Locomotive Safety Standards; Sanders, 9904-9912 [E7-3885]

Agencies

• Federal Railroad Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 6, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9904-9912]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3885]



[[Page 9904]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 229

[Docket No. FRA-2006-26174]
RIN 2130-AB83


Locomotive Safety Standards; Sanders

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: FRA proposes to revise the existing requirements related to 
sanders on locomotives. The proposed rule would modify the existing 
regulations by permitting additional flexibility in the use of 
locomotives with inoperative sanders. The proposal would provide 
railroads the ability to better utilize their locomotive fleets while 
ensuring that locomotives are equipped with operative sanders in 
situations where they provide the most benefit from a safety and 
operational perspective. The proposed rule would also make the 
regulations related to operative sanders more consistent with existing 
Canadian standards related to the devices.

DATES: (1) Written comments must be received by May 7, 2007. 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 April 5, 2007, 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-2006-26174, 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 20590-001.
    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 Michael Masci, 
Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, Mail Stop 10, Federal Railroad 
Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590 
(telephone 202-493-6037).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Statutory and Regulatory Background

    FRA has broad statutory authority to regulate railroad safety. The 
Locomotive Inspection Act (formerly 45 U.S.C. 22-34, now 49 U.S.C. 
20701-20703) was enacted in 1911. It prohibits the use of unsafe 
locomotives and authorizes FRA to issue standards for locomotive 
maintenance and testing. In order to further FRA's ability to respond 
effectively to contemporary safety problems and hazards as they arise 
in the railroad industry, Congress enacted the Federal Railroad Safety 
Act of 1970 (Safety Act) (formerly 45 U.S.C. 421, 431 et seq., now 
found primarily in chapter 201 of Title 49). The Safety Act grants the 
Secretary of Transportation rulemaking authority over all areas of 
railroad safety (49 U.S.C. 20103(a)) and confers powers necessary to 
detect and penalize violations of any rail safety law. This authority 
was subsequently delegated to the FRA Administrator (49 CFR 1.49) 
(Until July 5, 1994, the Federal railroad safety statutes existed as 
separate acts found primarily in title 45 of the United States Code. On 
that date, all of the acts were repealed, and their provisions were 
recodified into title 49.).
    Pursuant to its general statutory rulemaking authority, FRA 
promulgates and enforces rules as part of a comprehensive regulatory 
program to address the safety of railroad track, signal systems, 
communications, rolling stock, operating practices, passenger train 
emergency preparedness, alcohol and drug testing, locomotive engineer 
certification, and workplace safety. In the area of locomotive safety, 
FRA has issued regulations, found at 49 CFR part 229 (``part 229''), 
addressing topics such as inspections and tests, safety requirements 
for brake, draft, suspension, and electrical systems, and cabs and cab 
equipment. All references to parts and sections in this document shall 
be to parts and sections located in Title 49 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations. FRA continually reviews its regulations and revises them 
as needed to keep up with emerging technology.
    On July 12, 2004, the Association of American Railroads (AAR), on 
behalf of itself and its member railroads, petitioned the FRA to delete 
the requirement as contained in 49 CFR 229.131. The petition and 
supporting documentation asserted that contrary to popular belief, 
depositing sand on the rail will not have any significant influence on 
the emergency stopping distance of a train. Subsequent to the petition, 
FRA and interested industry members began identifying various issues 
related to locomotive safety standards with the intent that FRA would 
potentially address the issues through its Railroad Safety Advisory 
Committee (RSAC).

II. 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)
Amtrak

[[Page 9905]]

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)
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, the RSAC may accept or reject the task. If a 
task is 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.

III. Proceedings to Date

    On February 22, 2006, FRA presented, and the RSAC accepted, the 
task of reviewing existing locomotive safety needs and recommending 
consideration of specific actions useful to advance the safety of rail 
operations. The RSAC established the Locomotive Safety Standards 
Working Group (Working Group) 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:

APTA
ASLRRA
Amtrak
AAR
ASRSM
BLET
BMWE
BRS
BNSF Railway Company (BNSF)
California Department of Transportation
Canadian National Railway (CN)
Canadian Pacific Railway (CP)
Conrail
CSX Transportation (CSXT)
Florida East Coast Railroad
General Electric (GE)
Genesee & Wyoming Inc.
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
IBEW
Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS)
Long Island Rail Road
Metro-North Railroad
MTA Long Island
National Conference of Firemen and Oilers
Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS)
Public Service Commission of West Virginia
Rail America, Inc.
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Agency
SMWIA
STV, Inc.
Tourist Railway Association Inc.
Transport Canada
Union Pacific Railroad (UP)
UTU
Volpe Center
Wabtech Corporation
Watco Companies

    The task statement approved by the full RSAC sought immediate 
action from the Working Group regarding the need for and usefulness of 
the existing regulation related to locomotive sanders. The task 
statement established a target date of 90 days for the Working Group to 
report back to the RSAC with recommendations to revise the existing 
regulatory sander provision. The Working Group conducted two meetings 
that focused almost exclusively on the sander requirement. The meetings 
were held on May 8-10, 2006, in St. Louis, Missouri, and on August 9-
10, 2006, in Fort Worth, Texas. Minutes of these meetings have been 
made part of the docket in this proceeding. After broad and meaningful 
discussion related to the potential safety and operational benefits 
provided by equipping locomotives with operative sanders, the Working 
Group reached consensus on a recommendation for the full RSAC.
    On September 21, 2006, the full RSAC unanimously adopted the 
Working Group's recommendation on locomotive sanders as its 
recommendation to FRA. The RSAC recommendation included the Working 
Group's consensus rule text, and requested that FRA draft a regulatory 
proposal related to the use of sanders on locomotives performing 
switching service at outlying locations. The Working Group's discussion 
of outlying locations had been based on an apparent need to distinguish 
locations that did not have sufficient access to a sand delivery system 
from those that do have such access. FRA has reviewed and accepted 
RSAC's recommendation and has developed this regulatory proposal based 
on that recommendation. The specific regulatory language recommended by 
the RSAC has been amended slightly for clarity and consistency and FRA 
has independently developed provisions related to the use of sanders on 
locomotives used in switching service at outlying locations.
    FRA agrees with the Working Group's determination that locomotive 
sanders provide limited safety benefits and that the primary benefits 
derived from the devices are operational. Accordingly, this proposal 
attempts to preserve the limited safety benefits while addressing the 
overly restrictive nature of the

[[Page 9906]]

existing provision. This proposal is intended to provide appropriate 
relief from the existing requirement by creating a more precise 
standard. Under the existing requirements, a locomotive cannot depart 
from a daily inspection with inoperative sanders and can only move as 
far as the next daily inspection if sanders become inoperative en 
route. The proposal attempts to require sander maintenance based on 
operational realities instead of the current time-based standard. The 
NPRM provides relief according to specific identified operational 
conditions. The proposal distinguishes between the following 
conditions: Lead and non-lead locomotives; locomotives in road service 
and switching service; and, locomotives at locations with or without a 
sand delivery system. These distinctions would modify the current 
requirement to better reflect railroad operations while maintaining the 
current level of safety. The proposed rule would also harmonize the 
sander requirement with the Canadian rule by placing a fourteen day 
limit on service for lead locomotives in road service with inoperative 
sanders, in lieu of the current requirement.
    Throughout the preamble discussion of this proposal, FRA refers to 
comments, views, suggestions, or recommendations made by members of the 
Working Group. When using this terminology, FRA is referring to views, 
statements, discussions or positions identified or contained in the 
minutes of the Working Group meetings. These documents have been made 
part of the docket in this proceeding and are available for public 
inspection as discussed in the 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

    On July 12, 2004, the AAR, on behalf of itself and its member 
railroads, petitioned the FRA to delete the requirement as contained in 
49 CFR 229.131, which states, ``[e]xcept for MU locomotives, each 
locomotive shall be equipped with operable sanders that deposit sand on 
each rail in front of the first power operated wheel set in the 
direction of movement.'' AAR's rationale for its petition was that, 
despite being in existence for many decades, this requirement does not 
provide any safety benefit. Enclosed with the petition was a 
presentation by CN to the 81st Annual Meeting of the Air Brake 
Association in September 1989. In that presentation, CN reported on a 
number of tests that measured the stopping distances of a train from 
emergency braking with and without sanding, with the conclusion that 
sanding from the locomotive consistently did not have any significant 
influence upon the emergency stopping distance of freight trains. 
Subsequently, FRA reviewed the overall operation of locomotive sanders 
to fully evaluate the petition. In addition to stopping distances, FRA 
examined other ramifications that the lack of sanding may have on the 
operation of locomotives and trains. For each technical aspect 
affected, FRA wanted to determine if it affects safety, operation 
efficiency, or both.

A. Adhesion

    A generally recognized benefit of sanding is improved adhesion of 
the locomotive wheels to the rail. The maximum force or pull that a 
locomotive can generate in order to pull a train is limited by the 
weight of the locomotive and the amount of adhesion that it can 
maintain without wheel slippage. Once the wheel starts to slip, the 
pulling force is greatly reduced. Adhesion is critical for the 
locomotive pulling power on a steep grade. For a heavy freight train, 
the grade resistance will slow the train in an uphill move. As the 
speed drops, the tractive effort of the locomotive consist will go up. 
At a certain speed, the tractive effort may balance the total 
resistance including that from the grade. In that case, a constant 
speed can be maintained for the train to crest over the peak. However, 
at a low speed, the adhesion limit becomes an important factor because 
the maximum tractive effort that the locomotives can develop to pull 
the train is the product of the locomotive weight and the adhesion 
limit. Heavier six-axle locomotives can develop a higher tractive 
effort than the lighter four-axle locomotives of the same horsepower. 
If this maximum tractive effort is not sufficient to overcome the total 
resistance, the train will eventually stall on this grade. The presence 
of a stalled train on mainline track creates a safety issue as well as 
an apparent operational inconvenience. In addition, a stalled train at 
a grade crossing could tempt pedestrians to cross through the train. As 
the pedestrian crosses, the train could move and injure the pedestrian. 
The use of sand could prevent such a potentially dangerous situation.
    If the total horsepower results in force output higher than the 
maximum tractive effort that the adhesion between rail and wheel can 
provide, wheel slip will occur resulting in the actual pulling force 
being limited by the maximum tractive effort. Under this condition, 
sanding will provide a higher adhesion coefficient, boosting the 
maximum tractive effort. In some previous studies with conventional DC 
motors, the adhesion limit with smooth wheels on smooth rails can be as 
low as 10 percent under wet rail condition. With sanding, the adhesion 
can be increased to 30 percent. The same principle applies to AC 
motors, except that the adhesion limits with and without sanding will 
both be higher because of the inherent advantage of AC motors. For 
dispatching purposes, the railroads produce tonnage-rating tables that 
are used to determine the number and the kind of locomotives to be 
assigned to a train given its length and weight. These tables are often 
developed with the assumption that sanding is available to boost the 
adhesion limit. Appropriate adhesion limits with the use of sanding are 
assumed for various types of locomotive equipment to calculate the 
available maximum tractive effort to ensure that trains will not stall 
on the ruling grade. This is particularly important for heavy 
merchandise trains, unit coal trains, and unit mineral trains. Speed is 
not very important for these trains. For better asset utilization and 
overall operation efficiency, railroads want to assign just enough 
locomotive units to enable the trains to climb up the ruling grade at 
low speed but not to stall. Sanding is very useful to increase the 
tractive effort. Using sanding to improve adhesion, railroads can 
reduce the number of locomotives assigned to a train, resulting in 
lower locomotive cost, one of the important factors in the overall cost 
structure of a rail operation.
    Sanding will increase the capability of a train to climb up the 
ruling grade. While lack of sanding will affect the efficiency of train 
operations and will become a safety issue if the train stalls on the 
track, the operational issue may be resolved if the locomotive engineer 
handles the situation to prevent undesirable consequences from wheel 
slipping. With automatic wheel slip control, the system will see wheel 
slip, cut power to the traction motor for a short duration, and reapply 
the power. If the engineer maintains the high throttle position, the 
traction motor will again overpower the adhesion, and the wheels will 
slip again. This continuous

[[Page 9907]]

recycling of power on and power off of the traction motors will cause 
the locomotive to chatter loudly. This phenomenon may cause damage to 
wheel and rail. The train forces may spike high and low, leading to 
track train dynamics problems. Sometimes rail corrugation and rail 
burns are attributed to continuous wheel slipping, which is a common 
practice. Under this circumstance, the locomotives should be throttled 
down gradually to avoid long duration of wheel slipping. The train 
should be anchored on the grade, and the crew should call for help. 
Although the various railroads' airbrake and train-handling manuals do 
not describe this instruction and procedure, it is a common practice 
for an underpowered train with insufficient pulling force to 
successfully operate up a grade with or without sanding.
    Some members of the Working Group raised the concern that damage to 
rail from slipping wheels can lead to development of transverse defects 
and broken rails. Corrugation and shelling of the rail head can mask 
internal rail defects and can defeat internal rail flaw detection. 
These circumstances can lead to train derailments unless they are 
properly managed, and the heavy cumulative tonnages experienced by most 
rail now in service is already taxing the ability of the railroads to 
manage these issues successfully. Railroads are expected to manage 
these issues and have done so thus far. FRA invites comments on this 
issue.

B. Braking Distance

    As sanding may increase the coefficient of friction between wheel 
and rail, one may anticipate that sanding can reduce the stopping 
distance of a train from braking, especially on wet rail. However, the 
following factors should be considered before drawing such a 
conclusion:
     The increase in friction is on the first few sets of axles 
only (i.e., on the locomotives). Sanding will splash and be dispersed 
rather quickly from the rails once several wheels roll over it. Over 90 
percent of the wheels in a train will likely not receive any benefit 
from sanding. Thus, it is unlikely that the stopping distance will be 
affected by it.
     Wet rail and dirty rail can be dried out and cleaned out 
rather quickly with the rolling of several axles on it. In numerous 
field tests, the second locomotive's tractive effort is always 20-30 
percent higher than the first unit, especially on wet rail. This is an 
indication that the rail can be dried out and cleaned out just by one 
locomotive passing over it. Therefore, wet rail conditions will only 
affect one to two locomotives, and the rest of a train will be braked 
on relatively dry conditions, even though the rails are originally wet. 
Given the above explanation, sanding will hardly make any difference in 
the braking performance of all the cars behind the locomotives.
     Engineers have been trained to rely on dynamic brakes 
instead of the pneumatic brakes, unless during extreme emergency 
situations. In emergency braking, little difference will occur in 
stopping distance with or without sanding because, as explained 
earlier, sanding likely only affects, if any, the braking efforts of 
the first few axles.
     When insufficient adhesion prevails during braking, the 
wheels may slide. The coefficient of friction during this sliding will 
maintain the retardation rate of the trains.
    Therefore, it is not surprising that the results of CN's testing 
show that the emergency braking stopping distances under various speeds 
and conditions were unchanged by sanding. However, the results of the 
test of the stopping distances of a short VIA passenger train with and 
without sanding were somewhat less expected. The conclusion for the VIA 
test was the same as that for the freight trains. As the train consist 
is very short for the passenger trains, typically as short as several 
vehicles, the factors described above are not all applicable to the 
passenger trains. It may be expected that some effect would occur on 
the stopping distance of a passenger train as a result of sanding. The 
vehicles in the tested passenger trains had mixed wheel and disk 
braking, but it is not clear as to how disk braking is affected by 
sanding. Nonetheless, the tests with VIA trains, submitted by the AAR 
with the petition, showed that sanding had no effect in the stopping 
distance of the trains. Even if sanding can affect the braking of these 
short passenger trains, we should note that the stopping distance of a 
short passenger train is extremely short compared to the heavy freight 
trains, and therefore the actual difference in the stopping distance 
will not be too significant. Some MU equipment always avoids sanding 
because this equipment is light and the number of axles in a train is 
usually small, thus, rail-shunting ability may get affected by sanding. 
This is the primary reason why the MU equipment is not equipped with 
sanders.
    The braking distance tests submitted by the railroads did not 
include stopping distances for ``lite'' locomotive consists. 
Locomotives are frequently moved without cars in order to reposition 
power. Lite locomotives do not respond favorably to braking because of 
the ratio of axle load to available rail/wheel contact zone. Despite 
results in other brake tests, FRA would expect that sand applied on 
multiple axles could be an important contributor to maintaining 
satisfactory stopping distances of lite locomotive consists under 
unfavorable conditions (wet rail, etc.).
    FRA also notes that the Working Group received little information 
related to actual use of sand in conjunction with extended range 
dynamic braking, which is now used extensively to slow trains and (with 
rolling resistance and perhaps the independent brake) bring them to a 
stop. Locomotive engineers may utilize dynamic brakes rather than the 
automatic train brake, where possible, in order to conserve fuel and 
avoid mechanical problems.

C. Operating Rules and Training

    In order to determine what instructions each railroad gives to the 
locomotive engineers on the use of sanding, FRA obtained and reviewed 
the air braking and train handling manuals of NS, CSXT, UP, and BNSF. 
Past experience indicating that sanding affects the safety of the train 
operation, would likely be reflected in the instructions given to the 
engineers in these manuals. The results of the review of the latest 
version of the manuals revealed the following:
     NS: No reference to sanding exists in NS-1, ``Rules of 
Equipment Operation and Handling.'' Discussion with the senior road 
foreman revealed that Norfolk Southern simply instructed locomotive 
engineers to use sanding to improve adhesion when wheels start to slip. 
The railroad does instruct engineers to back off the throttle if wheel 
slip continues to occur even with sanding. If the train stalls on the 
ruling grade, then the engineer must ask for help.
     CSXT: Only one section of the railroad's operating rules 
makes reference to sanding (excluding instructions to check for sander 
operation during daily inspection): 5503 Sanding Use--sand as provided 
below: 1. Use sand only when necessary to improve traction, which 
includes ``sanding the rail;'' 2. When conditions require, use sand as 
the train is stopping to avoid wheel slipping when starting; and 3. Use 
trainline sanding only when front/lead truck sanding proves inadequate. 
CSXT's rules also include the definition of sanding, which states: 
``Sanding the Rail: A term used to describe the act of putting sand on 
a rail in advance of an anticipated train

[[Page 9908]]

movement to ensure greater adhesion when movement begins.''
     UP: No specific instruction exists on the circumstance and 
manner that sanding should be used, other than instructions to check 
for sanding operation during daily inspection.
     BNSF: Other than instructions to check for sanding 
operation during daily inspection, BSNF's rules include the statement, 
``Apply sand as conditions warrant,'' in sections to instruct how to 
operate during start, going upgrade, negotiating undulating grade, and 
cresting grade. In the two sections where instructions are given to 
stop a train in a descending grade or controlling the speed using 
dynamic brake, the engineers must perform the following steps:
     As dynamic braking becomes ineffective near the stopping 
point, turn on the sand and develop enough brake cylinder pressure with 
the independent brake valve to prevent forward surge.
     Make a final brake pipe reduction to complete the stop 
with the service exhaust blowing at the stopping point.
     After stopping, move the dynamic brake controller to OFF 
and reduce the remote(s) DB to IDLE.
     Fully apply the independent brake and turn off the sand 
after the stop is completed.
    Apparently, BNSF believes that the use of sanding with the 
independent brake at near zero speed will brake the locomotive more 
effectively so that a surge of the locomotives can be prevented when 
dynamic braking becomes ineffective. However, it is not a general 
practice for all railroads to operate that way.

D. Train Simulations

    The AAR Train Operation and Energy Simulation (TOES) Model makes no 
mention of the use of sand for braking purposes. This further points to 
the conclusion that sanding is not considered for emergency or other 
braking purposes.

E. General Considerations

    In the Working Group, representatives of locomotive engineers 
supported retention of a requirement for provision of sand to support 
safe and efficient operations. FRA is conscious of the fact that, 
unlike other safety statutes, the Locomotive Inspection law, at 49 
U.S.C. 20701, requires that each locomotive be ``in proper condition'' 
as well as ``safe''. Railroad representatives agree that sand remains 
useful for adhesion in many circumstances and would not remove sanders 
from locomotives even if allowed to do so. These considerations argue 
for proceeding with caution as the regulation is revised.
    Finally, it should be noted that there are a variety of situations 
in yard switching (where locomotives only may be relied upon for 
stopping a switching movement) and over the road (where it is necessary 
to cross a ruling grade with marginal motive power) where sand would 
ordinarily be relied upon. Members of the Working Group raised the 
possibility that a locomotive engineer might feel compelled to skirt 
other safeguards in order to overcome operational difficulties should 
sand be unavailable. This is a concern that should be factored in when 
determining how much latitude to provide in this rulemaking. FRA 
welcomes comment on this issue.

V. Current Regulatory Impediments

    Relaxing the locomotive sanding requirement as proposed would 
maintain safety and would allow railroads to better utilize their 
locomotive fleets. The current requirement allows a locomotive found 
with a defective sander to continue in service to the next forward 
location where repairs can be made or the next calendar day inspection, 
which ever occurs first. Under the proposed requirement, a lead 
locomotive in an over-the-road train may continue to be utilized by the 
railroad for up to fourteen days; in the case of a trailing locomotive, 
it may continue to be utilized by the railroad until placed in a 
facility with a sand delivery system or departure from an initial 
terminal.
    Sanding may reach optimal effectiveness even where one or more 
locomotive sanders in a consist is inoperative. Locomotives are 
routinely equipped with two sanders at each end. Often a consist will 
contain multiple locomotives. Each locomotive in a multiple-locomotive 
consist distributes sand to the rail. As a result, when each of the 
locomotives in a multiple locomotive consist are operating with all 
sanders operative, the train could potentially distribute more sand to 
the rail than it will utilize. At that point the effect of the sand on 
the train would be the same if one or two sanders in the consist were 
inoperative.
    Requirements for sanders can be traced back to the steam locomotive 
era; at that time, sanding the rail was thought to enhance adhesion 
between the steam locomotive wheel and the rail. Modern diesel 
locomotives rely on wheel slip and wheel creep devices, as well as 
sand, to provide adhesion between the wheel and rail. Where sanders are 
inoperative on a diesel locomotive the total loss of adhesion would be 
less than it would have been for a steam locomotive. Notably, any 
reduced adhesion would limit the ability of the locomotive to pull its 
train. Loss of the ability to pull the train is a productivity concern 
that is not being addressed by this proposed rule.
    Sanding the rail in braking mode provides little additional 
adhesion to a train, because train handling depends primarily on train 
brakes to maintain train dynamics. The locomotive braking has limited 
effect. As stated in the technical discussion above, by the time the 
locomotives in the consist have passed over the sanded rail, little to 
no sand remains on the rail and little or no benefit is provided to 
train braking.

VI. Section-by-Section Analysis

Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part 229

Section 229.5 Definitions.
    FRA is proposing to add the term ``sand delivery system'' in this 
section. The term would mean a permanently stationed or fixed device 
designed to deliver sand to locomotive sand boxes that do not require 
the sand to be manually delivered or loaded. A sand delivery system 
will be considered permanently stationed if it is at a location at 
least five days a week for eight hours per day. FRA seeks views from 
interested parties regarding this definition.
    FRA is also proposing to add the term ``initial terminal.'' The 
definition of this term would be identical to that currently contained 
in 49 CFR 232.5 and 238.5. The term would mean ``a location where a 
train is originally assembled.''
Section 229.9 Movement of non-complying locomotives.
    FRA proposes to amend this section to exempt locomotives operated 
under proposed paragraphs 229.131(b) and (c)(1) from the movement for 
repair provision contained in Section 229.9. In general, Section 229.9 
currently provides movement for repair requirements for part 229. 
Proposed paragraphs 229.131(b) and (c)(1) contain specific requirements 
relating to the movement and continued use of locomotives with 
defective sander equipment. Because the proposed paragraphs 
specifically address movement for repair, applying Section 229.9 would 
be superfluous or conflicting, and would no longer be necessary.
    FRA also proposes to make a clarifying amendment to this section of 
part 229. Section 229.9 currently contains the following exception that 
reads: ``[e]xcept as provided in * * *

[[Page 9909]]

229.125(h)'' The exception relates to locomotive auxiliary lights and 
although a correct citation when originally inserted into the 
regulations, later amendments to that section resulted in redesignation 
of the paragraphs. The exception should refer to Section 229.125(g). 
Like Section 229.131(b) and (c)(1), Section 229.125(g) sets forth 
movement for repair requirements specific to that section. 
Consequently, FRA is proposing to make this clarification in this 
regulatory proceeding.
Section 229.131 Sanders.
    Paragraph (a). This paragraph would establish a general requirement 
that locomotives be equipped with operative sanders before departing an 
initial terminal. Any time a locomotive is in use before leaving the 
initial terminal it will be required to have operative sanders. The 
term ``in use'' has been consistently applied to mean when a locomotive 
is capable of being used. Thus, the locomotive does not have to 
actually be used to be in use. Examples of a locomotive in use are when 
a locomotive has been inspected, or a locomotive is on a ready track. 
FRA agrees with the RSAC's recommendation that the initial terminal 
would be an appropriate place to initially require operative sanders, 
because it is a place where sander maintenance can usually be 
accomplished without imposing a significant burden on the railroad. In 
many instances, locations where trains are initiated are equipped with 
sand delivery systems and are capable of making repairs to the sander 
mechanisms. FRA notes that this proposal will permit locomotives to be 
released from daily locomotive inspections with inoperative sanders. 
However, the proposal would require sanders to be repaired or handled 
for repair under Section 229.9 if defective when the locomotive is 
preparing to depart from an initial terminal. In instances where 
repairs cannot be performed, a locomotive may be dispatched from an 
initial terminal but only under the strict provisions contained in 
Section 229.9. Thus, the locomotive could only continue in use to the 
nearest forward location where necessary repairs could be effectuated 
or to the locomotive's next calendar day inspection, whichever occurs 
first. FRA further notes that if a locomotive is at an initial terminal 
for its train and that location has a sand delivery system or is 
otherwise capable of making sander repairs, then the locomotive may not 
legally depart that location with inoperative sanders. FRA also intends 
to make clear that a locomotive's sanders will only be considered 
operative if appropriate amounts of sand are deposited on each rail in 
front of the first power operated wheel set in the direction of 
movement.
    FRA recognizes that this proposal would be less restrictive than 
the movement for repair provisions currently contained in Section 
229.9. In most instances, locomotives will likely encounter an initial 
terminal less frequently than a daily inspection. This will facilitate 
more efficient railroad operations. Under the current provision, a 
railroad will take a locomotive out of service when a sander defect is 
found at the daily inspection. By requiring operative sanders less 
frequently, the new requirement allows the railroad to keep the 
locomotive in service more often. With more locomotives in service, the 
railroad will be able to better utilize its power throughout its fleet.
    Paragraph (b). This paragraph contains the proposed requirements 
for handling locomotives used in road service where sanders become 
inoperative after departure from an initial terminal. Road service 
would be distinguished from yard service because the type of service 
affects the need for sand. Locomotives performing road service will 
likely be in longer trains and run at higher speeds than those 
performing switching service. The existing definition of switching 
service, as it appears in Sections 229.5 and 232.5, provides background 
for the distinction between road service and switching service. 
Switching service means ``assembling cars for train movements * * * or 
moving rail equipment in connection with work service that does not 
constitute a train movement.'' Any movement that is not considered 
``switching service'' would be considered ``road service.'' Therefore, 
any service which constitutes a ``train movement'' would be considered 
``road service'' for purposes of this section. The preamble to the 
final rule related to part 232 (66 FR 4104, January 17, 2001) contains 
detailed discussion of the factors that are to be considered when 
determining what constitutes a ``train movement.'' See 66 FR 4148-49.
    Paragraph (b)(1). This paragraph proposes requirements related to 
lead locomotives being used in road service where sanders are 
discovered to be inoperative after departure from an initial terminal. 
Once inoperative sanders are discovered on these locomotives, there are 
four proposed triggers that would determine how long a lead locomotive 
will be permitted to remain in service with inoperative sanders. The 
proposed triggers are: the next initial terminal; a location where it 
is placed in a facility with a sand delivery system; its next periodic 
inspection under Section 229.23; or fourteen calendar days from the 
date the sanders are first discovered to be inoperative, whichever 
occurs first.
    FRA agrees with the Working Group's determination that the four 
triggering events will ensure that sanders are repaired in a timely 
fashion while providing railroads the ability to better utilize their 
locomotive fleets. Under the existing rule, a locomotive can move only 
until the next daily inspection with inoperative sanders. Utilizing 
four different triggers allows the railroad a greater degree of 
operational flexibility. Each trigger provides a logical point at which 
sander maintenance should and can be conducted without impacting a 
railroad's operation to a significant degree. The initial terminal is 
an appropriate place to require operative sanders for the reasons 
stated in paragraph 229.131(a). When a locomotive is placed in a 
facility that has a sand delivery system it is appropriate to require a 
railroad to provide sander maintenance. Placed in a facility is 
intended to mean actually placed on trackage with access to the sand 
delivery system, and not merely passing through a location with a sand 
delivery system on the premises. Similarly, when a locomotive is given 
its required periodic inspection it is expected that the location will 
be capable of providing repairs and additional sand to the locomotive 
sanders with little burden. Permitting a lead locomotive to remain in 
service for no longer than fourteen days is reasonable as it permits 
the locomotive to reach the destination of a long-distance train run, 
ensures timely repairs to the sanders, and is consistent with the 
current Canadian requirement.
    Paragraph (b)(2). This paragraph proposes the requirements for 
handling trailing locomotives, including distributed power locomotives, 
that are being used in road service when sanders are discovered to be 
inoperative after departure from an initial terminal. Once inoperative 
sanders are discovered, the NPRM proposes three triggering events that 
will determine how long the trailing locomotive will be permitted to 
remain in service with inoperative sanders. The triggering events 
proposed in this paragraph are identical to those proposed in paragraph 
(b)(1) except for the elimination of the fourteen day requirement. FRA 
agrees with the Working Group's determination that the need to provide 
sand to a trailing locomotive is less critical than it is for a lead 
locomotive. The engineer

[[Page 9910]]

operating the train or locomotive consist may be more familiar with the 
lead locomotive than with the trailing locomotive. The engineer is 
likely to be operating from the lead locomotive, and thus, that 
locomotive is less likely to be switched out of the consist while 
moving over the road.
    The term ``trailing locomotive,'' as used in this paragraph, 
specifically refers to a locomotive that is located behind the lead 
locomotive in a train or locomotive consist. A distributed power 
locomotive, as defined in Section 229.5, is a locomotive that is part 
of a distributed power system that provides control to a number of 
locomotives dispersed in a consist from command signals originating in 
the lead locomotive. The distributed power locomotives are also 
trailing locomotives because they are located behind the lead 
locomotive in the train. Including both the terms ``trailing 
locomotives'' and ``distributed power locomotives'' may add clarity by 
emphasizing all trailing locomotives are subject to the requirements of 
this paragraph. FRA seeks comment and views from interested parties 
regarding the relationship between these two terms and whether there is 
a need to use both terms in this paragraph.
    Paragraph (c). This paragraph proposes requirements for handling 
locomotives used in switching service where sanders become inoperative. 
The Working Group and the full RSAC recommended that the use of sand on 
locomotives performing switching service should be distinguished from 
locomotives being used in road service as described above in paragraph 
(b). Included as part of the RSAC's recommendation to FRA in this area, 
it was requested that FRA unilaterally develop criteria for the 
handling of locomotives being used in switching service that experience 
inoperative sanders. The request specifically related to the 
identification of what constituted locomotives at ``outlying 
locations'' and the identification of the triggering events for 
repairing inoperative sanders on such locomotives. FRA considered the 
discussions and views provided by members of the Working Group when 
developing this proposal.
    Rather than attempt to define what constitutes an ``outlying 
location,'' FRA believes that the most appropriate method of 
distinguishing between switching locomotives and the locations where 
they operate, is to base the determination on the existence of a sand 
delivery system at the location. FRA believes that locomotives being 
used in switching service at a location with a sand delivery system 
should be able to be maintained and handled for repair in a more timely 
manner, with less disruption to railroad operations, than locomotives 
being used in switching service at locations without sand delivery 
systems. If there is no sand delivery system at a location, then the 
railroad is required to send maintenance vehicles or crews to the 
location or is required to move the locomotive to another location to 
effectuate necessary repairs. This can have a significant impact on the 
efficiency and continuity of switching operations at certain locations. 
Thus, paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) separate the requirements for 
maintaining the sanders on locomotives being used in switching service 
based on the presence of a sand delivery system at the location where 
the locomotive is being used.
    Paragraph (c)(1). This paragraph proposes requirements for handling 
locomotives being used in switching service at locations that are not 
equipped with a sand delivery system. In order to remain consistent 
with the overall design of the proposal submitted by the RSAC, FRA 
believes that some operational flexibility needs to be provided to 
locomotives being used in switching service at locations not capable of 
quickly delivering sand or making necessary repairs. As noted above, 
the simplest way of making this determination is based on whether or 
not the location has a sand delivery system. FRA believes that seven 
days is a reasonable amount of time to permit railroads to provide 
necessary sander attention to a locomotive being used in switching 
service at a location that does not have a sand delivery system. This 
amount of time is consistent and within the time frame in which 
locomotives used in switching service will need some other type of 
maintenance or attention, most likely re-fueling. The seven day mark 
appears to be a reasonable outer-limit for the requirement. The second 
triggering event proposed in this paragraph is if the locomotive 
becomes due for its periodic inspection pursuant to Section 229.23 of 
this part. FRA solicits comments and views concerning the 
appropriateness of this proposed provision.
    Paragraph (c)(2). This paragraph proposes requirements for handling 
locomotives used in switching service at locations equipped with a sand 
delivery system. FRA agrees with the opinions of the Working Group and 
full RSAC that sanders on these types of locomotives can be maintained 
with little burden on a railroad's operation as they are already at the 
location where sand can be delivered and effective repairs can be 
effectuated. Therefore, FRA accepts the RSAC's recommendation and 
retains the existing requirements applicable to these locomotives. 
Consequently, when sanders become inoperative on these locomotives they 
would have to be handled in accordance with the provisions contained in 
Section 229.9.
    Paragraph (d). This paragraph is proposed in an effort to ensure 
that any locomotive with inoperative sanders is properly tagged under 
the tagging provisions contained in Section 229.9(a). As paragraphs (b) 
and (c)(1) provide railroads with more flexibility with regard to using 
a locomotive with inoperative sanders than what is currently permitted 
by Section 229.9, FRA wants to ensure that proper notification and 
records are maintained on in-service locomotives with inoperative 
sanders. Thus, FRA proposes to require that locomotives operating with 
defective sanders be tagged in accordance with the provisions contained 
in Section 229.9(a). This will also ensure that the individuals 
operating the locomotive are fully informed as to the fact that the 
locomotive they are operating does not have working sanders.

VII. Regulatory Impact and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing policies 
and procedures, and determined to be non-significant under both 
Executive Order 12866 and DOT policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; 
February 26, 1979). FRA has prepared and placed in the docket a 
regulatory analysis addressing the economic impact of this proposed 
rule. Document inspection and copying facilities are available at 1120 
Vermont Avenue, 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20590. Photocopies may also 
be obtained by submitting a written request to the FRA Docket Clerk at 
Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
    As part of the regulatory impact analysis FRA has assessed 
quantitative measurements of cost and benefit streams expected from the 
adoption of this proposed rule. For the twenty year period the 
estimated quantified costs are minimal. For this period the estimated 
quantified benefits have a PV of $70.6 million
    The major benefits anticipated from implementing this proposed rule 
include: a reduction in the number of times locomotives have sand 
loaded or the number of times the sanders are made operative. This 
reduction

[[Page 9911]]

produces a reduction in injuries related to the operation of filling 
sand boxes on the locomotive and the employee days absent related to 
these injures. Finally the proposed rule would also harmonize the 
sander requirement with the Canadian rule by placing a fourteen day 
limit on service for lead locomotives in road service with inoperative 
sanders.

Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and Executive 
Order 13272 require a review of proposed and final rules to assess 
their impact on small entities. FRA has prepared and placed in the 
docket an Analysis of Impact on Small Entities (AISE) that assesses the 
small entity impact of this proposal. Document inspection and copying 
facilities are available at the Department of Transportation Central 
Docket Management Facility located in Room PL-401 on the Plaza level of 
the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. 
Docket material is also available for inspection on the Internet at 
https://dms.dot.gov. Photocopies may also be obtained by submitting a 
written request to the FRA Docket Clerk at Office of Chief Counsel, 
Stop 10, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20590; please refer to Docket No. FRA-2005-23080.
    ``Small entity'' is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601 as a small business 
concern that is independently owned and operated, and is not dominant 
in its field of operation. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) 
has authority to regulate issues related to small businesses, and 
stipulates in its size standards that a ``small entity'' in the 
railroad industry is a railroad business ``line-haul operation'' that 
has fewer than 1,500 employees and a ``switching and terminal'' 
establishment with fewer than 500 employees. SBA's ``size standards'' 
may be altered by Federal agencies, in consultation with SBA and in 
conjunction with public comment.
    Pursuant to that authority FRA has published a final statement of 
agency policy that formally establishes ``small entities'' as being 
railroads that meet the line-haulage revenue requirements of a Class 
III railroad. See 68 FR 24891 (May 9, 2003). Currently, the revenue 
requirements are $20 million or less in annual operating revenue. The 
$20 million limit is based on the Surface Transportation Board's 
threshold of a Class III railroad carrier, which is adjusted by 
applying the railroad revenue deflator adjustment (49 CFR part 1201). 
The same dollar limit on revenues is established to determine whether a 
railroad shipper or contractor is a small entity.
    For the proposed rule over 600 railroads could potentially be 
affected. The proposed rule would impact all locomotives except those 
propelled by steam power. Given this application, only railroads that 
operate steam locomotives exclusively, would be unaffected. For those 
railroads that would be affected the impact will be minimal, if any. 
The focus is on permitting additional flexibility in the use of 
locomotives with inoperative sanders. It is anticipated that the 
additional flexibility will produce mostly positive impacts, i.e., 
savings and injury reductions.
    The AISE developed in connection with this NPRM concludes that this 
proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Thus, FRA certifies that this proposed rule 
is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act or 
Executive Order 13272. In order to determine the significance of the 
economic impact for the final rule's Regulatory Flexibility Act 
requirements, FRA invites comments from all interested parties 
concerning the potential economic impact on small entities caused by 
this proposed rule. The Agency will consider the comments and data it 
receives in making a decision on the small entity impact for the final 
rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed rule contains one section that would change the 
current regulation, Section 229.131. The proposed change would not 
change the current information collection activity. The information 
collection burden associated with the proposed rule already exists 
under Section 229.9. OMB clearance for the current rule has been 
granted and no further approval is sought at this time. If new 
information collection issues arise in the final rule stage, FRA will 
seek OMB approval.
    FRA is not authorized to impose a penalty on persons for violating 
information collection requirements which do not display a current OMB 
control number, if required. The OMB control number assigned for 
information collection related to this proposed rule is OMB No. 2130-
0004.

Federalism Implications

    FRA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, issued on 
August 4, 1999, which directs Federal agencies to exercise great care 
in establishing policies that have federalism implications. See 64 FR 
43255. This proposed rule will not have a substantial effect on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
various levels of government. This proposed rule will not have 
federalism implications that impose any direct compliance costs on 
State and local governments.
    FRA notes that the RSAC, which endorsed and recommended the 
majority of this proposed rule to FRA, has as permanent members two 
organizations representing State and local interests: AASHTO and the 
Association of State Rail Safety Managers (ASRSM). Both of these State 
organizations concurred with the RSAC recommendation endorsing this 
proposed rule. The RSAC regularly provides recommendations to the FRA 
Administrator for solutions to regulatory issues that reflect 
significant input from its State members. To date, FRA has received no 
indication of concerns about the Federalism implications of this 
rulemaking from these representatives or of any other representatives 
of State government. Consequently, FRA concludes that this proposed 
rule has no federalism implications, other than the preemption of state 
laws covering the subject matter of this proposed rule, which occurs by 
operation of law under 49 U.S.C. Section 20106 whenever FRA issues a 
rule or order.

Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this proposed regulation in accordance with its 
``Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts'' (FRA's Procedures) 
(64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999) as required by the National Environmental 
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental statutes, 
Executive Orders, and related regulatory requirements. FRA has 
determined that this proposed regulation is not a major FRA action 
(requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement or 
environmental assessment) because it is categorically excluded from 
detailed environmental review pursuant to section 4(c)(20) of FRA's 
Procedures. 64 FR 28547, May 26, 1999. Section 4(c)(20) reads as 
follows:

    (c) Actions categorically excluded. Certain classes of FRA 
actions have been determined to be categorically excluded from the 
requirements of these Procedures as they do not individually or 
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

[[Page 9912]]

* * * The following classes of FRA actions are categorically 
excluded: * * *
    (20) Promulgation of railroad safety rules and policy statements 
that do not result in significantly increased emissions or air or 
water pollutants or noise or increased traffic congestion in any 
mode of transportation.

    In accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of FRA's Procedures, the 
agency has further concluded that no extraordinary circumstances exist 
with respect to this regulation that might trigger the need for a more 
detailed environmental review. As a result, FRA finds that this 
proposed regulation is not a major Federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Pursuant to Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency ``shall, unless 
otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory 
actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector 
(other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate 
requirements specifically set forth in law).'' Section 202 of the Act 
(2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that ``before promulgating any general 
notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the 
promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may 
result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $128,100,000 or more (adjusted 
annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and before promulgating any 
final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was 
published, the agency shall prepare a written statement'' detailing the 
effect on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. 
The proposed rule would not result in the expenditure, in the 
aggregate, of $128,100,000 or more in any one year, and thus 
preparation of such a statement is not required.

Privacy Act

    FRA wishes to inform all potential commenters that anyone is able 
to search the electronic form of all comments received into any agency 
docket by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing 
the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor 
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in 
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; 
Pages 19477-78) or you may visit https://dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 229

    Locomotives, Railroad safety, and Sanders.

The Proposed Rule

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA proposes to amend 
part 229 of chapter II, subtitle B of Title 49, Code of Federal 
Regulations, as follows:

PART 229--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 229 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-03, 20107, 20133, 20137-38, 20143, 
20701-03, 21301-02, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2401, note; and 49 CFR 1.49(c), 
(m).

    2. Section 229.5 is amended by adding alphabetically the 
definitions of ``initial terminal'' and ``sand delivery system'' to 
read as follows:


Sec.  229.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Initial terminal means a location where a train is originally 
assembled.
* * * * *
    Sand delivery system means a permanently stationed or fixed device 
designed to deliver sand to locomotive sand boxes that do not require 
the sand to be manually delivered or loaded. A sand delivery system 
will be considered permanently stationed if it is at a location at 
least five days a week for eight hours per day.
* * * * *
    3. Section 229.9 is amended by revising the introductory phrase 
contained in paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  229.9  Movement of non-complying locomotives.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), Sec.  229.125(g), 
and Sec.  229.131(b) and (c)(1), * * *
* * * * *
    4. Section 229.131 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  229.131  Sanders.

    (a) Prior to departure from an initial terminal, each locomotive, 
except for MU locomotives, shall be equipped with operative sanders 
that deposit sand on each rail in front of the first power operated 
wheel set in the direction of movement or shall be handled in 
accordance with the requirements contained in Sec.  229.9.
    (b) Locomotives being used in road service with sanders that become 
inoperative after departure from an initial terminal shall be handled 
in accordance with the following:
    (1) Lead locomotives being used in road service that experience 
inoperative sanders after departure from an initial terminal may 
continue in service until the earliest of the following occurrences:
    (i) Arrival at the next initial terminal;
    (ii) Arrival at a location where it is placed in a facility with a 
sand delivery system;
    (iii) The next periodic inspection under Sec.  229.23; or,
    (iv) Fourteen calendar days from the date the sanders are first 
discovered to be inoperative; and
    (2) Trailing locomotives and distributed power locomotives being 
used in road service that experience inoperative sanders after 
departure from an initial terminal may continue in service until the 
earliest of the following occurrence:
    (i) Arrival at the next initial terminal;
    (ii) Arrival at a location where it is placed in a facility with a 
sand delivery system; or,
    (iii) The next periodic inspection under Sec.  229.23.
    (c) Locomotives being used in switching service shall be equipped 
with operative sanders that deposit sand on each rail in front of the 
first power operated wheel set in the direction of movement. If the 
sanders become inoperative, the locomotives shall be handled in 
accordance with the following:
    (1) Locomotives being used in switching service at a location not 
equipped with a sand delivery system may continue in service for seven 
calendar days from the date the sanders are first discovered 
inoperative or until its