Two-Way End-of-Train Telemetry Devices and Certain Passenger Train Operations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 232

[FRA Docket No. PB-9, Notice No. 10]

RIN 2130-AB22

Two-Way End-of-Train Telemetry Devices and Certain Passenger

Train Operations

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: FRA proposes to revise the regulations regarding the use and

design of two-way end-of-train telemetry devices (two-way EOTs) to

specifically address certain passenger train operations where multiple

units of freight-type equipment, material handling cars, or express

cars are part of a passenger train's consist. Trains of this nature are

currently being operated by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation

(Amtrak), and swift action is necessary to clarify and address the

applicability of the two-way EOT requirements to these types of

operations.

DATES: Written comments regarding this proposal must be filed no later

than February 2, 1998. Comments received after that date will be

considered to the extent possible without incurring additional expense

or delay.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should identify the docket number and the

notice number and must be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Clerk,

Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Stop 10,

Washington, D.C. 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Wilson, Motive Power and

Equipment Division, Office of Safety, RRS-14, FRA, 400 Seventh Street,

S.W., Stop 25, Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone 202-632-3367), or

Thomas Herrmann, Trial Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, RCC-12,

FRA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Stop 10, Washington, D.C. 20590

(telephone 202-632-3178).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 2, 1997, FRA published a final rule amending the

regulations governing train and locomotive power braking systems at 49

CFR part 232 to add provisions pertaining to the use and design of two-

way end-of-train telemetry devices (two-way EOTs). See 62 FR 278. The

purpose of the revisions was to improve the safety of railroad

operations by requiring the use of two-way EOTs on a variety of freight

trains pursuant to 1992 legislation, and by establishing minimum

performance and operational standards related to the use and design of

the devices. See Pub. L. No. 102-365 (September 3, 1992); 49 U.S.C.

20141. In this document, FRA proposes to revise the regulations on two-

way EOTs to specifically address certain passenger train operations

where numerous freight-type cars, material handling cars, or express

cars are part of a train's consist. Trains of this nature are currently

being operated by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak),

and prompt action is necessary to clarify and address the applicability

of two-way EOT requirements to these types of operations.

The current regulations regarding two-way EOTs provide an exception

from the requirements for ``passenger trains with emergency brakes.''

See 49 CFR 232.23(e)(9). The language used in this exception was

extracted in total from the statutory exception contained in the

statutory provisions mandating that FRA develop regulations addressing

the use and operation of two-way EOTs or similar technology. See 49

U.S.C. 20141(c)(2). A review of the legislative history reveals that

there was no discussion by Congress as to the precise meaning of the

phrase ``passenger trains with emergency brakes.'' Consequently, FRA is

required to effectuate Congress' intent based on the precise language

used in that and the other express exceptions and based on the overall

intent of the statutory mandate. See 49 U.S.C. 20141(c)(1)-(c)(5).

Furthermore, any exception contained in a specific statutory mandate

should be narrowly construed. See Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. v. United

States, 248 F. 85 (6th Cir. 1918) cert. den., 248 U.S. 580; DRG R.R. v.

United States, 249 F. 822 (8th Cir. 1918); United States v. ATSF Ry.,

156 F.2d 457 (9th Cir. 1946).

The intent of the statutory provisions related to two-way EOTs was

to ensure that trains operating at a speed over 30 mph or in heavy

grade territory were equipped with the technology to effectuate an

emergency application of the train's brakes starting from both the

front and rear of the train. The specific exceptions contained in the

statute were aimed at trains (i) that do not operate within the express

parameters or (ii) that are equipped or operated in a fashion that

provides the ability to effectuate an emergency brake application that

commences at the rear of the train without the use of a two-way EOT.

See 49 U.S.C. 20141(c)(1)-(c)(5). Based on the intent of the statute

and based upon a consistent and narrow construction of the specific

language used by Congress in the express exceptions, FRA believes it is

clear that Congress did not intend the phrase ``passenger trains with

emergency brakes'' to constitute a blanket exception for all passenger

trains. If that was Congress' intent, it would not have added the

qualifying phrase ``with emergency brakes.'' In FRA's view, this

language limits the specific statutory exception to passenger trains

equipped with a separate emergency brake valve in each car throughout

the train and, thus, to passenger trains possessing the ability to

effectuate an emergency application of the train's brakes from the rear

of the train. Therefore, passenger trains that include

RoadRailers, auto racks, express cars, or other similar

vehicles that are designed to carry freight that are placed at the rear

of the train, that are not equipped with emergency brake valves, would

not fall within the specific statutory or regulatory exception as they

are incapable of effectuating an emergency brake application that

commences at the rear of the train. Further, FRA does not believe that

Congress envisioned freight-type equipment being hauled at the rear of

passenger trains when the specific exception was included in the

statute.

FRA believes that Congress intended to except only those trains

traditionally considered to be passenger trains, which would include

passenger trains containing baggage and mail cars as these have

consistently been considered passenger equipment with emergency brakes.

However, passenger trains which operate with numerous inaccessible

baggage or mail cars attached to the rear of the train that lack any

ability to effectuate an emergency brake application from the rear of

the train would, in FRA's view, fall outside the specific statutory and

regulatory exception for ``passenger trains with emergency brakes.''

Subsequent to the issuance of the final rule and the period

permitted for the submission of petitions for reconsideration of the

rule, Amtrak raised concerns regarding the applicability of the final

rule to some of its passenger train operations, particularly those

which recently began to operate with numerous express, material

handling cars, or RoadRailers entrained in the consist.

These concerns focused on FRA's enforcement guidance provided to its

field inspectors, which stated that the exception for ``passenger

trains with emergency brakes'' was intended to apply only to trains

traditionally considered to be passenger trains, a category that would

include passenger trains containing a limited

[[Page 2648]]

number of baggage and mail cars at the rear of the train. This guidance

was based on the reasoning provided in the preceding discussion. Amtrak

contended that FRA's interpretive guidance was an improper reading of

the statutory and regulatory exception and did not adequately consider

the superior braking capabilities of passenger equipment. Although FRA

disagrees that its guidance was improper, FRA does agree that a closer

examination of the applicability of the two-way EOT requirements to

passenger trains needed to be performed in light of the superior

braking ratios of passenger cars and the presence of emergency brake

valves on the passenger cars in mixed train consists which provide

certain safety assurances that are not present in traditional freight

operations. Consequently, FRA agrees that the mixed passenger and

``express'' service currently being operated by Amtrak is unique and

needs to be handled separately from traditional freight operations.

None of the consists proposed to be excepted raises any issue with

respect to the ability to stop on grade using the rearmost available

conductor's valve. The issue is the ability to stop within normal

signal spacing after determining that there is a blockage in the train

line. To gain a perspective on the stopping characteristics and safety

implications of the ``mixed'' passenger train operations, FRA requested

the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe) to review the

information and procedures used by Amtrak in developing various

stopping distance calculations submitted to FRA. In addition, FRA

requested that Volpe develop and analyze its own data regarding these

types of ``mixed'' passenger trains. In making their calculations, both

Volpe and Amtrak used variables of grade; train configuration; and the

number, weight, and types of cars and locomotives expected to be used

in these types of operations. Although all of the calculations were

based on worse-case scenarios (e.g., the angle cock was assumed to be

closed just behind the last car with an accessible emergency brake

valve, and only friction braking--tread or disc brakes of locomotives

and cars--was considered available to stop the train), all stops were

achieved on the specified grade used in the calculation.

In making its calculations Volpe used a MathCad program to compute

stopping distances. Volpe used the results of its calculations as a

check against the results Amtrak had produced and submitted to FRA.

Volpe concluded that Amtrak's procedures predicted longer (more

conservative) stopping distances than the approach taken by Volpe.

Amtrak's results were also compared to the requirements of the Amtrak

Communication and Signal Department, Specification S-603, Curve 8,

which is used to determine stopping distances for passenger equipment

for signal block spacing. Curve 8 values for stopping distances are

augmented by a factor of 25 percent to account for conditions which may

impair brake performance. The absolute (actual) signal block spacing on

the Northeast Corridor is actually greater than any of the stopping

distances produced by either Volpe or Amtrak in their calculations.

Therefore, stopping distances within established signal blocks should

not be a problem. The process Amtrak used was sufficiently conservative

so that predicted stopping distances were greater than would be

experienced in reality. Nevertheless, FRA has worked with Amtrak to

define further limitations adequate to ensure safety under identified

worst-case conditions, and these limitations are set forth in this

proposal.

Need for 15-Day Comment Period

As previously discussed, Amtrak currently operates a number of

trains that include numerous material handling cars, express cars, auto

racks, mail cars, and/or RoadRailer equipment. These types

of rolling equipment are either not equipped with emergency brake

valves or, if equipped with such valves, they are not accessible to any

member of the train crew. Amtrak expects that the operation of this

type of rolling equipment will continue to grow and that many of its

trains will eventually have a number of these vehicles in their

consists. As explained earlier, FRA believes that a passenger train

operated with this rolling equipment falls outside the statutory and

regulatory exception to the two-way EOT requirement for ``passenger

trains with emergency brakes,'' and thus, would be required under the

existing rules to be equipped with an operative two-way EOT or

alternative technology. However, FRA also recognizes the unique nature

of these types of ``mixed'' operations and realizes that the safety

assurances provided by the braking ratios and the presence of emergency

brake valves at various locations through much of the consist on

certain mixed passenger trains make requiring the use of a two-way EOT

unnecessary.

As will be further clarified, FRA believes that swift action must

be taken with regard to the provisions proposed in this document and

that a lengthy comment period would be impracticable, unnecessary, and

contrary to the public interest. A number of freight railroads are

currently expressing concern and apprehension over permitting these

``mixed'' passenger trains to operate over their rails in light of

FRA's above-mentioned interpretive guidance. In fact, at least one

instance has occurred in which a ``mixed'' Amtrak train was detained

for six hours by a freight railroad until a two-way EOT was applied

because the freight railroad refused to permit the train to operate

without the device. In addition, requiring Amtrak to acquire a number

of two-way EOTs and operate under the provisions of the current

regulatory scheme during a lengthy comment period would impose a

substantial and unwarranted financial and operational burden without

improving the safety of Amtrak operations. Furthermore, the proposals

contained in this document include certain restrictions on the

operation and make-up of certain passenger trains that are proposed for

exception from the two-way EOT requirements, restrictions that FRA

believes enhance the safety of those operations and that are not

currently mandated.

The current situation mandates swift action to address both safety

concerns and practical operating concerns. On the one hand, Amtrak is

continuing to take delivery of express and other equipment and to build

this line of business in order to close its operating deficit and to

support continued intercity rail passenger service in a time of

declining support from the public treasury. The public's interest in

continued rail passenger service warrants reasonable flexibility to

achieve this business objective. This development has corresponded with

the implementation of two-way EOT requirements, rapidly complicating

what appeared at the outset to be a relatively straightforward issue.

Prior to the effective date of the rule, Amtrak had implemented a two-

way EOT system on its AutoTrain, previously the only Amtrak train

operated with any significant number of unoccupied cars at the rear of

the train. Anticipating the need to equip other trains as the express

business grows, Amtrak is equipping over 100 locomotives and deploying

rear-end units at appropriate points along its lines where trains are

built. Meanwhile, Amtrak has committed to FRA to operate cars with

cables for head-end power transmission (such as mail and baggage cars)

at the front of trains where practicable given constraints on loading

and unloading, in order limit the number of cars to the rear of the

train

[[Page 2649]]

that are beyond the last car with an accessible emergency valve. As

noted above, passenger trains have historically operated with small

numbers of unoccupied cars at the rear and without difficulty from the

point of view of effective braking. However, as express service grows

and Amtrak builds trains responsive to that growth (a phenomenon that

is well underway), the danger increases that Amtrak's own internal

policies for use of available two-way EOT systems may not be honored in

the field through oversight. That is, having clear and certain Federal

requirements becomes essential to public safety. FRA recognizes that

previous interpretive guidance has been excessively narrow in relation

to the safety issues presented by mixed consists.

In conclusion, FRA believes that prompt action is necessary in

order to alleviate and avoid the concerns noted above. Consequently,

FRA is issuing this NPRM with a comment period of only 15 days in order

to quickly address the applicability of the two-way EOT requirements to

``mixed'' passenger train operations.

FRA wishes to make clear that if no substantive adverse comments

are received on this proposal within the 15-day comment period, it will

immediately issue a final rule containing the provisions of this

proposal. Any comments received during this 15-day comment period will

be fully considered prior to the issuance of a final rule. FRA intends

for any final rule issued to take effect immediately upon publication.

FRA is now soliciting comments on this proposal and will consider those

comments in determining whether there is a need to amend the proposal

at the final rule stage. It should be noted that, FRA will continue to

exercise its enforcement discretion pursuant to 49 CFR part 209,

Appendix A, and not require strict adherence to the current

requirements by certain ``mixed'' passenger train operations in order

to prevent further confusion within the industry regarding FRA's

previous interpretative guidance while ensuring the continued safety of

such operations.

Section-by-Section Analysis

FRA proposes to amend Sec. 232.23 by revising paragraphs (e) and

(g) and by adding a new paragraph (h) to specifically address passenger

train operations that include using cars that do not have readily

accessible emergency brake valves.

Paragraph (e) of Sec. 232.23 contains a listing of the trains that

are excepted from the two-way EOT requirements. FRA proposes conforming

changes to paragraphs (e)(8) and (e)(9). In paragraph (e)(9) FRA

proposes to retain the exception for passenger trains in which all of

the cars in the train are equipped with a readily accessible emergency

brake valve, as discussed in detail above.

In paragraph (e)(10) FRA proposes an exception to the requirements

regarding two-way EOTs for passenger trains that operate with a car

placed at the rear of the train that is equipped with an emergency

brake valve readily accessible to a crew member in radio communication

with the locomotive engineer of the train. FRA intends for this

proposed exception to be applicable to passenger trains containing cars

that do have a readily accessible emergency brake valve at the rear of

the train. FRA believes this proposed exception is justified as it is

virtually identical to the exception granted to freight trains with an

occupied caboose (contained in paragraph (e)(3)) since it would permit

an emergency application of brakes to be initiated from the occupied

car at the rear of the passenger train.

In paragraph (e)(11) FRA proposes to except certain passenger

trains that have cars placed at the rear of the train that do not have

readily accessible emergency brake valves. This proposed exception is

intended to recognize the safety of these types of trains if configured

and operated in accordance with the provisions of this exception. The

proposed exception contained in this subparagraph applies only to

trains of twenty-four (24) cars or fewer. Therefore, passenger trains

that have more than 24 cars in the consist and that do not fall within

the exceptions contained in subparagraphs (e)(9) or (e)(10) would be

required to be equipped with an operative two-way EOT device or

alternative technology. It should be noted that FRA intends that each

bogie used in RoadRailer operation be counted as a car for

purposes of calculating the number of cars in a passenger train

consist. Furthermore, FRA proposes that a locomotive that is not

designed to carry passengers should not be considered a car for

purposes of these calculations.

Based on data and information submitted by Amtrak and reviewed by

Volpe and based upon Volpe's independent analysis regarding passenger

train braking ratios and the response of passenger train brakes, FRA

believes that certain ``mixed'' passenger trains can be safely operated

without being required to be equipped with a two-way EOT or alternative

technology provided certain operational and train configuration

restrictions are maintained. Paragraph (e)(11)(i) proposes that if the

total number of cars in a passenger train consist is twelve (12) or

fewer, a car located no less than halfway through the consist must be

equipped with an emergency brake valve readily accessible to a crew

member. For example, in a consist containing twelve (12) cars, the

sixth (6th) car (or a car closer to the rear) in the consist must have

a readily accessible emergency brake valve; likewise, in an eleven (11)

car consist, the sixth (6th) car (or a car closer to the rear) must

have a readily accessible emergency brake valve, since all half numbers

will be rounded up. Paragraph (e)(11)(ii) proposes that if the total

number of cars in a passenger train consist is from thirteen (13) to

twenty-four (24), a car located no less than two-thirds (\2/3\) of the

way through the consist (counting from the first car in the train) must

be equipped with an emergency brake valve readily accessible to a crew

member. For example, in a twenty-one (21) car consist, the fourteenth

(14th) car (or a car closer to the rear) must have a readily accessible

emergency brake valve.

In addition to these train-configuration requirements, paragraphs

(e)(11)(iii) and (iv) contain certain proposed operating requirements

that must be followed by any passenger train operating pursuant to this

specific exception. Such trains would be required to have a train crew

member occupy the rearmost car equipped with a readily accessible

emergency brake valve and remain in constant radio communication with

the locomotive engineer whenever the train is operating over a section

of track with an average grade of two percent or higher over two

continuous miles. FRA recommends that the engineer alert the train crew

member approximately ten (10) minutes prior to descending the heavy

grade, so the crew member will be in place at the crest of the grade.

Furthermore, FRA proposes that the crew member not leave his or her

position until the locomotive engineer advises that the train has

traversed the grade. FRA believes that these proposed operational

requirements will ensure that immediate action can be taken by a member

of the train crew to effectuate an emergency brake application whenever

the train is descending a heavy grade.

FRA proposes to amend paragraph (g) to indicate that the operating

limitations that will be imposed on a passenger train required to be

equipped with a two-way EOT that experiences an en route failure of the

device will be

[[Page 2650]]

contained in paragraph (h). It should be noted that FRA intends that

the criteria contained paragraph (g) to determine when a loss of

communication between the front and rear units will be considered an en

route failure will be applicable to passenger train operations.

Paragraph (h) contains the operational limitations and restrictions

that are proposed to be placed on passenger trains that experience en

route failures of two-way EOTs. Due to the time-sensitive nature of

passenger operations, FRA believes that placing a speed restriction on

these trains would not be the most effective method of handling en

route failures of a device. Rather, FRA believes that other operating

restrictions can be imposed to ensure the safety of these trains. FRA

believes that in order to realize the benefits of a two-way EOT as

contemplated by Congress, the device must be operative when the train

descends a heavy grade. Therefore, FRA proposes that if a passenger

train is required to be equipped with an operable device, it shall not

be permitted to descend an average grade of two percent or more for two

continuous miles until an operable device is installed or an

alternative method of initiating an emergency brake application from

the rear of the train is achieved. However, FRA further proposes that

passenger trains that develop an en route failure of the two-way EOT

may continue to operate over track that is not in heavy grade territory

as long as a crew member occupies the rearmost car with a readily

accessible emergency brake valve and remains in constant radio

communication with the locomotive engineer. FRA also believes that

since the train no longer has the safety assurances provided by a two-

way EOT, the engineer must periodically test the braking

characteristics of the train by making running brake tests. If the

engineer suspects the brakes are not functioning properly, immediate

action shall be taken to bring the train to a stop until corrections

can be made. FRA also proposes that all en route failures of the

devices must be corrected either at the next location where the

necessary repairs can be made or at the next location where a required

brake test of the train is to be conducted, whichever point the train

arrives at first.

Regulatory Impact

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This proposal has been evaluated in accordance with existing

policies and procedures. Because the requirements contained in this

proposal clarify the applicability of the two-way EOT regulations to a

specific segment of the industry and generally reduce the regulatory

burden on these operators, FRA has concluded that this NPRM does not

constitute a significant rule under either Executive Order 12866 or

DOT's policies and procedures.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

requires a review of rules to assess their impact on small entities.

FRA certifies that this proposal does not have a significant impact on

a substantial number of small entities. Because the requirements

contained in this proposal clarify the applicability of the two-way EOT

regulations to a specific segment of the industry and generally reduce

the regulatory burden on these operators, FRA has concluded that there

are no substantial economic impacts for small units of government,

businesses, or other organizations.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposal does not change any information collection

requirements.

Environmental Impact

FRA has evaluated this proposal in accordance with its procedures

for ensuring full consideration of the potential environmental impacts

of FRA actions, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act

(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental statutes, Executive

Orders, and DOT Order 5610.1c. It has been determined that this

proposal does not have any effect on the quality of the environment.

Federalism Implications

This proposal does not have a substantial effect on the States, on

the relationship between the national government on the States, or on

the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels

of government. Thus, in accordance with Executive Order 12612,

preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

Request for Public Comments

FRA proposes to revise part 232 regarding two-way EOTs as set forth

below. FRA is contemplating eventually moving the two-way EOT

requirements related to passenger train operations to proposed part 238

containing the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards and would

potentially seek the consultation of the working group currently

involved with finalizing those standards on the issues addressed in

this proposal. Consequently, FRA solicits comments on all aspects of

this proposal whether through written submissions, participation in the

passenger equipment working group, or both.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 232

Penalties, Railroad power brakes, Railroad safety, Two-way end-of-

train devices.

The Proposal

In consideration of the foregoing, FRA proposes to amend part 232,

title 49, Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:

PART 232--RAILROAD POWER BRAKES AND DRAWBARS

1. The authority citation for part 232 is revised to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102, 20103, 20107, 20108, 20110-20112,

20114, 20133, 20141, 20301-20304, 20701-20703, 21301, 21302, 21304,

and 21311; and 49 CFR 1.49 (c), (g), and (m).

2. Section 232.23 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)

introductory text, (e)(8), and (e)(9); adding a new sentence to the

beginning of the introductory text of paragraph (g) and adding and

reserving paragraph (g)(2); and adding new paragraphs (e)(10), (e)(11),

and (h) to read as follows:

Sec. 232.23 Operations requiring use of two-way end-of-train devices;

prohibition on purchase of nonconforming devices.

* * * * *

(e) The following types of trains are excepted from the requirement

for the use of a two-way end-of-train device:

* * * * *

(8) Trains that operate exclusively on track that is not part of

the general railroad system;

(9) Passenger trains in which all of the cars in the train are

equipped with an emergency brake valve readily accessible to a crew

member;

(10) Passenger trains that have a car at the rear of the train,

readily accessible to one or more crew members in radio contact with

the engineer, that is equipped with an emergency brake valve readily

accessible to such a crew member; and

(11) Passenger trains that have twenty-four (24) or fewer cars (not

including locomotives) in the consist and that are equipped and

operated in accordance with the following:

(i) If the total number of cars in a passenger train consist is

twelve (12) or fewer, a car located no less than halfway through the

consist (counting from the first car in the train) must be equipped

with an emergency brake valve readily accessible to a crew member;

(ii) If the total number of cars in a passenger train consist is

thirteen (13) to

[[Page 2651]]

twenty-four (24), a car located no less than two-thirds (\2/3\) of the

way through the consist (counting from the first car in the train) must

be equipped with an emergency brake valve readily accessible to a crew

member;

(iii) Prior to descending a section of track with an average grade

of two percent or greater over a distance of two continuous miles, the

engineer of the train shall communicate with the conductor, to ensure

that a member of the crew with a working two-way radio is stationed in

the car with the rearmost readily accessible emergency brake valve on

the train when the train begins its descent; and

(iv) While the train is descending a section of track with an

average grade of two percent or greater over a distance of two

continuous miles, a member of the train crew shall occupy the car that

contains the rearmost readily accessible emergency brake valve on the

train and be in constant radio communication with the locomotive

engineer. The crew member shall remain in this car until the train has

completely traversed the heavy grade.

* * * * *

(g) Except on passenger trains required to be equipped with a two-

way end-of-train device (which are provided for in paragraph (h) of

this section), en route failures of a two-way end-of-train device shall

be handled in accordance with this paragraph. * * *

* * * * *

(2) [Reserved]

(h) A passenger train required to be equipped with a two-way end-

of-train device that develops an en route failure of the device (as

explained in paragraph (g) of this section) shall be operated in

accordance with the following:

(1) The train shall not operate over a section of track with an

average grade of two percent or greater over a distance of two

continuous miles until an operable two-way end-of-train device is

installed on the train;

(2) A member of the train crew will be immediately positioned in

the car which contains the rearmost readily accessible emergency brake

valve on the train and shall be equipped with an operable two-way radio

that communicates with the locomotive engineer;

(3) The locomotive engineer shall periodically make running tests

of the train's air brakes until the failure is corrected; and

(4) Each en route failure shall be corrected at the next location

where the necessary repairs can be conducted or at the next location

where a required brake test is to be performed, whichever is reached

first.

3. Appendix A to Part 232, ``Schedule of Civil Penalties,'' is

amended by revising the heading of the entry for Sec. 232.23 and

revising the entry for Sec. 232.23(g) and adding an entry for

Sec. 232.23(h), to read as follows:

Appendix--A to Part 232--Schedule of Civil Penalties

* * * * *

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

Willful

Section Violation violation

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

* * * *

* * *

232.23 Operating standards:

* * * *

* * *

(g) En route failure, freight............... 5,000 7,500

(h) En route failure, passenger............. 5,000 7,500

* * * *

* * *

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

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 12, 1998.

Jolene M. Molitoris,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98-1082 Filed 1-15-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4901-06-P