Inspection and Maintenance Standards for Steam Locomotives; Proposed Revisions

SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to update its requirements issued in 1978

(``1978 standards'') for steam locomotive inspections and maintenance

with new standards that represent the consensus recommendations of the

Railroad Safety Advisory Committee's Tourist and Historic Working

Group. The proposed standards would relax certain inspection

requirements, while tightening others, to recognize and reflect the

less frequent use of steam locomotives in today's national system of

transportation. Significant changes would include: The creation of a

``service-day'' inspection system that directly relates inspection time

periods to the actual use of the steam locomotive; the elimination of

waivers for steam boilers, steam locomotives and their appurtenances,

with certain exceptions; the inclusion of allowances which encourage

the use of new technologies, such as non-destructive testing, for

boiler testing and inspections; and the imposition of qualification

requirements for individuals making certain repairs to steam locomotive

boilers, steam locomotives and their appurtenances.

Certain of the inspection standards would be left substantively

intact but would be relocated to new sections and given new section

numbers. Due to the magnitude of the changes proposed, the proposed

standards would replace the 1978 standards in their entirety.

DATES: (1) Written comments: Written comments must be received no later

than November 24, 1998. Comments received after that date will be

considered to the extent possible without incurring additional expense

or delay. Requests for formal extension of the comment period must be

made by October 26, 1998.

(2) Hearing: Because this proposal is based largely on the

consensus recommendations of the agency's safety advisory committee,

FRA does not intend to schedule a public hearing regarding this

proposal absent a specific request to do so. Any requests for FRA to

hold a public hearing into this matter should be received by FRA by

October 9, 1998.

(3) Proposed Effective Date: Part 230 is proposed to become

effective 60 days after the publication date of the final rule.

ADDRESSES: (1) Written comments: Written comments should identify the

docket and notice numbers and be submitted in triplicate to: Docket

Clerk, Office of Chief Counsel, Mail Stop 10, Federal Railroad

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590.

Persons who wish to be notified that their comments have been received

should submit a stamped, self-addressed postcard with their comments.

The Docket Clerk will indicate on the postcard the date on which the

comments were received and will return the card to the addressee.

Written comments will be available for examination, both before and

after the comment period closes, during regular business hours at the

Federal Railroad Administration's office space in 1120 Vermont Avenue,

N.W., Washington, D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Scerbo, Motive Power &

Equipment Specialist, Federal Railroad Administration, (telephone 202-

493-6249); Lawrence Wagner, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel,

FRA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590, (telephone 202-

493-6063); or John Megary, Regional Administrator, Federal Railroad

Administration, 8701 Bedford-Euless Road, Suite 425, Hurst, TX 76053,

(telephone 817-284-8142).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Regulatory Background

In his annual message in 1910, President Taft noted the need for

regulation of the steam locomotive industry:

The protection of railroad employees from personal injury is a

subject of the highest importance and demands continuing attention *

* *. It seems to me that with respect to boilers a bill might well

be drawn requiring and enforcing by penalty a proper system of

inspection.

Congressional Record, December 6, 1910, p. 33. At that time, there

were no rules or regulations governing the inspection and maintenance

of steam locomotives other than the Ash Pan Act, 45 U.S.C.S. 17 (1908),

repealed Pub. L. 97-468 (1933), which prescribed the method for

attaching ash pans to a steam boiler. On February 17, 1911, however,

Congress passed the Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act (LBIA). The LBIA,

which was opposed by locomotive owners and operators, brought all

locomotive steam boilers under Federal jurisdiction and established the

Bureau of Locomotive Inspection and its attendant field force of 50

Locomotive Inspectors.

The LBIA became effective on July 1, 1911, and only applied to the

steam locomotive boiler. It had an immediate and drastic impact; the

number of incidents caused by the failure of the boiler or any of its

appurtenances declined sharply. Incidents caused by failures of parts

of the locomotive other than the boiler and its appurtenances began to

increase, however, and railroad employees appealed to Congress for an

amendment that would extend federal jurisdiction over the entire steam

locomotive and tender and all its parts with the same force and effect

that had previously only applied to the boiler. The railroad owners and

operators were, again, vigorously opposed. A bill incorporating the

proposed amendment was passed by Congress and signed by President

Wilson on March 4, 1915.

When the LBIA became effective in 1911, it required each railroad

subject to the Act to file copies of its rules and instructions for the

inspection of locomotive boilers. An examination and comparison of the

170 rules and instructions submitted (out of approximately 2,200

railroads in the country at that time) disclosed that these rules were

either substantially similar, or identical, to those promulgated by the

Master Mechanics' Association. These rules, along with the 1915

amendments, formed the basis for the former Interstate Commerce

Commission (ICC) rules which were adopted and have been in effect to

date. Modifications to these rules were made over the years by ICC

orders to enhance safety. FRA adopted all ICC rules, interpretations,

and instructions when the Department of Transportation was created,

effective April 1, 1967. These rules were published in the Federal

Register and incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations in

December of 1968. Since then, the rules have been updated and amended

periodically. In 1980, the regulations were removed from the CFR.

However, FRA has continued to enforce them through today. For purposes

of clarity, whenever those removed standards are referenced, they will

be described as ``the 1978 standards'' since there is not current CFR

citation for them.

There are currently fewer than 200 steam locomotives in operation.

Most of them are used in tourist or historic service on an

intermittent, seasonal basis. Several years ago, a task group of the

National Board of Boiler and

[[Page 51405]]

Pressure Vessel Inspectors comprised of steam locomotive operators,

called the Engineering Standards Committee (ESC), petitioned the FRA to

change the current rules to more realistically reflect the current use

and conditions of service for today's steam locomotives. The agency

committed to work with this group to consider revisions to these

standards. After the agency established its Railroad Safety Advisory

Committee (RSAC or the Committee), the agency identified this subject

as one ripe for collaborative rulemaking. Accordingly, the agency

tasked the RSAC with the formal revision of steam locomotive inspection

standards on July 24, 1996. It was also recommended at that time that

the ESC, and the FRA representatives with whom it was working, become a

Task Force to the RSAC's Tourist and Historic Working Group.

II. Antecedents of FRA's Consensual Rulemaking Approach

In 1994, FRA established its first formal regulatory negotiation

committee (``reg-neg'') to address roadway worker safety. This

committee successfully reached consensus conclusions and recommended an

NPRM to the Administrator, persuading FRA that a more consensual

approach to rulemaking would likely yield more effective, and more

widely accepted, rules. In addition, President Clinton's March 1995

Regulatory Reform Initiative directed agencies to expand their efforts

to promote consensual rulemaking. In response to these efforts, FRA

decided to shift toward a collaborative rulemaking process by

establishing, and utilizing the consensus recommendations of RSAC.

III. The Railroad Safety Advisory Committee

The RSAC formally was established on March 25, 1996 to provide

recommendations and advice to the Administrator on the development of

FRA's railroad safety regulatory program, including the issuance of new

regulations, the review and revision of existing regulations, and the

identification of non-regulatory alternatives for improvement of

railroad safety. The Committee is comprised of 48 representatives from

27 member organizations, including railroads, labor groups, equipment

manufacturers, state government groups, public associations, and three

associate non-voting representatives from the National Transportation

Safety Board (NTSB), Canada, and Mexico. The Administrator's

representative (the Associate Administrator for Safety or that person's

delegate) is the Chairperson of the Committee.

IV. Steam Task Force of the Tourist and Historic Working Group

During the July 24, 1996 meeting of the RSAC, the agency charged

the committee with recommending revisions to the regulations governing

locomotive inspection standards for steam-powered locomotives (49 CFR

Part 230), in order to promote the safe operation of tourist and

historic rail operations, including ``such additions and deletions as

may be warranted by appropriate data and analysis.'' In its Task

Statement (Task No. 96-5) to RSAC, the agency instructed the Committee

to refer this task to the pre-existing Tourist and Historic Railroads

working group (THWG or The Group), which it successfully did. The THWG

is comprised of the following organizations:

Association of American Private Railcar Owners

American Short Line Railroad Association

Association of American Railroads

Association of Railway Museums

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers

FRA

Tourist Railway Association Inc. (TRAIN)

The THWG voted during its April 1996 meeting to adopt the ESC,

which had been examining these issues outside of the RSAC arena, and to

have it serve as a Task Force reporting to the THWG. As adopted, the

Steam Standards Task Force (Task Force) is comprised of knowledgeable

persons from the following organizations:

Valley Railroad Company

Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge

Union Pacific Railroad

Strasburg Railroad

Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance Company

National Board of Boiler Inspectors

ABB/Combustion Engineering

Smithsonian Institution

FRA

In addition, a locomotive engineer and several steam locomotive

experts, now working as consultants, participated in the proceedings.

To accomplish its goal, the Task Force met approximately six or

seven times during an eighteen month period. During these meetings, the

Task Force evaluated a previous ESC proposal to revise Part 230, which

had been presented to FRA in the early 1990's. Many of the issues in

this proposal engendered much discussion and debate within the Task

Force. Brief summaries of those discussions are recorded in the

appropriate parts of the section-by-section analysis portion of this

document. Technical details supporting certain recommendations are not

specified in this notice but are recorded in the docket and were

discussed by the Task Force. A few issues have been designated by FRA

as ``major issues'' and are more fully discussed below.

On September 19, 1997, the THWG communicated to the agency their

unanimous consensus that the Task Force's proposed recommended rule

text revisions to Part 230 should be forwarded to the RSAC. On January

16, 1998, both the task force, and the full THWG reached consensus that

the proposed preamble should be included in the package presented to

RSAC. The RSAC was presented with the entire package during its January

27, 1998 meeting. The RSAC considered this proposal and made consensus

recommendations to the Administrator of FRA. This document reflects the

Administrator's utilization of those recommendations, consistent with

applicable law and Presidential guidance.

Throughout this document, the agency explains the rationale and

deliberative thought processes of the task force of which it was a

part. Unless otherwise noted, the agency agrees with the reasoning and

explanations advanced by the task force for making the proposed

revisions to these standards contained in this NPRM. The task force's

deliberations were frequently characterized by robust debate.

Throughout this document, wherever necessary to explain proposed

revisions, the agency tries to recapture as much of that debate as is

relevant and practical.

V. Task Force Goals

During an early meeting, the task force identified several goals

for revising Part 230:

(1) harmonizing FRA and National Boiler Inspection Code terminology

and standards;

(2) modernizing the rules to reflect current operating realities;

(3) eliminating any incentives, financial or otherwise, for

operators to not follow the rules;

(4) encouraging the use of new technologies; and

(5) producing a rule that is more enforceable for being more

clearly written and more understandable.

These goals are reflected throughout this document and are embodied

in the changes proposed.

[[Page 51406]]

VI. Reorganization of Part 230

The 1978 standards are divided into two main parts--one for the

steam locomotive boiler and its appurtenances, and the other for the

steam locomotive and tender. As part of the proposed revisions to Part

230, the agency has restructured the rule so that it would contain a

``general'' part, Subpart A, which would contain provisions that would

apply to the entirety of Part 230, a boiler part, Subpart B, applicable

to the boiler and its appurtenances, and a locomotive part, Subpart C,

applicable to the steam locomotive and tender. Some of the concepts

contained in the proposed Subpart A were formerly contained in Subparts

A and B of the 1978 standards. This proposal is designed to reduce and

eliminate identified redundancies in the 1978 standards, and to make

the rule more clear, readable and understandable.

VII. Major Issues

A. Responsibility for Compliance.

The agency is proposing to change the term ``railroad company''

throughout the body of the rule to the term ``locomotive owner and/or

operator,'' consistent with the task force proposal to do so, in order

to reflect the change in steam locomotive operating practices. Many

railroad companies are not in the business of either owning or

operating steam locomotives today. While some tourist railroads own and

operate their own locomotives, frequently steam locomotives are owned

and/or operated by entities other than the railroad on whose line they

operate. Hence, in many instances, the locomotive owner and/or operator

is in a much better position than the railroad company to ensure

compliance with various regulatory requirements. Thus, the task force

recommended, and the agency is proposing, to more specifically affix

responsibility--throughout the rule--on those who are primarily

responsible for the locomotive. In most cases, that is the locomotive

owner and/or operator. The task force debated how to best articulate

the liability standard--whether to use ``owner and operator,'' ``owner/

operator,'' or ``owner or operator.'' They settled on the ``owner and/

or operator'' construct as the clearest method for affixing joint and

severable liability for the inspection and maintenance of steam

locomotives on the owner and operator. In certain sections of the rule,

however, the owner and the operator are individually identified as the

appropriate party on whom liability would rest.

Moreover, as provided by statute, the railroad would also be liable

for permitting any entity to use a noncomplying locomotive on its line

(see section-by-section discussion of section 230.4, below). The

adoption of the owner and/or operator language is a clear signal that

FRA intends to look first to the owner and/or operator to ensure

compliance, whether or not that happens to be the railroad. It is

important to note that the proposed applicability section, section

230.2, which the agency modified from that originally submitted by the

task force, uses the term ``railroad'' to describe where the rule

applies. As discussed in the section-by-section analysis for the

applicability section, the agency is proposing this change to harmonize

all of its applicability sections. Since this section best expresses

where the rule applies, as contrasted with the proposed

``Responsibility for Compliance'' section, Sec. 230.8, which best

expresses to whom the rule applies, the agency does not expect this

change to effect a substantive revision of the task force's proposal.

B. Inspection Scheme

In this rule, the agency is proposing to change the inspection

scheme for steam locomotive boilers to allow for the changed nature of

modern steam locomotive operations. The 1978 standards require steam

locomotive boilers to be inspected at various time periods that are

linked to an annual calendar, regardless of the amount of actual usage

the locomotive has incurred. When locomotives were in continuous

service, this system was not unduly burdensome. Operation of steam

locomotives today, however, occurs much more infrequently, sometimes

only a few times a year. Under the new inspection scheme, locomotives

would be required to be inspected based on the number of ``service

days'' they accrue, with various intermediate calendar inspection

requirements retained to ensure an adequate level of safety.

1. Service Days

This new scheme would be underpinned by the concept of a ``service

day,'' which would be defined as any day the locomotive has steam

pressure above atmospheric pressure and a fire in the firebox. Because

good practice for steam locomotive operation requires that the

locomotive boiler be slowly heated before use and slowly cooled after

use, due to the damage such rapid heating and cooling can cause the

metal of the boiler, a locomotive that runs on weekends could incur

three service days for one actual day of ``use.'' Thus, the locomotive

could have fire in the firebox and pressure above atmospheric pressure

for an entire day before it actually runs, for the entire day that it

runs, and during the time it takes to cool down after the day it runs,

which could run into a third service day. Some operators were concerned

that this definition would create an incentive for operators to

``dump'' their fires after operating the steam locomotive to avoid

incurring an extra service day. The task force was of the opinion,

however, that the financial cost to operators who might so dump their

fires (in terms of stress and damage to their boilers from such

behavior) would likely outweigh any inspection time period benefits

they might gain from such dumping. The task force also articulated its

belief that, with proper damping and draft restriction, fire can be

removed from the firebox (and a service day preserved) with no adverse

affects for the boiler--and that this practice can be, in fact, easier

on the boiler than banking the fire.

2. Daily Inspection

The proposed new ``daily inspection'' section would make clear the

inspection requirements for locomotive owners and operators. The 1978

standards contains no requirement for a daily inspection, other than a

requirement that the locomotive and tender be inspected ``after each

trip, or day's work.'' In the proposed section, the agency would retain

that general daily inspection requirement for each day that the

locomotive is ``offered for use,'' but also would impose a ``pre-

departure'' requirement for the locomotive to be inspected at the

beginning of each day the locomotive is actually used, with particular

attention called to certain safety critical items--the water glasses

and gauge cocks, the boiler's feedwater delivery systems, the air

compressors and governors, and the air brake system.

3. 31 and 92 Service Day Inspections

The proposed rule also requires 31 and 92 service day inspection

requirements, which would roughly correspond to the monthly and three

month inspections in the 1978 standards.

4. Annual Inspections

The proposed rule includes annual inspection requirements that

would be similar to the 1978 standards, requiring that the locomotive

be inspected after 368 days have elapsed from the time of the prior

annual inspection. The 1978 standards require that certain items be

inspected at least ``once every 12 months.'' The proposal for the

annual

[[Page 51407]]

inspection, as for all other inspections, would incorporate the

inspection requirements for all inspections required to be conducted at

earlier intervals. Thus, locomotives that are operated infrequently

enough to not accrue either 31 or 92 service days would have those

inspections conducted, at a minimum, once each 368 calendar days. In

addition, this proposal would modify the inspection time period for

flexible staybolts and caps from once each 2 years under the 1978

standards to during each 5th annual inspection.

5. 1472 Service Day Inspection

Finally, the 1978 standards require that the boiler be inspected,

at a minimum, once each 5 calendar years (boiler interior must be

inspected after 48 calendar months, within 5 consecutive years, and

boiler exterior must be inspected every 5 years, or if the locomotive

is out of service for at least one full month, then after 60 calendar

months within 6 consecutive years). This inspection is a major one,

requiring the removal of the jacket and lagging to conduct the exterior

inspection, and the removal of all flues in the locomotive boiler to

conduct a ``minute'' inspection of the interior of the boiler. The

agency is proposing to modify this requirement by requiring that these

inspections be conducted when the locomotive has accrued 1472 service

days, not to exceed 15 years. As explained earlier, in section IX(B),

the proposed revisions to these standards are designed to track the

amount of actual usage the steam locomotive receives. The 15 year

maximum, beyond which time the 1472 service day inspection would have

to be conducted, is derived from the Task Force's collective

experience.

As part of the 1472 service day inspection, the agency is also

proposing to require the completion, verification and updating of the

locomotive's Form 4, the ``specification card'' required by Sec. 230.54

of the 1978 standards. The agency is making clear that this form must

be verified, and updated as necessary, to reflect the current condition

of the boiler following the conduct of each 1472 service day

inspection.

This recordkeeping requirement would not actually be new, although

it might seem as such to some; it would merely clarify and make express

what the 1978 standards already require. Because some locomotive owners

and/or operators may not understand that the 1978 standards required

that the Form 4 be continuously accurate, however, this change might be

perceived as new.

The 1978 standards do not expressly require periodic surveying to

verify the accuracy of the current Form 4, nor the updating of any

changes thereto, although doing so was required by the language of the

form itself, which required a testimonial that all information was true

and accurate, and by the actual language of the 1978 standards itself,

which required that the Form 4 be updated to reflect boiler repairs or

changes that might affect the Form 4 data.

In addition, the agency is proposing a competence requirement for

the conduct of the 1472 service day inspection and for the surveying of

the boiler to recalculate the Form 4. Accordingly, this proposal would

require that an individual competent to do so conduct the 1472 service

day inspection and, at that time, that an individual competent to do so

survey the boiler to evaluate the accuracy of the current Form 4 and

use those survey results to recalculate the Form 4, if necessary. The

recalculated Form 4 would have to be filed within 1 month after the

completion of the 1472 service day inspection.

6. FRA Inspection Oversight

To ensure an adequate level of safety in light of these relaxed

time periods, the group recommended, and the agency is proposing, an

increased amount of FRA oversight for these inspections. Thus, for

certain of these periodic inspections, the agency would be offered the

opportunity to be present during the conduct of some, or all, of the

inspection. In the case of the 31 service day inspection, the agency

would bear the responsibility for communicating to the locomotive owner

and/or operator that FRA wants to be notified prior to the inspection

and given an opportunity to attend. Once that occurs, however, the

owner and/or operator would have to provide the agency with a scheduled

date and location for the inspection. At that time, any changes to that

schedule would have to be mutually agreed upon. This proposed approach

would balance competing interests and would comport with the task

force's deliberations. The task force wanted to provide owners and

operators the flexibility to conduct their business without

unreasonable interference by FRA scheduling conflicts; however, they

also intended that owners and/or operators would act in good faith and

take all reasonable measures to accommodate an FRA request to be

present.

In the case of the annual inspection, however, the locomotive owner

and/or operator would bear the onus of providing FRA with one month's

prior notice that the annual inspection is to be conducted. The agency

would then have the option of indicating a desire to be present for

some, or all, of this inspection. The locomotive owner and/or operator

would, at that point, have to provide FRA with a scheduled date and

location for each aspect of the inspection. As with the 31 service day

inspection, once scheduled, any scheduling changes would have to be

mutually agreed upon.

This notification scheme would allow the agency to observe the

locomotive owner and/or operator's conduct of various inspections, and

would allow the FRA field personnel directly responsible for inspecting

steam locomotive operations to work cooperatively with the regulated

community and to obtain better information about the condition of the

steam locomotives in their territories.

C. Elimination of Availability of Waivers

In this rule, the agency is proposing to eliminate the availability

of all waivers currently available under this part. The 1978 standards

contain a section that allows for the ``modification of rules'' for

``roads operating less than 5 locomotives'' upon a showing that

conditions warrant it. This language predated the agency's formal

waiver process, codified at 49 CFR 211.41, and was originally intended

to apply only to the subpart addressing the steam locomotive and

tender, and not the subpart addressing the locomotive boiler. In

addition, the flue removal section in the 1978 standards would allow

extensions of the time period for removing flues, and for conducting

the comprehensive boiler inspection, upon formal application to the

Director of the Bureau of Railroad Safety. Thus, throughout the

agency's eight regions, different locomotives have been allowed to

delay the conduct of the boiler inspection by varying amounts of time

based, in part, on the regional processes for addressing these

requests. By eliminating the waiver provision, the agency would

accomplish several things: (1) regulatory clarification that the

agency's waiver process in Part 211 is the appropriate vehicle for

gaining relief from the requirements of this part; (2) national

knowledge and coordination of all waivers considered and granted for

steam locomotives; and (3) an added level of assurance that steam

locomotives are being regulated consistently. The group also felt that

such extensions and waivers under this part would generally no longer

be necessary given the flexibility being

[[Page 51408]]

afforded by the proposed new inspection scheme--but where necessary,

would be best addressed by the centralized waiver process provided for

in Part 211.

D. Standard for Repairs

The agency is proposing to regulate the standards for making

certain repairs to the steam locomotive and boiler. The task force was

concerned about controlling the quality of the repairs made to steam

locomotives and boilers and decided to impose, as a minimum, the

requirement that repairs be made in accordance with an ``accepted

industry standard.'' While the task force debated simply requiring that

repairs be made in accordance with the National Board Inspection Code (

NBIC ) published by the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel

Inspectors (NBBPVI) or the American Petroleum Institute (API)

established standards, it ultimately recommended that the agency afford

industry members a measure of flexibility by acknowledging the canon of

established railroad practices that have been successfully utilized

over time; this proposal reflects that decision. While there was some

concern about whether the term ``accepted'' was too vague, the task

force felt that it was a knowable quantum--that industry members knew

what was required to ensure that repairs are properly made. Due to the

small size and close-knitness of the steam locomotive community, the

group felt that imposing an ``accepted industry standard'' on repairs

made, and allowing that standard to include ``established railroad

practices, or NBIC or API established standards'' would result in an

equivalent level of quality in the repairs made. This proposal reflects

those decisions also. Finally, as used in this proposal, ``established

railroad practices'' would mean a practice used by one or more

railroads over a period of time that could be reasonably shown to have

been successful in service, or that most industry members would agree

is an appropriate standard to use for a given repair. In practice, the

locomotive owner and/or operator would bear the onus of proving that

the standard is established within the railroad community and that it

is appropriate for the repair under consideration.

The agency also is proposing to expressly allow welding on both

stayed and unstayed portions of the boiler, with some limitations.

While the 1978 standards did not prohibit welding on unstayed portions

of the boiler, it was widely understood that such welding was not

allowed. Thus, by expressly allowing it, this proposal would suggest a

fairly radical change.

In section 230.33 of this proposed rule, ``Welded Repairs and

Alterations,'' the agency is proposing requiring prior approval for any

welding done on unstayed portions of high carbon boilers (greater than

0.25% carbon); the risk of welding on the boiler is much higher for

boilers with a high carbon content. Welds on unstayed portions of lower

carbon boilers (less than 0.25% carbon) would not be similarly

restricted.

For both low and high carbon boilers, however, the agency is

proposing to impose a repair standard that allows the locomotive owner

and/or operator a measure of flexibility while simultaneously insuring

a minimum level of safety. Accordingly, the agency is proposing to

require that any welded repairs to unstayed portions of the boiler be

performed in ``accordance with an accepted national standard for boiler

repairs.'' This would modify the general repair standard discussed

above to more narrowly apply to boiler repairs.

By referencing an accepted national standard for boiler repairs,

the task force, and the agency, wanted to impose a measure of quality

control to provide assurance that any welding done is done well, and

done safely. Because there are several national organizations that

prescribe such procedures, the operator would be allowed to follow any

one of a number of methods. ``In accordance with an accepted national

standard for boiler repairs,'' therefore, would mean that all physical,

mechanical, and documentation requirements delineated in a particular

standard, such as the NBIC, have been satisfied. The task force heavily

debated simply imposing the NBIC standard itself but decided that the

financial burden imposed would be too great. The NBIC program requires

reporting of the final repair and third-party oversight throughout the

repair, which can be very costly. The task force felt the inspector

oversight and reporting requirements already mandated by the agency

would perform the same function as the NBIC third-party inspection and

reporting requirements. Accordingly, the task force decided to simply

reference the standard to which the repair should be done, without

incurring the reporting requirements, or third-party inspection

requirements, of the NBIC. This proposal reflects that decision.

The task force was also very concerned about follow-up radiography

for the welds conducted, and considered mandating that all welds on

unstayed portions of the boiler be radiographed. At one point they

considered incorporating an American Society of Mechanical Engineers

(ASME) radiography standard, which described the procedures for

conducting radiography, but ultimately concluded that doing so would be

more complicated than they desired this part to be, and that doing so

was ultimately unnecessary because the accepted national standard would

include radiography where necessary. Accordingly, this proposal does

not mandate radiography separate from that required by the accepted

national standard chosen for the welded repair at issue.

The task force discussed the potential for abuse of the ``accepted

national standard for boiler repairs'' standard but felt that this

section clearly requires locomotive owners and/or operators be able to

establish and/or document such a national standard--to point to the

procedures they followed in performing a particular weld. The

locomotive owner and/or operator would bear the onus of establishing

that they followed a particular national standard and did so correctly.

Accordingly, this standard would require that the locomotive owner and/

or operator adhere to whatever the particular national standard

requires, from pre-weld treatments and welder qualifications, through

post-weld inspection requirements. The locomotive owner and/or operator

would also have to demonstrate that they had satisfied the accepted

national standard upon request by an FRA inspector.

E. Allowances Encouraging the Use of New Technologies

The task force felt very strongly that the 1978 standards, which

had not been substantively revised in over 20 years, did not adequately

address new technologies. Accordingly, the task force wanted the rule

to address innovations in inspection and maintenance methodology and

technology. In many instances, the task force was concerned about the

excessive wear on the locomotive, boiler and appurtenances from

complying with aspects of the 1978 standards. The task force also felt

that the altered nature of steam locomotive service today provided

additional justification for updating the rule to reflect modern

operating circumstances, and to encourage the use of non-destructive

technologies to satisfy various inspection requirements. Accordingly,

in many sections of this proposed rule, the agency is encouraging the

use of advanced technologies by proposing to grant additional

regulatory flexibility where such technologies are utilized. In some

cases, however, the task force

[[Page 51409]]

recommended, and the proposal incorporates, mandatory non-destructive

examination (NDE) testing for safety reasons. The main sections

affected are: (1) the flue removal section, 230.31; (2) the Arch tube,

water bar tube and circulator section, 230.61; (3)the dry pipe section,

230.62; (4) the main reservoir testing section, 230.72; and (5) the

draw gear and draft system section, 230.92.

F. Imposition of Qualification Requirements for Repair

By referencing national standards, this proposed rule would

address, for the first time, the qualification requirements for

individuals making repairs to steam locomotives. Both the NTSB, and the

task force, felt strongly that the rule should address minimum

requirements for individuals making certain repairs. Thus, wherever

national standards call out qualification requirements, steam

locomotive owners and/or operators making such repairs would have to

comply with these requirements. The task force considered imposing more

explicit qualification requirements than those imputed from these

national standards but concluded that such was not necessary at this

time. FRA shares that view and is not proposing more explicit

qualification requirements.

G. Implementation Schedule

FRA is proposing a gradual phase-in of Part 230 to allow locomotive

owners and operators the flexibility necessary to bring their

operations into compliance. See section 230.3 for a full discussion of

the proposed implementation schedule. FRA is proposing that some

requirements must be complied with one year after the proposed

effective date for the final rule. In addition, FRA proposes that

locomotive owners and/or operators will be allowed to request flue

removal extensions until two years after the proposed effective date

for the final rule. Finally, locomotive owners and/or operators that

qualify to file a Petition for Special Consideration would be required

to do so within one year from the proposed effective date for the final

rule and the agency will have one year to consider and respond to any

petitions filed.

VII. National Transportation Safety Board Recommendations

Following their investigation of the 1995 steam boiler explosion on

the Gettysburg Passenger Services railroad, the NTSB issued the

following recommendations to the agency:

(1) Require that each operating steam locomotive have either a

water column or a water glass in addition to the water glass and three

gage cocks that are already required. (R-96-53).

(2) Require steam locomotive operators to have a documented water-

treatment program. (R-96-54).

(3) Describe basic responsibilities and procedures for functions

required by regulation, such as blowing down the water glass and

washing the boiler. (R-96-55).

(4) In cooperation with the Tourist Railway Association, Inc.

(TRAIN), promote awareness of and compliance with the Hours of Service

Act. (R-96-56).

(5) In cooperation with the National Board of Boiler and Pressure

Vessel Inspectors and the TRAIN, explore feasibility of requiring a

progressive crown stay feature in steam locomotives. (R-96-57).

(6) In cooperation with the National Board of Boiler and Pressure

Vessel Inspectors and the TRAIN develop certification criteria and

require that steam-locomotive operators and maintenance personnel be

periodically certified to operate and/or maintain a steam locomotive.

(R-96-58).

(7) In cooperation with the National Board of Boiler and Pressure

Vessel Inspectors and the TRAIN, update 49 CFR Part 230 to take

advantage of accepted practical modern boiler-inspection techniques and

technologies, to minimize interpretation based on empirical experience,

and to maximize the use of objective standards. (R-96-59).

This proposed rule reflects the careful consideration of these

recommendations, both by the agency and the industry advisory committee

members who advised the Administrator regarding revisions to this Part.

That advisory committee task force was comprised of steam locomotive

experts, steam railroad operators, steam boiler insurance companies,

the National Boiler Inspection Code Committee, Volpe National

Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) and several

representatives from FRA. Representatives of NTSB were offered a seat

at the table but declined. FRA requested that the task force address

the NTSB's recommendations and suggest appropriate responses. The

results of that discussion were as follows:

R-96-53 Water Glasses--The task force expressed support for this

recommendation, and section 230.51 of this proposal, which requires a

minimum of two sight glasses or a sight glass and a water column,

reflects that. The proposal eliminates the requirement that boilers be

equipped with gage cocks because the task force felt that the second

water glass was more accurate and easier to read. This proposal does

require, however, that the gage cocks be maintained on a locomotive

equipped with them.

R-96-54 Water Treatment--Industry members of the task force did not

express support for NTSB's proposed water treatment requirement because

they felt that the current regulatory focus on boiler washing was

adequate to address the condition of the boiler interior, and to

prevent the build up of sediment and mineral deposits. The task force

also felt that water treatment programs could be unduly burdensome,

especially for steam locomotives with a single water source that

requires constant testing due to water quality variations, or where

locomotives travel long distances and draw water from numerous sources.

Finally, the industry members felt that the issue of water treatment

should be addressed in a performance standard, but they indicated that

it would be impossible to write a uniform performance standard. FRA

agrees that the fundamental issue is the interior condition of the

boiler, and the task force recommendations and FRA inspection practice

adequately addresses the condition of the boiler interior.

R-96-55 Delineation of Responsibilities--The task force expressed

support for this recommendation, and this proposal attempts to clearly

delineate basic responsibilities and procedures. In addition, the Volpe

Center has produced a training video for steam-locomotive operators for

FRA. The video covers items required during daily inspections and pre-

trip inspections, such as blowing down water glasses, checking gage

cocks and other items to ensure the safe operation of a steam

locomotive. This video was unveiled during TRAIN's annual convention in

November of 1997, and was mailed to steam locomotive owners and

operators throughout the country shortly thereafter. Finally, the

industry members of the group endorsed putting together a ``Recommended

Practice Manual'' (RPM) for many issues that this proposal does not

address. The agency will continue to work with the industry on the

development of a RPM.

R-96-56 Hours of Service Act Awareness--The industry members indicated

support for FRA's working

[[Page 51410]]

in tandem with the TRAIN to promote awareness of the Hours of Service

Act. The agency will work with TRAIN to increase awareness of Hours of

Service Act requirements, and to promote compliance with the Act.

R-96-57 Progressive Crown Stays--The industry representatives

indicated their willingness to explore the feasibility of progressive

crown-stays but did not think time would permit their addressing this

issue in the Part 230 revisions. FRA has requested that the NTSB make

staff assistance available to the task force to outline the steps

necessary to conduct this evaluation.

R-96-58 Certification Program--The industry representatives expressed

support for this recommendation and are investigating the feasibility

of developing certification criteria for several classes of employees

or volunteers affected. Some members, however, expressed concern about

the cost involved in assessing job and task requirements. The agency

would prefer to promote a voluntary certification program. While the

current standards for Qualification and Certification of Locomotive

Engineers contain training requirements that may serve as a framework

for better defining the competencies of steam locomotive operators,

those regulations do not currently apply to operations off the general

system of rail transportation. Administering a technically elaborate

certification program that would ultimately affect the operation of

fewer than 150 locomotives does not appear to be a wise use of scarce

federal resources. Following completion of the Steam Locomotive

Standards revision, FRA will encourage the Tourist & Historic Working

Group to carry forward this discussion, with the objectives of

supporting private initiatives and offering technical support for sound

training programs, including evaluation of current competencies.

R-96-59 Modernization of Part 230--Industry members expressed support

for this recommendation and are accomplishing this through its

partnership with FRA on the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee/Tourist

& Historic Working Group task force.

FRA submitted responses to the NTSB's recommendations and,

recently, received the NTSB's reply to our response. The NTSB was

satisfied with the agency's plan, influenced by the task force

recommendations, to address NTSB recommendations R-96-53, R-96-55, R-

96-56, and R-96-59 but was, however, dissatisfied with our plan to

address recommendations R-96-54, R-96-57, and R-96-58. These three

latter recommendations will be discussed at greater length below.

FRA concurs with the task force responses to NTSB's recommendations

and believes that the proposed revisions to the steam locomotive

regulations will address most of those recommendations. The agency

invited NTSB staff to participate in the task force deliberations, but

they were unable to do so. FRA believes that a full technical exchange

of views would have been helpful to resolving the remaining

recommendations. Notwithstanding the following explanation (which the

agency supports) of the task force's deliberations, below, and why they

did not agree with certain of the NTSB's recommendations, any party

supporting those recommendations should submit data and analysis

indicating the safety need for a more prescriptive approach.

NTSB's recommendation R-96-54 would require operators to maintain a

documented water treatment program. The task force simply disagreed

that such a program was necessary. They felt that the boiler washes

were the real issue, not the chemical remediation of the owner or

operator's water source. THE NTSB, in its response, concurred with the

task force that the wash is ``probably more directly effective in

controlling boiler sediment and mineral deposits.'' However, the NTSB

added, ``a documented water treatment program does not have to be

expensive, rigid or burdensome.'' While the agency lacks the data to

evaluate the cost-effectiveness of any such program, it doesn't feel

such an inquiry is necessary since all parties agree that the wash is

the most ``directly effective'' method of preventing boiler sediment

and mineral deposits. Based on discussions in the task force and field

experience concerning steam boiler maintenance, it is the agency's

judgement that safety will not be enhanced by incorporating this

additional requirement into the rule. Operators are always free to

voluntarily conduct their own water treatment programs (and many do).

Given the effectiveness of the boiler wash, it does not appear to be

cost-beneficial to mandate documented water treatment programs at this

time. FRA is also concerned with the paperwork burdens associated with

such a program. Federal agencies are mandated to reduce information

collection burdens, and regulatory burdens on small entities are to be

minimized. However, and notwithstanding the above, anyone with specific

data and analysis supporting this recommendation should submit it for

the agency's consideration.

The NTSB's recommendation R-96-57 would require the agency to

explore the feasibility of progressive crown-stays in mitigating the

damage caused by boiler failures. The task force's experience with

progressive crown stays was not enough, without more, to support a

mandate at this time. The agency, in consultation with the task force,

indicated to the NTSB its willingness to do so, but felt it lacked time

and resources to adequately address this issue at this time, in this

rulemaking. The NTSB found this response unacceptable. The agency told

the NTSB they would appreciate the Board's making available staff

assistance to the task force to help outline the steps necessary to

conduct this evaluation. No assistance was forthcoming. The agency

remains open to this issue but believes that research is necessary

before it can conclude, one way or another, that progressive crown

stays are a cost-beneficial safety enhancement. Any party with data or

analysis related to progressive crown stays, and their role in

mitigating boiler failures, should submit it to the agency at this

time.

Finally, NTSB recommendation R-96-58 would require the agency to

develop a certification program for steam locomotive operators and

maintenance personnel. The agency prefers to promote a voluntary

certification program, given the scarcity of federal resources

available to administer a technically elaborate certification program

for such a small number of affected entities. The Tourist and Historic

Working Group's task force has already created and produced, with the

Volpe Center, a training video for the conduct of steam locomotive

daily inspections. This video was aired during the TRAIN convention

held in November of 1997, and was mailed to each steam locomotive owner

or operator for whom the agency had user fee records. This is but a

first step in response to the NTSB's recommendation; the agency plans

to work with the regulated community to carry forward this discussion

and will support private initiatives, offering technical support for

training programs, including the evaluation of current competencies of

steam locomotive operators and maintenance personnel. Of course, any

party supporting the NTSB's recommendations should submit data and

analysis indicating the safety need for a more prescriptive approach.

[[Page 51411]]

Section-by-Section Analysis

The following section-by-section analysis discusses the proposed

changes in more detail. As an aid to readers, FRA has denominated as

``new'' sections of the proposed rule which lack a present counter

part.

Subpart A--General

FRA is proposing in this subpart to add a series of provisions

comparable to those found in its recent regulations. Through these

uniform provisions, FRA makes explicit the scope, purposes and

applicability of these rules and the potential consequences of

noncompliance with the rules once adopted.

Section 230.1. Purpose and Scope (New)

This section proposes to make explicit the scope of Part 230, and

that these proposed standards are minimum standards only.

Section 230.2. Applicability (New)

As described in the above ``Responsibility for Compliance''

discussion, the task force wanted to rewrite this Part to make clear

that the steam locomotive regulations would apply primarily to steam

locomotive owners and/or operators. Their proposed applicability

section read as follows:

This part applies to any entity which owns a steam locomotive or

operates one under a contract, agreement or lease. This part does

not apply to entities that own or operate steam locomotives over

track that is less than 24 inches in gage or to entities that are

considered ``insular'' by this agency. See Appendix A for a current

statement of the policy on the Federal Railroad Administration's

(FRA's) exercise of jurisdiction.

Although the agency changed this language to text that is more in

keeping with the purpose and language of the applicability provisions

of FRA's other rules, this will not defeat the task force's clear

objective to place responsibility primarily on the owner and/or

operator of the locomotive, since the Applicability section does not

indicate on whom the rule will place responsibility for compliance, but

rather indicates where, geographically, the rule will apply. That is,

the applicability section indicates on which railroads the rule will

apply. By statute, FRA has jurisdiction over all railroads (except for

urban rapid transit operations not connected to the general system),

but it frequently limits the reach of a particular rule to something

less than the entire universe of railroads, and uses the applicability

section to clarify which operations are intended to be covered by the

rule. Individuals trying to determine whether they must comply with

this Part should turn to section 230.8 Responsibility for Compliance,

for guidance. That section, which captures and retains the task force

intent expressed in their recommended ``Applicability'' language, would

indicate to whom the rule applies. In this rule, that would

specifically include the locomotive owner and/or operator.

Notwithstanding elimination from the Applicability section, the

locomotive owner and/or operator remain specifically identified

throughout the rule as the party or parties best able to execute

certain delineated inspection and maintenance responsibilities. Thus,

the fact that the locomotive owner and/or operator have been removed

from the Applicability provision does not mean that they will not be

held primarily responsible for compliance; rather, section 230.2 should

be seen as standard language used to describe the extent of the

agency's exercise of its statutory jurisdiction, with section 230.8

providing the practical compliance guidance that the task force

included in the Applicability section it recommended.

Accordingly, this section proposes to make these standards apply to

all railroads that operate steam locomotives. This section further

carves out four categorical exceptions (three of which are ``standard''

exceptions) to this broad expression of regulatory authority. First,

this section, as proposed, would not apply to railroads with less than

24'' gage. This section is not standard, but is consistent with the

agency's historical approach to exercising its safety jurisdiction.

Railroads on less than 24'' gage have never been considered railroads

by the Federal railroad safety laws and are generally considered

miniature or imitation railroads. In the context of this rule, which

will clearly apply to certain operations of less than standard gage, it

is important to clarify that the smallest gage railroads are not

included.

Second, this section, as proposed, would not apply to ``plant''

railroads that exclusively operate freight trains on track inside an

installation that is not part of the general system of transportation.

This is a standard provision.

Third, this section, as proposed, would not apply to urban rapid-

transit operations that are not connected to the general system of

transportation. This is also a standard provision that merely restates

the statutory limit on FRA's jurisdiction for the convenience of the

reader.

Finally, this section, as proposed, would exclude from its reach a

railroad that operates passenger trains only on track inside an insular

installation--one that's operations are limited to a separate enclave

in such a way that the safety of those who do not enter the enclave is

not affected by the operations. Insularity is destroyed, however, and

the rule would apply, where any of the following exists: (1) a public

highway-rail crossing that is in use; (2) an at-grade rail crossing

that is in use; (3) a bridge over a public road or commercially

navigable waters; or (4) a common corridor with another railroad, i.e.,

operations conducted within 30 feet of those of any other railroad.

This section, too, is standard and reflects the agency's long-standing

policy on its exercise of jurisdiction over tourist and historic

railroads. This language is used where FRA intends to reach tourist

railroads whose operations are not over the general railroad system but

affect public safety sufficiently to be covered by a particular rule.

As proposed, this section includes the word ``installation'' in its

discussion of this Part's applicability to entities that operate

``passenger'' trains. While the agency has included this term with

specific reference to passenger operations in three of its rulemakings

over the past few years,1 the agency believes that the

regulated industry may not be accustomed to seeing this term in the

context of tourist railroads, instead of the customary'plant railroad''

context. It is the agency's view that an ``installation'' is simply a

separate enclave off the general system.

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

\1\ See Power Brake Regulations NPRM, 59 FR 47676 (September 16,

1994); Railroad Accident Reporting NPRM, 59 FR 42880 (August 19,

1994); and Grade Crossing Signal System Safety Final Rule, 59 FR

50086, (September 30, 1994). Subsequent publications in the Grade

Crossing (GC) and Accident Reporting (AR) arenas have included this

language as well. See 61 FR 30940 (AR) (6/18/96), 61 FR 31802 (GC),

(6/20/96), and 61 FR 67477 (AR) (12/23/96).

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

Section 230.3. Implementation (New)

This section proposes a staggered implementation scheme to provide

additional flexibility to locomotive owners and operators who might be

otherwise adversely affected by the magnitude of changes being

proposed. The implementation language was strenuously debated by all

members of the task force. The task force's greatest concern related to

the potential that locomotive owners and/or operators would be required

under the proposed rule to conduct an inspection equivalent to that

required by this rule's section 230.17 sooner than they would be

required to do so under section 230.10

[[Page 51412]]

of the 1978 standards. This concern was balanced against the concern

that locomotive owners and/or operators not be granted a ``windfall''

and allowed more time under the proposed standards than wise to ensure

an adequate level of safety.

The task force's primary desire was to apply the new inspection

requirements retroactively to certain locomotives that had complied

with section 230.10 and section 230.11 of the 1978 standards within a

set period of time prior to the effective date of the rule. The task

force had a great deal of difficulty determining the appropriate period

of time prior to the rule's effective date to allow retroactive

application of the proposed inspection standards. The Association of

Railway Museums, in particular, wanted to allow locomotive owners and/

or operators that had satisfied the inspection requirements under the

1978 standards within ten years prior to this rule's effective date to

compute the time for conducting the 1472 service day/15 year inspection

from the date on which those inspections were conducted.

The compromise which resulted is reflected in this section. This

section would make the conduct of the 1472 service day inspection the

trigger for compliance with the entire part, and would require the 1472

service day inspection to be conducted at the time the inspection under

section 230.10 of the 1978 standards would be required under the 1978

standards. Thus, with the exception of certain items that become

effective one year from the effective date of the rule, the locomotive

owner and/or operator would have to begin to comply with the entirety

of the rest of Part 230 whenever they conduct the 1472 service day

inspection required under the proposed standards. Up until that time,

however, compliance with the regulations in effect prior to the

effective date of this rule would constitute full compliance with this

part.

To provide additional flexibility, however, the agency is proposing

to continue to consider flue removal extensions under the provisions of

section 230.10 of the 1978 standards until two years from the effective

date of the rule. Thus, in a typical case, a locomotive that had

received an inspection under section 230.10 of the 1978 standards up to

five years ago would have, with this flue extension provision, a

potential minimum of two years from the effective date of the rule to

conduct the 1472 service day inspection required by these proposed

standards. If the locomotive had very recently received the inspection

required by section 230.10 of the 1978 standards, likewise, the

locomotive owner and/or operator would have the entire period allowed

under that section before conducting the 1472 service day inspection

required by these proposed standards.

Notwithstanding the above, the implementation section also proposes

allowing locomotive owners and/or operators to petition the agency for

``special consideration'' of the rule's implementation. In order to

qualify to file a petition for special consideration, the locomotive

owner and/or operator would have to have either fully or partially

satisfied the proposed 1472 service day inspection requirements within

three years prior to the effective date of this rule. If the locomotive

had only partially satisfied the requirements of this section, it would

have to be in full compliance by the time the petition is actually

filed. The petition would have to be filed within one year from the

effective date of the rule and would have to include all documentation

necessary to establish that the locomotive had satisfied the

requirements of the proposed 1472 service day inspection standards. The

agency would then respond to the petition within one year. Thus, the

time involved in filing a petition for special consideration, and for

receiving FRA's response to that petition, would be the same as the

two-year grace period allowed to non-petitioning locomotive owner and/

or operators who utilize the available flue extension provision. The

caveat to this, however, is the additional 6-month extension which

would be allowed where the agency did not respond in a timely fashion.

As this language is proposed, the distinction between ``full'' and

``partial'' satisfaction relates to the dual requirements of this

rule's section 230.17--both the inspection, and the updating and

verification of the Form 4. A locomotive that had satisfied both of

these requirements within three years prior to the effective date of

this rule would be able to file the petition the day the rule becomes

effective. A locomotive that had only satisfied one requirement,

however, would have ``partially'' satisfied the requirements of section

230.17 and would have the term of the petition process, one year, to

satisfy the second requirement. For example, a locomotive owner and/or

operator who had inspected their locomotive under section 230.10 of the

1978 standards within three years prior to the effective date of this

rule, without updating and verifying the Form 4 at that time, would

have a full year to do so before submitting the application. Likewise,

if the Form 4 had been updated and verified within three years prior to

the effective date of the rule but an inspection satisfying section

230.10 of the 1978 standards had not been conducted, the locomotive

owner and/or operator would have one year to conduct the qualifying

inspection before submitting their application for special

consideration.

This section also contains provisions to address the requirements

related to the filing of the petition. As proposed, this section would

require petitions to be accompanied by documentation sufficient to

allow the agency to determine the number of ``service days'' the

locomotive has accrued from the date of the inspection conducted under

the 1978 standards, and how many service days remain before the 1472

service day inspection must be conducted under this rule's section

230.17. The task force was concerned about proving the submission and

response to the petition, so the proposed rule would recommend that

petitions, and the agency's response thereto, be sent by some form of

registered mail to ensure a record of delivery. In addition, this

section contains provisions addressing the effect of the petition's

disposition on the implementation requirements. If the agency were to

grant the petition, the requirements would become effective upon

receipt of the response letter. Likewise, if the agency were to deny

the petition, the rule would become effective as though the petition

had never been filed.

Finally, because many task force members were concerned about the

problem of potential untimeliness in the agency's response, this

section would address the effect of agency silence within the one year

response time period. It would require the petitioner to notify the

agency that the response has not been received, and would allow

operators at the end of their inspection cycle to operate under the

1978 standards for an additional 6 months, or until they receive FRA's

decision, whichever occurs first.

Section 230.4. Prohibited Acts (New)

This proposed section would merely restate, in regulatory language,

the dictates of Chapter 207 of Title 49 of the United States Code.

Section 230.5 Penalties (New)

This section, as proposed, merely incorporates the maximum

penalties provided for in the Federal railroad safety laws. These

penalty amounts, however, have recently been adjusted for inflation

pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act

[[Page 51413]]

of 1990, Pub. L. 101-410 Stat. 890, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as amended by

the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-124 (4/26/96).

For a more complete discussion of the agency's recent penalty

adjustments see Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment, 63 FR

11618 (March 10, 1998).

Section 230.6. Preemptive Effect (New)

FRA is proposing to add a preemption section, which would parallel

the preemption language of section 20106 of Title 49 of the United

States Code. As proposed, however, this section would modify that

language to make clear that FRA does not intend to preempt states from

regulating entities over which it is currently not exercising

jurisdiction. Thus, in the case of an entity that operates steam

locomotives over track of less than 24'' gage, for example, FRA would

allow states to regulate and provide oversight for the inspection and

maintenance of those steam locomotives. FRA believes that such a

modification is consistent with the legislative intent of section

20106.

Section 230.7. Waivers (New)

FRA is proposing to nullify all waivers previously granted under

Part 230 unless they are filed for reassessment with the agency. Under

the terms of this provision, the agency would review these waivers and

notify applicants whether the waiver has been continued. Locomotive

owners and/or operators would have to assume that their waiver had

expired unless they heard otherwise from the agency, unless the waiver

was for a ``flue extension'' that would automatically expire one year

from the date granted.

With this proposal, the agency intends to rectify the

misapplication of section 230.158 of the 1978 standards to the steam

locomotive boiler and flues. Under the 1978 standards, railroads

operating fewer than 5 locomotives can apply for a waiver from the

requirements of Subpart B--Steam Locomotives and Tenders. This section

was intended to apply only to those regulations in Subpart B but,

instead, has been misapplied and extended to Subpart A as well.

Consequently, under section 230.158 of the 1978 standards, modern

operators frequently received waivers from provisions in Subpart A and

applicable only to the boiler, such as the flue removal provision.

With this proposal, in addition, the agency intends to make

explicit that its waiver process, described in 49 CFR Part 211, has

been centralized since the last time this part was substantively

revised. Thus, this proposed section would recognize Part 211, instead

of the 1978 standard's section 230.158, as the appropriate process for

addressing waivers under Part 230.

Section 230.8. Responsibility for Compliance (New)

This section, as proposed, would indicate which party or parties is

responsible for ensuring that the requirements of Part 230 are

satisfied. See the discussion in section IX(A) ``Responsibility for

Compliance,'' above.

Section 230.9. Definitions (New)

The following is an explanation of each definition that FRA

proposes to add or amend.

Alteration--This proposed definition incorporates the NBIC

definition to harmonize concepts for the industry.

ANSI--This proposed definition is non-substantive and is included

for clarification purposes.

API--This proposed definition is non-substantive and is included

for clarification purposes.

ASME--This proposed definition is non-substantive and is included

for clarification purposes.

Boiler Surfaces--This proposed definition was added to make

explicit, and to help clarify, the portions of the boiler which are

referenced throughout the rule.

Break--This proposed definition incorporates the distinction

between ``break'' and ``crack'' delineated in Part 229.

Code of Original Construction--This proposed definition is non-

substantive and is included for clarification purposes.

Crack--This proposed definition incorporates the distinction

between ``break'' and ``crack'' delineated in Part 229

Locomotive Operator--As discussed in the liability section above,

the agency is proposing making its liability standards more specific,

to acknowledge that many locomotives are owned and operated by entities

other than railroad companies. This proposed definition distinguishes

between these relevant entities to make clear that the locomotive may

be owned and operated by separate entities.

Locomotive Owner--As discussed in the liability section above, the

agency is proposing making its liability standards more specific, to

acknowledge that many locomotives are owned and operated by entities

other than railroad companies. This proposed definition distinguishes

between these relevant entities to make clear that the locomotive may

be owned and operated by separate entities.

MAWP--This proposed definition is non-substantive and is included

for clarification purposes.

NBIC--This proposed definition is non-substantive and is included

for clarification purposes.

NDE--This proposed definition is non-substantive and is included

for clarification purposes.

NPS--This proposed definition is non-substantive and is included

for clarification purposes.

Railroad--This proposed definition incorporates the statutory

definition of railroad from 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20102.

Renewal--This proposed definition incorporates industry concepts

and is not intended to have substantive effect.

Repair--This proposed definition incorporates the NBIC definition

to harmonize concepts for the industry.

Serious Injury--This proposed definition incorporates the

definition of serious injury from the ``FRA Guide for preparing

Accident Incident Reports'' (Effective: January 1997).

Service Day--As described in the inspection section above, the

agency is proposing altering the inspection time periods throughout

this part and proposing a new ``service day'' concept. This definition,

as proposed, would make each day that the boiler has steam pressure

above atmospheric pressure with fire in the firebox count as a

``service day'' for purposes of the accounting that is necessary for

the rest of the inspection intervals.

Stayed Portion of the Boiler--This proposed definition establishes

a threshold for distinguishing between stayed and unstayed portions of

the boiler, both of which are identified in this part. It is not

intended to have substantive effect. In addition, at least one group

member was concerned that the preamble reflect that reinforced openings

in unstayed portions of the boiler are not considered ``stayed'' for

purposes of this definition.

Steam Locomotive--This proposed definition modifies the 1978

standard's definition of ``locomotive'' to make it specific to a

``steam locomotive.'' It has also been rewritten for grammatical

clarity.

Unstayed Portion of the Boiler--This proposed definition

establishes a threshold for distinguishing between stayed and unstayed

portions of the boiler, both of which are identified in this part. It

is not intended to have substantive effect.

Wastage--This proposed definition is a technical definition and is

proposed for purposes of clarifying required minimum thicknesses and

condemning limits for the boiler.

[[Page 51414]]

Section 230.10. Information Collection (New)

This section, as proposed, is included for the convenience of the

reader. It imposes no new requirements upon regulated entities, but

simply represents the agency's certification that it has complied with

all Office of Management and Budget review requirements pursuant to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.). The review

and approval process reflected in this provision are explained in

greater detail below.

General Inspection Requirements

Section 230.11. Repair of Non-Complying Conditions (New)

This section would import to Part 230 the requirement embodied in

Part 229 that non-complying locomotives be repaired before they are

returned to service. In addition, as proposed, it would affix

responsibility for such repairs on the locomotive owner and/or

operator, as well as the responsibility for approving any noncomplying

conditions that are not repaired.

Section 230.12. Movement of Non-Complying Steam Locomotives (New)

This section would make Part 230 current with Part 229 by

incorporating the concept of movement for the purpose of repair, which

would allow a locomotive with noncomplying conditions to be moved for

the purpose of repair, after the locomotive owner and/or operator has

determined that the locomotive is safe to be moved. The task force felt

strongly that this provision was necessary to acknowledge the operating

exigencies which occur in most steam locomotive operations.

Section 230.13. Daily Inspection (New)

This provision, as part of the more comprehensive changes

contemplated for the inspection scheme in Part 230, would not effect a

substantive change to those regulations governing the inspection of

steam locomotives.

Section 230.14.31 Service Day Inspection (New)

This provision, as part of the more comprehensive changes

contemplated for the inspection scheme in Part 230, would impose no new

inspection requirements for steam locomotives but it would relax the

time frame within which certain inspections must occur.

Section 230.15.92 Service Day Inspection (New)

This provision, as part of the more comprehensive changes

contemplated for the inspection scheme in Part 230, would impose no new

inspection requirements for steam locomotives but it would relax the

time frame within which certain inspections must occur.

Section 230.16. Annual Inspection (New)

This provision would not effect a substantive change to those

regulations governing annual inspection requirements for steam

locomotives.

Section 230.17.1472 Service Day Inspection (New)

This provision, as part of the more comprehensive changes

contemplated for the inspection scheme in Part 230, would impose no new

inspection requirements for steam locomotives but it would relax the

time frame within which certain inspections must occur and would

require the verification and updating of information about the steam

locomotive for which the Form 4 is filed. See the analysis in section

IX(B)(5), above.

Recordkeeping Requirements

Section 230.18. Service Days (New)

This provision, as part of the more comprehensive changes

contemplated for the inspection scheme in Part 230, would impose a new

recordkeeping requirement for steam locomotives. This section would

require locomotive owners and/or operators to keep a record showing the

number of service days the steam locomotive has accrued since its last

31 service day, 92 service day, annual and 1472 service day

inspections. This section would also require the locomotive owner and/

or operator to file a report each January 31 detailing the number of

service days the locomotive accrued during the preceding calendar year.

The failure to file this report would result in the locomotive being

considered ``retired.'' In order to return a ``retired'' locomotive to

service, the locomotive owner and/or operator would have to conduct a

1472 service day inspection.

The agency does not intend for this recordkeeping requirement to

have a draconian effect; should a service day report be filed a day or

two late, the agency will give the operator the benefit of the doubt

and allow the report to take effect as though it had been timely filed.

While these proposed changes would impose additional recordkeeping

requirements on regulated entities, the agency believes that any

additional burdens so imposed are outweighed by the benefits which

adhere to the regulated community from the new inspection time periods.

Section 230.19. Posting of FRA Form No. 1 and FRA Form No. 3

This section would impose no new recordkeeping requirements upon

locomotive owners and/or operators. The FRA Form No. 1 is the 31

service day and 92 service day inspection report, which is currently

the monthly inspection report required by sections 230.51 and 230.160

of the 1978 standards. The FRA Form No. 3 is the annual inspection

report, which is identical to the annual inspection report required by

sections 230.52 and 230.161 of the 1978 standards.

Section 230.20. Alteration and Repair Report for Steam Locomotive

Boilers

This section would impose no new recordkeeping requirements upon

locomotive owners and/or operators. The FRA Form No. 19 is the

alteration report that regulated entities are required to file by

section 230.54 of the 1978 standards. This new provision would require

the locomotive owner or operator to file this form whenever alterations

that affect the information on the FRA Form No. 4 are made, and would

impose new requirements for filing the Form 19 whenever welded or

riveted repairs are made to the unstayed portion of the locomotive

boiler. This section also would require that the locomotive owner and/

or operator record any welded or riveted repairs that are made to

stayed portions of the locomotive boiler.

Section 230.21. Steam Locomotive Number Change (New)

This section would incorporate into Part 230, in the interest of

harmonizing outstanding requirements addressing steam locomotives,

requirements issued by the former Interstate Commerce Commission in its

``Interpretations, Rulings and Explanations on Questions Raised

Regarding the Laws, Rules, and Instructions for Inspection and Testing

of Steam Locomotives and Tenders and Their Appurtenances' (ICC

Interpretations).

Section 230.22. Accident Reports

As proposed, this section would retain the requirements of section

230.162 of the 1978 standards and would impose no new requirements on

locomotive owners and/or operators.

Subpart B--Boilers and Appurtenances

Section 230.23. Responsibility for General Construction and Safe

Working Pressure

This section, as proposed, would make the locomotive owner and

operator, both, jointly and severally

[[Page 51415]]

responsible for the general design and construction of the locomotive

boiler. section 230.1 of the 1978 standard's places that responsibility

on the ``railroad company.'' This change is being proposed to capture

the changes which have occurred in the steam locomotive industry since

the original steam rules were promulgated, and to place responsibility

for the locomotive on the parties best able to satisfy that

responsibility. This proposal is designed to affix responsibility on

owners and operators whether or not they are railroad companies.

Allowable Stress

Section 230.24. Maximum Allowable Stress

This section, as proposed, does not substantively change section

230.2 of the 1978 standards, but rewrites it to clarify the concepts it

expresses.

Section 230.25. Maximum Allowable Stress on Stays and Braces

This section, as proposed, does not substantively change section

230.3 of the 1978 standards, other than to propose removing the

distinction for locomotives constructed before and after 1915. The task

force felt that this distinction was no longer relevant.

Strength of Materials

Section 230.26. Tensile Strength of Shell Plates

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.4 of the 1978

standards, without change.

Section 230.27. Maximum Shearing Strength of Rivets

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.5 of the 1978

standards, without change.

Section 230.28. Higher Shearing Strength of Rivets

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.6 of the 1978

standards, without change.

Inspection and Repair

Section 230.29. Inspection and Repair

This section, as proposed, would combine the concepts embodied in

sections 230.7 and 230.12 of the 1978 standards. The task force decided

to change the responsibility for inspection and repair of the

locomotive boiler from the ``mechanical officer in charge at each point

where boiler work is done'' to the steam locomotive owner and/or

operator. This change was proposed since few operations still have

chief mechanical officers due to the changed nature of steam operations

today, and because the task force wanted to make the ``liability'' as

consistent as possible throughout the rule. This section also would

require the locomotive owner and/or operator to remove the boiler from

service whenever they, or the FRA inspector, considers it necessary due

to other defects. The task force was concerned about FRA inspectors'

exercise of discretion in this arena. However, it was agreed that the

agency would act in good faith and do its best to minimize any

disruption of the operator's service whenever such concerns arise. In

addition, they agreed that FRA should allow for non-destructive testing

in the investigation of any ``safety concerns'' identified.

This section also would make more specific the repair standard in

section 230.12 of the 1978 standards, which simply requires that

boilers be ``thoroughly repaired, and reported to be in satisfactory

condition,'' by requiring that all defects be repaired in accordance

with accepted industry standards. These standards may include

established railroad practices, or NBIC or API established standards.

See section IX(D), above, for a discussion of the meaning of

``established railroad practices.'' This section also would propose

replacing the ``satisfactory condition'' repair standard of the 1978

standard's section 230.12 with a requirement that the boiler not be

returned to service unless it is in good condition and ``safe and

suitable for service.''

Finally, this section proposes to require that welded repairs to

unstayed portions of the boiler pursuant to section 230.33, must be

made in accordance with an accepted national standard for boiler

repairs.

Section 230.30. Lap-Joint Seam Boilers

This section, as proposed, would clarify and eliminate an ambiguity

in section 230.13 of the 1978 standards by explaining that ``examined

with special care'' means removing enough lagging, jacketing, flues and

tubes so that a thorough inspection of the entire joint, (inside and

out) can be made. This section is otherwise unchanged and is not

intended to restrict the use of modern technology which might allow the

conduct of a ``thorough inspection'' without as much disassembly of the

locomotive.

Section 230.31. Flues To Be Removed

This proposed section, as part of the more comprehensive changes

contemplated for the inspection scheme in Part 230, would change the

time period within which locomotive owners and/or operators must remove

all flues of locomotive boilers and conduct a thorough inspection of

the boiler. Section 230.10 of the 1978 standards require that this be

done at least once every four (4) years.

The proposal also would allow the locomotive owner and/or operator

to utilize non-destructive examination (NDE) methods to assess the

condition of superheater flues and leave them in the boiler during this

inspection provided two conditions are satisfied: (1) that the NDE

testing shows that they are safe and suitable for locomotive service;

and (2) that the boiler can be entered to be cleaned and inspected

without their removal. Even if these two conditions are satisfied,

however, this proposal would require that the locomotive owner and/or

operator remove the superheater flues if they, or if the FRA inspector,

thinks doing so is necessary for some identifiable safety concern.

This proposal also would remove the language in the 1978 standards

of the flue removal section that allows FRA to grant an extension of

the time period within which flues must be removed. The task force felt

that the 15-year ``drop dead'' time limit for conducting the 1472

service day inspection should be the absolute outside time period

within which the flues must be removed. In the task force's experience,

operators who were previously required to remove their flues once each

four years, which could become five years with the use of ``out of

service credit,'' could get extensions of this requirement for up to

twelve and thirteen years. Since this proposal would allow them to

stretch that time period out to up to 15 years, the task force felt

that no further extensions would be necessary.

As discussed above in section IX(E), the task force felt strongly

that operators should be encouraged to take advantage of new

technologies in the use and operation of steam locomotives. By allowing

the operator to leave superheater flues in the boiler if they could

determine that they were safe and suitable for service, the task force

felt it was building into this section an incentive for operators to

utilize NDE methods, such as ultrasound, in making that determination.

Section 230.32. Time and Method of Inspection

This section, as proposed, combines the inspection requirements for

both the boiler interior and exterior in sections 230.9, 230.11, 230.15

and 230.16 of the 1978 standards, and rewrites them for clarity. The

task force felt that rewriting this section would consolidate the

[[Page 51416]]

various inspection requirements and make them more explicit.

Section 230.33. Welded Repairs and Alterations (New)

This section, as proposed, would restrict, and therefore control,

the welding which occurs on both unstayed and stayed portions of the

locomotive boiler. Subsection (a) would require the locomotive owner

and/or operator to obtain prior written approval of the FRA Regional

Administrator before performing any welding on unstayed portions of

boilers containing alloy steel, or carbon steel with a carbon content

greater than .25 percent. It also would require that any welding so

approved be conducted in accordance with an accepted national standard

for boiler repairs. See section IX(D)(1), above, for a discussion of

this standard.

In subsection (b) of this section, it is proposed that locomotive

owners and/or operators perform welding to unstayed portions of boilers

containing carbon steel not exceeding .25 percent carbon in accordance

with an accepted national standard for boiler repairs. Both subsections

(a) and (b) would require the locomotive owner and/or operator to file

an FRA Form 19, Report of Welded Repair, as discussed in section

230.20.

In subsection (c) of this section, it is proposed that the

locomotive owner and/or operator be restricted in the use of weld build

up for wasted areas of unstayed surfaces of the boiler. This proposed

restriction would require that the locomotive owner and/or operator

submit a written request for approval to the Regional Administrator to

build up by weld wasted areas that exceed: (1) a total of 100 square

inches; or (2) the smaller of either 25% of the minimum required wall

thickness or \1/2\ of an inch. This subsection would also prohibit the

use of weld build up for wasted sheets that have been reduced to less

than 60 percent of the minimum required thickness required by these

rules.

Subsection (d) of this section, proposes to restrict the

installation of flush patches of any size on unstayed portions of the

boiler without the locomotive owner and/or operator submitting a

written request for prior approval to the FRA Regional Administrator.

Finally, subsection (e) would propose allowing locomotive owners

and/or operators to perform welded repairs or alteration on stayed

portions of the boiler in accordance with established railroad

practices, or an accepted national standard for boiler repairs. The

task force wanted to recognize the fact that many operations use their

own welding procedures on stayed portions of the boiler, and do so

successfully. The task force therefore recommended that the locomotive

owner and/or operator be allowed to use established ``railroad

practices'' as an acceptable standard for conducting welding on stayed

portions of the boiler.

As discussed earlier in the preamble, FRA has grave concerns about

the quality of the welding being done on locomotive boilers. With these

proposed changes, the agency feels comfortable that it is establishing

standards that will improve safety while allowing operators the

flexibility critical to their business survival by allowing them to

make necessary repairs without incurring unnecessary costs.

Section 230.34. Riveted Repairs and Alterations (New)

This section, as proposed, would restrict, and therefore control,

the riveting which occurs on both unstayed and stayed portions of the

locomotive boiler. In subsection (a) the proposal would require the

locomotive owner and/or operator to submit a request for prior written

approval to the FRA Regional Administrator before making any riveted

alterations to unstayed portions of the boiler, and to make any

approved riveting in accordance with established railroad practices, or

an accepted national standard for boiler repairs. See the analysis for

section 230.29, above, for a discussion of these repair standards. This

subsection also would require the locomotive owner and/or operator to

satisfy, at this time, the reporting requirements proposed in section

230.20.

In subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the agency is proposing

to establish guidelines for the conduct of riveting on locomotive

boilers by requiring that riveted repairs to both stayed and unstayed

portions of the boiler be made in accordance with established railroad

practices, or an accepted national standard for boiler repairs.

Pressure Testing of Boilers

Section 230.34. Pressure Testing (New)

This section, as proposed, would establish a minimum temperature

requirement for the application of any kind of pressure to locomotive

boilers. It would require that the temperature of locomotive boilers be

no less than 60 degrees Fahrenheit anytime the boiler is tested under

any type of pressure. This change would incorporate the NBIC

temperature standard and harmonize FRA standards with NBIC standards,

which the task force wanted and FRA supports.

Section 230.36. Hydrostatic Testing of Boilers

This section, as proposed, would consolidate all 1978 standards

relating to the hydrostatic testing of boilers. This section would not

substantively change the parameters of section 230.17 of the 1978

standards, which merely stipulates the time of testing and the pressure

at which the boiler must be tested, but it would impose an additional

requirement that the boiler temperature be raised to between 60 and 120

degrees Fahrenheit each time the boiler is subjected to any hydrostatic

pressure. This proposed change would incorporate the NBIC standard for

hydrostatic testing into the federal regulations for steam locomotive

inspection.

In its consideration of these issues, the task force was divided

about the purpose of the hydrostatic test, and the concomitant pressure

at which the test should be conducted. Many operators believed that the

purpose of the hydrostatic test is merely to test the boiler for

leaks--not to see if the boiler is structurally unsound at the time of

the test. To them, therefore, testing the boiler at the maximum allowed

working pressure (MAWP ) (as calculated in the FRA Form No. 4) would

serve the requisite safety function of disclosing such leaks without

unnecessarily stressing (and prematurely destroying) the boiler. Many

in the agency, however, felt strongly that the purpose of the

hydrostatic test is to test the boiler's integrity--to disclose

weaknesses in the structure of the boiler that have not yet developed

into defects. They also felt strongly that there was no data presented

that would convince them that testing the boiler at MAWP, as specified

on the FRA Form No. 4, would provide an equivalent level of safety.

Because the parties could not reach a consensus on this provision, the

agency is not proposing any changes to this language and is proposing

to leave the required pressure at 25% above MAWP, as specified on the

FRA Form No. 4.

Section 230.37. Steam Test Following Repairs or Alterations

This section, as proposed, would substantially rewrite, largely

without substantive change, section 230.20 of the 1978 standards to

achieve greater clarity. The one substantive change being proposed

would change the pressure required for the conduct of the steam test

from ``not less than the allowed working pressure'' to ``between 95%

and 100% of the MAWP.'' The task force decided that imposing a lower

[[Page 51417]]

pressure limit would reduce the stress on the boiler without an

accompanying reduction in safety--that 95 to 100 percent of MAWP would

be adequate to disclose unsatisfactory conditions in the locomotive

boiler.

Staybolts

Section 230.38. Telltale Holes

This section, as proposed, would consolidate 1978 standards'

telltale hole provisions, sections 230.23 and 230.26, and the ``reduced

body'' staybolt section from the ICC Interpretations in one section. As

proposed, subsection (a) would retain section 230.26 of the 1978

standards but would delete, as moot, the application date. Proposed

subsection (b) is a new provision created to import the ICC

interpretation for reduced body staybolts to Part 230. Finally,

proposed subsection (c) is derived from section 230.23 of the 1978

standards and would create a stand alone provision for clarity and to

emphasize that telltale holes must be kept open at all times, except as

required in section 230.41, which, as proposed, requires the telltale

holes of drilled flexible staybolts to be closed with a fireproof

porous material that will keep the telltale holes free of foreign

matter.

Section 230.39. Broken Staybolts

This section, as proposed, would modify section 230.25 of the 1978

standards. Subsection (a), as proposed, would establish the maximum

number of broken staybolts allowed for each locomotive boiler.

Currently, section 230.25 of the 1978 standards require that a boiler

be taken out of service when it develops two (2) broken or plugged

staybolts adjacent to one another in any part of the firebox or

combustion chamber, when three (3) or more are broken or plugged in a

circle four (4) feet in diameter, and when five (5) or more are broken

or plugged in the entire boiler. This section, as proposed, would

change this standard by requiring that a boiler be taken out of service

when it develops either two (2) broken staybolts within twenty-four

(24) inches of each other, as measured inside the firebox or combustion

chamber on a straight line, or more than four (4) broken staybolts

within the entire firebox and combustion chamber combined.

The NBIC requires boilers with one broken staybolt to be taken out

of service and repaired. While the task force wanted to harmonize these

proposed standards with the NBIC, they recommended to the agency that

this proposal allow for a second broken staybolt within twenty-four

(24) inches to accommodate the operational difficulties involved in

immediately taking a boiler out of service when one staybolt breaks.

Because prolonged exposure in a slowly progressive fail mode turns

exponential as additional staybolts break, and to minimize the overload

on staybolts in the area of the one which has broken, the task force

also recommended that staybolts adjacent to those that break be

inspected at the time the broken staybolt is replaced. As proposed,

this section includes that recommendation.

Subsection (b), as proposed, would require broken staybolts

detected during the 31 service day inspection to be replaced at that

time, and broke staybolts detected between 31 service day inspections

to be replaced no later than 30 days from the date of detection. The

task force determined that a strict time period was required to ensure

an adequate measure of safety, but wanted to recognize operational

realities that might prevent owners and/or operators from repairing

broken staybolts immediately. This proposal reflects the task force

consensus that 30 days would be a reasonable period of time within

which to make the necessary repairs to the boiler. It would allow

owners and/or operators to plan when, within a 30-day time period, they

wanted to take the locomotive out of service and replace the broken

bolts. This subsection also would require, consistent with the task

force's recommendation, that the locomotive owner and/or operator

replace broken staybolts eight (8) inches in length or less with

staybolts drilled with telltale holes three-sixteenths (\3/16\) to

seven thirty-seconds (\7/32\) inch in diameter and not less than one

and one quarter (1\1/4\) inches deep in each end, or that have holes

three-sixteenths (\3/16\) to seven thirty-seconds (\7/32\) inch in

diameter their entire length. This expresses the task force's belief

that drilled bolts are useful in revealing progressive failures before

they reach catastrophic proportions.

Subsection (c), as proposed, would import from the ICC

Interpretations the definition of ``broken'' staybolts as those that

are leaking, plugged, or missing, in the interest of consolidating and

centralizing all current steam locomotive requirements.

Finally, subsection (d), would prohibit welding, forging or

riveting broken staybolt ends as a means of closing telltale holes. The

ICC Interpretations state that telltale holes that are leaking,

plugged, riveted over, or missing, will be counted as broken staybolts.

This proposal would impose a stricter standard for broken staybolts,

which the task force believed was desirable.

Sec. 230.40. Time and Method of Staybolt Testing

This section, as proposed, would consolidate the requirements for

staybolt testing from sections 230.21, 230.22, 230.24 of the 1978

standards and the ICC Interpretations addressing the same. Because the

1978 standards do not treat rigid staybolts and flexible staybolts

without caps differently, this section, as proposed, consolidates these

requirements into ``staybolt testing'' general requirements. Since the

testing requirements being proposed for flexible staybolts with caps,

however, remain distinct, the agency is proposed to exclude them from

this consolidation.

Currently, section 230.21 of the 1978 standards requires that

staybolts be tested once a month and immediately after every

hydrostatic test. In subsection (a), the agency is proposing to relax

this requirement slightly by allowing the monthly inspection to be

conducted once each thirty-one (31) service days, consistent with the

more comprehensive changes contemplated for the inspection scheme in

this Part. The 1978 requirement that the test be conducted following

each hydrostatic test would be the same, but is more clearly explained

in this new section. In addition, subsection (1) of subsection (a)

would create an allowance for inaccessible staybolts that are drilled

through their entire length. Under this allowance, any such impediments

making the staybolts inaccessible (brickwork, grate bearers, etc.) need

not be removed to hammer test the staybolts. The group concurred that

since the through-drilled staybolt would begin to leak if it broke,

safety would not be sacrificed by granting owners and/or operators a

measure of flexibility in the testing of such staybolts.

Subsection (b), as proposed, is a general section that spells out

the requirements for testing all forms of staybolts. The task force

tried to combine all the different ``method of testing'' provisions

from the 1978 standards (sections 230.21-230.27). The result was

subsection (b) of this section. The proposed requirement that there

must be ``not less than 95 percent of the MAWP'' applied if staybolts

are tested while the boiler contains water is a new one and reflects

the task force's consensus view.

Sec. 230.41. Flexible Staybolts With Caps

This section, as proposed, would rewrite section 230.23 of the 1978

standards for clarity, while imposing a few new requirements.

[[Page 51418]]

Subsection (a), as proposed, would extend the current timetable for

removing the caps and inspecting, flexible staybolts from every two (2)

years to every 5th annual inspection, consistent with the comprehensive

changes contemplated to the inspection scheme for this part. This

proposal reflects the task force's consensus view that this would

provide owners and/or operators additional flexibility without

compromising the desired level of safety.

Subsection (b), as proposed, has merely been rewritten for clarity

and to eliminate superfluous information. Subsections (c) and (d),

likewise, would impose no substantive changes but, instead, would

rewrite section 230.23 of the 1978 standards for clarity, either

deleting text as repetitive, or moving it to other, more relevant,

sections. For example, the 1978 requirement that the FRA Form No. 3 be

kept in the railroad company's office would be relocated (and slightly

modified) to the recordkeeping section of this proposal, section

230.19.

Steam Gauges

Section 230.42. Location of Gauges

This section, as proposed, would rewrite section 230.28 of the 1978

standards for clarity, but would not effect any substantive changes to

that section.

Section 230.43. Gauge Siphon

This section, as proposed, would rewrite section 230.29 of the 1978

standards for clarity, but would not effect any substantive changes to

that section.

Section 230.44. Time of Testing

This section, as proposed, would modify the requirements of section

230.30 of the 1978 standards in order to address the operational

realities presented by the mobility of the gauges. In today's industry,

it is common practice for owners and/or operators to remove gauges from

the locomotive to prevent them from being stolen or vandalized.

Sometimes the removed gauges are stored in conditions that allow for

them to be jostled around, which affects their calibration and

accuracy. Accordingly, as proposed, this section would require that the

gauges be tested prior to being installed or reapplied. In addition,

this provision would extend the time period for testing gauges from

once ever three months to the 92 service day inspection, consistent

with the more comprehensive changes contemplated for the inspection

scheme in this part. Finally, as recommended by the task force, the

proposed rule retain the requirement in section 230.30 of the 1978

standards that gauges be tested whenever any irregularity is reported.

Section 230.45. Method of Testing

This section, as proposed, would more completely describe the

method for testing gages, but would not effect a substantive change.

Section 230.46. Badge Plates

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.32 of the 1978

standards but would correct its use of incorrect terminology. The term

``boiler head'' is being proposed to be changed to the more correct

term ``boiler backhead.''

Section 230.47. Boiler Number

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.33 of the 1978

standards but would rewrite that section for clarity and to consolidate

it with the ICC Interpretations.

Safety Relief Valves

Section 230.48. Number and Capacity

This section, as proposed, would retain the requirements for the

number and capacity of locomotive safety relief valves in section

230.34 of the 1978 standards, with two changes. Subsection (a), as

proposed, would increase the relieving tolerance from five (5) to six

(6) percent above the MAWP. The task force recommended that the rule be

modernized to reflect modern testing practice, which uses six percent.

That figure is derived from the addition of the manufacturer's

tolerance for the safety valve itself (three (3) percent) and the

industry standard from the ASME 1952 Code for the testing tolerance for

safety valves (an additional three (3) percent). This subsection would

also make explicit the FRA inspector's right to require proof of the

relieving capacity for safety relief valves on steam locomotives.

Subsection (b) of this section, as proposed, would make explicit

the requirement that additional capacity be provided if the capacity

testing demonstrates the need to do so. In addition, this section

acknowledges the use of the accumulation test as a method for testing

safety valve capacity. By including this acknowledgment, the agency

does not intend to state its preference for the use of accumulation

tests in determining safety relief valve capacity.

Section 230.49. Setting of Safety Relief Valves

In this section, the agency is proposing several changes to the

requirements for setting safety relief valves contained in section

230.35 of the 1978 standards. First, this section, as proposed, would

impose a new requirement that the individual responsible for setting

the safety relief valves be ``thoroughly familiar with the construction

and operation of the valve being set.'' This competency requirement was

added because the group recognized that modern safety valves have

seals, the security of which is certified by certain organizations, but

they did not want to officially require that the valves be reset by

state officials. This language would create a performance standard--one

that would require that those people resetting safety valves be

thoroughly familiar with their construction and operation.

Next, this section, as proposed, would change the ``opening

pressures'' for safety relief valves contained in section 230.35 of the

1978 standards by requiring that at least one of the two required

safety-relief valves open at a pressure that is no greater than the

MAWP. This proposal changes the 1978 provision, which requires that

both valves be set to open at pressures not exceeding 6 pounds above

working pressure (MAWP). This reflects the task force consensus that

requiring one of the two safety valves to set to open at pressures not

greater than MAWP would achieve a greater level of safety. This section

would retain, however, the 6 psi upper limit contained in section

230.35 of the 1978 standards for any additional safety valves utilized.

This section, as proposed, would retain the procedures for setting

safety valves, contained in section 230.35 of the 1978 standards,

without substantive change. This proposal would change the requirement

for the water level to be ``not above the highest gauge cock'' to the

equivalent requirement that it not be ``higher than \3/4\ of the length

of the visible water glass, as measured from the bottom of the glass,''

consistent with this document's proposed changes to section 230.37. See

the analysis for section 230.51, below.

Finally, this section, as proposed, would create a new requirement

that the lowest set safety relief valve pressure be indicated on a tag

or label and attached to the steam gauge so that it may clearly be read

while observing the gauge. This would present a physical reminder for

the locomotive engineer, or other crew members, of the pressure to

which the safety relief valve is set so that valve failure might be

more easily detected.

Section 230.50. Time of Testing

This section, as proposed, would retain the requirements of section

[[Page 51419]]

230.36 of the 1978 standards without change, except for the increase of

the inspection time period, from three months, to ninety-two (92)

service days to comport with the more comprehensive changes for the

inspection scheme contemplated in the part.

Water Glasses and Gauge Cocks

Section 230.51. Number and Location

This section, as proposed, would change the requirements for water

level indicating devices contained in section 230.37 of the 1978

standards to require that steam locomotive boilers be equipped with at

least two water glasses, the lowest reading for which must be at least

3 inches above the highest part of the crown sheet. This section would

not prohibit the use of gauge cocks, but it simply would no longer

require it. It would require, however, that any gauge cocks installed

on a steam locomotive boiler be properly maintained and located. These

changes reflect the task force's recommendation that water level

indicator standards be modernized. They expressed the view that water

glasses are more reliable than gauge cocks, and easier to use since

they do not require manual operation. They also expressed the belief

that few operators know how to correctly manually operate gauge cocks

anymore. The task force also felt that gauge cocks screwed directly

into the backhead are more likely to provide highly inaccurate readings

due to the phenomenon where the water rushes against the boiler

backhead and creates a surge effect, generating a reading that is

artificially high. This requirement would comport with the NTSB's

recommendations following its investigation into the boiler explosion

involving the Gettysburg Railroad Company, which included a

recommendation that boilers be equipped with a second water glass, and

with ASME standards, which no longer require that newly constructed

boilers be equipped with gauge cocks.

The group was aware of the costs such a change would impose upon

owners and/or operators. They discussed, at length, the extra cost this

requirement would impose upon owners and/or operators, but concluded

that the extra safety measure afforded would well outweigh this

imposition. In addition, one member of the group pointed out that gauge

cocks are no longer being manufactured, which makes their replacement

extremely costly. The task force was also concerned that owners and/or

operators have sufficient time to make any necessary changes to their

locomotive boilers. Accordingly, this proposal reflects the task

force's belief that by delaying the implementation of this provision by

one year all parties would have enough notice, and enough

implementation time, to add the second water glass.

Section 230.52. Water Glass Valves

This section, as proposed, would rewrite section 230.38 of the 1978

standards to emphasize the functions the valves are designed to

fulfill, and for clarity.

Section 230.53. Time of Cleaning

This section, as proposed, would require that water glass valve and

gauge cock spindles be cleaned at every 31 service day inspection, and

whenever testing indicates that the apparatus is malfunctioning. This

change would relax the time period within which this inspection must

occur, consistent with the more comprehensive changes contemplated for

the inspection scheme discussed earlier. It also would add a

performance standard for owners and/or operators to follow, requiring

them to clean the spindles when they have indications that water

glasses or gauge cocks are not functioning properly.

Section 230.54. Testing and Maintenance

This section, as proposed, would rewrite Section 230.40 of the 1978

standards for clarity and to emphasize the purpose for the water glass

testing requirement.

Section 230.55. Tubular Type Water and Lubricator Glasses and Shields

As proposed, this section would modify section 230.41 of the 1978

standards to require that tubular type water glasses be renewed at each

92-service day inspection, and to require that water glasses be

situated to provide the engine crew an unobstructed view from their

proper positions in the locomotive cab.

This proposal reflects the task force's view, based on their

collective experience, that water tubes get thin and develop a risk of

breaking after approximately 90 service days. The proposed water glass

placement requirements are included here to complement, and give effect

to, the proposed changes in section 230.51.

Section 230.56. Water Glass Lamps

This section retains section 230.42 of the 1978 standards without

change, consistent with the task force's recommendation.

Injectors, Feedwater Pumps, and Flue Plugs

Section 230.57. Injectors and Feedwater Pumps

As proposed, subsection (b) of this section would retain section

230.43 of the 1978 standards, and subsections (a) and (c) are new.

Subsection (a), as proposed, would require that the locomotive be

equipped with at least two means of delivering water to the boiler, and

would establish, as a minimum, that one of those two means be a live

steam injector. Subsection (b), as proposed, would incorporate language

from the ICC Interpretations which requires bracing to ``avoid''

vibration. The group decided to change ``avoid'' to ``minimize''

because they felt it was a more realistic standard.

Section 230.58. Flue Plugs

This section, as proposed, would strengthen the rules for plugging

flues contained in section 230.44 of the 1978 standards. When this

section was originally created by the ICC, it was designed to

accommodate the locomotive owner and/or operator's business concerns by

allowing them to plug their flues in order to continue in operation

until the nearest repair point where the flue could be repaired or

replaced. The task force decided to recommend the retention of that

concept, to still allow flue plugging, but to recommend the restriction

of the manner that flues are allowed to be plugged in order to improve

the safety quotient for flue failures.

The task force was concerned that a failed flue was usually a

harbinger of additional flue failures since flues are typically

replaced all at once, and are exposed to similar stressors which might

cause failure. Accordingly, as proposed, this section would only allow

one flue to be plugged at any time, and would require that the flue be

repaired or replaced within 30 calender days. In addition, the group

wanted to distinguish between flues greater than 2\1/4\'' in OD and

flues equal to or smaller than 2\1/4\'' in OD, and to prohibit the

plugging of the latter. Subsection (b) of this section, as proposed, is

largely derived from section 230.44 of the 1978 standards except that

it would change that section's implied allowance of plugging flues at

one end only, requiring that flues be plugged at both ends. The task

force felt that plugging the flue at one end was inconsistent with the

function plugging is designed to accomplish.

[[Page 51420]]

Fusible Plugs

Section 230.59. Fusible Plugs

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.14 of the 1978

standards and would impose no new inspection requirements for steam

locomotives on locomotive owners and/or operators. Consistent with the

more comprehensive changes contemplated for the inspection scheme in

Part 230, it would relax the time frame within which fusible plugs must

be removed, and cleaned, and their removal reported on the report of

inspection.

Washing Boilers

Section 230.60. Time of Washing

This section, as proposed, would retain the concepts of section

230.45 of the 1978 standards and would impose no new inspection

requirements for steam locomotives on locomotive owners and/or

operators, consistent with the more comprehensive changes contemplated

for the inspection scheme in Part 230. It would relax the time frame

within which all boilers must be washed from once each month to once

each 31-service days.

In its review of the Gettysburg steam explosion, the NTSB

recommended that the agency consider regulating water quality,

specifically by imposing water treatment program requirements. The task

force strenuously debated this topic and concluded the boiler wash

itself was the best method for addressing water quality, especially

since the regulation currently requires, and would similarly require as

proposed, that the boiler be washed as frequently as water conditions

require. This proposal gives effect to the task force's recommendation

on this subject.

Section 230.61. Arch Tubes, Water Bar Tubes, Circulators and Thermic

Siphons

This section, as proposed, would expand the requirements of section

230.46 of the 1978 standards by requiring, in addition to their mere

removal, the cleaning and inspection of arch tubes and water bar tubes

each time the boiler is washed. In addition, this section proposes the

addition of condemning limits for arch tubes and water bar tubes. Both

of these proposals are derived from the ICC Interpretations and reflect

the task force's desire to incorporate the Interpretations into this

part.

Finally, this section would require NDE evaluation of arch tubes,

water bar tubes and circulators during the annual inspection in order

to assess reduced wall thickness. The task force was concerned about

the cost this would impose, and debated whether this requirement would

prove too onerous for smaller operations. They concluded, however, that

ultrasonic testing was affordable and that the safety levels assured by

requiring this testing were worth the imposition of the cost.

Steam Pipes

Section 230.62. (NEW) Dry Pipe

This section would require locomotive owners and/or operators to

inspect dry pipes that are subject to pressure during each annual

inspection for the purpose of measuring the pipe wall thickness. It

would establish a performance standard for owners and/or operators to

remove from service pipes that are no longer ``suitable for the service

intended.''

Section 230.63. Smoke Box, Steam Pipes and Pressure Parts (New)

This section would require locomotive owners and/or operators to

inspect the smoke box, steam pipes and pressure parts at each annual

inspection, or whenever conditions warrant, by entering the smoke box

and examining it for signs of leaks from any of its pressure parts, as

well as by examining all draft appliances.

Steam Leaks

Section 230.64. Leaks Under Lagging

This section, as proposed, would retain the concepts of section

230.49 of the 1978 standards without substantive change, but would

rewrite them for clarity.

Section 230.65. Steam Blocking View of Engine Crew

This section, as proposed, would retain the concepts of section

230.50 of the 1978 standards without substantive change, but would

rewrite them for clarity.

Subpart C--Steam Locomotives and Tenders

Section 230.66. Design, Construction and Maintenance

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.101 of the 1978

standards without substantive change other than that necessary to

reflect the proposed changed liability standard; see section IX(A).

Section 230.67. Responsibility for Inspection and Repairs

This section, as proposed, would change section 230.102 of the 1978

standards by making the locomotive owner and/or operator, not the

mechanical officer, the party responsible for the inspection and repair

of all locomotives and tenders under their control. In addition, this

section would parallel proposed section 230.23 by delineating the

standard for repairs and by requiring that the locomotive not be

returned to service unless they are in good condition and safe and

suitable for service.

Speed Indicators

Section 230.68. Speed Indicators (New)

This section would require all locomotives that operate at speeds

in excess of 20 mph over the general system of transportation to be

equipped with speed indicators, consistent with the requirements in

Part 229 for non-steam locomotives. Likewise, this section would

require these indicators to be maintained to ensure proper functioning.

The task force discussed, and wanted to address, the interplay between

this part and Part 240's engineer certification standards. Because

locomotive engineers may be decertified for speeding, the task force

felt that locomotives operating more than 20 mph, consistent with the

standards in Part 229, should be equipped with speed indicators.

Ash Pans

Section 230.69. Ash Pans

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.105 of the 1978

standards without substantive effect, but would rewrite it for clarity.

Brake and Signal Equipment

Section 230.70. Safe Condition

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.106 of the 1978

standards without substantive effect, but would reorganize and rewrite

it for clarity.

Section 230.71. Orifice Testing of Compressors

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.107 of the 1978

standards without substantive effect, but would reorganize and rewrite

it for clarity. In addition, it would, consistent with the more

comprehensive changes contemplated for the inspection scheme in Part

230, relax the time frame within which compressors must be orifice-

tested from once each three months, to once each 92-service days.

Finally, it would expand the table listing the testing criteria to

include a 120 LP Westinghouse compressor, which is frequently used.

Section 230.72. Testing Main Reservoirs

Subsection (a) of this section, as proposed, would retain the

concepts in Section 230.108 of the 1978 standard's

[[Page 51421]]

but would rewrite them for clarity. Subsections (b) through (d) of this

section are new. Subsection (b), as proposed, would incorporate Part

229's allowance for drilling of welded main reservoirs. The group felt

that drilling was a good idea because it facilitates reservoir failures

in a non-catastrophic manner. This section is largely derived from

section 229.31 and reflects the task force's desire to harmonize these

sections. Subsection (c), as proposed, would encourage the use of

appropriate NDE methods for testing the wall thickness of the welded

main reservoirs. It would allow welded main reservoirs without

longitudinal lap seams to be NDE tested instead of the more destructive

hammer and hydrostatic testing otherwise required. The formula for the

condemning limits for welded main reservoirs is derived from the ASME

Section VIII, Div I. The spacing for the sampling points is derived

from section 229.31.

Finally, subsection (d), as proposed, would require NDE testing for

welded or riveted longitudinal lap seam main reservoirs. While the task

force seriously debated recommending that the use of lap seam main

reservoirs be prohibited, they felt that they didn't have a strong

enough safety basis for justifying this action. They felt that lap seam

main reservoirs would eventually be phased out for economic reasons.

Section 230.73. Air Gauges

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.109 of the 1978

standards, with minor substantive changes, but would reorganize and

rewrite it for clarity. As part of the more comprehensive changes

contemplated for the inspection scheme in Part 230, it would relax the

time frame for air gauge testing from once each 3 months to the 92

service day inspection. It also would add the requirement that gauges

be tested prior to reapplication following removal. The task force

recommended that gauges that are removed be retested because they were

concerned about the jostling of the gauges that may occur during the

time that they are off the locomotive, requiring recalibration before

being reapplied. The method of testing required by this section would

remain the same as that in section 230.109 of the 1978 standards.

Section 230.74. Time of Cleaning

This section, as proposed, would modify Section 230.110 of the 1978

standard's by broadening the scope of the section to all valves in the

air brake system, by specifying a testing procedure, and by relaxing

the time frame for conducting the inspection. The task force

recommended harmonizing this section, to the largest extent possible,

with section 232.10. Many industry members on the task force were

concerned about requiring this cleaning too frequently because, in

their collective experience, the cleaning process itself disturbs the

proper functioning of the valves--once you open the system to clean the

valves, dirt gets moved around inside and affects the rest of the

system, ruining it. While the task force discussed the testing

intervals, from the 1978 standard's six months to a proposed once each

fifth annual, they ultimately concluded that the appropriate time

period for this cleaning was at least once every 368 service days, but

no more than during every second annual inspection.

Section 230.75. Stenciling Dates of Tests and Cleaning

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.111 of the 1978

standards but would rewrite it for clarification and to eliminate the

requirement that testing dates be stamped on metal tags and attached to

the locomotive.

Section 230.76. Piston Travel

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.112 of the 1978

standards without substantive change.

Section 230.77. Foundation Brake Gear

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.113 of the 1978

standards without substantive change.

Section 230.78. Leakage

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.l14 of the 1978

standards without substantive change, but would identify specific

inspection time periods and requirements in the rule text.

Section 230.79. Train Signal System

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.115 of the 1978

standards with minor changes. It would recognize other forms of

``onboard communication'' and would relax the train signal system

testing requirements from before each trip made, to the beginning of

each day the locomotive is used.

Cabs, Warning Signals, and Sanders

Section 230.80. Cabs

This section, as proposed, would change Section 230.116 of the 1978

standard's by removing all the cab curtain requirements and rewriting

the standards for clarity. Subsection (a) of this proposed section

would incorporate the general provision section of the 1978 standard's,

while updating the requirements to parallel Part 229's cab condition

language. The task force discussed the language relating to the cab

climate at length and agreed to try and draft a performance standard

for the cab, rather than select temperature ranges and specific

environment controls. The task force also decided to delete all the cab

curtain requirements because they believed that the curtains don't

adequately keep temperature in the proper range, and that the

performance standard in subsection (a) was a better way to achieve the

desired outcome.

This section's requirement that the environment not ``unreasonably

interfere with the engine crew's performance of duties under ordinary

conditions of service'' would establish the performance standard the

cab climate must satisfy--therefore, a cab with poor ventilation which

gets so hot that the engineer begins to lose consciousness, or to get

sleepy, would be in noncompliance with this section. The ``ordinary

conditions of service'' language, however, would recognize the type of

conditions that are unavoidable in steam locomotive service, such as

extreme amounts of heat from the locomotive boiler fire box. The task

force wanted to make clear that only cab conditions that were

``abnormal'' for steam locomotive service would constitute

noncompliance with this section. The group wanted to move toward a

``common sense'' perspective on cab conditions which would

simultaneously be enforceable, and yet not unreasonably interfere with

steam locomotive operations by using ``comfort'' as the delimiting

factor since most steam locomotive service, by nature, is uncomfortable

for the engineer.

Subsection (b) of the proposed section, addressing steam pipes,

would retain the Section 230.116 of the 1978 standard's but would make

more specific the ``double strength pipe'' description. The task force

recommended that, at a minimum, the pipe be ``schedule 80'' to

recognize what is more common industry verbiage/terminology.

All other subsections of section 230.116 of the 1978 standard's

would be deleted as unnecessary.

Section 230.81. Cab Aprons

This section, as proposed, would expand the requirements of section

230.117 of the 1978 standards by delineating standards for the width of

the apron. The group wanted to incorporate the ICC Interpretations

regarding apron width that address

[[Page 51422]]

individuals standing on the cab apron having their foot crushed when

the locomotive goes around a curve, or individuals standing on the

apron falling between the locomotive and tender when the safety chains

are taut or the drawbar disconnected.

Section 230.82. Fire Doors and Mechanical Stokers

This section, as proposed, would eliminate the requirement

contained in section 230.118 of the 1978 standards that all locomotives

have mechanically operated fire doors. The task force decided to do so

because some smaller locomotives are incapable, by design, of having

them. The task force considered making the mechanically operated fire

door requirement contingent upon the weight of the locomotive, and the

agency is requesting comments on that idea; whether this section

should, for example, require that locomotives over 100,000 pounds be

equipped with mechanically operated fire doors.

In addition, the task force recommended the removal of subsections

(b) and (c) of section 230.118 of the 1978 standards, relating to

stokers.

Section 230.83. Cylinder Cocks

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.119 of the 1978

standards without substantive change, but would rewrite it for clarity.

Section 230.84. Sanders

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.120 of the 1978

standards without substantive change, but would rewrite it for clarity.

Consistent with the changes to the pre-departure inspection concept

contemplated by this part, the inspection time period has been relaxed

from each trip to the beginning of each day the locomotive is used.

Section 230.85. Audible Warning Device

This section, as proposed, would modernize section 230.121 of the

1978 standards by replacing its whistle requirement with a requirement

that steam locomotives be equipped with audible warning devices. The

decibel thresholds and the methodology for measuring the sound level

are directly derived from section 229.129, which requires audible

warning devices for locomotives other than steam locomotives.

Lights

Section 230.86. Required Illumination

This section, as proposed, would retain Section 230.129 and 230.131

of the 1978 standards, but would consolidate and rewrite them for

clarity. In addition, this section would eliminate the distinction in

the 1978 standards for locomotives in yard and road service, consistent

with the task force's recommendation, since any justification for

treating them differently disappeared as the nature of steam locomotive

operations changed.

Section 230.87. Cab Lights

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.132 of the 1978

standards without substantive change, other than to extend this section

to all locomotives, instead of merely those used between sunset and

sunrise. The task force felt that this imposed no hardship upon

locomotive owners and/or operators, and would address operating

circumstances that could occur during ``daylight'' hours, but which

might require being able to see control instruments, or to read

timetables within the cab.

Throttle and Reversing Gear

Section 230.88. Throttles

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.156 of the 1978

standards, without substantive change.

Section 230.89. Reverse Gear

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.157 of the 1978

standards but would reorganize and rewrite it for clarity. The proposed

subsection (a) would retain the general language that appears before

subsection (a) verbatim. This section would not retain subsections (a)

and (b) of the 1978 standards because the task force believed that many

locomotives in service do not have power-operated reverse gear and have

suffered no ill-consequences. In addition, the view was expressed that

power-reverse gear can be dangerous as well. The group considered

attaching a weight restriction to this requirement, but concluded that

the problem would be self-regulating since it would be impractical to

move certain locomotives with manual reverse operating gear. The

proposed subsections (b) and (c) are derived from subsection (c) of the

1978 standards.

Draw Gear and Draft Systems

Section 230.90. Draw Gear Between Steam Locomotive and Tender

Subsection (a) of this section, as proposed, would retain most of

the requirements of subsection (a) of section 230.122 of the 1978

standards, except it proposes requiring NDE testing of draw pins and

the drawbar during every annual inspection. This section also would

require the use of an additional NDE testing method where visual

inspection does not disclose any defects. The task force wanted to

accommodate the industry's business concerns about conducting this test

too frequently, and recommended requiring the use of better technology

as the trade-off for extending the inspection time-period from three

months to one year. This proposal reflects that recommendation.

Subsection (b) of this section, as proposed, would modify the 1978

standards' requirements for safety bars or chains and their relative

strength. The industry task force members disagreed with the 1978

standards' ``two or more safety bars or safety chains'' language,

arguing that some locomotives are designed with one (1) safety bar. The

consensus was that the old rule was addressing smaller draw bars that

could take the place of safety chains, and not the double drawbar

design where two bars are on the same pins with one pin bearing no load

in normal use. The bar with no load is the safety bar. In addition,

this section would incorporate the ICC interpretation of the 1978

standard's ``ample strength'' to require the combined strength of

safety chains or bars and their fastenings to be at least 50 percent of

the strength of the drawbar and its connections.

Subsections (c), (d), and (e) would retain the subsections (c),

(d), and (e) of section 230.122 of the 1978 standards without change.

Section 230.91. Chafing Irons

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.123 of the 1978

standards without substantive change, but would rewrite it for clarity.

Section 230.92. Draw Gear and Draft Systems

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.124 of the 1978

standards without substantive change, but would modify it to include

couplers, which were not previously addressed.

Driving Gear

Section 230.93. Pistons and Piston Rods

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.127 of the 1978

standards but would revise it by eliminating the stamping requirement

for rods and by adding standards for fasteners. The task force debated

whether or not they wanted to retain a mechanism for tracing materials

and concluded that they did not want Part 230 to require it. The task

force discussed working on a ``recommended practices'' handbook for the

operators,

[[Page 51423]]

not related to this rule, and including traceability there.

Section 230.94. Crossheads

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.125 of the 1978

standards without substantive change, but would rewrite it for clarity.

Section 230.95. Guides

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.126 of the 1978

standards without substantive change.

Section 230.96. Main, Side, and Valve Motion Rods

Subsection (a) of this section, as proposed, would retain

subsection (a) of section 230.128 of the 1978 standards without

substantive change, but would rewrite it for clarity.

Subsection (b) of this section, as proposed, would change section

230.128 of the 1978 standards by expressly allowing welding of main,

side and valve motion rods subject to FRA approval of requests to do

so. The task force debated how to control the welding methodology and

concluded that requiring the welding in accordance with an accepted

national standard was the easiest and most thorough way to do so. The

task force concluded that this section should be harmonized with

section 230.33 of these proposed standards. See the analysis of welding

concerns in that section, which is identical to the task force's

discussion of this subsection.

Subsection (c) of this section, as proposed, would retain

subsection (c) of section 230.128 of the 1978 standards in its entirety

and, for clarity, would add a sentence to address floating bushings.

Subsection (d) of this section, as proposed, would retain

subsection (d) of section 230.128 of the 1978 standards without change.

Subsection (e) of this section, as proposed, would retain

subsection (e) of section 230.128 of the 1978 standards but would very

narrowly rewrite it for clarity.

Subsection (f) of this section, as proposed, would retain

subsection (f) of section 230.128 of the 1978 standards without change.

Subsection (g) of this section, as proposed, would retain

subsection (g) of section 230.128 of the 1978 standards without change.

This section, as proposed, would not retain subsections (h) and (I)

of section 230.128 of the 1978 standards, to reflect the removal

throughout this proposed rule of distinctions between road and yard

service. As discussed previously, the justification for treating these

types of service differently no longer exists.

Section 230.97. Crank Pins

Subsection (a) of this section, as proposed, would change section

230.136 of the 1978 standards by eliminating the stamping requirement,

consistent with section 230.92 of this proposal. The task force felt

very strongly that it is unnecessary to know, and to have stamped on

the pin, the application date.

This subsection also would expand the prohibition for shimming or

prick punching to include ``securing the fit of a loose crank pin by

shimming, prick punching, or welding.''

Subsection (b) of this section, as proposed, would retain the

subsection (b) of section 230.136 of the 1978 standards but would

change the word ``bolts'' to ``fasteners.'' This change is non-

substantive and reflects the acceptable use of other mechanisms as

fasteners.

Running Gear

Section 230.98. Driving, Trailing, And Engine Truck Axles

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.133 of the 1978

standards with minor substantive change and would rewrite and

reorganize it for clarity. As proposed, this section would relax the

wear allowance on secondary driving axles. The task force decided to

make this change to harmonize the regulation with their operational

experience.

Section 230.99. Tender Truck Axles

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.134 of the 1978

standards without substantive change.

Section 230.100. Defects in Tender Truck Axles and Journals

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.135 of the 1978

standards without substantive change.

Section 230.101. Steam Locomotive Driving Journal Boxes

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.137 of the 1978

standards without substantive change, but would reorganize and rewrite

it for clarity.

Section 230.102. Tender Plain Bearing Journal Boxes (New)

This section, as proposed, would impose condemning limits for plain

bearing journal boxes, consistent with the task force's recommendation

to do so. The task force collaborated and identified issues that might

affect the operational integrity/function of the journal.

Section 230.103. Tender Roller Bearing Journal Boxes (New)

This section, as proposed, would impose maintenance requirements

for tender roller bearing journal boxes, consistent with the task

force's recommendation to do so. The task force did not find it

necessary to impose specific condemning limits for roller bearing

journal boxes, believing that the performance standard ``safe and

suitable'' would suffice.

Section 230.104. Driving Box Shoes and Wedges

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.138 of the 1978

standards without change.

Section 230.105. Lateral Motion

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.140 of the 1978

standards without change.

Trucks and Frames and Equalizing System

Section 230.106. Steam Locomotive Frame

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.139 of the 1978

standards but would modify it by adding a section which would allow

locomotive owners and/or operators to continue in existence locomotives

with broken frames that are properly patched or secured in a way to

restore the rigidity of the frame.

Section 230.107. Tender Frame and Body

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.152 of the 1978

standards and would add a section that would contain condemning limits

for a tender frame, consistent with the task force's recommendation.

Section 230.108. Steam Locomotive Leading and Trailing Trucks

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.143 of the 1978

standards but would modify it to require that all centering devices not

permit lost motion in excess of \1/2\ inch, consistent with the task

force's recommendation.

Section 230.109. Tender Truck

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.155 of the 1978

standards but would modify it to establish condemning limits for

springs and to include truck centering devices.

Section 230.110. Pilots

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.141 of the 1978

standards without change but would clarify that minimum and maximum

[[Page 51424]]

clearances of the pilot above the rail must be measured on tangent

level track.

Section 230.111. Spring Rigging

This section, as proposed would retain section 230.142 of the 1978

standards with minor modifications. This section would change the 1978

standards to allow the adjusting of load weights by shifting weights

from one pair of wheels to another, and to allow broken springs within

the condemning limits for spring rigging to be repaired by clipping,

provided the clips can be secured so as to stay in place.

Wheels and Tires

Sectopm 230.112. Wheels and Tires

This section, as proposed, would combine the 1978 standards of

Sections 230.144, 230.150, and 230.151 . Subsections (a), (b) and (c)

reflect section 230.144 with a few modifications. Subsection (a), as

proposed, would change ``pressed'' to ``mounted.'' This change was

recommended to acknowledge the process of shrinking wheels onto the

axle, which is not acknowledged by the use of the word ``pressed.''

Next, subsection (b), as proposed, would add a sentence to address gage

for track that is less than standard gage. The figures used were

derived from back to back measurement. The task force spent a fair

amount of time debating the inclusion of standards for ``wide-flange''

wheels, but concluded that they would wait to see if the industry

became more saturated with ``wide-flange'' wheels before addressing it.

This proposal reflects that recommendation. Finally, subsection (c)

would retain subsection (c) of section 230.144 of the 1978 standards

without change.

Subsections (d) and (e) new and are derived from sections 230.150

and 230.151 of the 1978 standards. Subsection (d) would retain section

230.151 of the 1978 standards without substantive change but would

rewrite it for clarity. Subsection (e) would combine the standards

embodied in section 230.150(d) and (e) of the 1978 standards but would

rewrite them for clarity.

Section 230.113. Wheels and Tire Defects

This section, as proposed, would combine sections 230.145, 230.146,

and 230.149 of the 1978 standards but would rewrite them to make the

standards more specific, to eliminate redundancies, and for clarity.

Section 230.114. Wheel Centers

This section, as proposed, would combine sections 230.147 and

230.148 of the 1978 standards but would rewrite them to make the

standards more specific and to address welding on wheel centers. The

task force recommended that welding on wheel centers be allowed in

accordance with section 229.75(m) of the 1978 standards. This proposal

reflects that recommendation.

Steam Locomotive Tanks

Section 230.115. Feed Water Tanks

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.153 of the 1978

standards, largely without change, but would rewrite it for clarity.

Subsection (a) of this section would change section 230.153 of the 1978

rule by requiring that all locomotives, regardless of the date of their

manufacture or method of use, be equipped with a water level

measurement device capable of being read from the cab or tender deck of

the locomotive. The task force felt that this was capable of being

accomplished very cheaply and eliminated the need for locomotive

operators to climb atop the tender tank to check the water levels. In

addition, this section would extend the inspection time period for

inspecting feed water tanks from once each month to once each 92-

service days, consistent with the comprehensive changes to the

inspection scheme contemplated by this part.

Section 230.116. Oil Tanks

This section, as proposed, would retain section 230.154 of the 1978

standards without substantive change, but would rewrite it for clarity.

Appendices

FRA proposes to include at least five appendices to this rule. A

brief description for each is provided below.

Appendix A--FRA's Exercise of Jurisdiction Over Tourist and Historic

Railroads.

FRA proposes to include a statement of the agency's long standing

policy concerning the exercise of its broad authority to regulate

railroads. The policy statement is being included to help clarify the

extent to which it currently exercises its jurisdiction.

Appendix B--Inspection Requirements

FRA proposes to provide in this appendix a simple reference guide

for those who would be conducting the inspections required under these

regulations. It is not intended to modify the specific requirements

contained in any particular section.

Appendix C--FRA Inspection Forms

This appendix contains examples of the six forms being proposed by

FRA for recording compliance with the inspection and repair activities

contained in various sections of the proposed rule. Use of these forms

would be mandatory since, FRA does not contemplate individual operators

as being given the freedom to create their own forms for recording this

data. FRA will make a concentrated effort to make access to these forms

readily available assuming that use of these forms becomes mandatory.

Appendix D--Drawings and Diagrams [Reserved]

In the final rule, this appendix would contain a series of drawings

and diagrams that would be cross referenced to various sections of the

rule. Each drawing or diagram visually demonstrates how the rule

language should be applied. For example, it would depict how to apply

an instrument in order to correctly take measurements of objects such

as wheels to determine the size of flanges, flat spots, and broken rims

for compliance purposes.

Appendix E--Schedule of Civil Penalties [Reserved]

In the final rule, this appendix would contain a penalty schedule

similar to those that FRA has issued for its other regulations.

Although such FRA penalty schedules are statements of policy and the

obligation to provide notice and opportunity to comment prior to their

issuance is not required under law, FRA would welcome comments from

interested parties expressing their views on what penalties might be

appropriate. FRA suggests that those interested in commenting on this

issue examine FRA's current policy statement concerning the manner in

which the agency enforces the rail safety laws. This policy statement

is contained in Appendix A to 49 CFR Part 209,

Regulatory Impact

A. 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 Impact Analysis (RIA) addressing the economic impact of this

rule. Document inspection and copying

[[Page 51425]]

facilities are available at 1120 Vermont Avenue, N.W., 7th Floor,

Washington, D.C. 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, S.W., Washington,

D.C. 20590.

As part of the regulatory impact analysis, FRA has assessed

quantitative measurements of costs and benefits expected from the

adoption of the final rule. For a twenty year period the Net Present

Value (NPV) of the potential societal benefits is $11,548,440, and the

NPV of the estimated quantified costs is $1,605,679. A majority of the

costs would be caused by the transition from the current rule to the

proposed rule. A majority of the savings would occur from the changes

in the inspection frequencies that occur once an operator is operating

under the proposed rule's requirements.

FRA anticipates that this rule will not only reduce the federally

mandated burden for the average steam locomotive owner/operator, but

also reduce the risk involved in their operations. The NPV of the net

benefits is $9.9 million.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

requires a review of proposed and final rules to assess their impact on

small entities. FRA has prepared and placed in the docket an Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Assessment (IRFA) which assesses the small

entity impact. Document inspection and copying facilities are available

at 1120 Vermont Avenue, 7th Floor, Washington, D.C. 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, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

FRA has recently published an interim policy which formally

establishes ``small entities'' as being railroads which meet the line

haulage revenue requirements of a Class III railroad. For other

entities, the same dollar limit on revenues is established to determine

whether a railroad shipper or contractor is a small entity. FRA is

proposing to use this alternative definition of ``small entity'' for

this rulemaking. Since this is still considered to be an alternative

definition, FRA is using this definition in consultation with the

Office of Advocacy, SBA, and therefore requests public comments on its

use.

The IRFA concludes that this proposed rule would have an economic

impact on a sizable number of small entities. However, FRA certifies

that this proposed rule is not expected to have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small entities. The significance of

the impact on the potentially affected small entities varies according

to the current level of maintenance and inspection that a steam

locomotive receives. Thus, an owner and/or operator of a steam

locomotive which has only been marginally maintained could be

significantly impacted by this proposed rule. In order to determine the

significance of the economic impact FRA requests comments to the docket

that will provide additional data on the economic impact caused by this

proposed rule. The FRA will consider the comments and data it

receives--or lack of comments and data--in making a final decision on

the significance of the economic impact.

For this proposed rulemaking there are potentially 150 steam

locomotives that fall under the FRA's jurisdiction which could be

affected. These locomotives are owned by 82 operators. FRA estimates

that the somewhere between 85 and 95 percent of these operators are

small entities. These operators primarily use their steam locomotives

in a tourist, historic, excursion, or museum railway operations. Since

this proposed regulation is primarily being imposed on small entities,

readers interested in further details about the impacts on these

entities should review the NPRM's Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).

The impacts that this proposed regulation will have on the affected

steam locomotive operators will vary for the 82 different operators.

The impact will be inversely proportional to the level of inspection,

maintenance and repair that each steam locomotive is currently given.

Thus, steam locomotives that have been inspected, maintained and

repaired properly should be impacted less than ones that have not. FRA

estimates that the Net Present Value (NPV) of the average cost of this

rule, per steam locomotive, is approximately $10,000 over twenty years.

One of the more significant economic impacts that will affect all steam

locomotives is the cost for transitioning from the current rule to the

proposed. A proposed change that could impact a small quantity of steam

locomotives each year is the proposed change involving replacing broken

staybolts. Proposed new equipment requirements, such as a second water

glass, total less than $50,000 for all affected steam locomotives over

the twenty-year period.

Since this proposed regulation impacts primarily small entities,

most of the provisions in it were formed with the recognition that

small operations would have to be burdened with its implementation and

cost. In other words, all provisions of this proposed rule considered

the potential impact to small entities when consensus was being formed

on the rule-text. Because of this consideration, all requirements for

specific equipment (i.e., cab lights, water glass etc . . .) allow for

the operators to have one year from the effective date of the final

rule to implement these sections.

The largest impact and the greatest savings occur when a steam

locomotive transitions from the current rule to the proposed. The

proposed implementation for this is therefore gradually phased in. This

proposal would allow steam locomotive owners and operators the

flexibility necessary to bring their operations into compliance.

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

Pursuant to Section 312 of the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-121), FRA will issue a Small

Entity Compliance Guide to summarize the requirements of this rule. The

Guide will be made available to all affected small entities to assist

them in understanding the actions necessary to comply with the rule.

The Guide will in no way alter the requirements of the rule, but will

be a tool to assist small entities in the day-to-day application of

those requirements.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this final rule have

been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

The sections that contain the new information collection requirements

and the estimated time to fulfill each requirement are as follows:

[[Page 51426]]

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

Total

Respondent Total annual Average time per annual Total

CFR section universe responses response burden annual

hours burden cost

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

230.3--Implementation:

--Interim Flue Extensions. 82 owners/ 30 letters....... 30 minutes...... 15 $450

operators.

--Petitions for Special 82 owners/ 30 petitions..... 1 hour.......... 30 1,020

Consideration. operators.

--Agency Silence.......... 82 owners/ 1 notification... 1 hour.......... 1 30

operators.

230.12--Conditions for 82 owners/ 10 tags.......... 6 minutes....... 1 30

Movement of Non-Complying operators.

Steam Locomotives.

230.13--Inspection Reports:

--Recordkeeping........... 82 owners/ 3,650 forms...... 2............... 122 hours 3,660

operators.

230.14--31 Service Day 82 owners/ 100 reports...... 20 minutes...... 33 990

Inspection. operators.

--FRA Notification........ 82 owners/ 2 notifications.. 5 minutes....... .17 5

operators.

230.15--92 Day Service 82 owners/ 100 reports...... 20 minutes...... 33 990

Inspection. operators.

230.16--Annual Inspection..... 82 owners/ 100 reports...... 30 minutes...... 50 1,500

operators.

--FRA Notification........ 82 owners/ 100 notifications 5 minutes....... 8 240

operators.

230. 17--1472 Service Day 82 owners/ 15 forms......... 30 minutes...... 8 240

Inspection (Form No. 4). operators.

--Recordkeeping (Form No. 82 owners/ 15 reports....... 15 minutes...... 4 120

3). operators.

230.18--Service Day Report

(Form No. 5):

--Recordkeeping........... 82 owners/ 150 reports...... 15 minutes...... 38 1,140

operators.

230. 19--Posting of Copy:

--Recordkeeping........... 82 owners/ 300 forms........ 1 minute........ 5 150

operators.

230.20--Alteration Reports For 82 owners/ 5 reports........ 1 hour.......... 5 hours 150

Steam Locomotive Boilers operators.

(Form No. 19).

230.21--Steam Locomotive 82 owners/ 5 documents...... 2 minutes....... 17 5

Number Change. operators.

230.33--Welded Repairs and 82 owners/ 5 letters........ 50 minutes...... 1 30

Alterations. operators.

--Wastage and Flush 82 owners/ 12 letters....... 10.............. 1 60

Patches. operators.

230.34--Riveted Repairs and 82 owners/ 37 requests...... 5 minutes....... 3 90

Alterations. operators.

230.41--Flexible Staybolts

with Caps:

--Recordkeeping........... 82 owners/ 10 entries....... 1 minute........ .17 5

operators.

230.46--Badge Plates:

--Recordkeeping........... 82 owners/ 1 report......... 30 minutes...... .50 15

operators.

230.47--Boiler Number:

--Recordkeeping........... 82 owners/ 1 report......... 15 minutes...... .25 8

operators.

230.75--Stenciling Dates of

Tests and Cleaning:

--Recordkeeping........... 82 owners/ 54 tests......... 1 minute........ 1 30

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.