Inspection and Maintenance Standards for Steam Locomotives

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing new Steam Locomotive Inspection and Maintenance

Standards in order to update and enhance its steam locomotive

regulatory program. In recognition of the reduced frequency of use of

steam locomotives in today's transportation system, the revised

standards--which incorporate consensus recommendations of the Railroad

Safety Advisory Committee's Tourist and Historic Working Group--relax

certain inspection requirements and tighten others. Significant changes

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, with certain exceptions, of waivers for

steam boilers, steam locomotives and their appurtenances; 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 locomotives, steam locomotive boilers, and steam

locomotive appurtenances. Certain of the 1978 inspection standards

remain substantively intact but are being relocated to new sections and

given new section numbers. Due to the magnitude of the changes made,

these newly issued standards replace the 1978 standards in their

entirety.

DATES: This regulation is effective January 18, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Any petition for reconsideration should reference FRA Docket

No. RSSL-98-1, and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Clerk,

Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW, Mail Stop 10, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Scerbo, Motive Power &

Equipment Specialist, Federal Railroad Administration, (telephone 202-

493-6249); Paul F. Byrnes, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel,

FRA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC, 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. Historical Background

The Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act was passed by a Congress

concerned over the ever-increasing rate of serious injury and death on

the nation's railroads in the early 1900s. In his annual message to

Congress 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, the

only rule or regulation governing the inspection and maintenance of

steam locomotives was the Ash Pan Act, 45 U.S.C. S. 17 (1908), repealed

Pub. L. 97-468 (1983), which prescribed the method for attaching ash

pans to steam locomotive boilers. Acting in response to President

Taft's speech, Congress passed the Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act

(LBIA) on February 17, 1911. The LBIA, enactment of which was initially

opposed by locomotive owners and operators, brought all steam

locomotive boilers under Federal jurisdiction and established the

Bureau of Locomotive Inspections.

The LBIA, which became effective on July 1, 1911, was limited in

scope to steam locomotive boilers. Despite its restricted coverage, the

LBIA had an immediate, positive impact on safety with the number of

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

appurtenances declining sharply after its passage. However, the number

of incidents involving failures of locomotive parts other than boilers

and related appurtenances continued to increase, and railroad labor

soon appealed to Congress to expand the LBIA to cover the entire steam

locomotive and tender and all its parts and appurtenances. Although the

railroad owners and operators were strongly opposed to this expansion

in the Act's coverage, a bill amending the LBIA to incorporate the

requested changes was passed by Congress and signed into law by

President Woodrow 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. A review 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, in combination with the 1915

amendments to the LBIA, formed the basis for the Interstate Commerce

Commission (ICC) rules on inspection and maintenance of steam

locomotives and tenders: rules, that with some modification, continue

in effect to this day. When the FRA came into existence in 1967 as part

of the newly formed DOT, it adopted all ICC rules, interpretations, and

instructions pertaining to railroads that were in effect at that time.

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. Although the

steam locomotive regulations were removed from the CFR in 1980, FRA has

continued to enforce them. For purposes of clarity, whenever those

removed standards are referenced in this rule, they will be referred to

as ``the 1978 standards'' since there is no current CFR citation for

them.

At present, there are approximately 150 steam locomotives in

operation in the United States. Most of them are used in tourist or

historic service on an intermittent, seasonal basis. Several years ago,

the Engineering Standards Committee (ESC), a task group of the NBBPVI

comprised of steam locomotive operators, petitioned the FRA to change

the then current rules on inspection and maintenance of steam

locomotives to more realistically reflect the current use and

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

to work with the ESC to consider revisions to these standards. After

FRA established the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) in 1996,

the subject of steam locomotive inspection and maintenance was

identified as one fit 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 decided that the

ESC, and the FRA representatives working with it, would become a task

force assigned to the RSAC's Tourist and Historic Working Group.

II. The Railroad Safety Advisory Committee

The RSAC's mandate is to provide recommendations and advice to the

[[Page 62829]]

Administrator of the FRA on the development of FRA's railroad safety

regulatory programs, 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

RSAC is presently 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.

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

During the July 24, 1996 meeting of the RSAC, FRA tasked it with

recommending revisions to the regulations governing locomotive

inspection standards for steam-powered locomotives (49 CFR part 230).

The stated purpose of this task was to promote the safe operation of

tourist and historic rail operations, including ``such additions and

deletions [to the regulations] as may be warranted by appropriate data

and analysis.'' In its Task Statement (Task No. 96-5) to RSAC, the

agency instructed it to refer this task to the pre-existing Tourist and

Historic Railroads working group (``THWG'' or ``The Group''). The THWG

is comprised of the following organizations:

Association of American Private Railcar Owners

American Short Line Railroad Association

Association of American Railroads (AAR)

Association of Railway Museums

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers

FRA

Tourist Railway Association Inc. (TRAIN)

The THWG voted during its April 1996 meeting to officially endorse

the ESC (which had been examining the issues of steam locomotive

inspection and maintenance standards outside of the RSAC arena) and

have it serve as a task force reporting to the Group. The Steam

Standards Task Force (task force) is comprised of representatives from

the organizations listed below:

Valley Railroad Company

Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge

Union Pacific Railroad (UP)

Strasburg Railroad

Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance Company

NBBPVI

ABB/Combustion Engineering

Smithsonian Institution

FRA.

The task force met approximately seven times over an eighteen month

period to develop recommendations for a proposed rule. During these

meetings, the task force considered a previous ESC proposal to revise

part 230, which had been presented to FRA in the early 1990's. 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. The technical details supporting certain of the

recommendations that were discussed by the task force may be found in

the public docket of this rulemaking. Those issues designated by FRA as

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

During an early meeting, the task force identified a number of

objectives in 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 not to follow the rules;

(4) Encouraging the use of new technologies; and

(5) Producing a more clearly written and understandable rule that

is more enforceable.

These goals are reflected throughout this document and are embodied

in the changes and additions made to part 230.

On September 19, 1997, the THWG informed FRA of the group members'

unanimous agreement that the task force's proposed recommended rule

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

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

proposed preamble should be included in the package presented to RSAC

at the January 27, 1998 meeting. Following the presentation, the RSAC

formulated a consensus recommendation for a proposed rulemaking which

was forwarded to the Administrator of FRA.

IV. The Proposed Rule

Pursuant to section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, FRA

published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal

Register on September 25, 1998, detailing the agency's intent to issue

new regulations for steam locomotive inspection and maintenance. In the

NPRM, FRA solicited written comments from all interested parties and

provided notice of its intention to conduct a public hearing on the

proposed rulemaking only if so requested. A total of 20 commenters

responded to the NPRM, including: The AAR; Association of Railway

Museums, Inc.; John C. Boykin; Grand Canyon Railway; Locomotive and

Tower Preservation Fund, LTD; Michigan State Trust Fund for Railway

Preservation, Inc.; Minnesota Transportation Museum, Inc.; NBBPVI;

North Star Rail; Ohio Central Railroad System; San Diego Railroad

Museum; St. Louis Steam Train Association; Tennessee Valley Railroad;

UP; United States Department of the Interior; and Wisconsin Railway

Preservation Trust. Although FRA had originally believed that a public

hearing would be unnecessary, a number of interested parties requested

the opportunity to present their views at such a forum, and a public

hearing was held in Corpus Christi, Texas on February 4, 1999. Seven

organizations presented testimony at the public hearing. Those

testifying included: Austin and Texas Central Railroad; Diversified

Rail Services; Grand Canyon Railway; Ohio Central Railway System;

Tennessee Valley Railroad; TRAIN; and UP.

Because of the number of substantive comments received during the

notice and comment period and at the public hearing, the task force

suggested and FRA agreed to meet to address the issues raised and to

consider changes to the proposal for inclusion in the final rule. The

meeting was held in Columbus, Ohio on March 11-12, 1999. Among the

issues addressed at this meeting were: Implementation of the rule;

Preemption of state oversight of steam locomotive operations; Waivers

of requirements; Responsibility for compliance; Definitions of terms

used; Movement of non-complying locomotives; Thirty-one (31) service

day inspection requirements; Ninety-two (92) service day inspection

requirements; Annual Inspection requirements; One thousand four hundred

and seventy-two (1472) service day inspection requirements; Alteration

and repair reports for steam locomotive boilers; Responsibility for

general construction and safe working pressure; Maximum allowable

stress on stays and braces; Tensile strength of shell plates; Maximum

shearing strength of rivets; Higher shearing strength of rivets; Times

and methods of inspection; Welded repairs and alterations; Hydrostatic

testing of boilers; Broken staybolts; Times and methods of staybolt

testing; The number and location of water

[[Page 62830]]

glasses and gauge cocks; When to require boiler washing; Inspection,

repair and/or replacement of arch tubes, water bar tubes, circulators,

and thermic siphons; Steam locomotive speed indicators; Testing main

reservoirs; Time of cleaning; Stenciling dates of testing and cleaning;

Fire doors and mechanical stokers; Required illumination; Throttles;

The draw gear between the steam locomotive and tender; Main, side, and

valve motion rods; The steam locomotive frame; Tender trucks; Feed

water tanks; and Inspection requirements.

The discussion that follows examines in detail comments received,

the task force's consideration of and response to those comments, and

those changes (if any) FRA is making in the final rule as a result of

the comments received. This discussion is organized by the relevant

section of the rule.

In order to make the final rule clearer (and therefore easier to

comply with) FRA explains here the rationale and the deliberative

thought processes of the task force in reaching its conclusions. Unless

otherwise noted, the agency agrees with the reasoning and explanations

advanced by the task force for the revisions and amendments the task

force recommended be made to the 1978 standards. The task force's

deliberations were thorough and deliberative in nature, though

frequently marked by spirited debate. Throughout this document, FRA has

tried to recapture as much of that debate as is relevant and practical.

V. Reorganization of Part 230

The 1978 standards were 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 revisions to part 230, the

agency has restructured the rule so that it contain a ``general'' part,

Subpart A, which includes those provisions that are applicable 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

found in Subpart A of this rule were formerly contained in Subparts A

and B of the 1978 standards. These revisions are designed to reduce and

eliminate identified redundancies in the 1978 standards, thereby making

the rule easier to read and comprehend.

VI. Major Issues

A. Responsibility for Compliance

In the NPRM, FRA struck the term ``railroad company'' throughout

the body of the rule and replaced it with the term ``locomotive owner

and/or operator.'' FRA has retained this term in the final rule,

consistent with the task force's recommendations, to reflect the

changes in steam locomotive operating practices. Very few railroad

companies own and/or operate steam locomotives today. While some

tourist railroads own and operate their own locomotives, most

frequently steam locomotives are owned and/or operated by entities

other than the railroad on whose line they operate. These entities

range all the way from wealthy private enthusiasts to state historical

agencies. Sometimes the owner of the equipment actually runs (operates)

the steam railroad operation; in other cases, an individual or

individuals are hired (or volunteer) to do so. This means that in

many--if not most--instances, the locomotive owner and/or operator is

in a much better position than the railroad company to ensure

compliance with various regulatory requirements. In recognition of this

reality, the task force recommended that the agency more specifically

affix responsibility for compliance on those who are primarily

responsible for the operation of the steam locomotive and tender. In

most cases, that party will be the locomotive owner and/or operator.

The task force members debated how to best express 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.

In addition, as provided by statute, this rule makes clear that a

railroad may also be held liable for permitting any entity to use a

noncomplying locomotive on its line (see section-by-section discussion

of Sec. 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, regardless of whether that

happens to be the railroad on which the steam locomotive is operating.

It is important to note that the applicability section, Sec. 230.2,

which the agency modified from that originally submitted by the task

force, uses the term ``railroad'' to denote where the rule applies. As

explained in the section-by-section analysis of the applicability

section, FRA is making this change to harmonize all of its

applicability sections. Since this section is intended to explain where

the rule applies, it does not affect the primary compliance

responsibility, which remains with the owner and operator. Therefore,

FRA believes that this change does not substantially change the task

force's proposal to the agency.

B. Inspection Scheme

In issuing this rule, FRA has revised the inspection scheme for

steam locomotive boilers to reflect the changed nature of modern steam

locomotive operations. The 1978 standards required steam locomotive

boilers to be inspected at various time periods that were 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, greatly reducing the need for frequent inspections

rigidly tied to the passage of calendar days. Under the new inspection

scheme, required locomotive inspections are based on the number of

``service days'' a steam locomotive accrues, with various intermediate

calendar inspection requirements retained to ensure an adequate level

of safety.

1. Service Days

This new inspection scheme is underpinned by the concept of a

``service day''--defined as ``any day the locomotive has steam pressure

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

operating practice requires that a steam locomotive boiler be slowly

heated before use and slowly cooled after use to avoid the damage rapid

heating and cooling can inflict on the boiler, a locomotive that runs

on weekends may accrue as many as three service days for each day of

actual ``use.'' For example, a steam 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 while it

cools down after it runs. Under this scenario, the locomotive would

accrue three service days although only in actual ``use'' for one day.

Some operators were concerned that adopting this service day concept

could create an incentive for operators to ``dump'' their fires at the

end of a day operating the steam

[[Page 62831]]

locomotive in order to avoid incurring an extra service day. The task

force was of the opinion, however, that the financial cost (in terms of

stress and damage to the locomotive boilers from such behavior) to

operators who did so dump their fires would likely outweigh any

inspection time period benefits they might gain from such dumping. The

task force also expressed the 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, in fact, be easier on the boiler than banking the fire.

2. Daily Inspection

The new ``daily inspection'' section sets forth the daily

inspection requirements for steam locomotive owners and/or operators.

The only daily inspection requirement in the 1978 standards was that

the steam locomotive and tender be inspected ``after each trip, or

day's work.'' The new section retains the general daily inspection

requirement for each day that a steam locomotive is ``offered for

use,'' but adds a number of additional specific ``pre-departure''

inspection requirements that must be complied with at the beginning of

each day the locomotive is used. This ``pre-departure'' inspection

regime emphasizes the need to examine certain safety critical items

such as the water glasses and gauge cocks, the boiler feedwater

delivery systems, the air compressors and governors, and the air brake

system on a daily basis.

3. 31 and 92 Service Day Inspections

This rule also establishes 31 and 92 service day inspection

requirements. These are roughly comparable to the monthly and

trimonthly inspections in the 1978 standards.

4. Annual Inspections

In addition, this rule establishes annual inspection requirements

similar to the 1978 standards: requiring that a steam locomotive be

inspected after 368 calendar days have elapsed since the time of the

prior annual inspection. The 1978 standards required that certain items

be inspected at least ``once every 12 months.'' The revised annual

inspection, as do all the other periodic inspections, incorporates the

inspection requirements of those inspections required to be conducted

more frequently. Thus, locomotives that are not operated often enough

to accrue either 31 or 92 service days in a 368 day period will have

those inspections conducted, at a minimum, once every 368 calendar

days. In addition, this rule extends 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 required that a steam locomotive boiler

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

to be inspected after 48 calendar months, within 5 consecutive years;

and the boiler exterior to be inspected every 5 years, or, if the

locomotive is out of service for at least one full month during that

time, after 60 calendar months within 6 consecutive years). This

inspection was 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. FRA is amending this provision by requiring

that these inspections be conducted when the locomotive has accrued

1472 service days or when a period not to exceed 15 years has elapsed

since the last 1472 service day inspection was performed. These

revisions are being made in order to take into account the amount of

actual usage a steam locomotive receives. The 15 year maximum, beyond

which time a 1472 service day inspection must be conducted, is based on

the task force's recommendations.

FRA is requiring the completion, verification and updating of the

locomotive's FRA Form No. 4, the ``specification card'' required by

Sec. 230.54 of the 1978 standards, as part of the 1472 service day

inspection. The updated FRA Form No. 4 must be filed within 1 month

after the completion of the 1472 service day inspection. The agency is

making clear that the verification and updating of this form as

necessary to reflect the current condition of the boiler is required as

part of every 1472 service day inspection. This recordkeeping

requirement is not actually new, it merely clarifies and makes express

what the 1978 standards required. Although the 1978 standards did not

expressly require periodic surveying to verify the accuracy of the

current form or the updating of any changes thereto, the need to do so

was implicit in the requirement of a signed testimonial that all

information provided on the form was true and accurate. In addition ,

the 1978 standards actually required that the FRA Form No. 4 be updated

to reflect boiler repairs or changes that might affect the FRA Form No.

4 data. However, because some locomotive owners and/or operators may

not understand that the 1978 standards required that the FRA Form No. 4

be kept up-to-date and accurate, this change in language may be

perceived by some as imposing new recordkeeping requirements.

FRA has also determined that safety concerns dictate that there be

a competency requirement for the person or persons conducting a 1472

service day inspection and for the person or persons surveying the

boiler for the purpose of recalculating a FRA Form No. 4. Accordingly,

this rule specifically provides that only competent individuals may

perform 1472 service day inspections and/or surveys of locomotive

boilers in order to evaluate the accuracy of information on the

locomotives' current FRA Form No. 4s.

6. FRA Inspection Oversight

Concerned that an adequate level of safety be maintained in light

of the extended inspection intervals allowed under this rule, the task

force recommended that FRA increase the amount of oversight it

exercises over steam locomotive inspections. FRA shares the task

force's concerns and is, therefore, requiring that the agency be

afforded the opportunity to be present during certain periodic steam

locomotive inspections. In the case of the 31 service day inspection,

FRA will be responsible for communicating to the steam locomotive owner

and/or operator that the agency wants to be notified prior to the

inspection and given an opportunity to attend. Upon notification, the

steam locomotive owner and/or operator must provide FRA with the

anticipated date and location for the inspection. Once that information

is conveyed to the agency, any subsequent change in the inspection

schedule must be mutually agreed upon. FRA believes this approach

balances competing interests and comports with the task force

recommendations. In formulating their recommendation, the task force

members sought to provide steam locomotive owners and/or operators with

the flexibility to conduct their business without unreasonable

interference by FRA scheduling demands while also insuring that the

owners and/or operators would act in good faith and take all reasonable

measures to accommodate FRA requests to be present at periodic

locomotive inspections.

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

and/or operator is required to provide FRA with one month's prior

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

has the option of notifying the owner and/or operator of its desire to

be present for the

[[Page 62832]]

inspection. At that point, the steam locomotive owner and/or operator

must provide FRA with a scheduled date and location for each aspect of

the inspection. As with the 31 service day inspection, once the annual

inspection is scheduled, any changes to that schedule have to be

mutually agreed upon.

This notification scheme is designed to allow the agency the

opportunity to observe the steam locomotive owner and/or operator

performing the various required inspections and to allow the FRA field

personnel directly responsible for inspecting steam locomotive

operations to work cooperatively with the regulated community. Being

able to observe the inspections firsthand also provides FRA with more

accurate and up-to-date information on the condition of the steam

locomotive fleet operating today.

C. Elimination of the Special Waiver Process

As part of this rule, FRA has eliminated all the special waivers

that were available under part 230. The 1978 standards contained a

section that allowed for the ``modification of rules'' for ``roads

operating less than 5 locomotives'' upon a showing that conditions

warrant it. This language, which predated the agency's formal waiver

process (codified at 49 CFR 211.41), was originally intended to apply

only to the subpart addressing the steam locomotive and tender. In

addition, the flue removal section in the 1978 standards provided for

the granting of extensions of the time period for removing flues and

for conducting the comprehensive boiler inspection, upon formal

application to the ICC's Director of Railroad Safety. One consequence

of this waiver process, which was administered locally by the agency's

eight regions, was that locomotive owners and/or operators were able to

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

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

requests. These waivers will now expire unless submitted to FRA for

reevaluation prior to the effective date of this rule. By eliminating

the waiver provision in part 230, the agency has accomplished several

things: (1) Provided notice to the regulated community that the

agency's part 211 waiver process is the appropriate vehicle for gaining

relief from the requirements of this part; (2) gained assurance that

FRA will have knowledge of and the ability to coordinate on a uniform,

nationwide basis the consideration and granting of all steam locomotive

waivers applied for; and (3) ensured that steam locomotives are

regulated consistently. The task force and FRA also believe that,

although the extensions and waivers previously granted under this part

will generally no longer be necessary given the flexibility being

afforded by the proposed new inspection scheme, when an owner and/or

operator believes such a waiver is necessary, such requests are best

addressed by the centralized waiver process provided for in part 211.

D. Standard for Repairs

The agency is establishing 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.''

The task force considered simply requiring that repairs be made in

accordance with the National Board Inspection Code (NBIC ) published by

the NBBPVI or in conformance with the standards established by the

American Petroleum Institute (API). However, the task force finally

decided to recommend that the agency allow steam locomotive owners and

operators to perform repairs in accordance with established railroad

practices that have been successfully utilized over time, thereby

affording industry members a measure of flexibility. This proposal

reflects that decision. While there was some concern about whether the

term ``accepted'' was too vague, the task force felt that the industry

members would know what was required to ensure that repairs are

properly made. Due to the small size and cohesiveness of the steam

locomotive community, the task force 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 acceptable level of quality in the

repairs made. Section 230.29 of the final rule reflects the task

force's recommendations. Finally, as used in this proposal,

``established railroad practices'' means those practices used by one or

more railroads over a period of time that can 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 will be responsible for

proving that the standard is established within the railroad community

and that it is appropriate for the repair under consideration.

For the first time, FRA is expressly allowing 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. Therefore, expressly allowing welding on unstayed portions of

the boiler is a fairly radical change from the existing standards.

Under Sec. 230.33 of this final rule, ``Welded Repairs and

Alterations,'' FRA is requiring prior approval for any welding done on

unstayed portions of high carbon boilers (greater than 0.25 percent

carbon). FRA believes prior approval is necessary since 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 percent carbon) are not so restricted. For both low and high

carbon boilers, however, FRA is imposing a repair standard that allows

the locomotive owner and/or operator a measure of flexibility while

simultaneously insuring an adequate minimum level of safety.

Accordingly, the agency is requiring that any welded repairs to

unstayed portions of the boiler be performed in ``accordance with an

accepted national standard for boiler repairs.'' This modifies 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 sought to impose a measure of quality

control that would provide assurance that all welding is performed

properly. Because there are several national organizations that

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

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

national standard for boiler repairs,'' therefore, means that all the

physical, mechanical, and documentation requirements delineated in a

particular standard such as the NBIC have been satisfied. The task

force considered recommending that FRA simply adopt the NBIC standard

but decided that the financial burden imposed on owners and/or

operators 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. Accordingly, the task force decided to simply

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

imposing the reporting or third-party inspection requirements of the

standard. FRA agrees with and has adopted the task force's position.

[[Page 62833]]

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

for the welds conducted, and at one point considered recommending that

all welds on unstayed portions of the boiler be radiographed. The task

force also considered incorporating an American Society of Mechanical

Engineers (ASME) radiography standard (which includes procedures for

conducting radiography of welds), but eventually decided that so doing

would make this part too complicated. The task force felt that doing so

was unnecessary because all ``accepted national standards'' include

radiography where necessary. Accordingly, the final rule mandates only

that any radiography required under the accepted national standard

chosen for the welded repair at issue be so performed.

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

national standard for boiler repairs'' standard but felt that the risk

of such abuse was low. This belief is based upon the clear requirement

in this section that locomotive owners and/or operators be able to

establish through documentation compliance with such a national

standard, i.e., point to the procedures they followed in performing a

particular weld. The locomotive owner and/or operator will bear the

burden of proving to FRA that they correctly followed a particular,

relevant national standard. Accordingly, this section simply requires

that the locomotive owner and/or operator adhere to whatever the

particular national standard followed dictates--from pre-weld

treatments and welder qualifications through post-weld inspection

requirements. The locomotive owner and/or operator will be required to

make a showing that they satisfied the accepted national standard upon

request by an FRA inspector.

E. Allowances Encouraging the Use of New Technologies

The task force felt strongly that the 1978 standards, which had not

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

the new technologies which have developed during that time.

Accordingly, the task force believed this rule should address recent

innovations in inspection and maintenance methodology and technology.

The task force was also concerned that compliance with the 1978

standards may have resulted in excessive wear of steam locomotives,

locomotive boilers, and locomotive appurtenances. In addition, the task

force felt that the changed nature of steam locomotive operations today

provided additional justification for updating the rule to reflect

modern operating circumstances and for encouraging the use of non-

destructive technologies to satisfy various inspection requirements.

Accordingly, in many sections of this rule, FRA is encouraging the use

of advanced technologies by granting additional regulatory flexibility

where such technologies are utilized. In some cases, however, the task

force recommended, and the proposal incorporates, mandatory non-

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

sections so 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 rule addresses, for the

first time, the issue of qualification requirements for individuals

making repairs to steam locomotives. The NTSB and the task force both

felt strongly that the rule should establish minimum competency

requirements for individuals making certain safety critical repairs.

Thus, wherever the relevant national standards include qualification

requirements, steam locomotive owners and/or operators making such

repairs will 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 doing so was

not necessary at this time. FRA agrees with the task force's position,

and, therefore, is not mandating more explicit qualification

requirements.

G. Implementation Schedule

This rule provides for a gradual phase-in of part 230 in order to

provide locomotive owners and operators the flexibility necessary to

bring their operations into compliance (see section 230.3 for a full

discussion of the implementation schedule). Some requirements must be

complied with no later than one year after the effective date for the

final rule. In addition, FRA is allowing locomotive owners and/or

operators two years after the effective date for the final rule in

which to request flue removal extensions. Finally, locomotive owners

and/or operators that qualify to file a Petition for Special

Consideration will be required to do so within one year of the

effective date of the final rule, and the agency will have one year

from the date of filing to consider and respond to any such petitions.

VII. NTSB 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 TRAIN, promote awareness of and

compliance with the Hours of Service Act. (R-96-56).

(5) In cooperation with the NBBPVI and the TRAIN, explore

feasibility of requiring a progressive crown stay feature in steam

locomotives. (R-96-57).

(6) In cooperation with the NBBPVI 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 NBBPVI 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 rule reflects the careful consideration of these

recommendations, both by FRA and the task force who, through the full

RSAC, 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, representatives from the

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. In

response to FRA's request, the advisory committee task force

recommended, and FRA has adopted, the following steps:

R-96-53 Water Glasses--Based on task force support for this

[[Page 62834]]

recommendation and FRA concurrence, section 230.51 of this rule

establishes a minimum requirement of two sight glasses or a sight glass

and a water column on each operating steam locomotive.

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 that the task force recommendations and FRA inspection

practices adequately address the condition of the boiler interior.

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

support for this recommendation, and this rule clearly describes basic

responsibilities and procedures. In addition, the Volpe Center has

produced a training video for steam-locomotive operators for FRA. The

video covers procedures required during daily inspections and pre-trip

inspections in order 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 task force endorsed putting together a

``Recommended Practice Manual'' (RPM) for many issues that this

proposal does not address. FRA 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

their support for the proposal that FRA working in tandem with the

TRAIN to promote awareness of the Hours of Service Act. Although issues

of compliance with the Hours of Service Act are beyond the scope of

this rule, FRA does wish to state that it 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 because of time constraints were not able to address

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. FRA's

preference is 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, at present,

those regulations only apply to railroads that operate locomotives on

standard gage track that is part of the general system of rail

transportation. Administering a technically elaborate certification

program that would ultimately affect the operation of less than 175

locomotives does not appear to be a wise use of scarce federal

resources. FRA encourages the Tourist & Historic Working Group to carry

forward this discussion, with the objectives of (1) supporting private

initiatives and; (2) offering technical support for sound training

programs (including the evaluation of current competencies).

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

for this recommendation and acted in partnership with FRA through the

task force to accomplish it. FRA submitted responses to the NTSB's

recommendations. 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's

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.

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 FRA 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 a boiler 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 would not have been 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 about 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, FRA remains willing to consider specific data and

analysis submitted in support of this recommendation.

NTSB's recommendation R-96-57, if adopted, would have required 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 sufficient to support

such a mandate at this time. The agency, after consultation with the

task force, conveyed to the NTSB its willingness to explore this

[[Page 62835]]

issue fully at some later date, based on its belief that it lacked time

and resources to adequately address this issue at this time. The NTSB

found this response unacceptable. FRA told the NTSB it would appreciate

the Board's making available staff assistance to the task force to help

outline the steps necessary to conduct this evaluation, but no such

assistance was forthcoming. The agency remains open to this issue but

believes that more research is necessary before it can conclude, one

way or another, that progressive crown stays are a cost-beneficial

safety enhancement. In the NPRM, the agency requested that any party

with data or analysis related to progressive crown stays, and their

role in mitigating boiler failures, submit it to the agency for

consideration: no such information was received.

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

develop a certification program for steam locomotive operators and

maintenance personnel. After due consideration, FRA has decided in

favor of a voluntary certification program. Given the small number of

affected entities and the scarcity of federal resources available to

administer a technically elaborate certification program, the agency

believes a mandatory certification program is unnecessary at this time.

The task force, in association with the Volpe Center, has already

created and produced 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 subsequently mailed to

each steam locomotive owner or operator for whom the agency had user

fee records. This was but a first step in response to the NTSB's

recommendation. The agency will continue to work with the regulated

community to carry forward this discussion and, as such, supports those

private initiatives offering technical support for training programs,

including the evaluation of current competencies of steam locomotive

operators and maintenance personnel. In the NPRM, FRA requested that

any party supporting the NTSB's recommendation submit data and analysis

indicating the need for a more prescriptive approach: again, no such

information was received.

Comments and Responses

The discussion that follows examines in detail comments received,

the task force's consideration of and response to those comments, and

those changes (if any) FRA is making in the final rule as a result of

the comments received.

Section 230.3 Implementation

The provisions of this section generated a number of comments and

counter-proposals from interested parties. In the NPRM, FRA proposed a

staggered implementation schedule for placing the new rule into effect.

Under this schedule, locomotive owners and/or operators would be

required to perform a 1472 service day inspection meeting the

requirements of Sec. 230.17 at that time when the locomotive flues

would have had to be removed under Sec. 230.10 of the 1978 revisions.

Subsection (c)-(d) of the proposal provided for a 3-year period during

which a steam locomotive owner and/or operator would be allowed to file

a petition for special consideration of boiler inspections performed in

accordance with Sec. 230.17 within the 3-year period prior to the final

rule's publication. Several commenters expressed concern about when

steam locomotive owners and/or operators would be required to perform

1472 service day inspections under the new rule. Grand Canyon Railway

commented that any locomotive in full compliance with Sec. 230.17 of

the proposed rule should have any flue time remaining under Sec. 230.10

incorporated into the time allowed before having to perform a 1472

service day inspection. Grand Canyon Railway also stated that the 1472

service day period is a valid service time for steam locomotive boiler

flues and should be applied to all steam locomotives with original flue

time remaining within a 5-year maximum period. Minnesota Transportation

Museum, Inc. commented that this section should allow a steam

locomotive with existing flue time under Sec. 230.10 of the 1978

revision to incorporate that flue time under the new 1472 service day

period. North Star Rail commented that the implementation section, as

proposed, would have its greatest impact on the newest, largest, least

operated steam locomotives. North Star Rail also commented that if the

new regulations are to be based on service days, then incorporation of

properly documented locomotives meeting all aspects of the new

regulations should also be based on actual documented service days.

Wisconsin Railway Preservation Trust commented that the proposed 1472

service day inspection requirement needs to be changed to take into

account the economic circumstances of the regulated community and the

potential inequities of the rule as presently written. A number of the

comments received addressed the issue of when the 3-year period for

special consideration should run from. The Association of Railway

Museums, Inc. stated that the period of eligibility for filing a

petition for ``special consideration'' should begin

1/27/96. Grand Canyon Railway commented that the 3-year period is

arbitrary and should be revised to take into account the actual date of

publication of the final rule. Michigan State Trust for Railway

Preservation, Inc. expressed its belief that the period for special

consideration should be increased to 4 years or more depending upon the

date of publication of the final rule. Minnesota Transportation Museum,

Inc. observed that the 3 year period for consideration was arbitrary.

NBBPVI, Ohio Central Railroad, Tennessee Valley Railroad, and UP all

commented that the final rule needs to take into account delays in

getting the rule published. NBBPVI suggested that January 1, 1999 was a

reasonable date for implementation of the 3 year period for special

consideration. San Diego Railroad Museum commented that the time period

in which to file a petition for special consideration should be

increased to 4 or 5 years, or alternatively, start 3 years prior to the

date of publication of the proposed rule.

At the Columbus, Ohio meeting, several members of the task force

also expressed concern about the issue of when the time for filing

special petitions for consideration would begin. It was suggested that

the date of publication of the NPRM was the most equitable time to

relate back from since that could be considered as the date that the

regulated community first had constructive knowledge of FRA's

intentions. The task force was agreeable to that proposal, reaching

consensus on a recommendation to FRA that the period for filing special

petitions for consideration extend back 3 years from the date of

publication of the NPRM. FRA, after due consideration of the comments

received and the task forces recommendations, has decided to adopt the

date of publication of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as the date

the 3 year period for special consideration will relate back from. This

means that any locomotive owner and/or operator whose locomotive was

fully or partially in compliance with Sec. 230.17 (1472 service day

inspection requirements) between September 25, 1995 and September 25,

1998 may petition FRA for special consideration.

Section 230.5 Preemptive Effect

This section of the NPRM, addressing the preemptive effect of the

proposed rule, generated a large number of comments concerning state

regulation of and/or enforcement of state boiler codes

[[Page 62836]]

against steam locomotive owners and/or operators. Many of the comments

received took exception to FRA's stated intention of allowing state

inspection and regulation of steam locomotives operations in those

areas where FRA chooses not to exercise jurisdiction. A number of

commenters took issue with the statement in this section that this part

comes under 49 U.S.C. 20106's exception from preemption of an

additional or more stringent State law, regulation, or order that is

necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local safety hazard; is

not incompatible with a law, regulation, or order of the United States

Government; and does not unreasonably burden interstate commerce.

UP submitted comments which were supported in whole by the AAR. In

its comments, UP stated that Sec. 230.6 of the proposed rule takes too

narrow a view of preemption, drawing on the Federal Railroad Safety Act

(FRSA), but failing to take into account the total preemptive effect of

the Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act (LBIA) and the Federal Safety

Appliance Act (FSAA). UP also noted that neither the 1970 passage of

the FRSA nor the 1994 recodification of the federal railroad safety

laws changed the preemptive effect of the LBIA or the FSAA. The AAR

observed that it is well settled that the federal railroad safety laws

and regulations governing locomotive parts and appurtenances and safety

appliances preempt the field and foreclose any state regulation

thereof.

Several commenters expressed concern over having to comply with

State standards. The Austin and Texas Central Railroad expressed

concern that this section, as written, would allow states to hold steam

locomotive owners and/or operators to different and possibly

conflicting standards. Diversified Rail Services commented that

allowing state regulation could impose unreasonable financial burdens

and result in locomotive owners and/or operators having to comply with

conflicting state and federal standards. Grand Canyon Railway opined

that allowing the States to regulate steam locomotives was undesirable,

would be disruptive to operations and severely burdensome on steam

locomotive owners and/or operators forced to comply with conflicting,

inconsistent state and federal regulations. The Michigan State Trust

for Railway Preservation, Inc. commented that state regulation of

standard gauge steam locomotives would impede interstate travel by

steam locomotives. The Michigan State Trust also stated that the

preemption language which tracked that of the Federal Railroad Safety

Act should be deleted. The NBBPVI was concerned that, under the

proposed rule, states and local authorities could apply more stringent

rules, thereby conflicting with the goal of establishing national steam

locomotive standards. North Star Rail stated that the wording of the

preemption section should be consistent with the language of other

rules such as the Track Standards Rule. Ohio Central Railroad System's

comment was that the preemption language as proposed should be stricken

since there is no need to involve other authorities. St. Louis Steam

Train Association commented that having to follow more than one set of

rules and regulations invites misinterpretation and confusion over

which rules apply. Tennessee Valley Railroad observed that it has had

firsthand experience dealing with state boiler inspectors. Tennessee

Valley Railroad further noted that in its experience, the state boiler

inspectors had applied the state boiler code provisions--with

methodology and inspection methods designed for stationary boilers--to

steam locomotives, resulting in steam locomotive owners and/or

operators being required to make repairs which were in conflict with

FRA's repair requirements. The TRAIN organization commented that it was

concerned that the preemption language in the proposed rule would allow

the states to come in and create problems for tourist railroad owners

and/or operators.

Although the preemption issue was discussed, the task force decided

not to issue any recommendation, believing that preemption is a purely

legal issue involving the interplay of state and federal law: an area

in which the task force has no particular expertise. FRA recognizes the

concerns raised by the commenters and acknowledges that the LBIA has

been consistently interpreted for over 70 years as totally preempting

the field of locomotive safety, extending to the design, the

construction, and the material of every part of the locomotive and

tender and all appurtenances thereof.

The proposed rule cited the standard for preemption under the

former FRSA (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 20106). That standard allows

additional or more stringent State regulations, under certain limited

conditions, even where FRA has issued a rule or order covering a

subject matter. By contrast, the LBIA (which has no preemption

provision) has been held to preempt the entire field of locomotive

safety. See Napier v. Atlantic Coast R.R., 272 U.S. 605 (1926).

This rule is issued under the authority of both Sec. 20103 (the

former FRSA regulatory provision) and Secs. 20701-20703. While the

preemption provision Sec. 20103 would ordinarily set the standard for

preemption of a rule issued under Sec. 20701, the broader field

preemption provided by the LBIA (as interpreted by the courts) seems

the more appropriate standard to apply in light of this rule's subject

matter. Field preemption is not dependent upon agency action; it is

statutory in nature.

However, any preemption issue is fundamentally a question of

legislative intent. Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293, 299

(1988). Executive Order 13132 on Federalism instructs Federal agencies

to construe statutes as preemptive only where there is an express

preemption provision or clear evidence that Congress intended to

preempt. FRA is not aware of any indication that, in enacting the LBIA,

Congress intended to preempt State regulation of rail operations over

which FRA (or its predecessor, the ICC) had never exercised

jurisdiction. Insular tourist railroads are a type of rail operation

that includes theme parks, narrow gage lines, railroad museums, and

amusement park operations. FRA has not exercised jurisdiction over

these operations and has no present intention of doing so in the future

(as made clear in the revisions to part 209 as amended by Appendix A to

this final rule). When first enacted, the LBIA applied only to ``common

carriers engaged in interstate commerce by rail.'' Napier v. Atlantic

Coast R.R., 272 U.S. 605 (1926). As amended by the Rail Safety

Improvement Act of 1988 (Pub. L. No. 100-342), the LBIA now applies to

railroads as defined in 49 U.S.C. 20102. The stated intent of that

amendment was to make the LBIA applicable to any railroad covered by

the FRSA. However, there is no indication that, in broadening the reach

of the LBIA, Congress intended to broaden the LBIA's field preemption

beyond the railroad operations covered by the LBIA before 1988. The

early cases finding preemption of the locomotive safety field (e.g.,

Napier), precede the 1988 amendments, and there is no record of any

subsequent case applying field preemption to a railroad that would not

have been covered by the LBIA before the 1988 amendments.

Even if, in 1988, Congress did intend to extend field preemption

beyond common carriers engaged in interstate commerce, it is highly

unlikely that it intended that preemption to extend beyond the universe

of railroads over which FRA exercises jurisdiction. Presumably,

Congress would have been quite explicit about preempting state action

where Federal law has never been exercised.

[[Page 62837]]

Moreover, whether FRA could exercise safety jurisdiction over

insular tourist railroads is an open question. While FRA has left open

the possibility that it could someday assert such jurisdiction, the

agency believes that a reasonable argument can be made that insular

theme parks and amusement rides are not ``railroads'' within the

meaning of 49 U.S.C. 20102, despite the breadth of that provision.

Accordingly, it seems impossible to conclude, in the absence of clearly

stated legislative intent, that Congress intended to preclude state

regulation of operations where FRA has not exercised jurisdiction and

where the very existence of that jurisdiction is open to debate.

Therefore, while FRA has stated in the rule text the general rule

of field preemption in the area of locomotive safety, it has also

stated its belief that Congress did not intend such preemption to apply

to insular tourist railroads over which FRA has not exercised

jurisdiction. This will not result in conflict with State rules and

regulations because it allows for State regulation only with regard to

those operations not covered by this rule.

Section 230.6 Waivers

In the NPRM, FRA proposed nullifying all waivers granted under part

230 of the 1978 revisions that are not filed for reassessment by the

agency. Waivers so filed would be reviewed by FRA which would then

notify the applicants whether their waivers were to be continued. Grand

Canyon Railway and North Star Rail each submitted comments urging FRA

to establish a position at the national level charged with the

oversight of steam locomotive regulation to include addressing

petitions, granting waivers, and receiving notifications of repairs

performed. In considering the comments submitted, several task force

members noted that since FRA would be enforcing the steam locomotive

regulations on a national basis, there should be no issue of

inconsistent or conflicting application of the rules. Although the task

force felt that there was no need for FRA to establish an office of

``national steam inspector'', no recommendation was issued because the

task force members felt this issue was primarily a matter of internal

agency policy. After review of the comments received and the task

force's discussion of this issue, FRA has decided that there is no need

for the agency to create an office at the national level to consider

petitions, waiver requests, and repair requests and notifications. FRA

believes that the present system, whereby each FRA Regional

Administrator oversees the compliance of steam locomotives operating in

his or her region with federal requirements, and all requests for

waivers of compliance with the regulations are filed centrally with FRA

in Washington DC, has resulted in uniform, consistent regulation of

steam locomotive operations.

Section 230.7 Responsibility for Compliance

In Sec. 230.8 in the NPRM, FRA is holding the locomotive owner and/

or operator directly and primarily responsible for ensuring that all

requirements of part 230 are complied with. Diversified Rail Services

commented that contractors should also be held responsible under this

section. Grand Canyon Railway commented that, in addition to owners,

operators, and railroads, contractors should be held responsible for

work they perform covered by this regulation. St. Louis Steam Train

Association commented that responsibility should extend to the steam

locomotive owner and/or compensated consultants and contractors. After

a discussion in which it was pointed out that the rule as written

requires that any person or persons performing covered work act in

compliance with part 230, the task force reached consensus,

recommending that this section be left as written in the NPRM. It was

also noted that the definition of ``person'' in Sec. 230.9 expressly

includes contractors and their employees.

Section 230.8 Definitions

In Sec. 230.9 in the NPRM, FRA proposed to add or amend 25

definitions. A number of these proposed definitions produced comments

from interested parties.

FIRE: The NPRM did not provide a definition for the term ``fire''

and Tennessee Valley Railroad commented that ``fire'' should be defined

so as to eliminate any ambiguity and to help determine what a ``service

day'' is.

Although initially there was disagreement over the need to define

the term ``fire,'' the task force did finally agree that the term

should be defined since it is used in the definition of ``service day''

which is one of the central underpinnings of the new rule. The task

force reached consensus on a proposal to define ``fire'' as ``anything

that produces products of combustion that heat transferring components

are exposed to.'' FRA agrees with this recommendation and has included

the definition of ``fire'' in the final rule.

FRA believes the inclusion of a definition of ``fire'' will help to

clarify what a ``service day'' is. It is important that the definition

of ``service day'' be unambiguous, which in turn necessitates that

there be no uncertainty over what is a ``fire'' since the periodic

inspection requirements in the final rule are predicated upon accrual

of service days, the definition of which refers to those days where

there is ``fire'' in the locomotive firebox.

Heavy Repairs. Although Sec. 230.106(a) of the NPRM mentions

``heavy repairs,'' the term is not defined anywhere in the rule. Grand

Canyon Railway commented that the term ``heavy repairs'' was mentioned

in the NPRM and, therefore, should be defined.

The task force was in agreement that there was no need to define

``heavy repairs'' since the term was only used once in the text of the

rule. The consensus was to recommend that the language of Sec. 230.106

be changed, substituting ``as often as needed'' for ``each time the

steam locomotive is in shop for heavy repairs.''

Upon consideration of the comments and the task force

recommendation, FRA has decided to strike the words ``heavy repairs''

from the final rule. The agency has done so, in the belief that

requiring that locomotive frames be cleaned ``as needed'' is more

consistent with the ``safe and suitable for service'' requirement used

in the inspection criteria adopted in the final rule.

Operator/Owner. The NPRM defined Locomotive Operator so as to

distinguish between locomotive operators and locomotive owners. Grand

Canyon Railway commented that the definition of ``operator'' needs to

be written so that the lines of accountability and responsibility are

clearly delineated. Grand Canyon expressed concern over the growing

incidence of steam locomotive operators who lease the locomotives from

their owners, and the need to define the operators' accountability and

areas of responsibility. Grand Canyon Railway also commented that

``owner'' should be defined in terms of who is responsible or assigned

responsibility for compliance with applicable rules and regulations of

the NPRM. Grand Canyon expressed concern over what the accountability

and responsibility of owners is when their steam locomotives are not

under their direct control, such as when the locomotives are being

leased by independent operators.

The task force reached consensus, agreeing that the definitions of

``locomotive owner'' and ``locomotive operator'' provided in Sec. 230.9

adequately address the issue of responsibility for compliance with all

applicable rules and regulations. The

[[Page 62838]]

task force also felt that ``locomotive operator,'' as defined,

addresses the issue of who is primarily responsible for compliance in

lease arrangements. FRA has reviewed the comments submitted and

recognizes the concerns raised, but believes that the definitions

provided in the NPRM adequately address those concerns. The agency has,

therefore, decided that the final rule will adopt the definitions for

locomotive owner and locomotive operator provided in the NPRM. However,

it is to be noted that the final rule includes language making clear

that an ``operator'' may in fact be a railroad.

Service Day. In the NPRM, FRA proposed an inspection schedule based

on the number of service days a steam locomotive accumulates, with a

service day defined as each day the steam locomotive boiler has steam

pressure above atmospheric pressure and a fire in the firebox. John C.

Boykin commented that the rule, as proposed, would promote over rapid

cooling of locomotive boilers. Mr. Boykin suggested that a ``service

day'' be any day where the steam locomotive boiler pressure is raised

to a minimum of 50 percent of allowable working pressure, Diversified

Rail Services commented that ``service day'' should be defined as a day

where the locomotive is available for service, a day the locomotive

moves away from a designated shop area under its own power. Diversified

Rail Services also suggested that the definition of ``service day''

exclude those days where steam pressure is not raised or where steam

tests are being performed within a designated shop area and include any

day on which the locomotive has a fire in the fire box. In addition,

Diversified Rail Services took issue with the statement that dumping a

fire and damping is less dangerous than banking a fire. The Locomotive

and Tower Preservation Fund, LTD commented that, since a slow cool down

process imposes the least strain on a steam locomotive boiler, those

days on which steam pressure is properly raised or the boiler is

properly cooled down should not be considered service days. The Ohio

Central Railroad commented that ``service days'' should be defined as

those days the locomotive is used in revenue service with an assigned

crew; requested clarification on whether a ``service day'' would

include those days where: (1) a new or repaired locomotive was steam

test-fired; (2) a locomotive had dying coal embers and was slowing

losing steam pressure. Ohio Central also stated that the method of

drawing fire from the firebox proposed in the NPRM would subject steam

locomotive ashpans and associated components to abuse. The St. Louis

Steam Train Association commented that days when a steam locomotive is

steamed up in a shop area for maintenance purposes should not be

counted as service days. Finally, the Tennessee Valley Railroad

commented that a requirement that a steam locomotive boiler stack be

capped when banking its fire in order to qualify as a non-service day

would be helpful.

The task force reached consensus on this issue, recommending that

the definition of ``service day'' remain unchanged. One task force

member commented that capping the stack as proposed by several of the

commenters is actually a non-issue, since a steam locomotive is

subjected to much higher thermal stresses in its everyday operations

where a continuous stream of cool outside air is introduced into the

firebox.

FRA has decided to retain the definition of ``service day''

provided in the NPRM in the final rule. The agency believes this is the

most equitable way to calculate service days; balancing the need to

take into account the realities of steam locomotive operations today

with the need to ensure that steam locomotives are inspected on a

timely basis.

Section 230.12 Movement of Non-Complying Locomotives

In the NPRM, FRA proposed making part 230 current with part 229 by

allowing steam locomotive owners and/or operators to move ``lite'' or

in tow, noncomplying steam locomotives for repair purposes after making

the determination that the noncomplying steam locomotive was safe to so

move. Grand Canyon Railway commented that this section should include a

provision that the requirement that the steam locomotive be tagged as

``non-complying'' does not apply when such moves are made in yard areas

and restricted to 10 miles per hour maximum speed. Grand Canyon Railway

also suggested that this section include a requirement that the steam

locomotive initials must be written on the non-complying tag in

addition to the locomotive number. Tennessee Valley Railroad commented

that, when referring to the movement of steam locomotives without

railroad cars coupled on, the term ``lite engines'' should be spelled

``light engine.''

The task force agreed that this section should conform with the

provisions for movement of non-complying locomotives found in part 229.

Task force consensus was that FRA should revise this section to allow

locomotive owners and/or operators to move non-complying steam

locomotives in yard areas at speeds not to exceed 10 miles per hour

without having to tag the locomotives as non-complying. The task force

was also in agreement that the spelling of ``lite'' engines would be

retained so as to avoid confusion between ``light'' and ``heavy''

locomotives and because ``lite'' is the traditional (and uniformly

recognized) spelling within the railroad industry.

FRA is revising the final rule to comport with the task force's

recommendations. This revision is also based upon the agency's

acknowledgment of the commenters' contention that there is no

compelling reason for having different procedures for the movement of

noncomplying steam and nonsteam locomotives.

Section 230.14 Thirty-One (31) Service Day Inspection

In the NPRM, FRA proposed requiring that certain inspections be

performed when the steam locomotive accrued 31 service days. This

section, which included subsections on (a) general inspection

requirements, (b) FRA notification, and (c) the filing of inspection

reports, generated a number of comments. A number of commenters

expressed concern that under this section, as proposed, some steam

locomotives would not be adequately inspected. There were also a number

of comments submitted seeking clarification of the notification and

scheduling of inspections procedures proposed in this section. Finally,

comments were received on the requirement that locomotive owners and/or

operators file a report of each steam locomotive's 31 service day

inspection in the place where that steam locomotive is maintained and

with the FRA Regional Administrator for that region. Diversified Rail

Services commented that the boiler wash requirement is too ``lax;''

suggested that a 31 service day inspection and a boiler wash be

required no later than every 92 calendar days, regardless of the number

of service days the steam locomotive has accrued. The representatives

of Grand Canyon Railway urged that steam locomotive owners and/or

operators be required to perform 31 service day inspections no later

than 92 calendar days after the last 31 service day inspection. Grand

Canyon Railway also suggested that an inspection's effective date be

the date the steam locomotive is placed in service and not the day upon

which the steam locomotive's boiler is test fired. In addition, Grand

Canyon Railway commented that this section should mandate that FRA

inspectors may only request daily records during

[[Page 62839]]

normal business hours, with such records to be produced within 4 hours

of a request to do so. In its comments, St. Louis Steam Train

Association expressed the belief that the proposed 31 service day

inspection must be performed no later than every 92 calendar days.

Grand Canyon Railway requested clarification on how and when FRA will

notify steam locomotive owners and/or operators of its desire to

observe a 31 service day inspection. Grand Canyon Railway also

commented that FRA inspectors desiring to attend a 31 service day

inspection should be required to notify the steam locomotive owner and/

or operator performing the inspection of their desire to so attend.

Ohio Central Rail System suggested that this subsection include an

explanation of how and within what prescribed time period FRA would

respond to the notifications of inspection dates required under this

section. Ohio Central Rail System also requested clarification on

whether an inspection can take place as scheduled when the FRA delegate

is unable to attend at the agreed upon time and the parties cannot

reach agreement on another inspection date. Tennessee Valley Railroad

also expressed concern about whether an inspection scheduled to be

performed with an FRA inspector in attendance could be conducted as

planned if the inspector failed to show at the agreed upon time and

place. The United States Department of Interior commented that the

inspection criteria should include the requirement that all water

glasses are to be maintained free from leakage. Tennessee Valley

Railroad commented that filing 31 service day inspection reports with

FRA is unnecessary since the annual FRA Form No. 3 provides the agency

with adequate notice that the steam locomotive is in service that year,

and it suggested eliminating the filing requirement.

The task force members were in accord that--as clearly explained in

this section--when FRA is unable to attend a scheduled inspection as

agreed upon and FRA and the locomotive owner and/or operator are unable

to agree upon a new date to perform the inspection, the inspection may

go on as planned. The task force was also in agreement that when FRA

desires to attend an inspection, it will convey that information to the

steam locomotive owner and/or operator through generally accepted means

of business communication. The issue of boiler washes and the effects

of long-term water storage of water on the steam locomotive boiler were

discussed at length. The task force members agreed that the concerns

raised by the commenters were legitimate but, at the same time,

addressed by the requirement that steam locomotive be inspected to

determine safety and suitability for service each day. The task force

believes that the ``safe and suitable'' requirement includes a duty on

the part of the steam locomotive owner and/or operator to monitor water

quality and the effects of water storage on the locomotive each day

that it is offered for service. The task force members reached

consensus on the issue of when and how 31 day inspection reports must

be filed with FRA; agreeing that the agency's desire to be furnished

with written proof that required inspections have been performed was

reasonable, especially in light of the fact that the paperwork burden

imposed on owners and/or operators has been reduced by approximately 33

percent under the new rule. There was also agreement that the

difference between alterations and repairs is explained in the

definitions section of the proposed rule, and that the proposed rule

clearly states when a FRA Form No. 19 must be filed with FRA. The task

force also discussed the issue of when a steam locomotive is considered

to be in service, reaching consensus that any day the locomotive has

fire in the firebox and boiler pressure above atmosphere is a service

day.

After weighing the concerns of the commenters and the

recommendations of the task force, FRA has decided to leave this

section unchanged in the final rule. The agency believes that the

``safe and suitable for service'' requirement, by implication, imposes

a duty on all steam locomotive owners and/or operators to ensure that

water quality and water storage do not have a detrimental effect on the

steam locomotive. The agency also believes that, as written, this rule

clearly explains how notification and rescheduling of inspections is to

be done and how inspections will go on as originally scheduled if FRA

is unable to attend as scheduled and is unable to reach agreement with

the locomotive owner and/or operator as to an alternative date on which

to conduct the inspection. On the issue of ``service days,'' no

evidence has been produced to show that FRA is not justified in its

conviction that every day that a steam locomotive has fire in the

firebox and steam pressure raised to above atmospheric pressure must be

counted as a service day. As previously explained, FRA believes that

the stresses and wear imposed on a steam locomotive every time it has

fire in the ``box'' and raised steam pressure necessitate such days

being counted as service days. FRA also believes that the requirement

of timely filing of inspection reports is justified by its need to have

up-to-date proof that all steam locomotives currently in use are being

inspected as required.

Section 230.15 Ninety-two (92) Service Day Inspection

In this section of the NPRM, FRA proposed requiring certain

inspections be performed when the steam locomotive has accrued 92

service days with the steam locomotive owner and/or operator required

to file an inspection report with the appropriate Regional

Administrator. The agency received a number of comments regarding the

(a) general inspection requirements, and (b) filing on 92 service day

inspection reports. A number of commenters expressed concern that under

this section as proposed, some steam locomotives would not be

adequately inspected. Comments were also received regarding the

requirement that locomotive owners and/or operators keep a report of

each steam locomotive's 92 service day inspection on file in the place

where that steam locomotive is maintained and with the FRA Regional

Administrator for that region. Grand Canyon Railway noted that under

this rule, certain operations (such as those who run on weekends only)

could go as long as 12 consecutive months without having a 31 day or 92

day inspection performed. Grand Canyon Railway also sought

clarification on what the effective date of an inspection is; suggested

that a 92 service day inspection's effective date be the day the steam

locomotive is placed in service and not the day upon which the steam

locomotive's boiler is test fired following a repair or rebuild.

Tennessee Valley Railroad commented that filing 92 service day

inspection reports with FRA is unnecessary since the annual FRA Form

No. 3 provides the agency with adequate notice that the steam

locomotive is in service that year, and it suggested eliminating the

filing requirement.

The task force believes that the ``safe and suitable'' requirement

includes a duty on the part of the steam locomotive owner and/or

operator to inspect and monitor the locomotive each day that it is

offered for service. The task force members agreed that the agency's

desire to be furnished with written proof that 92 service day

inspections have been performed was reasonable considering the safety

issues implicated, especially in light of the greatly reduced

[[Page 62840]]

paperwork burden imposed on owners and/or operators under the new rule.

FRA has also decided to leave this section unchanged in the final

rule. As previously stated, the agency believes that the ``safe and

suitable for service'' requirement, by implication, imposes a duty on

all steam locomotive owners and/or operators to ensure that water

quality and water storage do not have a detrimental effect on the steam

locomotive. Also previously stated, FRA believes that no evidence has

been produced to show why every day that a steam locomotive has fire in

the firebox and steam pressure raised to above atmospheric pressure

should not be counted as a service day. As previously explained, FRA

believes that the stresses and wear imposed on a steam locomotive every

time it has fire in the ``box'' and raised steam pressure necessitate

such days being counted as service days. FRA also believes that the

requirement of timely filing of inspection reports is justified by its

need to have up-to-date proof that all steam locomotives currently in

use are being inspected as required.

Section 230.16 Annual Inspection

FRA has proposed requiring that an annual inspection be performed

368 calendar days after the last (previous) annual inspection, with the

steam locomotive owner and/or operator required to notify FRA of the

time and place of the inspection and to file an inspection report with

the appropriate FRA Regional Administrator. A number of interested

parties submitted comments on subsections (a)(1) general requirements,

subsection (b) FRA notification, and subsection (c) filing inspection

reports. Ohio Central Rail System requested clarification on whether an

inspection can take place as scheduled when the FRA delegate is unable

to attend at the agreed upon time and the parties cannot reach

agreement on another inspection date. The United States Department of

the Interior (USDI) stated its belief that annual inspections are only

needed on steam locomotives that have dome throttles or shut-off valves

at the dome end of the dry pipe. USDI also recommended requiring that

annual inspections be performed each year for the first 2 years a steam

locomotive is in service, with the provision that if no wastage was

found at that time, any further annual inspections could be deferred

until the 1472 service day inspection. Tennessee Valley Railroad

commented that the requirement that annual reports be filed with FRA

should be eliminated.

As previously explained, the task force members believe that the

rule clearly states that when FRA is unable to attend a scheduled

inspection as agreed upon and FRA and the locomotive owner and/or

operator are unable to agree upon a new date to perform the inspection,

the inspection may go on as planned. The task force was also in

agreement that the proposed annual inspection requirements are not

``overkill'', and that safety considerations justify any ``burden''

imposed on the owners and/or operators under this section.

Here too, FRA has decided to leave this section unchanged in the

final rule, believing that the ``safe and suitable for service''

requirement, by implication, imposes a duty on all steam locomotive

owners and/or operators to ensure that water quality and water storage

do not have a detrimental effect on the steam locomotive. FRA also

believes that the inspection and filing requirements are justified by

the safety concerns implicated, especially in light of the reduced

compliance ``burden'' imposed on locomotive owners and/or operators

under the final rule.

Section 230.17 One Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy-Two (1472)

Service Day Inspection

In the NPRM, FRA proposed an extremely comprehensive inspection

which is to be performed when a steam locomotive is first brought out

of retirement and thereafter when 1,472 service days have accrued or 15

years have elapsed from the time of the last such inspection (whichever

comes first). The agency received several comments on the general

inspection requirements. Grand Canyon Railway requested clarification

on what the effective date of an inspection is; suggested that a 1472

service day/15 year inspection's effective date be the day the steam

locomotive is placed in service and not the day upon which the steam

locomotive's boiler is test fired following a repair or rebuild. St.

Louis Steam Train Association expressed the belief that protection

needs to be provided for owners and/or operators who perform the work

required under the 1472 service day inspection, but who otherwise may

have to repeat some of that work because the requisite reports were not

filed in a timely manner.

Because most steam locomotives accrue relatively few service days

in the space of a year, the task force concentrated on the issue of

when the 15 year period [maximum time between 1472 service day

inspections] would begin to run. After a lengthy discussion, the task

force was able to reach a consensus, recommending that the 15 year

``clock'' start on the day a steam locomotive is placed in service or

365 calendar days after the first flue tube is installed, whichever

comes first.

FRA is adopting the task force recommendation that the 15 year

clock start running on the day the steam locomotive is placed in

service or 365 calendar days after the first flue tube is installed,

whichever comes first. The agency recognizes that many steam locomotive

restorations are done on by ``part-timers,'' primarily volunteers who

are only able to work on the locomotives on weekends. Because of the

complexity of the task and the sheer number of manhours required to

restore such a locomotive, restoration can literally take years; often

times with the locomotive sitting outside, continuously exposed to

inclement weather. In such situations, corrosion is a primary safety

concern; especially so after the flue tube installation begins, since

at that point it is no longer possible to do a visual and tactile

inspection of the entire boiler surface. After considering all the

factors involved, FRA has decided to impose a 15 year ``drop-dead''

limit on the length of time after the steam locomotive is placed in

service or first flue tube is installed (whichever occurs first) that a

steam locomotive can go before a 1472 service day inspection must be

performed.

Section 230.18 Recordkeeping Requirements (Service Days)

Under this section, steam locomotive owners and/or operators are

required to (a) keep and have available for inspection, a current copy

of the service day record for each steam locomotive currently in

service, (b) file a FRA Form No. 5 no later than January 31st of each

year showing the days the steam locomotive was in service during the

preceding year, and (c) complete all the requirements of the 1472

service day inspection before that locomotive can be returned to

service, if the required service day reports are not filed for a steam

locomotive and FRA considers that steam locomotive to have been

retired. Diversified Rail Services, Inc. commented that this section

needs to take into account certain out-of-service and/or ownership

conditions. Diversified Rail suggested that a steam locomotive should

be considered retired only if the locomotive owner and/or operator

failed to file a service day report with FRA within 2 years of the last

filing of a service day report.

The task force agreed that the 31 calendar day ``grace period''

provided for under the rule is sufficient given FRA's need for timely

proof that all steam locomotives currently in service

[[Page 62841]]

were properly inspected and maintained during the preceding year. The

task force was also in agreement that the Preamble should explain that

FRA recognizes that exigent circumstances may arise which make it

difficult for an owner and/or operator to furnish the FRA Form No. 5 in

a timely manner. The task force also recommended that FRA not be

totally inflexible in enforcing this section.

FRA believes the recordkeeping and filing requirements proposed in

the NPRM are reasonable and, therefore, has incorporated them in the

final rule. The agency also realizes that a 1472 service day inspection

is a very time-consuming, costly procedure and that, under certain

circumstances, locomotive owners and/or operators may be unable to file

a FRA Form No. 5 within the prescribed time. As such, FRA will consider

those claims that failure to timely file was due to compelling

circumstances on a case-by-case basis.

Section 230.20 Alteration and Repair Report for Steam Locomotive

Boilers

In Sec. 230.20 of the NPRM, FRA proposed that steam locomotive

owners and/or operators who make alterations to steam locomotive

boilers be required to file alteration reports with the appropriate FRA

Regional Administrator. This section would also require the filing of

repair reports with the FRA Regional Administrator whenever steam

locomotive owners and/or operators perform either welded or riveted

repairs to unstayed parts of locomotive boilers, and the completion and

maintenance of repair reports when welded or riveted repairs are

performed on stayed parts of locomotive boilers. A number of interested

parties submitted comments on subsections (a) Alterations; subsection

(b) Welded and riveted repairs to unstayed locomotive boiler portions;

and subsection (c) Welded and riveted repairs to stayed portions of the

locomotive boiler. Diversified Rail Services commented that locomotive

owners and/or operators performing welded repairs on stayed areas

should only be required to maintain records of those repairs. Grand

Canyon Railway commented that locomotive owners and/or operators should

be required to maintain--but not file with FRA--records of standard

repairs such as welding or repairing staybolts. Grand Canyon Railway

also suggested that FRA should establish the position of National Steam

Inspector with responsibility for handling waivers, petitions, repair

acceptance notifications, and alteration/repair reports. Ohio Central

Railroad System requested clarification on when FRA Form No. 19s must

be filed. The St. Louis Steam Train Association commented that reports

on steam locomotive boiler work should continue to be maintained and

FRA Form No. 19s filed when locomotive boilers are altered. St. Louis

Steam Train Association also commented that when a locomotive boiler is

repaired, the form used to report the repair should not require the

calculation of stress levels.

The task force reached consensus on this issue, agreeing that the

present system (whereby FRA Regional Administrators provide oversight

of steam locomotives operating within their respective regions) is

efficient and does result in uniform application of the regulations.

Concern was expressed that creation of a national steam inspector would

result in one more layer of bureaucracy, and that the person filling

that position would be overburdened and unable to provide proper

oversight over the regulated community as a whole. It was also felt

that there is no issue of local vs. national standards since the FRA

Regional Administrators already send alteration and repair reports and

other documentation to FRA's Office of Safety as conditions warrant.

The task force was also in agreement that the rule as written clearly

explains that owners or operators performing welded or riveted repairs

on stayed portions of steam locomotive boilers are only required to

complete and maintain a FRA Form No. 19 record of the work done. It was

noted that Form19s need to be filed with FRA whenever alterations are

performed in order to satisfy the requirement that a current FRA Form

No. 4 be on file with FRA at all times for each steam locomotive in

service.

FRA agrees with the task force recommendations and observations;

also believing that creation of another level of oversight would

provide little or no additional safety benefit while needlessly

straining the agency's already limited resources. Since the agency

believes that the present system of reporting and filing is efficient

and not unduly burdensome to locomotive owners and/or operators, this

section of the final rule remains unchanged from that of the NPRM.

Section 230.23 Responsibility for General Construction and Safe

Working Pressure

Section 230.23 sets out what the specific responsibilities of the

steam locomotive owner and the steam locomotive operator are. Grand

Canyon Railway submitted comments in which it objected to what it

considered to be FRA's lack of consistency in the use of the terms

``locomotive owner'' and ``locomotive operator'', stated the belief

that all reference should be to ``owners or operators.'' Grand Canyon

Railway further commented that the regulation should specify that

responsibility for construction of and repairs to a steam locomotive

lies with whoever is delegated responsibility for that locomotive. The

task force discussed this issue, but felt that it involves legal

matters best left to FRA's Office of Chief Counsel. The consensus was

to make no recommendations; deferring to the agency's interpretation on

this issue.

FRA believes that, in most cases, the responsibility for compliance

will fall equally on the owner and the operator of the steam

locomotive, and, in these cases, the agency has chosen to use the words

``owner and/or operator'' in the final rule. However, the agency also

believes that in certain limited situations, the responsibility for

compliance will lie with either the steam locomotive owner (such as

when a steam locomotive is being rebuilt or brought out of retirement),

or the steam locomotive operator (such as where a steam locomotive

breaks down while in actual use). In these cases FRA has used the words

``owner or operator'' in the final rule.

Section 230.25 Maximum Allowable Stress on Stays and Braces

This section sets the maximum allowable stress per square inch of

net cross-sectional area on firebox and combustion chamber stays and

braces. The Tennessee Valley Railroad commented that the maximum

allowable stress levels should be presented as a percentage of the

ultimate tensile strength of the material used in the braces and stays.

Tennessee Valley Railroad believes that so doing would encourage steam

locomotive owners and/or operators to make use of the higher strength

steels now available. Tennessee Valley Railroad also noted that the

ATSM requirements for some of the older materials are no longer

available. The task force was in agreement that the maximum allowable

stresses should continue to be based on the psi ratings provided. In

the discussion on this issue, it was pointed out that steam locomotives

were designed and built as integral units with stress levels calculated

based on the locomotives in whole. Several members of the task force

observed that it is not good engineering practice to use a combination

of materials of different composition and strengths in an

interdependent structure like a locomotive. It was also noted that

changing the rule as suggested would

[[Page 62842]]

result in little or no advantage over the present standard since there

are few, if any, new steam locomotive boilers being built. FRA agrees

with the task force's observations and is leaving this section

unchanged in the final rule. The agency believes that allowing stays

and braces made of higher strength steels to be subjected to higher

stress levels could result in damage to or even failure of surrounding

sections that are not made of correspondingly high strength materials.

Section 230.26 Tensile Strength of Shell Plates

This section establishes a default tensile strength figure to be

used for steel or wrought iron shell plates when the actual figure is

unknown. Tennessee Valley Railroad submitted comments on this issue,

urging that the final rule recognize the advances in materials

available today and take those advances into account when publishing

ductility and/or tensile/shearing strength standards. Tennessee Valley

Railroad also suggested that the words ``for pre-existing boilers'' be

inserted after ``wrought-iron shell plates.''

The task force members disagreed with Tennessee Valley's comments;

recommending instead that the final rule retain the language in the

NPRM. It was observed that this was essentially a non-issue since the

default standard is only intended to pertain to materials the tensile

strength of which is unknown and the tensile strength of present day

steels is known or easily determinable. The task force believes that

these standards are only intended to apply to the maintenance of

existing equipment.

This section of the final rule is unchanged from the NPRM. After

reviewing the comments and the task force's recommendation, FRA decided

that the safety benefits of establishing maximum tensile strength

values for shell plates made of steel or wrought-iron, the strength of

which cannot be ascertained, outweighs any inconvenience or burden

placed upon locomotive owners and/or operators.

Section 230.27 Maximum Shearing Strength of Rivets

This section establishes a default tensile strength figure to be

used for steel or wrought iron shell plates when the actual figure is

unknown. The Tennessee Valley Railroad submitted the only comments on

this issue, stating that the maximum shearing strength values for

rivets should be presented as a percentage of the ultimate tensile

strength of the material the rivets are made from since this would

encourage steam locomotive owners and/or operators to utilize the

higher strength steels now available. Tennessee Valley Railroad also

requested clarification on what the basis was for the maximum shearing

strength values published and recommended that the final rule include

the actual basis for the published values.

The task force reached consensus, agreeing that the maximum

shearing strength of rivets used in steam locomotives should continue

to be calculated based on values listed in the table unless the rivets

are made from other materials: materials that have been proven through

testing to exceed those levels. It was noted that the psi levels

provided in the table were based on many years of actual operating

experience.

FRA is in concurrence with the task force recommendations and is

adopting them in the final rule. The agency believes that the

conservative shearing strength values provided in the table provide a

margin of safety in an area where failure could result in extensive

damage to the equipment and serious injury or loss of life.

Section 230.28 Higher Shearing Strength of Rivets

In this section, FRA proposed allowing steam locomotive owners and/

or operators to use a higher shearing strength for rivets when tests of

the material used show it to be of such quality as to justify so doing.

Tennessee Valley Railroad commented that this section is no longer

needed since the appropriate ASTM or ASME specifications were

referenced in previous sections. In the alternative, Tennessee Valley

Railroad recommended that current ASTM standards be used as the basis

for higher strength values in lieu of requiring that the materials used

be strength tested.

The task force disagreed with Tennessee Valley Railroad;

recommending instead that the maximum shearing strength of rivets used

in steam locomotives continue to be calculated based on values

validated through empirical evidence unless the rivets are composed of

materials that have been proven through testing to exceed the levels

provided.

Here too, FRA is in concurrence with the task force recommendations

and is adopting them in the final rule. The agency believes that

limiting the assignment of higher strength values to those materials

that have been conclusively proven to have shearing strengths in excess

of the table values provides the necessary margin of safety in an area

where failure could result in extensive property damages, as well as

serious injury or loss of life.

Section 230.32 Time and Method of Inspection

Subsection 230.32(a) imposes a requirement that the entire steam

locomotive boiler be inspected when a 1472 service day inspection is

performed. Tennessee Valley Railroad took exception to the proposed

inspection requirements; commenting that these provisions would create

unnecessary work and inflict needless stress and wear on dome lid studs

and seal rings.

After due consideration of the comments submitted, the task force

decided to recommend that the criteria for performing a 1472 service

day inspection remain unchanged from the NPRM. Several members of the

task force noted that the inspection procedure referred to by the

Tennessee Valley Railroad is only required after 1,472 service days

have accrued or 15 years have elapsed and, considering the minimal

burden imposed on locomotive owners and/or operators and the safety

benefits gained, the criteria for the 1472 service day inspection

should be retained.

FRA is retaining the 1472 service day inspection methods prescribed

in the NPRM. The agency remains convinced that, in light of the age of

the steam locomotive community, and the potential danger posed by

boiler explosions and other catastrophic failures, any burden imposed

on locomotive owners and/or operators by requiring a comprehensive,

hands on inspection be performed once every 1472 service days or 15

calendar years (whichever occurs first) is reasonable.

Section 230.33 Welded Repairs and Alterations

This section of the NPRM generated a number of comments. Several

commenters took exception to subsection (a), which imposes reporting

requirements on steam locomotive owners and/or operators welding on

unstayed portions of the locomotive boiler, and subsection (d), which

provides that steam locomotive owners and/or operators must submit a

written request for approval to FRA before installing flush patches on

unstayed boiler portions. Diversified Rail Services commented that

steam locomotive owners and/or operators that perform welded repairs on

stayed portions of the locomotive boiler should be required to maintain

records of those reports but not be required to file FRA Form No. 19s

with FRA. Grand Canyon Railway submitted similar comments, urging that

[[Page 62843]]

FRA only require that such reports or FRA Form No. 19s be kept by the

steam locomotive owner and/or operator's chief mechanical officer or at

the site where the work was performed. Tennessee Valley Railroad

requested clarification on what FRA considers a ``repair'' and on

whether FRA considers a ``flush patch'' to be a ``repair.'' Tennessee

Valley Railroad also questioned whether FRA would consider a partial

boiler course replacement to be a repair.

The task force members agreed that a partial boiler course

replacement should be considered a flush patch if it is applied by

welding. There was also agreement that Sec. 230.33(d) steam locomotive

owners and/or operators installing welded flush patches on unstayed

portions of the locomotive boiler are required to submit a written

request for approval by FRA prior to performing such work and to file a

FRA Form No. 19 with FRA as per Sec. 230.20(a) of the rule after the

work is completed. The task force also noted that Sec. 230.9 of the

rule explains that any restoration work is considered a ``repair''

while ``alterations'' are defined as ``any changes to the boiler

affecting its pressure retention capability.'' Addressing the comments

urging that the proposed filing requirements be deleted from the final

rule, it was noted that, in light of the fact that FRA is allowing the

use of relatively new methods of repair not previously applied to steam

locomotives, these filing requirements are not onerous. It was also

observed that in the past FRA had required that such patches be

riveted, a much more expensive method of repair than welding.

FRA believes that the reporting and filing requirements in this

section are justified. The agency believes that, considering the

critical nature of such work and the importance that it be done

properly, requiring owners and/or operators to obtain FRA approval

before performing this type of work on a locomotive boiler and to file

a report with FRA after completing said work is not unreasonable.

Section 230.34 Riveted Repairs and Alterations

Subsections (a)-(c) impose reporting requirements on steam

locomotive owners and/or operators performing riveted alterations or

repairs on stayed and/or unstayed portions of the locomotive boiler.

Grand Canyon Railway commented that the rule should only require that

such reports or FRA Form No. 19s be kept by the steam locomotive owner

and/or operator's chief mechanical officer or at the site where the

work was performed.

The task force recommended that the reporting requirements be

retained. The task force members expressed the belief that FRA

oversight will ensure that riveted repairs are made in compliance with

established railroad practices and/or accepted national standards for

boiler repairs.

FRA is retaining the requirements of this section in the final

rule. The agency believes that it is essential that it have the right

to review all proposed riveted alterations on unstayed boiler portions

since any such work, in changing the boiler's pressure retention

capability, may have a major impact on the locomotive's structural

integrity.

Section 230.36 Hydrostatic Testing of Boilers

Subsection (b) explains how steam locomotive owners and/or

operators will perform a hydrostatic test on their locomotive boilers,

and subsection (c) sets forth the requirement that steam locomotive

owners and/or operators conduct an internal inspection of the

locomotive boiler after every hydrostatic test conducted above MAWP.

Several steam railroads objected to those parts of Sec. 230.36. Grand

Canyon Railway commented that performing a hydrostatic pressure test on

a boiler with a metal temperature of 60 deg. F could result in the

boiler metal be shocked/stressed, further commented that the minimum

boiler temperature should be 70 deg. F whenever a steam locomotive

boiler is subjected to hydrostatic pressure, and the minimum

temperature should be 120 deg. F whenever the locomotive boiler is

subjected to hydrostatic pressure at or above maximum authorized

working pressure (MAWP).Grand Canyon Railway also commented that all

hydrostatic testing should be done at 125 percent of MAWP. Tennessee

Valley Railroad commented that the annual boiler inspection required

under Sec. 230.32(a) is sufficient to detect wear. Tennessee Valley

Railroad further commented that such an inspection requirement is not

in conformity with industry practice; results in unnecessary work being

done; and inflicts needless stress and wear on dome lids, studs, and

seal rings.

Upon consideration of the comments received, the task force agreed

that a minimum boiler metal temperature of 60 deg. F consensus was

probably too low; deciding to recommend that the required minimum metal

temperature to be raised to 70 deg. F. One task force member stated

that it is extremely important that boiler metal temperature be above

45 deg.-50 deg. F before such testing is done. Another member observed

that there are a number of easy, inexpensive methods available for

supplying heated fill water. It was also noted that the ASME has raised

its recommended minimum metal temperature to 70 deg. F. The task force

agreed that raising the minimum temperature required to 70 deg. F was

in keeping with industry trends and would provide an extra margin of

safety when performing hydrostatic tests. However, the task force did

not agree with the comments urging that the minimum boiler metal

temperature for performing hydrostatic tests at or above MAWP be raised

to 120 deg. F. The task force members believe that the maximum boiler

metal temperature should remain at 120 deg. F because boiler metal

heated to a temperature above 120 deg. F could pose a substantial risk

of injury to any personnel coming in direct contact with the steam

locomotive. The task force noted that the rule already requires that

hydrostatic testing is to be performed at 125 percent of MAWP. On the

issue of boiler inspections, the task force was in agreement that

requiring a boiler inspection after hydrostatic testing of the

locomotive boiler is in keeping with industry safety practices and does

not impose undue burdens on the owners and/or operators and that any

stress and wear inflicted on dome lids, studs, seal rings etc. is

justified.

FRA also agrees that the boiler metal temperature should be, at a

minimum, 70 deg. F before hydrostatic testing of the boiler is

performed. The agency believes that raising the minimum metal

temperature will reduce the risk of metal ``shock'' and stress which

could lead to boiler failure. FRA does not agree with the comments

urging that the boiler metal temperature be at least 120 deg. F

whenever hydrostatic testing is done at or above MAWP. The agency

believes that the danger presented to people working around metal

heated to such temperatures would outweigh any safety benefits gained.

FRA agrees with the recommendation that hydrostatic testing be done at

or above MAWP, but points out that the NPRM already specified that all

hydrostatic testing must be done at 125 percent of MAWP.

Section 230.39 Broken Staybolts

This section establishes (a) a limit on the number of broken

staybolts a steam locomotive can have and still remain in service; (b)

when and how broken staybolts must be replaced; (c) what counts as a

broken staybolt; and (d) what methods of closing telltale holes are

prohibited. Subsections (a) and (d) generated comments. Diversified

Rail Services commented that this section is repetitive and could be

interpreted as

[[Page 62844]]

requiring a steam locomotive with a broken staybolt be operated in that

condition for as long as 30 days. Grand Canyon Railway commented that

this section should be deleted and replaced with the 1978 Sec. 230.25

language. Grand Canyon Railway also commented that the rule should not

contain a blanket prohibition on plugging telltale holes of leaking

staybolts.

The task force considered the comments but disagreed with them,

deciding to recommend that this section remain as written in the NPRM.

It was observed that there were a number of compelling reasons for

amending the rule and deleting Sec. 230.25 of the 1978 standards. Among

the reasons cited were the continuing aging of the steam locomotives in

use in the United States today; the longer operating and inspection

cycles of steam locomotives today; and the progressive nature of

staybolt failures. It was observed that the failure of one staybolt

puts significant additional pressure on the surrounding staybolts,

leading to the possibility of a ``cascade'' or ``domino'' effect with

each ensuing staybolt failure rapidly leading to yet another failure

ultimately resulting in a catastrophic boiler failure. In addition, all

members of the task force concurred that, while this section of the

rule establishes that the maximum time a steam locomotive may be

operated with broken staybolts is 30 days, it does not require owners

and/or operators to run their steam locomotives for that period of time

with broken staybolts. The task force was also in complete agreement

that this section does not impose a total ban on the closing of

telltale holes; it simply lists the prohibited methods for so doing.

FRA is leaving this section unchanged in the final rule. The agency

believes that, in light of the safety concerns implicated, it is

essential that steam locomotives not be allowed to operate with 2 or

more broken staybolts within 24 inches of one another or with more than

4 broken staybolts at one time. FRA also believes that the rule does

not prohibit the closing of telltale holes per se.

Section 230.40 Time and Method of Staybolt Testing

Subsection (a) establishes when staybolts are to be hammer tested

and provides an exception for inaccessible staybolts; subsection (b)

sets out the procedure to be followed when staybolts are hammer tested.

Diversified Rail Services and Grand Canyon Railway both took exception

to the procedures set forth in subsection (b). Diversified Rail

Services commented that hammer testing of staybolts done with the

locomotive boiler under pressure is much more successful in detecting

broken staybolts. Grand Canyon Railway suggested that the procedure for

hammer testing staybolts be changed to a 3-step process starting at 50

percent MAWP, water temperature 70 deg. F and incrementally increasing

pressure and water temperature to 95 percent MAWP and water at 120 deg.

F. Grand Canyon Railway also recommended that the provision allowing

testing of staybolts without water in the locomotive boiler be deleted;

expressed the belief that such tests are highly inaccurate.

The task force reviewed the comments but disagreed with the

commenters' conclusions: believing instead that this section simply

prescribes the minimum testing criteria and should not be changed.

Several task force members observed that steam locomotive owners and/or

operators are free to make use of stricter testing methods if they

believe the method prescribed is inadequate.

FRA's purpose, in writing this section, was to set forth minimum

testing procedures. As such, FRA will not take exception to steam

locomotive owners and/or operators using more comprehensive testing

methods, provided the minimum testing requirements are met.

Section 230.51 Number and Location of Water Glasses and Gauge Cocks

This section provides that all steam locomotive boilers must be

equipped with a minimum of 2 water glasses. John C. Boykin commented

that the requirement for 2 water glasses is unreasonable and that there

is no evidence that trycocks do not work as well.

The task force felt that the 2 water glass requirement was based on

valid concerns and should remain. It was observed that 75 years of

experience have shown that water glasses are more accurate and more

reliable than trycocks. One task force member noted that the NTSB has

recommended that each steam locomotive be equipped with 2 water

glasses. Another task force member observed that the ASME Boiler Code

Sec. 1 has abolished the requirement for water gauge trycocks because

of the high level of operator skill and experience required to operate

properly and safely.

FRA concurs with the findings of the NTSB and the recommendations

of the task force and is retaining the requirement that all steam

locomotives be equipped with at least 2 water glasses in the final

rule. FRA believes that this requirement will enhance safety since

water glasses are more accurate and easier to use than water gauge

trycocks.

Section 230.60 Time of Washing

This section of the NPRM generated a number of comments, most of

which were in regards to subsection (a) Frequency of washing. The

NBBPVI commented that the reference in the section-by-section analysis

of Sec. 230.60 to Sec. 230.45 of the 1978 standards was inaccurate or

incomplete. Grand Canyon Railway expressed concern that under this

washing schedule, water could be left in steam locomotive boilers for

more than 30 days at a time; commented that boiler washes should be

performed at least once every 92 calendar days. Ohio Central Railroad

System observed that a requirement that boilers be washed every 92

calendar days would be a lot better than the current regulation. Ohio

Central Railroad System also noted that requiring that boiler washes be

performed at least once every 92 calendar days would insure that

sediment and other solids would remain soft enough to be easily flushed

and would help to avoid a buildup of excess sediment in the locomotive

boiler. Tennessee Valley Railroad commented that the rule needs to

address the issue of steam locomotives being stored for long periods of

time with water in the boiler; expressed concern about the situation

where a steam locomotive owner and/or operator uses his or her steam

locomotive less than 31 service days a day, under this section, in such

a case, the locomotive boiler might only be washed once a year.

Tennessee Valley Railroad also advocated requiring that locomotive

boilers be washed at least once every 92 calendar days, expressing the

belief that leaving standing water in a locomotive boiler is

detrimental to the boiler: suspensions will settle out and create

sludge while dissolved oxygen in the water may react with carbon

components in the boiler metal.

The task force recommended that this section stay as written in the

NPRM. It was noted that the concerns expressed by the commenters

merited consideration but were, in fact, addressed under the daily

inspection requirements. The task force believes that the requirement

that the steam locomotive be inspected on a daily basis to ensure that

it is safe and suitable for service includes a duty to test water

quality and to ensure that water is not kept in boilers so long that it

causes damage to the locomotive boiler and other parts and

appurtenances.

FRA has decided to leave this section unchanged in the final rule.

The agency believes that under the ``safe and suitable for service''

requirement, a duty is imposed on all steam locomotive

[[Page 62845]]

owners and/or operators to ensure that water quality and water storage

are continuously monitored so as to not have a detrimental effect on

the steam locomotive and all its parts and appurtenances.

Section 230.61 Arch Tubes, Water Bar Tubes, Circulators, and Thermic

Siphons

In Sec. 230.61 of the NPRM, FRA proposed that every time a steam

locomotive boiler is washed (a) its arch tubes, water bar tubes,

circulators, and thermic siphons be cleaned, washed, and inspected; and

at every annual inspection that (b) defective arch tubes and/or water

bar tubes be renewed, defective circulators and thermic siphons be

renewed or repaired; and (c) arch bar tubes, water bar tubes, and

circulators be examined through nondestructive means, with those found

to have wall thickness reduced below required levels replaced or

repaired. Diversified Rail Services commented that the rule should

require that arch bar tubes be replaced every 1472 service day

inspection. Diversified Rail also observed that removing the arch bar

tubes would allow for a full inspection of all telltales and staybolts.

Grand Canyon Railway commented that this section should specify that

the locomotive owners and/or operators are responsible for compliance

therewith. The NBBPVI commented that the reference in the section-by-

section analysis of Sec. 230.61 to Sec. 230.45 of the 1978 standards

was inaccurate or incomplete.

After careful consideration of Diversified Rail Services' comments

and recommendations, the task force consensus was that adopting in the

final rule the requirement that steam locomotive owners and/or

operators perform an ultrasonic inspection of the arch tubes every time

the boiler is washed and repair or replace those not safe and suitable

for operation will adequately address those safety concerns raised. The

task force believes that this is more prudent than an absolute

requirement that arch tubes be replaced every 1472 service days since

that could be interpreted as requiring replacement of the arch tubes

only at that time. The task force then considered NBBPVI's comments,

agreeing that the reference as cited in the section-by-section analysis

was inaccurate and incomplete. The task force's recommendation was that

the section-by-section analysis of Sec. 230.61 be amended to include

reference to Secs. 230.14 and 230.46 of the 1978 Rule.

FRA believes that requiring that an ultrasonic inspection of the

arch tubes be performed every time the boiler is washed adequately

addresses the issue of defective arch tubes, while, at the same time,

taking into account the economic burdens imposed on steam locomotive

owners and/or operators required to perform such inspections. The

agency shares the concerns of the task force that a ``blanket''

requirement that arch tubes be replaced when the 1472 service day

inspection is performed could be misinterpreted by owners and/or

operators, leading to the mistaken belief that they were only required

to replace arch tubes at that time.

Section 230.68 Speed Indicators

Under Sec. 230.68, all steam locomotives that operate on the

general system of railroad transportation at speeds in excess of 20

miles per hour are required to be equipped with speed indicators

maintained to ensure accurate functioning. Grand Canyon Railway and

Minnesota Transportation Museum commented that the speed indicator

requirement should be the same as that for nonsteam locomotives (found

at 49 CFR 229.117).

With the stipulation that the term ``accurate functioning'' be

further explained, the task force members recommended that this section

remain as written. The task force issued its recommendation in the

belief that FRA can adequately address the issue of what it considers

to be ``accurate functioning'' of the speed indicator in the preamble

to the final rule.

Section 230.70 Safe Condition of Brake and Signal Equipment

This section establishes: (a) the criteria for performing a pre-

departure inspection of a steam locomotive at the beginning of each day

the locomotive is used; and (b) a requirement that each steam

locomotive and/or locomotive tender be equipped with a clearly

identified emergency brake valve. Grand Canyon Railway, commenting on

subsection (a)(2)'s requirement that the steam locomotive air

compressor or compressors be in condition to provide ``an ample supply

of air for the locomotive service intended,'' urged that the rule be

rewritten to allow a steam locomotive to continue to operate as long as

it is able to provide a safe level of air for the service the train is

being operated in.

The task force took exception to Grand Canyon Railway's comments.

After due consideration, the task force's recommendation to FRA was

that the agency allow any steam locomotive equipped with 2 or more air

compressors that experiences a compressor failure while in service to

complete that day's service, provided that the remaining air

compressors on that locomotive are able to supply a safe level of air

for the train's operation. However, the task force was adamant that, as

per the requirements of the daily inspection, no steam locomotive be

allowed to start a service day unless/until all of the locomotive's air

compressors are properly operating.

FRA believes that no steam locomotive should be allowed to begin

service unless all of its air compressors are properly operating. The

agency recognizes that locomotives do experience equipment failures

while operating away from service facilities and, in such instances,

will allow a steam locomotive suffering a compressor failure to finish

its service for that day provided that a safe level of air for the

service being performed is continuously maintained.

Section 230.71 Orifice Testing of Compressors

Section 230.71(b) of the NPRM referenced a published table which

lists the compressors commonly used on steam locomotives. The

compressor size of one of Westinghouse compressors is listed in the

table as ``150 HP 8\1/2\ CC'' and another as ``120 LP 8\1/2\ CC''.

Tennessee Valley Railroad commented that these compressors should be

listed as ``150 cfm'' and ``120 cfm'' respectively. In the discussion

of Tennessee Valley's comments, it was observed that at one time

Westinghouse had used the terms ``HP'' and ``LP'' in rating its

compressors'' output.

The task force, agreeing in principle with Tennessee Valley

Railroad, recommended that, for the sake of consistency and ease of

compliance, the table rate all compressors in terms of cfm.

In the interests of consistency and ease of enforcement, FRA is

changing the terminology for the aforementioned steam locomotive

compressors to ``150 cfm'' and ``120 cfm'' respectively.

Section 230.72 Testing Main Reservoirs

This section establishes (a) how and when main reservoirs must be

hammer and hydrostatically tested; (b) how and when main reservoirs may

be drilled with telltale holes; (c) testing procedures for welded main

reservoirs without longitudinal lap seams; and (d) testing procedures

for welded or riveted main reservoirs with longitudinal lap seams.

Tennessee Valley Railroad requested clarification on testing methods

for welded main reservoirs, commented that the testing

[[Page 62846]]

requirements should be clarified, stated its belief that the rule

should adopt the language of the diesel rule and that nondestructive

testing of welded main reservoirs is unnecessary. The NBBPVI commented

that the formula provided in subsection (c) for wall thickness values

was missing a parens at the end.

The task force agreed that the language of the part of Sec. 230.72

dealing with drilling of main reservoirs (part b) needs to be

clarified. Since the intent of this part is to restrict drilling of

main reservoirs to welded reservoirs built to a safety factor of 5, the

task force recommended that the first word of Sec. 230.72(b), ``every''

should be replaced with the term ``only,'' thereby making clear that

drilling is only allowed on main reservoirs meeting the specified

criteria. There was also unanimous agreement that--given the potential

for serious injury and death resulting from a main reservoir failure--

there is a need for non-destructive testing of main reservoirs in order

to determine when wall thicknesses become dangerously thin. The task

force agreed with NBBPVI that the formula in section (c) for

determining wall thickness is incorrect, recommending that another

parenthesis be inserted to the right of the one following .6P,

resulting in the correct formula of t=[PR/[S-.6P]].

After review of the comments and the task force recommendations,

FRA is making a small but significant change in the language of part

(b): striking the first word ``every'' and replacing it with the

restrictive term ``only.'' The agency feels that this change will

alleviate any confusion over when drilling of main reservoirs is

allowed. FRA remains convinced that non-destructive testing of main

reservoirs must be done on an annual basis in order to minimize the

risk of a structural failure of a main reservoir under pressure.

Section 230.74 Time of Cleaning

Section 230.74 of the NPRM provides that all valves, related dirt

collectors, and related filters shall be cleaned and tested as per

accepted brake equipment manufacturer specifications or as often as

necessary to maintain in a safe and suitable condition for service,

with cleaning and testing required after 368 service days or at the

time of the second annual inspection, whichever occurs first. Tennessee

Valley Railroad commented that the wash dates are inconsistent,

recommended that the rule allow owners and/or operators of steam

locomotives equipped with diesel type air systems to adopt the washing

and testing schedule of similarly equipped diesel locomotives.

The task force was in agreement that the cleaning and testing

requirements should remain as written in the NPRM. It was observed that

steam locomotives operate in a much ``dirtier'' environment than

diesel-electric and electric locomotives. Several task force members

pointed out that steam locomotives are continuously exposed to water,

steam, smoke, ash, and coal dust; all of which have the potential of

getting inside and ``fouling'' the airbrake system.

FRA remains firmly convinced that, because of the environmental

conditions in which steam locomotives operate, the air brake system on

these locomotives must be cleaned and tested no less frequently than

after 368 service days accrue or during every second annual inspection,

whichever comes first.

Section 230.75 Stenciling Dates of Testing and Cleaning

Section 230.75 requires that the date of testing and cleaning and

the initials of the shop or station where the work was done be legibly

stenciled on the tested parts or displayed under transparent cover in

the steam locomotive cab. Grand Canyon Railway commented that the shop

and/or station where the testing and cleaning was performed should be

spelled out.

The task force agreed that this section of the rule should remain

as written. Several task force members noted that this section merely

sets the minimum stenciling requirement and owners and/or operators are

free to stencil additional information if so desired.

FRA is leaving this section unchanged in the final rule. The agency

will allow steam locomotive owners and/or operators to provide

(stencil) additional, more detailed information provided the basic

requirements of the final rule are met.

Section 230.82 Fire Doors and Mechanical Stokers

Section 230.82 establishes the requirements for steam locomotive

fire doors. The NBBPVI commented that the words ``and mechanical

Stokers'' should be deleted from the section title since there is no

mention of fire doors in this section.

The task force was in agreement that the words ``and mechanical

stokers'' are excess verbiage and should be deleted as their inclusion

could mislead readers into thinking that section of the rule was

incomplete as published.

FRA agrees that the words ``and mechanical stokers'' are

unnecessary and even possibly confusing and is, therefore, striking

them from the heading for Sec. 230.82.

Section 230.86 Required Illumination

Under Sec. 230.86(a), steam locomotives used between sunset and

sunrise are required to be equipped with an operating headlight of a

specified brightness; (b) which may be dimmed when necessary; and (c)

which the lead steam locomotive is required to display when 2 or more

steam locomotives are used in the same train. Grand Canyon Railway

commented that this section should follow the language of the diesel

regulation (49 CFR 229.125(a)--(c)), thereby clarifying the

requirements and providing for the dimming and extinguishing of the

lead steam locomotive headlight when a non-steam locomotive is on the

point (actually in the lead).

The task force agreed that Sec. 230.86(c), as written, is subject

to misinterpretation and could be read as requiring the lead steam

locomotive have its headlight on at all times between sunset and

sunrise regardless of whether the lead steam locomotive was actually

the lead locomotive on the train. The task force, therefore,

recommended that the word ``steam'' be struck from Sec. 230.86(c) of

the final rule.

FRA acknowledges that Sec. 230.86(c), as written in the NPRM, was

subject to misinterpretation and is amending the language of this

section in the final rule by striking the word ``steam.'' The agency's

primary objective in this section is ensuring that whenever a

locomotive is used in the lead position, it is displaying a headlight.

Section 230.88 Throttles

This section provides that throttle must be safe and suitable for

service and equipped with an effective means for holding the throttle

lever in any desired position. A number of comments were received on

the issue of throttle locking devices and on the need to include in the

rule a ban on tampering with safety devices. Diversified Rail Services,

Ohio Central Railroad System, St. Louis Steam Train Association, and

Tennessee Valley Railroad each submitted comments urging FRA to require

throttle locking devices on steam locomotives. Diversified Rail

Services and Tennessee Valley Railroad also urged the inclusion of

language expressly forbidding the removal of or failure to properly

maintain safety devices.

The task force, while recognizing the concerns raised in the

comments, was in agreement that there is no need to add a specific

requirement for throttle locking devices to the rule. In the discussion

of this issue, several task force members observed that the requirement

in this section that

[[Page 62847]]

``efficient means [be] provided to hold throttle levers in any desired

position'' may be read as requiring the use of throttle-locking devices

to lock throttle levers in the off position when that is the desired

position. The task force also felt that the addition of a specific

provision prohibiting tampering with safety devices was unnecessary in

light of Sec. 230.4(a)'s general prohibition on the use of steam

locomotives or tenders that are not in proper condition and safe to

operate.

FRA believes the requirement under this section that throttles be

maintained in safe and suitable condition for service with efficient

means to hold the throttle lever in any desired position imposes a duty

on steam locomotive owners and/or operators to include a throttle

locking device on the steam locomotive if a locked throttle is a

desired position. FRA further believes that the general requirement

that steam locomotives be maintained in the proper condition and safe

to operate includes a prohibition on tampering with safety devices

since an inoperative or altered safety device is by definition not in

the proper condition.

Section 230.90 Draw Gear Between Steam Locomotive and Tender

This section establishes (a) the maintenance and testing criteria

for the draw gear; (b) the requirements for safety bars and/or safety

chains; (c) the minimum length of safety chains and/or safety bars; (d)

the permissible limits for lost motion between steam locomotives and

tenders; and (e) the conditions under which spring buffers may be used

between steam locomotives and tenders. Ohio Central Railroad requested

clarification on the intent of subsection (a); specifically questioning

whether visual inspection is considered a form of nondestructive

examination (NDE). Tennessee Valley Railroad also requested

clarification on the language and intent of the visual testing

requirement and the additional testing requirement.

The task force considered the comments submitted, but, in the end,

decided to recommend that this section remain as published in the NPRM.

The task force members felt that this section clearly explains that a

visual inspection of the draft gear between the steam locomotive and

its tender must be performed at every annual inspection and, if the

visual inspection fails to uncover any defects, an additional

inspection using another form of NDE testing methods will be performed

on the gear.

FRA believes that steam locomotive owners and/or operators should

be allowed to choose an appropriate method of NDE for the testing of

the locomotive pins and drawbar. FRA also believes that, if a visual

inspection of the pins and drawbar is performed and fails to detect any

defects, an additional examination of the pins and drawbar must be

performed utilizing another appropriate method of NDE.

Section 230.96 Main, Side, and Valve Motion Rods

Section 230.96 sets forth (a) when main, side, or valve rods must

be removed from service; (b) how and when repairs of main, side, or

valve rods may be made; (c) the criteria for bearings and bushings; (d)

how much rod side motion is acceptable; (e) the requirements for oil

and grease cups; (f) limits on main rod bearing wear; and (g) wear

limits on side rod bearings. Grand Canyon Railway and Tennessee Valley

Railroad submitted comments in which they expressed disagreement with

the requirement in subsection (b) that steam locomotive owners and/or

operators submit a written request to FRA for approval prior to doing

any welding of defective main rods, side rods, and valve gear

components. Grand Canyon Railway, concerned that steam locomotive

owners and/or operators would likely incur long delays waiting for

agency approval during which the owners and/or operators would not be

able to use their steam locomotives, urged instead that the owners and/

or operators be permitted to perform welding on the rods (as per

accepted national standards) and then submit detailed notification to

FRA. The task force quickly reached consensus on this issue,

emphatically agreeing that the reporting requirement should remain as

written in the NPRM. The task force members agreed that, because rod

welding is a relatively new procedure and can involve welding on a

number of different types of metals, there is need for uniform

oversight and prior approval to minimize the possibility of these

repairs being done improperly. It was noted that an improperly repaired

rod could break and fly up into the locomotive, resulting in the

serious injury or death of crew members, passengers, and bystanders as

well as substantial damage to the steam locomotive, and the possible

derailment of the train.

FRA agrees completely with the task forces observations and

recommendations. Given the potentially disastrous consequences if an

improperly repaired side and/or valve rod were to break while the steam

locomotive was operating in service, the agency believes that it is

mandatory that it have the opportunity to review and approve or deny

requests to perform such repairs beforehand.

Section 230.106 Steam Locomotive Frame

Section 230.106(a) establishes the cleaning, inspection, and

maintenance requirements for steam locomotive frames, decks, plates,

tailpieces, pedestals, and braces--requiring cleaning and thorough

inspection of these parts whenever the steam locomotive is shopped for

``heavy repairs.'' Grand Canyon Railway took exception to this section

as written, commenting that if the cleaning and inspection requirement

is tied to the performance of ``heavy repairs'' then that term should

be defined.

The task force agreed that the term ``heavy repairs'' is not

essential since it is only used once in the proposed rule. The task

force quickly reached consensus that the term ``heavy repairs'' should

be stricken from the rule. It was decided to recommend that

Sec. 230.106(a) be changed to require that frames, decks plates be

cleaned ``as often as necessary to maintain in a safe and suitable

condition for service, with cleaning intervals not to exceed every 1472

service days.''

FRA believes the term ``heavy repairs'' is very subjective and

would be difficult to define clearly and concisely. Therefore, the

agency has decided to accept the task force's recommendations and is

changing this section by striking the words ``each time the steam

locomotive is in shop for heavy repairs'' and replacing them with the

words ``as often as necessary to maintain in a safe and suitable

condition for service, with cleaning intervals not to exceed every 1472

service days.''

Section 230.109 Tender Trucks

Subsection (d) establishes a requirement that all tenders be

equipped with devices or securing arrangements to prevent the

separation of the tender body and trucks in the event of a derailment.

This section drew comments from Ohio Central Railroad System and the

Tennessee Valley Railroad. Ohio Central Railroad commented that the

requirement is vague and does not explain how such a device is to be

setup and what the installation standard will be for tenders not

originally equipped with such devices. Ohio Central also requested

clarification on whether steam locomotive tenders that were designed

and built without such securing devices would be ``grandfathered'' in

under the rule and as to whether auxiliary water and/or fuel cars are

considered to be tenders. Tennessee Valley Railroad

[[Page 62848]]

requested clarification as to what is a ``securing device'' and stated

its belief that this section is not needed and will place a major

financial burden on those locomotive owners and/or operators whose

tenders are not so equipped.

The task force discussed this issue at some length and finally

decided to recommend that this section be amended to adopt the

requirements of the 1978 revisions to part 230. Under the 1978

revisions, when tenders are equipped with securing arrangements or

devices, those arrangements or devices must be maintained in safe and

suitable condition for service. The effect of the recommended change

would be to simply require that such devices must be properly

maintained when used. The task force members agreed to recommend that

FRA consider only auxiliary water and/or fuel cars that are semi-

permanently or permanently coupled to the steam locomotive and tender

as tenders.

FRA agrees with and is adopting the recommendations of the task

force. Section 230.109(d) will be amended by changing the language in

the NPRM to read that ``When a tender is equipped with a device or

securing arrangement to prevent the truck and tender body from

separating in the event of a derailment, that device or securing

arrangement shall be maintained in a safe and suitable condition for

service. FRA is making this change in the final rule because of its

concern that requiring the installation of truck securing devices/

arrangements on tenders that were built without such devices would

impose substantial financial costs on the locomotive owners and/or

operators while conferring minimal additional safety benefits in

return.

Section 230.115 Feed Water Tanks

This section of the rule sets the requirements for steam locomotive

feed water tanks. Subsection (a) includes a requirement that feed water

tanks be equipped with measuring devices that allow the amount of water

in the tank to be measured from the locomotive cab or tender deck.

Tennessee Valley Railroad commented that 3 truck Shay locomotives

should be specifically excluded from this section or, in the

alternative, a provision for the issuance of waivers from this

requirement should be included in this section.

The task force weighed Tennessee Valley's comments but decided to

recommend against making the suggested changes. The task force members

believed that compliance with this section will not be unduly

burdensome and the safety benefits of being able to continuously

monitor the amount of water in the feed water tank greatly outweigh any

financial burden imposed on locomotive owners and/or operators.

Inspection Requirements

Appendix A to part 230 lists (for guidance purposes only) the

inspection requirements for daily, 31 service day, annual, and 5 year

inspections. Listed under item 18 of the daily inspection requirements

is a duty to inspect the classification lamps. The Minnesota

Transportation Museum, Inc., took exception to this requirement,

commenting that the inspection requirement for class lights should be

deleted as such lights no longer have any function.

The task force disagreed with Minnesota Transportation Museum's

comments. One task force member observed that his steam locomotive

operation utilizes class lamps whenever extra trains are run. The task

force decided to recommend that FRA retain the requirement that class

lamps be inspected on a daily basis because, although unlikely, the

need to illuminate these lamps could arise at any time.

FRA is retaining the requirement that classification lamps be

inspected in the final rule. The agency believes this requirement is

justified because whenever a steam locomotive is used on a steam

operation that runs extras, the need to use the class lamps may arise.

49 CFR Part 209

Section-by-Section Analysis

The following section-by-section analysis discusses in more detail

the changes and amendments made to Appendix A to part 209.

In the NPRM, FRA proposed to include as an appendix to part 230 a

discussion of the agency's exercise of jurisdiction over tourist

railroads. FRA has concluded that it is more logical to include this

discussion in Appendix A to part 209, which already contains an agency

statement of policy about its safety jurisdiction. Therefore, rather

than including this jurisdictional discussion as an appendix to part

230, FRA is amending appendix A to part 209. Because this discussion

will be inserted into an existing policy statement that explains the

basic principles of FRA jurisdiction, it does not contain the

discussion of those principles that was originally included when

proposed as an appendix to part 230. FRA has also changed the

discussion in ways that are intended to make it more clear.

This jurisdictional statement summarizes the policy FRA has

implemented toward tourist operations for many years. FRA has explained

that policy in a report to Congress (``Federal Railroad Administration

Regulatory Actions Affecting Tourist Railroads'') in June1996,

Congressional testimony, and in many letters to individual tourist

railroads and their associations over the last several years. Several

rules have contained provisions specifically concerning FRA's exercise

of jurisdiction over tourist operations (e.g., 49 CFR 234.3(c)).

However, until now, FRA has not published its policy in the CFR for

easy reference.

49 CFR Part 230

Section-by-Section Analysis

The following section-by-section analysis discusses in more detail

the changes and amendments made to the 1978 version of part 230. As an

aid to readers, FRA has denominated as ``new'' sections of the final

rule which lack a present counterpart.

Subpart A--General

In this subpart, FRA has added a series of provisions consistent

with to those found in its other 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 clearly defines the scope of part 230; explaining that

these standards are intended to establish minimum standards for

inspection and maintenance of steam locomotives used on railroads to

which this part applies.

Section 230.2 Applicability (New)

As described in the ``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. The task force's 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 of part 209 for

a current statement of the policy on FRA's exercise of jurisdiction.

[[Page 62849]]

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, the changes made do not conflict with the task

force's recommendation that the rule clearly place primary

responsibility for compliance with the rules on the owner and/or

operator of the locomotive. By design, the applicability section

explains the type of rail operations to which the rule will apply, not

upon whom responsibility for compliance will lie. 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 less than the entire universe

of railroads, using the applicability section to clarify which

operations it intends to be covered by the rule. Locomotive owners and/

or operators and other parties seeking guidance on whether they must

comply with this part should refer to Sec. 230.8 Responsibility for

Compliance for guidance. That section specifically explains to whom the

rule applies.

Notwithstanding their elimination from the applicability section,

wherever appropriate, the locomotive owner(s) and/or operator(s) are

specifically identified in 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 are not referred to by name in the applicability provision

does not mean that they may not be held primarily responsible for

compliance. Section 230.2 should be viewed as describing the extent of

the agency's exercise of its statutory jurisdiction in the area of

steam locomotive safety, with Sec. 230.8 providing the practical

compliance guidance that the task force recommended be included in the

applicability section. Accordingly, Sec. 230.2 explains that these

standards apply to all railroads that operate steam locomotives, with

four categorical exceptions (three of which are considered ``standard''

exceptions). First, this section does not apply to railroads of less

than 24'' gage. This exception is not standard but is consistent with

the agency's historical approach to exercising its safety jurisdiction.

Railroads operating on less than 24'' gage track have never been

considered railroads by the Federal railroad safety laws; generally

being considered miniature or imitation railroads. In the context of

this rule, which clearly applies to certain operations of less than

standard gage, it is important to clarify that the smallest gage

railroads are not included. Second, this section does 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 does

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 excludes from its

reach railroads that operate passenger trains only on track inside an

insular installation--operations limited to separate enclaves in such a

way that the safety of those not entering the enclaves is not affected

by the operations. Insularity is destroyed, however, and the rule

applies where any of the following exists on its line: (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.,

where operations are 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, the agency believes

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

in the context of tourist railroads. It is the agency's view that an

``installation'' is simply a separate enclave off the general

system.\1\

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

\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 establishes a staggered implementation scheme. This

scheme is designed to provide flexibility to those steam locomotive

owners and operators who otherwise might be adversely affected by the

magnitude of changes be

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.