed in the NPRM without change, there was 
no need to seek the full RSAC's approval of this final rule. 
Consequently, FRA proceeded to draft this final rule without further 
input from the RSAC.

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 (AAPRCO)
American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials 
(AASHTO) 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 Employees 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)

[[Page 61838]]

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 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. 
Please refer to the preceding discussion in this document as well as 
the NPRM's preamble discussion for a complete overview of this 
proceeding both before and after the issuance of the NPRM. See 
Discussion in Paragraph II--Proceedings to Date; and 70 FR 73070 
through 73071.
    Throughout the preamble discussion of this final rule, 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 or 
Task Force meetings that were conducted during the development of the 
NPRM issued in this proceeding. 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 acted in developing the 
NPRM and this final rule.

IV. Technical Background

A. Redundancy of Air Compressors

    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 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.
    Representatives of railroads and air brake manufacturers provided 
information demonstrating that the safety of a train set is not 
compromised when a predetermined 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

[[Page 61839]]

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.
    FRA did not receive any comments on the proposed provisions related 
to this issue. Thus, the final rule retains the proposed provisions 
without change and permits 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 final rule requires 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 is required to submit the maximum number of air 
compressors permitted to be inoperative or ineffective on its various 
trains to FRA before it can begin operation under the final rule 
provision and is required to retain and make available to FRA any data 
or analysis relied on to make those determinations. The final rule also 
requires 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 final rule retains the proposal provision requiring 
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 provision will ensure the safety of 
passenger operations while providing the railroads additional 
flexibility in handling defective or inoperative equipment.

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 believes 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. FRA received no comments objecting to the 
flexibility proposed in the NPRM or suggesting additional restrictions 
or requirements. Consequently, this final rule retains the proposed 
amendments to the regulation without change 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 the final rule retains the proposed 
restriction that limits 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 continues to 
believe 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. Regulatory 
language inserted at the end of paragraph (c) of Sec.  229.31 makes 
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 final rule makes clear 
that a hydrostatic test of the reservoir must be conducted.

C. Design of New Passenger Equipment

    The manufacturers and railroad representatives on the Working Group 
and Task Force sought clarification of

[[Page 61840]]

the provision originally 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 and in the NPRM, FRA made clear that the requirement was 
intended to be 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. See 70 FR 73074. 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 existing 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 original 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 future. Thus, 
FRA noted its willingness to discuss additional inspection protocols in 
lieu of applying piston travel indicators on such equipment.
    During the development of the NPRM, 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 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 original 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 believed it was 
necessary to adopt additional inspection protocols for this type of 
equipment. Thus, the NPRM proposed an additional inspection regiment 
for newer equipment designed in such a manner.
    The requirements proposed in the NPRM that were related to this 
type of equipment were 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. FRA did 
not receive any comments directly related to the proposed inspection 
protocols or the proposed approach to this issue. Thus, this final rule 
retains the proposed provisions with slight changes for purposes of 
clarity.
    The inspection protocols retained in this final rule 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 final rule provisions will require 
such equipment to be equipped with either piston travel indicators or 
brake indicators as defined in Sec.  238.5. The equipment is also 
required to receive a periodic brake inspection by a QMP at intervals 
not to exceed five in-service days and the inspection must be performed 
while the equipment is over an inspection pit or on a raised track. In 
addition, the railroad performing the additional inspection is required 
to maintain a record of the inspection consistent with the existing 
record requirements related to Class I brake tests. FRA believes that 
these additional 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.
    FRA received one suggestion from APTA regarding the identification 
of cars that will be covered by the provisions added in these sections. 
APTA wanted to make clear that the railroad and car manufacturer would 
make an initial determination regarding the applicability of the 
requirements contained in this section and that FRA would oversee these 
determinations for accuracy. FRA agrees with this position as the 
railroad and car manufacturer are in the best position to make an 
initial determination. FRA will exercise its oversight when conducting 
sample car inspections as well as its regular inspection activity. FRA 
notes that the additional inspection requirements would be applicable 
to new cars constructed similar to the low-slung bi-level passenger 
coaches that were the subject of MBTA's waiver request discussed above.

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,

[[Page 61841]]

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 limited use 
of welding on certain 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 historical 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 easier to inspect and tend to become noticeably 
loose prior to failure. FRA notes that many of its historical beliefs 
related to the welded attachment of safety appliance brackets and 
supports on passenger equipment are based on welding technologies that 
were in their infancy when first being utilized. In addition, many of 
FRA's concerns in this area are mitigated when appropriate welding 
standards covering quality control, initial manufacture, repair, and 
welder qualifications are established and implemented.
    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 freight 
railcars manufactured for use in the United States and passenger cars 
manufactured 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. See 70 FR 73076. 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 provided in this final rule 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, an informal safety inquiry was held 
in Washington, DC, where all interested parties were permitted to 
express their concerns relating to FRA's longstanding 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 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 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 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

[[Page 61842]]

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.
    Based on the information and views provided at both the informal 
safety inquiry and through the RSAC, FRA proposed provisions in the 
NPRM to clarify FRA's existing interpretations of the safety appliance 
regulations and to provide the passenger rail industry some latitude 
for existing passenger equipment with welded safety appliance brackets 
or supports in lieu of retrofitting nearly one-third of the fleet. The 
NPRM proposed a detailed inspection and repair program for existing 
passenger equipment with welded safety appliances or welded safety 
appliance brackets or supports. The NPRM also sought comments and 
information from interested parties on a variety of questions and 
concerns relating to both the proposed provisions and the general use 
of welding as a means of attaching safety appliance brackets and 
supports. See 70 FR 73077. The NPRM indicated FRA's willingness to 
consider certain welded safety appliance brackets and supports to be 
part of a car's body if viable and enforceable specifications could be 
developed that would ensure the safe and reliable attachment of such 
brackets and supports.
    FRA received comments from two parties regarding the proposed 
provisions and in response to the questions presented. BRC submitted 
comments requesting that FRA continue its prohibition on welding of 
safety appliances and require that safety appliances be mechanically 
fastened. BRC indicated that this approach would be consistent with 
FRA's historical application of the regulations. BRC stated that it was 
not convinced that welding was an effective manner of securement due to 
vibration and flex occurring on equipment while in transit. BRC 
provided several historical examples of instances when FRA took 
exception to certain welded safety appliances. FRA notes that the 
examples cited by BRC involved either instances of direct welding of 
the safety appliances to a car body, welding of safety appliances on 
freight equipment, or welding not conducted in accordance with any 
acceptable welding standard. BRC requested that if any change were made 
to the existing welding prohibition that they only be considered after 
the initiation and implementation of strict safety procedures covering 
the inspection, and repair of such welds as well as the qualifications 
and training of the individuals responsible for inspecting and welding 
such appliances.
    APTA's comments focused almost exclusively on the proposed 
provisions related to the welding of safety appliance brackets and 
supports. In response to questions asked in the NPRM, APTA provided 
detailed specifications for use by FRA for determining when a welded 
safety appliance bracket or support could be considered part of the 
car's body. These specifications included the strength, size, 
attachment, design criteria, and quality control procedures that any 
welded attachment would be required to meet. APTA comments fully 
discussed the implications and basis for its recommended 
specifications. APTA seeks to have these welding specifications applied 
to both new and existing equipment. APTA also sought to have the 
definition of what constitutes a defective weld clarified. APTA asserts 
that only a crack in a weld should be considered a defect and that 
anomalies in welds should not be considered. APTA contends that, if an 
anomaly is significant, it will eventually lead to a crack in the weld.
    APTA again noted that it believes both FRA and BRC are operating 
under two serious misconceptions relating to welding. The first is that 
the failure mode of welds used to attach a safety appliance and their 
related brackets or supports is difficult to detect. APTA asserts that 
failure of these welds is rare and even if there is a failure it will 
start with a small crack that grows very slowly. In the unlikely event 
that a crack were to even develop, it would take months or years for 
failure of the weld to occur. These cracks would be easy to detect with 
the visual inspections performed on safety appliances by railroads on a 
daily basis. The second misconception is that weld will have a higher 
failure rate toward the end of the life cycle of a piece of equipment. 
APTA asserts that older welds do not fail at any higher rate than newer 
welds. The endurance limits designed into these welds are so high that 
the welds will not fatigue over time regardless of number of stress 
cycles that occur. Because of this, there is no data available to FRA 
that show a higher failure rate due to the age of the weld. APTA also 
stressed that it was not advocating welding a safety appliance directly 
to a car body except in the limited circumstances identified in the 
NPRM when the design of the equipment makes it impossible to 
mechanically fasten the safety appliance.
    Based on consideration of these comments as well as previous 
information provided to FRA, the final rule is modifying some of the 
provisions proposed in the NPRM related to the attachment of safety 
appliances on passenger equipment. The final rule retains many of the 
provisions proposed in the NPRM but is being expanded to adopt APTA's 
recommendations for determining when a welded safety appliance bracket 
or support will be considered part of the car body and the definition 
of a defective weld. FRA believes that welding technologies have 
improved significantly over the last several decades. In addition, 
passenger operations provide a unique environment suitable to the use 
of welding as a means of attachment in certain situations. Moreover, 
FRA believes that APTA has provided a viable and enforceable 
specification for ensuring that welded safety appliance brackets and 
supports are securely, safely, and reliably attached to the equipment 
on which it is placed. Volpe reviewed the welding specifications at 
FRA's request and confirmed that safety appliance brackets or supports 
welded to the car body in accordance with the standards recommended by 
APTA would be at least as secure and reliable as a bracket or support 
attached with a mechanical fastener. FRA further believes that BRC's 
concerns are addressed by the final rule provisions because the final 
rule will only consider welded safety appliance brackets or supports to 
be part of the car body if stringent and verifiable standards are 
utilized when making the welded connection. In addition, the final rule 
will allow existing equipment with welded brackets or supports to 
continue in service only if it is inspected and repaired in accordance 
with the strict inspection and repair provisions contained in the rule. 
Consequently, FRA is including APTA's recommended specifications 
related to welded safety appliance brackets and supports in this final 
rule with slight modification for clarity and enforceability.
    The final rule also retains the proposed provisions providing the 
industry with the ability to develop standards relating to the safety 
appliance arrangements on new cars of special construction. FRA did not 
receive any comments on the proposed provisions and is retaining them 
in this final rule without change. 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

[[Page 61843]]

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, the final rule contains 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 final rule will permit the 
industry to develop standards to address many of the new types of 
passenger equipment introduced into service. The final rule requires 
any such standards, and supporting documentation to be submitted to FRA 
for agency approval pursuant to the special approval process already 
contained in the regulation. The final rule makes clear that any 
approved standard will 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 will be used as 
guidance in assessing any applicable civil penalty. The goal of the 
regulation 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 final 
rule 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 final rule 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 began conducting meetings in early 2006. 
FRA believes this approach provides an excellent avenue to take 
advantage of the knowledge and expertise possessed by rail operators 
and equipment manufactures when considering safety appliance 
arrangements on new passenger equipment of unique design. Under the 
provisions retained in this final rule, the standards and guidance 
developed by this group will need to be submitted to and approved by 
FRA pursuant to the special approval provisions contained at Sec.  
238.21.

E. Securement of Unattended Equipment

    The NPRM proposed various provisions related to the securement of 
unattended equipment. FRA did not receive any comments on the proposed 
provisions other than APTA's concurrence that the proposal 
appropriately captures existing practices of passenger railroads. Thus, 
this final rule retains the proposed provisions without change. FRA 
believes that the rational 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 4156-4158 
(January 17, 2001). The approach proposed in the NPRM and retained in 
this final rule 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.
    As passenger train consists are much shorter and do not possess the 
tonnage associated with freight trains, the final rule modifies the 
provisions contained in 49 CFR part 232 to make them more readily 
applicable to passenger operations. The requirements contained in this 
final rule 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 final rule requires 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 final rule also prohibits 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 currently prohibit 
this practice in their operating rules.
    The final rule also mandates 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 final rule only requires 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, the final rule requires 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

[[Page 61844]]

not already have the required procedures or processes in place. Thus, 
FRA believes that these requirements will impose no burden on passenger 
operations covered by 49 CFR part 238.
    In addition to addressing specific issues relating to securing 
unattended equipment, the final rule also incorporates and adopts the 
industry's best practices related to the inspection and testing of hand 
and parking brakes. The final rule requires 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 final rule also 
requires 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 requires 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 retained in the final rule 
are consistent with the current practices in the industry and will 
impose no additional burden on the industry.

V. Section-by-Section Analysis

Amendments to 49 CFR Part 229

Section 229.5 Definitions
    The final rule is retaining the proposed technical clarification to 
the definition of ``MU locomotive'' contained in this section. FRA did 
not receive any comments on this proposed modification. Thus, FRA is 
retaining the modification in this final rule without change. Section 
229.5 contains a number of definitions that 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.'' Representatives of various 
railroads and equipment manufacturers have 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.
    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 a MU locomotive from a control cab locomotive, the final 
rule adds some limiting language to the definition of what constitutes 
a MU locomotive. Historically, FRA has only considered a locomotive 
without propelling motors to be a MU locomotive if it has the ability 
to pick-up primary power from a third rail or a pantograph. 
Consequently, the final rule adds this language to the existing 
definition of MU locomotive to make it consistent with FRA's historical 
enforcement and interpretation of the regulation.
Section 229.31 Main Reservoir Tests
    The final rule retains the proposed amendments to 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. Other than APTA's comments 
supporting the provisions, FRA received no comments on the proposed 
amendments. The modifications will 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