[Federal Register: November 6, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 215)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62941-62969]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06no03-23]
[[Page 62941]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Railroad Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
49 CFR Part 224
Reflectorization of Rail Freight Rolling Stock; Proposed Rule
[[Page 62942]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Part 224
[Docket No. FRA-1999-6689, Notice No. 3]
RIN 2130-AB41
Reflectorization of Rail Freight Rolling Stock
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to require retroreflective material on the
sides of freight rolling stock (freight cars and locomotives) to
enhance the visibility of trains in order to reduce the number of
accidents at highway-rail grade crossings in which train visibility is
a contributing factor. This document proposes a rule establishing a
schedule for the application of retroreflective material and
prescribing standards for the application, inspection, and maintenance
of the material.
DATES: Written Comments: Comments must be received by March 5, 2004.
Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent
possible without incurring additional expense or delay.
Public Hearing: FRA is planning to conduct a public hearing in
Washington, DC, on Tuesday, January 27, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in order to
provide all interested parties the opportunity to comment on the
provisions contained in this notice. Any person wishing to participate
in the public hearing should notify the Docket Clerk by telephone (202-
493-6030) or by mail at the address provided below at least five
working days prior to the date of the hearing. The notification should
identify the party the person represents, and the particular subject(s)
the person plans to address. FRA reserves the right to limit
participation in the hearing of persons who fail to provide such
notification.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT DMS Docket Number
FRA-1999-6689 by any of the following methods:
[sbull] Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitted comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
[sbull] Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
[sbull] Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-001.
[sbull] Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
[sbull] Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN)
for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments
and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory Notices.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held at the Washington
Plaza Hotel, 10 Thomas Circle, NW., Massachusetts Avenue at Fourteenth
Street, Washington, DC 20005 (202-842-1300). Written notification of a
party's intended participation should identify the docket number and
must be submitted to Ms. Ivornette Lynch, Docket Clerk, Office of Chief
Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, RCC-10, 1120 Vermont Ave.,
NW., Stop 10, Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Tom Blankenship, Mechanical
Engineer, Office of Safety, FRA, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW., Mailstop 25,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6446); Mary Plache, Industry
Economist, Office of Safety, FRA, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW., Mailstop
21.1, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6297); or Lucinda
Henriksen, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont
Ave., NW., Mailstop 10, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6038).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This proposed rule represents a partial solution to a safety
problem that has long concerned FRA--the need to reduce the incidence
and severity of collisions between motor vehicles and trains at
highway-rail grade crossings throughout the United States.
Approximately 4,000 times each year, a train and a highway vehicle
collide at one of this country's 262,000 public and private highway-
rail grade crossings. Approximately 23% of all highway-rail grade
crossing accidents involve motor vehicles running into trains occupying
grade crossings (``RIT'' accidents).\1\ Almost 80% of these RIT
accidents occur during nighttime conditions (dawn, dusk, and darkness)
and involve a highway vehicle striking a train after the first two
units of the consist. These statistics suggest that a contributing
factor to many RIT accidents is the difficulty motorists have in seeing
a train consist at a crossing in time to stop their vehicles before
reaching the crossing, particularly during periods of limited
visibility, such as dawn, dusk, darkness, or during adverse weather
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on available data from 1992 through 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The physical characteristics of trains, in combination with the
characteristics of grade crossings (e.g., grade crossing configuration,
type of warning devices at a crossing, rural background environment
with low level ambient light, or visually complex urban background
environment, etc.), and the inherent limitations of human eyesight,
make it difficult for motorists to detect a train's presence on
highway-rail grade crossings, particularly during periods of limited
visibility. Freight trains lack conspicuity (i.e., the ability to be
seen) in some of their different environmental settings. For example,
trains are typically painted a dark color and are covered with dirt and
grime which are inherent in the rail environment. With the exception of
locomotives, trains are usually unlighted and are not equipped with
reflective devices. Similarly, a large percentage of crossings are not
lighted. Consequently, much of the light from a motor vehicle's
headlights is absorbed by the freight cars, instead of being reflected
back toward the motorist. The large size of freight cars, which are out
of scale relative to a motorist's expectations, also make them
difficult to detect. For instance, even if a motorist is looking for a
train, if the locomotive has already passed, it is difficult to detect
the freight cars because the cars often encompass the motorist's entire
field of view and have the tendency to ``blend'' into the background
environment, especially at night. In addition, because most drivers
involved in grade crossing accidents are familiar with the crossings
and with roadway features at the crossings, the
[[Page 62943]]
drivers become habituated (or pre-conditioned) to the crossings. In
other words, based on previous driving experiences and conditioning, a
driver may not expect a train to be occupying a crossing, and without a
clear auditory signal (because the locomotive has already cleared the
crossing) or visual stimuli alerting the driver to a train traveling
through the crossing, the driver may fail to perceive the train in time
to stop. This condition is further exacerbated when a train is stopped
on a crossing.
There is currently no requirement for lighting or reflective
markings on freight rolling stock. However, in recognition that the
transportation of people and goods is not restricted to daytime hours
and pristine weather conditions, reflectorization has become an
indispensable tool for enhancing visibility in virtually all other
modes of transportation, including air, highway, maritime, and
pedestrian travel. For example, airplanes and motor vehicles are
equipped with high brightness retroreflective material at key locations
on the exterior surfaces to increase their conspicuity. Mircoprismatic
corner cube retroreflectors (which have the ability to direct light
rays back to the light source) are typically used on roadway signs that
warn of construction or other hazardous conditions. Federal regulations
require retroreflective materials on the sides and rear of large trucks
to increase their conspicuity and to aid motorists in judging their
proximity to these vehicles. Even regulations addressing bicycle safety
have specific requirements on the use of reflective materials.
Lifesaving marine equipment, such as life vests and rafts, require
reflectorization; and to enhance the conspicuity of pedestrians,
especially at night, retroreflective material has been incorporated
into clothing and similar items.
The everyday use of reflectors indicates their acceptance to
delineate potential hazards and obstructions to a vehicle's path of
travel. Research specific to the railroad industry has demonstrated
that reflective materials can increase the conspicuity of freight cars,
thereby enhancing motorists' ability to detect the presence of trains
in highway-rail grade crossings. This greater visibility can help
drivers avoid some accidents and reduce the severity of other accidents
that are unavoidable. Accordingly, FRA, as the Federal agency
responsible for ensuring that America's railroads are safe for the
traveling public, and in direct response to a Congressional mandate,
proposes to require use of reflective material on the sides of certain
rail cars and locomotives to enhance the visibility of trains in order
to reduce the number of accidents at highway-rail grade crossings where
train visibility is a contributing factor.
A. History of Railroad Car Conspicuity Issue and Congressional Mandate
As applied to rail car visibility, the term ``conspicuity'' refers
to the characteristic of a rail car in its roadway setting to command
the attention of approaching motorists and be recognizable to
reasonably prudent motorists at sufficient distance to allow the
motorists to reduce their vehicles' speed and take action to avoid
collisions. Research relating to the conspicuity of rail cars is not a
new concept. Research dating back to the early 1950s has noted the
potential viability of rail car conspicuity materials such as luminous
sources (lights on rail cars), self-luminous sources (phosphorescent),
and reflective sources. In the mid 1950's, researchers concluded that
reflective material along the side sill of boxcars increased the
visibility of the cars and aided in the perception of the cars' motion.
The same study also found that the amount and distribution of
reflectorized material proportionally affected the level of visibility
and accuracy of perception of rail cars' motion. In other words, by
using material with high coefficients of reflectivity (i.e., high
levels of reflected light) against a high contrast background (e.g.,
dark and dirty rail cars), the amount of illumination was increased,
and the motorists' ability to discriminate the movement of the rail
cars across their line of vision was enhanced. In the early 1970's, a
study concentrating on the conspicuity of trains at night found that
although luminous and reflective sources both proved effective in
enhancing the visibility of trains, reflectors provided conspicuity at
a greater distance and field of vision than the other sources which
were studied.
The general consensus of historical research was that reflective
materials can increase the conspicuity of objects to which they are
attached, but previous generations of reflective materials did not
reflect enough light to be effective in the railroad environment and
lacked the durability to survive the harsh railroad operating
environment. For example, in 1959 a Canadian freight car
reflectorization program was begun. In this program, high-intensity
retroreflective sheeting in the shapes of circular discs and squares
were applied to the sides of rail cars for the purpose of assessing
their long term durability and performance. Reflective intensity
measurements on the Canadian cars after six months, one year, and two
years of service indicated rapid deterioration of the retroreflective
material. Only 23% of the material's original reflectivity remained at
the end of six months. This declined to 14% after one year and to 5% at
the end of two years of service. Tests of similar high intensity
retroreflective sheeting conducted by the Boston and Maine Railroad in
1981 yielded substantially the same results as the earlier Canadian
tests.
FRA first evaluated the use of reflective material on rail rolling
stock in the early 1980s, and supported a study completed in 1982 on
the potential use of reflectorization to reduce nighttime accidents at
highway-rail intersections. The study concluded that although the use
of reflective material enhanced the visibility of trains, the
reflective material was not durable enough to withstand the harsh
railroad environment. It was decided that rulemaking action was not
warranted at that time.
Since 1982, however, improvements in the brightness, durability,
and adhesive properties of reflective materials have been achieved and
a new material, microprismatic retroreflective material, is now
available. Because of the technological advances in reflective
materials and the creation of microprismatic retroreflective material,
beginning in the early 1990's FRA funded renewed research through the
John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center in Cambridge,
Massachusetts (``Volpe'') to reexamine the issue of using reflective
material to enhance railcar conspicuity.
In July 1999, FRA announced the results of its renewed research
efforts with the release of the report Safety of Highway-Railroad Grade
Crossings: Freight Car Reflectorization (DOT/FRA/ORD-98/11) (``1999
Volpe Report''). The 1999 Volpe Report provided significant
information, including cost estimates and data on the performance of
equipped rail car fleets in an actual service environment. Similar to
earlier research, the 1999 Volpe Report concluded that reflective
materials enhanced motorists' ability to detect the presence of a train
in a highway-rail grade crossing and could therefore prevent collisions
involving highway vehicles. Unlike earlier studies which utilized
previous generations of reflective material, the 1999 Volpe Report
concluded that the durability and adhesive properties of the new
microprismatic retroreflective material could provide adequate
luminance intensity levels which can be sustained
[[Page 62944]]
for up to 10 years with minimum maintenance. A copy of the complete
1999 Volpe Report is in the docket of this proceeding (Document No.
FRA-1999-6689-17).
Building upon the research detailed in the 1999 Volpe Report, and
recognizing that the study's human factors tests did not provide a
realistic environment in which to evaluate the detectability and
recognition of freight cars equipped with microprismatic
retroreflective material in a real-world environment, FRA subsequently
investigated whether motorists, under real world driving conditions,
would likely confuse reflectorized trains with other roadway hazards,
particularly trucks which were already required by federal regulations
to be equipped with retroreflective material. It is important for
motorists to be able to distinguish rail cars from trucks because
motorists' interaction with trains is different from trucks. Because
trucks are shorter in length and pass through an intersection more
quickly than the average train, a motorist approaching a truck in an
intersection may only need to slow his or her vehicle to avoid a
collision, while a motorist approaching a grade crossing occupied by a
train more likely will need to stop at the crossing to avoid a
collision. In July 2001, FRA released the results of this research in
the report Safety of Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings: Recognition of
Rail Car Retroreflective Patterns for Improving Nighttime Conspicuity
(DOT/FRA/ORD-00/07) (``2001 Volpe Report''). The 2001 Volpe Report
concluded that motorists had difficulty discriminating unreflectorized
rail cars from trucks as illuminance levels declined, but motorists
could discriminate between reflectorized freight cars and truck
trailers for each of the four reflective patterns tested. In addition,
the report concluded that vertically oriented patterns, as opposed to
outline or horizontally oriented patterns, were preferable because they
were less likely to be confused with the horizontally oriented truck
reflectorization patterns. A copy of the complete 2001 Volpe Report is
in the docket of this proceeding (Document No. FRA-1999-6689-48).
Meanwhile, in 1994 Congress passed the Federal Railroad Safety
Authorization Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-440 (``Act''). The Act added
Sec. 20148 to title 49 of the United States Code. Section 20148
required FRA to conduct a review of the Department of Transportation's
(``Department'') rules with respect to the visibility of railroad cars
and mandated that if the review established that enhanced railroad car
visibility would likely improve safety in a cost-effective manner, the
Secretary of Transportation (``Secretary'') must initiate a rulemaking
proceeding to prescribe regulations requiring enhanced visibility
standards for railroad cars. Section 20148 specifically directs the
Secretary to examine the use of reflectors. Section 20148 of title 49
of the United States Code states as follows:
(a) REVIEW OF RULES.--The Secretary of Transportation shall
conduct a review of the Department of Transportation's rules with
respect to railroad car visibility. As part of this review, the
Secretary shall collect relevant data from operational experience by
railroads having enhanced visibility measures in service.
(b) REGULATIONS.--If the review conducted under subsection (a)
establishes that enhanced railroad car visibility would likely
improve safety in a cost-effective manner, the Secretary shall
initiate a rulemaking proceeding to prescribe regulations requiring
enhanced visibility standards for newly manufactured and
remanufactured railroad cars. In such proceeding the Secretary shall
consider, at a minimum--
(1) visibility of railroad cars from the perspective of
nonrailroad traffic;
(2) whether certain railroad car paint colors should be
prohibited or required;
(3) the use of reflective materials;
(4) the visibility of lettering on railroad cars;
(5) the effect of any enhanced visibility measures on the health
and safety of train crew members; and
(6) the cost/benefit ratio of any new regulations.
(c) EXCLUSIONS.--In prescribing regulations under subsection
(b), the Secretary may exclude from any specific visibility
requirement any category of trains or railroad operations if the
Secretary determines that such an exclusion is in the public
interest and is consistent with railroad safety.
On July 28, 1999, FRA hosted a workshop on reflectorization of rail
rolling stock. Attendees included representatives from the railroad
industry, reflector manufacturing and supply companies, as well as
representatives from the National Transportation Safety Board and the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and other
interested parties. The workshop provided an opportunity for FRA and
all interested parties to review and discuss the issue of rail car
conspicuity and specifically, rail car reflectorization. During the
workshop, representatives from Volpe provided a briefing on the 1999
Volpe Report and a representative of NHTSA provided a briefing on that
agency's rule requiring the reflectorization of large truck trailers.
The workshop also provided an opportunity for all interested parties to
share their views, concerns, and experiences with regard to rail car
reflectorization. Discussion during the workshop focused on the
potential effectiveness of rail car reflectorization under a variety of
circumstances (e.g., at nighttime versus daytime, at passively
protected crossings versus actively protected crossings, or when
drivers are under the influence of alcohol or otherwise impaired), as
well as more practical aspects of any rail car reflectorization program
(e.g., maintenance and cleaning requirements, when and where reflector
installation would occur, and the costs involved in installing and
maintaining the reflectors). Throughout the workshop FRA
representatives acknowledged participants' concerns regarding
reflectorization and invited interested parties to share further
comments and relevant data as FRA continued its investigation into
whether a rulemaking mandating reflectorization of rail cars was
warranted. A copy of the transcript of this workshop is included in the
docket of this proceeding. (Document No. FRA-1999-6689-7).
Recognizing that part of the review mandated by Congress included
collecting relevant data from operational experience by railroads
having enhanced visibility measures in service, on January 14, 2000,
FRA established a public docket (Docket No. FRA-1999-6689) to provide
all interested parties with a central location to both send and review
relevant information concerning railroad car conspicuity and to provide
a venue to gather and disseminate information and views on the issues.
The docket contains several submissions from FRA (e.g., transcript of
the July 28, 1999 workshop, an analysis of signal detection theory,
FRA's preliminary cost-benefit analysis on railcar reflectorization,
and technical reports from the NHTSA and Volpe), as well as comments
from numerous members of the public and the regulated community, which
will be discussed in more detail below.
FRA regards the 1999 and 2001 Volpe Reports, as well as the 1999
workshop and establishment of the public docket as responsive to
section 20148's directive to review the Department's rules with respect
to rail car visibility. Further, because the 1999 and 2001 Volpe
Reports concluded that reflectorization could enhance rail car
visibility, FRA conducted a preliminary cost-benefit analysis
(``Preliminary Analysis'') to determine whether reflectorization would
provide a cost effective method of reducing the number of collisions at
highway-rail grade crossings and the casualties and
[[Page 62945]]
property damages which result from those collisions. FRA's Preliminary
Analysis concluded that the benefits of a uniform, nationwide freight
car reflectorization program would far outweigh the costs of such a
program.
In the Preliminary Analysis, FRA identified the primary source of
benefits to be gained from freight car reflectorization as the
avoidance of a portion of the fatalities, injuries, and property damage
that result from collisions between motor vehicles and freight trains
at grade crossings. Statistics show that collisions between trains and
motor vehicles often result in fatal or very serious injuries to the
occupants of the motor vehicle involved, and the vehicle may be
completely destroyed. In addition, collisions between trains and motor
vehicles often result in damage to the rail equipment and significant
delays and disruptions to rail operations. For example, FRA's Railroad
Safety Advisory Committee estimates that collisions cause an average of
a two-hour train delay at $250 per hour for freight trains. This
estimate does not include the ripple effect of delays incurred by other
trains, including passenger trains, awaiting use of the track where
service has been interrupted.
FRA calculated the expected safety benefits of reflectorization in
terms of the decline in the probability of RIT accidents. Recognizing
that the effectiveness of retroreflectors (and therefore the benefits
to be gained from their use) will vary by circumstance (e.g., nighttime
versus daytime conditions, clear versus cloudy weather conditions,
presence of other warning devices at a crossing, train speed and
length, etc.), FRA's Preliminary Analysis recognized that forecasting
the benefits which would likely result from reflectorization
necessitated a certain amount of subjective analysis and the exercise
of judgment. Accordingly, based on the manufacturers' 10-year
guaranteed useful life of retroreflective sheeting, FRA employed four
different approaches to the estimation of benefits. Benefit estimates
were based on varying effectiveness rates derived from (1) two previous
studies analyzing the effectiveness of reflective material on large
trucks, (2) subjective estimates of reflector effectiveness by internal
FRA grade crossing experts, and (3) a signal detection model consisting
of an analysis of the statistical probability of different potential
severities of hazard or injury, based on laboratory experiments and
accident/incident data from FRA's Rail Accident/Incident Reporting
System database. FRA estimated the ten-year discounted benefits of a
reflectorization program, in terms of avoided casualties and property
damage, to be in the range of $57 million, $70 million, $100 million,
or $105 million, depending on the methodology employed.
Taking into consideration material, installation and maintenance
costs, FRA's Preliminary Analysis concluded that over a ten-year period
(the estimated useful life of the retroreflective material), the
discounted cost to reflectorize the entire freight railroad fleet would
be approximately $40 million. Accordingly, FRA concluded that the
reflectorization of railroad freight equipment is a viable and cost-
effective method of reducing the number of collisions at highway-rail
grade crossings and the casualties and property damages which result
from those collisions. FRA published the results of its Preliminary
Analysis on October 26, 2001. See 66 FR 54326. A copy of the
Preliminary Analysis is in the docket of this proceeding. (Document No.
FRA-1999-6689-25).
Because of the rail industry's continued interest in the issue of
rail car reflectorization, FRA met with members of the regulated
community on March 24, 2003, to again listen to their comments and
concerns regarding reflectorization. During this meeting, the
participating railroads and car owners reiterated their concerns
regarding a potential rail car reflectorization rulemaking.
Specifically, participants expressed concern that a federal rulemaking
mandating reflectorization could have the effect of increasing their
liability for grade crossing accidents. Participating railroads and car
owners also raised important considerations regarding many practical
aspects of a potential reflectorization program (e.g., a feasible
schedule for the application of reflectors to rail cars, what types of
reflective material would be required, reflector cleaning and
maintenance responsibilities, and when and where reflectors would be
applied to cars).
B. Fundamentals of Reflectivity and Human Eyesight
Materials that have reflective properties can be classified into
three general categories: direct reflectors, diffuse reflectors, and
retroreflectors. Direct reflectors, such as mirrors, bounce light off
the reflective material at an angle equal and opposite to the direction
of the light source. Diffuse reflectors, such as license plates, bounce
light off the reflective material at an angular spread of up to 180
degrees. Retroreflectors, however, direct the reflected light in the
direction of the light source. As applied to motorists approaching
grade crossings, retroreflective material on the sides of rail cars
will reflect light from an approaching vehicle's headlights back to the
motorist in a concentrated beam. If either a direct or diffuse
reflective material was applied to the sides of rail cars, light from
an approaching vehicle's headlights would be reflected in several
different directions, thereby lessening the amount of light reflected
back to the motorist.
Retroreflective material is rated in terms of the reflected light
per unit area as contrasted with the light striking it (``specific
intensity per unit area'' or SIA). The amount of reflected light
reaching the driver's eyes will determine how bright that object
appears to the driver. Therefore, retroreflective materials that are
efficient in returning light to a driver's eyes may appear brighter to
the driver than materials that are not as efficient. The newest, most
durable, and most efficient retroreflective material available today,
the prismatic type retroreflector, is made of microscopic prisms or
corner cubes. Each of these prisms or corner cubes contains three
surfaces oriented at 90 degrees to each other. The entering rays of
light are reflected from each of the surfaces and are returned to the
observer in a more concentrated and focused beam than direct or diffuse
reflectors or even other types of retroreflective material.
The amount of light received by an observer from a retroreflector
is affected by six factors: (1) Reflective intensity of the material
(the SIA), (2) size of the retroreflector, (3) intensity of the light
source (in the case of grade crossings, the intensity of approaching
motor vehicles' headlights and the efficiency of those headlights), (4)
atmospheric transmissivity (e.g., clear, foggy, or hazy weather
conditions), (5) windshield transmittance, and (6) the distance of the
observer from the retroreflector. The relationship among these factors
and the illuminance received by an observer is based on Allard's Law
and is represented by the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06NO03.000
in which
Ee = Illuminance received by the observer (measured in
footcandles (fc))
Is = Intensity of the light beamed toward the reflector
(measured in candela (cd))
A = Area of the reflector (measured in square feet)
[[Page 62946]]
B = Reflective intensity of reflector (i.e., SIA, measured in candela/
footcandle/square foot (cd/fc/ft 2))
t = Transmissivity of the atmosphere (per foot)
d = Distance between the observer and the reflector (measured in feet)
W = Windshield transmittance (percentage)
H = Headlight efficiency (percentage)
The above relationship assumes that the incident light from the
light source is normal to (i.e., perpendicular to) the surface of the
retroreflector. At highway-rail crossings, however, light will often
strike retroreflectors on rail cars at an angle other than 90 degrees,
and as a result, the reflected light received by an approaching
motorist will be reduced. This reduction is a function of three
factors: the incidence (or entrance) angle, the divergence (or
observation) angle, and the properties of the retroreflective material.
The incidence angle is the angle formed between a line from the light
source (e.g., headlights of approaching motor vehicle) to the
reflective surface and a line perpendicular to the reflective surface.
The divergence angle is the angle between the line of sight of the
observer to the reflective surface and the path of the light from the
source to the reflective surface. A retroreflector's effectiveness is
affected primarily by the divergence angle and secondarily by the
incidence angle. The divergence angle is a function of the distance
between the driver's eyes and the light source and the distance between
the reflector and the light source. In the scenario of a motor vehicle
approaching a highway-rail grade crossing, since the distance between
the light source (i.e., vehicle's headlights) and the motorist's eyes
is a constant, the divergence angle decreases as the distance between
the vehicle and the reflector increases. The retroreflector will
produce maximum reflectivity for the motorist when both the incidence
and divergence angles equal zero. This maximum reflectivity will not be
achieved for highway-rail grade crossings, however, due to the fact
that the divergence angle increases as the vehicle approaches the
reflective material on the train. In other words, the reflective
intensity of retroreflectors on the sides of rail cars will increase
with distance since both the observation and entrance angles vary
inversely with the distance between the reflector and the vehicle.
Similarly, as a vehicle gets closer to a rail car, the entrance and
observation angles get larger, and the retroreflective material's
performance drops (i.e., the intensity of the reflected light drops).
Because illuminance is inversely proportional to the square of the
distance, however, as a motorist gets closer, less performance is
needed. In addition, the reduction in the material's reflectivity as a
vehicle approaches a train can be partly compensated for by using
reflective materials with the highest level of performance (e.g.,
microprismatic retroreflective material).
In evaluating the performance of reflective materials in the
railroad operating environment, the inherent limitations of human
eyesight must also be taken into account. In general, an individual's
visual attention orients toward areas that contain a great deal of
information (such as concentrations of signs, lights, people, etc.) and
toward objects that differ greatly from their background (such as
contrasting color or brightness, or moving objects against a still
background). Accordingly, although reflectorization will increase the
visibility of trains in normal daytime conditions, it is expected that
reflectorization will be most effective in reducing RIT accidents at
nighttime or during other times of limited visibility when the
reflective material contrasts the most with the background environment.
For human beings to see in darkness and other low-light conditions,
sufficient light must illuminate their retinas. Two types of light
sources affect a human's ability to see. The primary light source is
one that is self-luminous (e.g., a vehicle's headlights or crossing
illumination). Secondary light sources (e.g., reflective material) are
not self-luminous and can be detected in darkness only if light is
reflected from their surface. Non-luminous and non-reflecting objects
are also visible under low light conditions based on available contrast
with a lighter background against which they stand out. As applied to
railroad crossings during periods of darkness or otherwise limited
visibility, a motor vehicle's headlights and retroreflection can be
used to partially compensate for the daylight that is not present.
The light that illuminates the retina stimulates two types of
photoreceptor cells--cones and rods. The cones are sensitive to normal
daylight conditions (photopic vision). Photopic vision requires higher
levels of illumination and allows color perception and high visual
acuity. The rods are sensitive to lower levels of illumination, do not
allow color perception, and do not provide as high a level of visual
acuity as the cones. This is called scotopic vision. At dusk and dawn
both types of receptors are activated (mesopic vision). Mesopic vision
is characterized by diminished color vision and reduced detail
discrimination relative to photopic vision.
During normal daylight conditions, the human visual system operates
at its highest level of visual acuity and has the greatest capability
of distinguishing differences between objects in the visual field (good
detail discrimination). At night, and in other conditions of low
ambient light, contrast sensitivity is greatly diminished, colors
cannot be discriminated, and details are not easily discernible. Thus,
in order to be seen at night, objects must be sufficiently brighter (or
darker) than their backgrounds. The perceived brightness of an object,
including an object with reflective properties, is, at least in part,
dependent on its color.
The visible spectrum of light, which lies between the nonvisible
ultraviolet and infra-red radiation, contains all colors. Color is the
property of an object reflecting the light of a particular wavelength.
The colors range from the longest wavelength, red, to the shortest
wavelength, violet. The various cones (red, green, and blue) of the
human visual system are selectively sensitive to different wavelengths
of light, resulting in the perception of color. The unaided human eye
is able to detect light (visible radiation) within a narrow band of the
electronmagnetic spectrum between approximately 400 nanometers (nm)
(violet end) and 780 nm (red end). The eye is most sensitive, however,
to light in the wavelengths that stimulate both the red and green cones
(approximately 500 nm to 650 nm, with peak sensitivity at approximately
550 nm, the wavelength corresponding to the color yellow-green). The
eye is least sensitive to red or violet light at either extreme of the
spectrum. Wavelengths between 500 nm and 650 nm, and particularly at
about 550 nm (yellow-green), contribute most to the perception of
color, as well as the definition of visual detail. As such, reflective
materials with a color falling within the range of yellow-green peak
sensitivity would provide the most visible contrast with the normally
dark and dirty background of freight cars.
C. FRA's Studies of Freight Car Reflectorization
FRA's study resulting in the 1999 Volpe Report consisted of a four-
phase research program to determine the feasibility of reflectorization
as a train conspicuity device. Specifically, the goals of the research
were to: (1) Determine whether the new generation of reflective
material (microprismatic retroreflective material) would provide
adequate brightness in the railroad environment; (2) determine whether
the new material could withstand the harsh
[[Page 62947]]
environmental conditions of railroad operations; (3) establish the
minimum intensity level required to attract a motorist's attention; and
(4) assess the effectiveness of pattern placement on freight car
detectability. After reviewing past and current transportation
experiences with the use of reflectors, Volpe conducted a demonstration
test to establish the durability of the newly developed microprismatic
material, and to create a test pattern. Next, a nationwide in-service
test was conducted to measure the microprismatic retroreflectors'
performance, accident reduction potential, and costs. Finally, a human
factors test was conducted to evaluate the detectability and
recognition of several retroreflective designs.
First, Volpe reviewed past and current reflectorization experiences
in the railroad environment. Specifically, Volpe surveyed the rail
industry and identified several railroads and other industry
participants, including the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (``BNSF''),
the Soo Line, the Georgia Power Company, and Southern Company, that had
already begun using retroreflective markings on at least some portion
of their fleets. BNSF reported using a rail car marking system having
retroreflective material on each end of freight cars and eleven 5x8
inch rectangular white diamond grade markings along the side sill of
each side of its freight cars. Smaller 3x8 inch markings were
reportedly used on car sides where surface space is limited, such as
under boxcar doors. The Soo Line reported applying retroreflective
material to its cars for advertisement purposes and to improve the
safety of nighttime yard operations. The Georgia Power Company reported
using twelve 3x12 inch yellow prismatic retroreflectors located at 42
inches above the top of the rail (``TOR'') on its coal hoppers since
1981, while the Southern Company reported using high intensity yellow
retroreflective material on its open top hopper cars. Although none of
railroads which responded to Volpe's survey conducted any formal
evaluations of their marking systems, the Soo Line reported
satisfaction with their program and that some of the retroreflective
materials applied to cars in the mid 1960s still performed adequately.
Using information gleaned from previous studies of
reflectorization, Volpe next established a minimum threshhold for
reflector brightness (minimum SIA) to be used as a basis for evaluating
reflector performance. For reflectorization to be effective in reducing
RIT accidents, reflectors must be sufficiently bright to attract the
attention of approaching motorists early enough in the approach path of
the vehicles so that the drivers have time to react to avoid
collisions. Accordingly, Volpe defined the minimum threshold of
intensity as the lowest luminous value that allows a motorist to detect
the presence of a retroreflector (and therefore a freight car equipped
with a retroreflector) in a crossing, even if the motorist is not
actively looking for a train. In developing this minimum threshold,
Volpe took into account the effects of the harsh railroad operating
environment, including the inherent dirt and grime that accumulates on
rail cars and the effects of often severe weather conditions, as well
as the aging of the retroreflective material and the orientation and
configuration of rail cars. Utilizing visibility assumptions
established by previous reflectorization studies (i.e., a level
approach grade, a 2.5 second driver reaction time, wet pavement, and a
vehicle speed of 50 miles per hour), Volpe first concluded that a
motorist must become aware of a train's presence when the vehicle is
500 feet from the crossing so that the vehicle can be brought to a safe
stop.
Next, using the ``point source method'' upon which many guidelines
for reflector intensity are built, Volpe determined that the minimum
threshold illuminance level of 2.3 x 10-\6\ footcandles
would be sufficient to make a reflector detectable to most drivers. The
``point source method'' is based on the fact that astronomical
observations have determined that a star producing an luminance of 2.3
x 10-\9\ footcandles at the eye of an observer against an
overcast moon sky illuminance, equal to 9.9 x 10-\4\
footlamberts, can be detected with a 98% probability when the observer
is actively looking for the light and knows precisely where to look for
it. This level must be increased five to ten times if the light is to
be easily found. (The FAA detection level for pilots is almost eight
times this minimum threshold). If the light signal is to attract the
attention of an observer who is not actively looking for it, then
increases of 100 to 1,000 times the threshold level are needed--which
is equivalent to 2.3 x 10-\6\ footcandles. Accordingly,
Volpe determined that an illumination level of 2.3 x 10-\6\
footcandles should be sufficient to make the reflector detectable to
all but the few drivers who are completely oblivious to their driving
environment.
Finally, using several additional visibility assumptions
established by previous research, Volpe used Allard's Law to determine
the minimum reflector intensity (SIA) required to enable approaching
motorists to detect and recognize a train's presence in a crossing from
a distance of 500 feet. These assumptions include:
Ee= Required level of illuminance to be received by an
observer sufficient for detectability & recognition--2.3 x
10-\6\ fc
W = Windshield Transmittance--0.70
H = Headlight Efficiency--0.85
Is= Headlight Intensity--3,000 cd (per headlight)
t\2d\ = Atmospheric Transmittance--0.945
Using these known assumptions and rearranging Allard's Law to solve for
A, the area of the reflector, and B, the reflector's SIA (i.e., A*B =
Ee*d\4\/Is*t\2d\*W*H), a range of values was
determined. Specifically, assuming a vehicle is traveling 50 miles per
hour on wet pavement, a 4x8 inch reflector (0.22 ft\2\) must have a
minimum reflector brightness (SIA) of 200 cd/fc/ft\2\ for detection to
occur in time for motorists to stop before entering the highway-rail
grade crossing. A 4x36 inch (one square foot) reflector, however, must
have an SIA of only approximately 45 cd/fc/ft\2\ for detection to occur
in time for motorists to stop before entering the crossing. These
results demonstrate that for the same amount of illumination to attract
the driver's attention, the smaller the area of the reflector (e.g.,
0.22 ft\2\) the larger the required SIA of the reflector (e.g., 200 cf/
fc/ft\2\). The same holds true for the opposite scenario, the larger
the reflector area (e.g., one square foot), the smaller the required
SIA of the refector (e.g., 45 cd/fc/ft\2\).
The demonstration test was designed to evaluate the degradation in
reflectivity of different reflective materials applied to freight cars
under controlled conditions and to develop a test pattern. Three types
of reflective materials (enclosed lens, bonded, and microprismatic
retroreflective material) were tested. For the tests, nine open top
hopper cars were treated with groups of three 4x4 inch diamond shaped
markings placed near the side sill (at approximately 42 inches TOR).
Each group of markings was comprised of the three types of materials
being evaluated. Five more hopper cars had groups of two or three 4x2
inch rectangular markings attached to the wheels at 90, 120, or 180
degrees of separation. Only microprismatic material was used on the
wheel application. One car had a 4x96 inch vertical strip applied to
the corner post at each end of the car. All of the marking systems
evaluated were either all white, all red, or a combination pattern of
red and white.
Results of the demonstration test indicated that the white
microprismatic
[[Page 62948]]
material performed satisfactorily, while the enclosed lens and bonded
materials did not. The microprismatic material had a much higher
initial SIA value than the other two materials and was found to be ten
times brighter than the material tested in 1982. In addition, after one
year of service, the microprismatic retroreflective material maintained
an SIA value that was 87% of the original measurement, which was well
above the established minimum conspicuity threshold. The enclosed lens
material lost approximately the same percentage of reflectivity as the
microprismatic material, but due to its lower original SIA value, this
loss was sufficient for it to fall below the minimum reflectivity
required. The red microprismatic material degraded approximately the
same as the white. However, none of the all red markings evaluated in
the study met the minimum reflectivity requirements after one year. In
addition, all of the materials placed on the wheels degraded very
quickly and became ineffective in only a few months. Of the markings
that were comprised of both red and white materials, only the
performance of the vertical 4x96 inch strips of microprismatic material
(applied to the corner posts of one car) was reported. The reflectivity
of these markings decreased to about 67% of their initial value after
one year. Because of the relatively large size of the markings,
however, this amount of reflectivity was well above the conspicuity
threshold level.
Based on the preliminary results of the demonstration test, larger
scale trials, spanning approximately two years, were initiated in
collaboration with Norfolk Southern Corporation and the Alaska Railroad
Corporation. This in-service test allowed data collection of the
retroreflective material's durability, performance, and accident
reduction potential under in-service conditions. For these trials, two
color combinations of microprismatic retroreflective material were
selected based on the demonstration test and input from the railroads:
A pattern of all white material and a pattern of alternating red and
white material. The marking configuration selected consisted of three
4x8 inch white rectangular markings applied horizontally every nine
feet just above the side sill (at approximately 42 inches TOR in most
instances), and a 4x36 inch strip of red/white material applied
vertically at the side sill on both ends of the cars. In 1991, the
markings were applied to 29 tank cars carrying various petroleum
products on the Alaska Railroad. Because of the curvature of the tank
body, the markings were placed at 72 inches TOR. In January 1992, the
markings were applied to 149 Norfolk Southern double-stack intermodal
flat cars. Because of the limited surface area of these flat cars, the
4x8 inch markings were placed at 42 inches TOR, while the 4x36 inch
markings were placed at 30 inches TOR. This was followed in March and
April 1992 with 336 captive Norfolk Southern open top hopper cars and
74 boxcars in clay service, respectively, receiving the marking system.
Although the results of the in-service test showed that the harsh
railroad operating environment could have a severe effect on the
performance of the retroreflectors, Volpe identified a general
correlation between reflector performance and height above TOR.
Specifically, reflectors mounted highest on test cars performed the
best, while reflectors mounted lower, and particularly below the side
sill, did not perform as well. Finding little change in reflector
performance due to dirt and grime accumulation above the side sill
level (approximately 42 inches TOR), Volpe identified a minimum
placement height as 42 inches TOR to allow maximum efficiency of
reflector performance. The average performance of the vertical 4x36
inch reflective strips at the ends of the cars remained above the
minimum threshold level for all car types for the entire testing
period. The average performance of all 4x8 inch reflectors degraded
more quickly, especially when mounted under the side sill or in mid-car
locations where loading operations occur. Accordingly, Volpe concluded
that any reflectorization pattern should minimize reflectors' location
under the side sill and at loading points, and should utilize larger
reflectors. Larger-size reflectors would lower the acceptable SIA level
and would also degrade at a slower rate than the 4x8 inch reflectors.
Although the in-service test did not provide statistically valid
results regarding the reflectors' accident reduction potential, the
test did show a reduction in RIT accidents. During the three year
period before the installation of the reflectors on the captive Norfolk
Southern hopper cars, there were six accidents in which the motorist
hit the side of the train after the first unit had passed through the
crossing (i.e., referred to as Category 1 RIT accidents). These
accidents occurred during the hours of dawn, dusk, and darkness. During
the three year period after the cars were reflectorized, no RIT
accidents occurred.
The primary concern of the fourth phase of the research program,
the human factors evaluation, was to develop a retroreflective pattern
that is detectable in time for the motorist to recognize a train in the
grade crossing and respond in time to avoid an accident. Specifically,
the test was designed to determine the detection characteristics of the
new microprismatic retroreflective material in various color and
mounting configurations. Several potential placement patterns and color
combinations were developed and analyzed to determine the most
effective reflectorization configuration. Based on the outcome of both
subjective and objective evaluation techniques, reflectorized freight
cars were found to be significantly more detectable than non-
reflectorized cars. Even the worst performing pattern and color
configuration tested was several orders of magnitude better than an
unreflectorized car. Generally, the results indicated that a uniform
pattern of reflectorized material would facilitate motorists' detection
of a hazard in his or her path and recognition of that hazard as a
freight car. The results specifically indicated that a uniform vertical
reflector pattern yielded the highest levels of detection and
recognition and that a red/white color combination was preferable in
order to facilitate motorists' recognition of a train as a hazard in
the motorists' path and convey a sense of danger. In addition,
distribution patterns that outlined the shape or that spaced the
retroreflective material over a relatively large area of the rail car
side were found to be superior to a distribution that concentrated the
material along the bottom of the car. Accordingly, Volpe recommended
the development of a standard pattern that: (1) Either outlined the
shape of the freight car, or otherwise spaced the material over a large
area of the rail car side; (2) could fit on all types of rail cars; and
(3) would not likely be confused with other roadway hazards,
particularly reflectorized trucks and trailers.
FRA addressed the issue of motorist confusion with the issuance of
the 2001 Volpe Report. This study recognized that the previous study
did not provide a realistic environment in which to evaluate the
detectability and recognition of freight cars reflectorized with
microprismatic retroreflective material. For example, in the 1999
study, observers did not see anything else in the scene that might be
encountered in an actual driving environment (e.g., signs, other
vehicles, lights, foliage, buildings, etc.). In the real world,
foliage, buildings, or other
[[Page 62949]]
obstructions may block a motorist's view, or lights, signs, and other
visual clutter may compete for a motorist's attention. In addition,
with reflective materials in comon use on the nation's highways, the
opportunity exists for motorists to confuse freight cars with other
roadway hazards, particularly reflectorized truck trailers and respond
inappropriately. NHTSA regulations require trucks more than 80 inches
wide and weighing more than 10,000 pounds to be reflectorized (49 CFR
571.108). Specifically, the regulation requires the use of a strip (two
to four inches wide) in alternating colors (red and white) and covering
at least 50% of the length of the trailer. Because trucks are shorter
in length and pass through an intersection more quickly than the
average train, an approaching motorist may only need to slow the
vehicle to avoid a collision instead of stopping prior to reaching the
intersection. Conversely, because the average train is longer than the
average truck, it spends a greater amount of time in the intersection.
For motorists approaching a grade crossing, the greater amount of time
the train spends in the intersection means it is more likely that the
motorists will need to stop at the intersection. Accordingly, the 2001
study was designed to determine whether, at night when relying upon
retroreflective patterns for identification, motorists are likely to
confuse reflectorized trains with reflectorized trucks.
In the 2001 study, four patterns, each utilizing 144 square inches
of reflective material, were evaluated: An outline, a horizontal strip,
a vertical strip, and a variable height vertical strip. The outline
pattern outlined the shape of the freight car. The horizontal strip
pattern concentrated the retroreflective material along the side sill
of the car. The vertical strip pattern (also known as the ``fence''
pattern), distributed the material in six equally-sized vertical strips
over a relatively large area of the car sides. The variable height
vertical strip pattern distributed the material in six varying-sized
vertical strips over a relatively large area of the freight car sides.
The patterns were placed on two types of freight cars, hopper cars and
flat cars. The study measured the degree to which drivers recognized
reflectorized freight cars in the grade crossing when both the motor
vehicle and the train were in motion, and the driver's ability to
discriminate reflectorized freight cars from other objects in the
intersection.
The 2001 Volpe Report concluded that motorists could, at least to a
certain extent, discriminate between reflectorized freight cars and
reflectorized truck trailers for all of the patterns tested. The most
effective patterns, in terms of detectability distance and recognition
of the object as a freight car, however, were the fence pattern and the
variable height vertical strip patterns. The report also concluded that
using a vertically oriented pattern clearly distinguishable from the
horizontally oriented patterns founds on truck trailers will minimize
the likelihood that motorists will confuse a train in a grade crossing
with a truck trailer.
D. Accident Reduction Potential of Reflective Markings and Alternative
Approaches to Reducing Grade Crossing Accidents
FRA recognizes that the effectiveness of rail car reflectorization
will, to a certain extent, vary by circumstance. As discussed earlier,
various factors will influence the degree of effectiveness of
reflectors and in turn, the resulting accident reduction and mitigation
achieved. While all RIT accidents are potentially affected by
reflectorization, those RIT accidents that result from a highway
vehicle striking the train after the lead unit has entered the crossing
(Category 1 RIT accidents) are the accidents most likely preventable by
reflectorization. In particular, reflectorization is expected to be
most effective in reducing nighttime Category 1 RIT accidents, which
currently make up almost 70% of all Category 1 RIT accidents, despite
the generally lower volume of highway traffic at night as compared to
the daytime.
Although reflectorization of rail cars is expected to be most
effective at nighttime, some daytime RIT accidents are also expected to
be prevented, or at least mitigated, by reflectorization. Under
conditions of reduced daytime visibility (e.g., inclement weather),
reflectors enhance the visibility of freight cars by providing an
increased visible contrast with the freight car side wall, especially
when an approaching motor vehicle's headlights are turned on. During
the day, other light sources (e.g., the sun), may be at an appropriate
orientation to cause reflected light to be seen by the motorist.
The type of warning device at the crossing can also influence the
effectiveness of reflectorization. Crossings with only passive devices,
where almost 50% of all Category 1 RIT accidents occur, will benefit
the most from reflectorization. Passive warning devices include signs
(e.g., crossbucks, stop signs, etc.) and other statically displayed
information (e.g., pavement markings) that warn motorists of the
potential of a train at a crossing. Passive devices warn motorists that
tracks are present; these devices do not indicate if a train is
actually approaching or in the crossing. Reflectorization of rail cars
improves the visual detection of the train by making its distance and
relative state of motion more quickly and accurately gauged by drivers
of other vehicles.
Crossings with active warning devices (e.g., flashing lights,
gates, etc.) will also receive some benefit from reflectorization. Each
year over 200 accidents occur when motorists drive around lowered gates
or past flashing lights and strike trains at highway-rail grade
crossings. Under conditions of limited visibility, such as darkness or
inclement weather, the added, unique visual signal offered by
reflectors will augment the visual warning of flashing lights. The same
rationale, although to a lesser extent, applies to crossings with
gates. In many instances, a train standing in or passing through a
crossing encompasses the motorist's entire field of view because of its
size and proximity. The motorist may not see the train in the crossing
because there is no contrast between the train and the surrounding
environment. The motorist can look both ways, but because there is no
detectable train movement, may still attempt to cross the track.
Crossing warning devices, active or passive, only provide a warning to
the motorist. The signal delivered by reflective material on the sides
of rail cars is clear and indicates to approaching motorists the actual
presence and current movement of a train in or through a crossing.
FRA also recognizes the existence of numerous other methods for
reducing the occurrences of RIT accidents (e.g., the elimination of
highway-rail grade crossings, installation and upgrading of crossing
warning devices, crossing illumination, etc.). FRA believes that a
number of these alternatives used alone and in combination, are viable
methods for mitigating collision risk at highway-rail grade crossings.
However, FRA also believes that reflectorization of freight rolling
stock is a feasible and cost-effective method of reducing and
mitigating grade crossing accidents that provides unique safety
benefits not obtainable with the other grade crossing warning devices
and safety measures. Obviously, the most effective way to reduce
highway-rail grade crossing accidents, RIT accidents or otherwise, is
to eliminate highway-rail grade crossings. Closing access to highway-
rail crossings where redundant or unnecessary crossings exist or
constructing grade separating overpasses where necessary is an
[[Page 62950]]
effective safety improvement. However, local opposition to closing
crossings and the associated expenses with constructing grade
separations or other alternatives to the crossings, often render these
methods impractical, if not impossible. Efforts have also been underway
in recent years to illuminate crossings with street lamps. It is
generally believed that crossing illumination reduces the likelihood of
RIT accidents (by enabling motorists to recognize a train in a crossing
earlier), at a lower cost than that required to install active warning
systems. To date, however, limited cost information is available and no
specific effectiveness or accident reduction statistics have been
developed. In addition, an obvious limit to crossing illumination is
the unavailability of commercial power sources at some crossings,
particularly rural, passively protected crossings. Without a commercial
power source, a crossing illumination system may require its own energy
generating and storage device and train detection equipment, often
making it a cost-prohibitive measure.
E. Discussion of Comments
The public docket in this proceeding contains approximately 55
comments from interested parties, including members of the railroad
industry, trade organizations, local governments, public interest
organizations, reflective material manufacturing and supply companies,
as well as members of the general public. Specifically, comments were
received from the following organizations: The American Trucking
Association (ATA), the Texas Motor Transportation Association, Niagara
Bulk Service Limited, the Port of Woodland, the Conway Scenic Railroad,
the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees (BMWE), the American
Automobile Association (AAA), the City of Hudsonville in Michigan,
Reidler Decal Corporation, 3M, Reflexite, the American Highway Users
Alliance, the Tourist Railroad Association, the Association of American
Railroads (AAR), Avery Dennison, Great Lakes Transportation LLC, the
Railway Progress Institute (now known as the Railway Supply Institute
(RSI)), the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association
(ASLRRA), the North American Freight Car Association (NAFCA), the
National Industrial Transportation League, as well as TTX. Although the
majority of comments submitted were in favor of reflectorization, some
members of the railroad industry raised important considerations
related to the implementation of a nationwide rail car reflectorization
program.
Several individual members of the public and organizations of
concerned citizens (including the Angels on the Track Foundation and
Active People Against Railroad Tragedies), voiced strong support for a
nationwide rail car reflectorization program. These commenters related
stories of personal tragedy in which friends or loved ones were injured
or killed as a result of grade crossing accidents--specifically, grade
crossing collisions in which the motor-vehicle drivers apparently did
not see a train in the path of their vehicles in time to react to avoid
collisions. FRA has the greatest sympathy for the losses suffered by
these commenters. The goal of this rulemaking is to reduce the number
of RIT accidents, but rules must be based on consideration of evidence
and data. Accordingly, this preamble focuses on the technical and
economic aspects of rail car reflectorization. FRA, however, has not
ignored the advice of those whose tragic personal experiences has led
them to support this proposal addressing rail car conspicuity.
Other commenters expressing support for a nationwide freight car
reflectorization program include municipalities, trade organizations
such as the ATA and the Texas Motor Transportation Association, and
other organizations concerned with safe and efficient highway
transportation (including AAA and the American Highway Users Alliance).
These commenters expressed the view that the issue of highway-rail
grade crossing safety is an issue that affects not only the railroad
industry, but the entire motoring public as well, including individual
motorists and commercial motor carriers which traverse grade crossings
on a daily basis. Specifically, the ATA expressed support for the
December 1999 petition for rulemaking filed by the South Dakota
Trucking Association, the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, the Wyoming
Trucking Association, and the Mississippi Trucking Association which
sought to require railcars to bear retroreflective sheeting. These
commenters also pointed out the prevalence of unlighted, passively
protected highway-rail grade crossings in rural communities and the
particular vulnerability of these types of crossings to RIT accidents.
The BMWE, a rail labor organization, also submitted comments in
support of rail car reflectorization. The BMWE cited the federal
highway rule requiring reflectorization of large trucks as evidence of
the benefits which could be derived from rail car reflectorization
(e.g., reduced property damage and reductions in injuries and deaths
associated with RIT accidents). The BMWE also expressed its agreement
with FRA's conclusion that reflectorization represents a cost-effective
approach to mitigating the problem of RIT accidents. Another commenter,
although acknowledging some of the inherent difficulties in
implementing a nationwide reflectorization program (e.g., catching up
with specific rail cars to apply reflective material, reflector
maintenance and cleanliness issues), expressed support for rail car
reflectorization and suggested that FRA adopt NHTSA's standards for
reflective material on commercial vehicles.
Railroad industry participants, such as the AAR, Great Lakes
Transportation LLC (which submitted comments on behalf of two class II
carriers, Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Company and the Duluth,
Missabe and Iron Range Railway Company), RSI, the ASLRRA, as well as
NAFCA, raised important considerations related to implementation of a
nationwide rail car reflectorization program (e.g., a feasible schedule
for the application of reflectors to rail cars, reflector cleaning and
maintenance requirements, the treatment of rail cars already equipped
with reflective material pursuant to one of the many voluntary
reflectorization programs already underway throughout the industry).
These commenters also expressed the opinion that a federal regulation
mandating reflectorization would not be a cost-effective safety measure
given the costs railroads and car owners would incur implementing such
a program (e.g., the costs of initially installing the material,
periodically inspecting, cleaning, and maintaining the material, and
the potential for increased litigation exposure).
The ASLRRA and Great Lakes Transportation LLC (which submitted
comments on behalf of two class II carriers, Bessemer and Lake Erie
Railroad Company and the Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway
Company), additionally expressed the opinion that a Federal regulation
mandating rail car reflectorization would be unduly burdensome and
costly on small railroads. One commenting railroad, however, recognized
that adopting a high visibility, common color scheme on rail equipment
could reduce accidents at highway-rail grade crossings. A
representative of another small railroad, the Conway Scenic Railroad in
New Hampshire, suggested that railroads should make their locomotives
and cars
[[Page 62951]]
more visible and that reflectorization could be a practical method of
doing so. This commenter, however, recognized the limits of any program
designed to enhance the visibility of trains, including
reflectorization, and explained that ``[t]he most visible train is only
as safe as the motor vehicle operator who encounters it.'' FRA strongly
agrees with this statement and recognizes that reflectorization will
provide only a partial solution to the safety issues surrounding
highway-rail grade crossings. FRA recognizes, and feels it worthy of
emphasis, that nothing in this rule relieves motorists from the
responsibility to be alert at highway-rail crossings and use due
diligence in operating motor vehicles safely, even during times of
limited visibility.
F. The Proposed Rule
Based upon the information currently available, FRA believes that
reflectorization of rail freight rolling stock is a feasible method of
enhancing rail car visibility that would likely improve safety in a
cost-effective manner. Accordingly, as the Federal agency responsible
for ensuring that America's railroads are safe for the traveling public
and in direct response to the Congressional directive of 49 U.S.C.
20148, FRA is proposing to require the use of reflective material on
the sides of certain rail cars and locomotives.
Generally, this rule proposes that all freight cars and locomotives
that operate over a public or private highway-rail grade crossing in
the United States in revenue or work train service be equipped with
retroreflective sheeting on both sides. This rule contemplates that
conforming retroreflective sheeting will be applied to freight cars on
a fleet basis so that each segment of the freight car fleet is brought
into compliance within ten years, and each segment of the locomotive
fleet is brought into compliance within five years. To ensure the most
efficient and cost-effective implementation of the rule, FRA proposes
that retroreflective sheeting be applied to new freight rolling stock
at the time of construction, and to existing stock when such stock is
being repainted, rebuilt, or is undergoing other periodic maintenance.
This rule proposes specific color, construction, placement, and
performance requirements for the required retroreflective sheeting and
also sets forth a schedule for the application, inspection, and
maintenance of the sheeting. The performance requirements set forth in
this proposal are based on the material as it is initially applied. In
other words, FRA has chosen to impose color, type, size, and placement
requirements that ensure sufficient reflectivity will be retained over
time, despite the harsh railroad operating environment. The amount and
placement of retroreflective sheeting required to be applied to freight
rolling stock pursuant to this part depends on the size of the freight
car or locomotive, as well as the car type. Generally, however, this
rule proposes a vertical pattern of retroreflective material along the
entire side of freight rolling stock, as the physical configuration of
various equipment types allows.
In drafting this rule, FRA has carefully considered the comments
submitted to the docket of this proceeding and has attempted to devise
a rule which will ensure the most efficient and cost-effective
implementation of a nationwide reflectorization program which will
provide valuable safety benefits to both the railroad industry and the
motoring public. FRA anticipates that many constructive comments will
result from public analysis of this proposal and that the proposed rule
may be changed as a result of the public input. As such, FRA invites
public comments on all aspects of this proposed rule.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 224.1 Purpose and Scope
This section contains a formal statement of the proposed rule's
purpose and scope. FRA intends that the rule cover all aspects of
reflectorization of freight rolling stock, including but not limited
to, the size, color, placement, and performance standards of the
reflective material, as well as the schedule for the application,
inspection, and maintenance of the material.
Paragraph (a) states that the proposed rule is intended to reduce
highway-rail grade crossing accidents, deaths, injuries, and property
damage resulting from those accidents by enhancing the conspicuity of
rail freight rolling stock as to increase its detectability by motor
vehicle operators at night and under conditions of poor visibility.
Paragraph (b) explains that the proposed rule establishes the duties of
freight rolling stock owners and railroads to progressively apply
retroreflective material to freight rolling stock, and to periodically
inspect and maintain that material in order to achieve cost-effective
mitigation of collision risk at highway-rail grade crossings. Paragraph
(c) explains that the proposed rule establishes a schedule for the
application of retroreflective material to rail freight rolling stock
and prescribes standards for the application, inspection, and
maintenance of retroreflective material to rail freight rolling stock
for the purpose of enhancing its detectability at highway-rail grade
crossings. This rule will not restrict freight rolling stock owners
from applying retroreflective material to freight rolling stock on an
accelerated schedule, nor will this rule restrict freight rolling stock
owners from applying additional reflective material as long as any such
additional material does not interfere with the recognizable pattern
contemplated in proposed Sec. 224.105. Freight rolling stock owners,
however, are under no duty to install, maintain, or repair reflective
material except as specified in this rule.
Section 224.3 Applicability
This section proposes that this rule apply to all freight cars and
locomotives used for revenue or work train service that operate over a
public or private highway-rail grade crossing and are used for revenue
or work train service. FRA is aware that cars with Canadian reporting
marks are used extensively within the United States. Transport Canada
has previously administered a reflectorization program for Canadian
cars, and FRA expects that Transport Canada will take actions in
parallel with this proposal to handle the North American fleet.
This part will not apply to (1) freight railroads that operate only
on track inside an installation that is not part of the general
railroad system of transportation, (2) rapid transit operations within
an urban area that are not connected to the general system of
transportation, or (3) locomotives or passenger cars used exclusively
in passenger service. Although FRA recognizes that both public and
private grade crossings may be found on plant railroads and freight
railroads that are not part of the general railroad system of
transportation, these operations typically involve low speed vehicular
traffic and FRA has not determined that reflectorization would be
helpful in these areas. These reasons, together with the historical
basis for not asserting jurisdiction over insular rail operations,
leads FRA to propose not to exercise jurisdiction over public and
private crossings at such plant and private railroads. FRA does, of
course, retain the statutory right to assert jurisdiction in this area
and will do so if circumstances warrant.
Paragraph (c) provides that this rule will not apply to locomotives
and passenger cars used exclusively in passenger service. FRA proposes
to
[[Page 62952]]
exclude locomotives and passenger cars used exclusively in passenger
service from this rule because the conspicuity issues attendant to
passenger service are significantly different from those of freight
service. For example, particularly in commuter service, the highway-
rail grade crossings through which passenger trains operate are
typically better protected than crossings used exclusively in freight
service. Also, many passenger cars have bright stainless steel
exteriors or are painted contrasting light colors and are maintained in
a much cleaner condition than freight cars. Passenger cars typically
have inside lights which are visible through side windows that run the
entire length of the cars. Although FRA does not at this time propose
to require the application of reflective material to locomotives and
passenger cars used exclusively in passenger service, FRA may do so in
a future rulemaking if it proves a cost-effective method of mitigating
collision risk at highway-rail grade crossings.
As in all aspects of this proposed rule, FRA invites comments on
the jurisdictional determinations proposed in this notice.
Section 224.5 Definitions
This proposed rule uses various terms, which for purposes of this
rulemaking, have very specific meanings. FRA intends these definitions
to clarify the meaning of important terms as they are used in the text
of the proposed rule and several of these definitions warrant further
discussion.
``Freight rolling stock'' includes any locomotive subject to 49 CFR
part 229 used to haul or switch freight cars in revenue or work train
service and any railroad freight car subject to 49 CFR part 215,
including a car stenciled MW pursuant to Sec. 215.305. Although FRA
proposes to limit the definition of ``freight rolling stock'' to
locomotives and freight cars, FRA requests comments on the potential
utility and practicability of reflectorizing other rail equipment, such
as specialized maintenance of way vehicles (particularly maintenance of
way vehicles not falling within the purview of subpart D to 49 CFR part
214) or any other rail equipment used to haul freight cars. FRA
specifically requests data demonstrating what, if any, other types of
rail equipment (other than locomotives subject to 49 CFR part 229) are
used to haul freight cars and the potential feasibility of
reflectorizing such equipment and any data and/or relevant comments
related to the conspicuity of maintenance of way equipment which is not
subject to 49 CFR part 214 (e.g., how often is this equipment involved
in grade crossing accidents, what, if any, conspicuity devices are
already utilized on this equipment, would it be practicable to equip
these vehicles with retroreflective material, etc.).
``Freight rolling stock owner'' is defined to include any person
who owns freight rolling stock, leases freight rolling stock, manages
the maintenance or use of freight rolling stock on behalf of an owner
or one or more lessors or lessees, or who otherwise controls the
maintenance or use of freight rolling stock. This definition recognizes
the practicalities of freight car ownership in the industry today. It
is estimated that over one-half of all freight cars are privately
owned. This number continues to increase. Because private freight car
owners often contract with others to maintain their cars and may not
even see their cars on a regular basis, this definition contemplates
that those who control the maintenance or use of freight cars by
contractual agreements or otherwise, will also be responsible for
compliance with this part in conjunction with the actual owners of the
cars.
``Obscured'' means, for purposes of this part, concealed or hidden.
Specifically excluded from this definition are ordinary accumulations
of dirt, grime, or ice resulting from the normal railroad operating
environment. FRA recognizes that the harsh railroad operating
environment inevitably results in dirt accumulating on the sides of
freight rolling stock. The standards for retroreflective material set
forth in this part take into account this ordinary accumulation. The
term ``obscured,'' however, is intended to refer to situations where
reflective material is covered by paint, a dense chemical residue, or
any other foreign substance, such that the material no longer reflects
light. For example, FRA understands that the sides of coal cars will
accumulate coal dust and other dirt over time due to the nature of
normal railroad operations. An accumulation of coal dust or other dirt,
even if it significantly darkens and dirties the retroreflective
material, will not cause the material to be ``obscured'' for purposes
of this rule. The standards proposed in this rule account for the
effects of accumulations of dirt and grime inherent in the railroad
operating environment, the aging of the reflective material, and other
adverse effects of the operating environment (e.g., harsh weather
conditions). FRA believes that reflective material meeting the
requirements of this rule when initially applied will still provide
adequate reflectivity throughout the manufacturers' stated useful life
despite inevitable accumulations of dirt. If, however, retroreflective
material is covered with paint (e.g., graffiti), a dense chemical
residue (e.g., product spilled from a tank car), or any other foreign
substance, other than dirt or grime, which effectively blocks all
incoming light, that material would be considered ``obscured'' under
this part.
In order to ensure that the requirements of this part would be
practicable for each type of freight car to which they apply, FRA has
included definitions for railroad freight car, flat car, and tank car.
The proposed requirements for each type of car differ based on
configurational differences between the vehicles in those groups. FRA
believes that almost 99% of the freight car fleet that would be subject
to this rule falls within one of these three definitions. The remaining
1% of the fleet that does not fall within one of these definitions is
provided for in Sec. 224.105(a)(4) addressing ``cars of special
construction.'' FRA requests comments on the use of these definitions,
specifically, whether these definitions are adequate to identify car
types for purposes of this rule or whether commenters have other
definitions that they would prefer.
Section 224.7 Waivers
This section explains the process for requesting a waiver from a
provision of this rule. FRA has historically entertained waiver
petitions from parties affected by an FRA regulation. In reviewing such
requests, FRA conducts investigations to determine if a deviation from
the general regulatory criteria can be made without compromising or
diminishing safety.
The rules governing the FRA waiver process are found in 49 CFR part
211. In summary, after a petition for a waiver is received by FRA, a
notice of the waiver request is published in the Federal Register, an
opportunity for public comment is provided, and an opportunity for a
hearing is afforded the petitioning or other interested party. FRA,
after reviewing information from the petitioning party and others, will
grant or deny the petition. In certain circumstances, conditions may be
imposed on the grant of a waiver if FRA concludes that the conditions
are necessary to assure safety or if they are in the public interest.
Section 224.9 Responsibility for Compliance
General compliance requirements are proposed in this section.
Paragraph (a) states that freight rolling stock owners
[[Page 62953]]
(as defined in Sec. 224.5), railroads, and (with respect to
certification of material) manufacturers of retroreflective material,
are primarily responsible for compliance with the rule. The
responsibility of manufacturers is discussed in more detail in the
analysis of proposed Sec. 224.103(a) below.
Paragraph (a) also clarifies FRA's position that the requirements
contained in the rule are applicable to any ``person'' (as defined in
the rule) that performs any function or task required by the proposed
rule. Although various sections of the rule address the duties of
freight rolling stock owners, railroads, and manufacturers of
retroreflective material, FRA intends that any person who performs any
action on behalf of any of these parties or any person who performs any
action covered by the rule is required to perform that action in the
same manner as required of the freight rolling stock owner, railroad,
or manufacturer, or be subject to FRA enforcement action. For example,
employees or agents of freight rolling stock owners, or railroad
contractors that perform duties covered by these regulations would be
required to perform those duties in the same manner as required of a
freight rolling stock owner or railroad. Likewise, employees or agents
of manufacturers of retroreflective sheeting being manufactured
pursuant to this part, would be required to perform those duties in the
same manner as the manufacturer.
Paragraph (b) states that any person performing any function or
task required by this part will be deemed to have consented to FRA
inspection of the person's facilities and records to the extent
necessary to ensure that the function or task is being performed in
accordance with the requirements of this part. This provision is
intended to put freight rolling stock owners, railroads, manufacturers,
and contractors performing functions or tasks required by this part on
notice that they are consenting to FRA's inspection for rail safety
purposes of that portion of their facilities and records relevant to
the function or task required by this part. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
20107, FRA has the statutory authority to inspect any facilities and
relevant records pertaining to the performance of functions or tasks
required under this part, and this provision is merely intended to make
that authority clear to all persons performing such tasks or functions.
Section 224.11 Civil Penalties
This section identifies the civil penalties that FRA may impose
upon any person that violates any requirement of this part. These
penalties are authorized by 49 U.S.C. 21301, 21302, and 21304. The
penalty provision parallels penalty provisions included in numerous
other safety regulations issued by FRA. Essentially, any person who
violates any requirement of this part or causes the violation of any
such requirement will be subject to a civil penalty of at least $500
and not more than $11,000 per violation. Civil penalties may be
assessed against individuals only for willful violations, and where a
grossly negligent violation or a pattern of repeated violations creates
an imminent hazard of death or injury to persons, or causes death or
injury, a penalty not to exceed $22,000 per violation may be assessed.
In addition, each day a violation continues will constitute a separate
offense. Maximum penalties of $11,000 and $22,000 are required by the
Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-
410) (28 U.S.C. 2461 note), as amended by the Debt Collection
Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-373) which
requires each agency to regularly adjust certain civil monetary
penalties in an effort to maintain their remedial impact and promote
compliance with the law.
Section 224.13 Preemptive Effect
This section informs the public as to FRA's intention regarding the
preemptive effect of the final rule. While the presence or absence of
such a section does not conclusively establish the preemptive effect of
a final rule, it informs the public concerning the statutory provisions
which govern the preemptive effect of the rule.
This section points out that the preemptive effect of this rule is
governed by 49 U.S.C. 20106 (``section 20106''). Section 20106 provides
that all regulations prescribed by the Secretary relating to railroad
safety preempt any State law, regulation, or order covering the same
subject matter, except a provision necessary to eliminate or reduce an
essentially local safety hazard that is not incompatible with a Federal
law, regulation, or order, and that does not unreasonably burden
interstate commerce. With the exception of a provision directed at an
essentially local safety hazard that is not inconsistent with a Federal
law, regulation, or order, and that does not unreasonably burden
interstate commerce, section 20106 will preempt any State or local law
or regulatory agency rule covering the same subject matter as the
regulation proposed today when issued as a final rule.
The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted section 20106 to
confer on the Secretary the power to preempt not only State statutes,
but State common law as well. See CSX Transp. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S.
658, 664 (1993) (``(L)egal duties imposed on railroads by the common
law fall within the scope of (the) broad phrases' of section 20106.).
See also Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Shanklin, 529 U.S. 344 (2000). The
Court has further held that Federal regulations under the Federal
Railroad Safety Act will preempt common law where the regulations
``substantially subsume'' the subject matter of the relevant State law.
Easterwood, 507 U.S. at 664.
As is evident in the language of proposed Sec. 224.1, FRA intends
to cover the subject matter of standards for the use of retroreflective
materials on freight rolling stock and the specific duties of freight
rolling stock owners in this regard. FRA intends this part to preempt
any State law, rule, or regulation, or common law theory of liability
that might attempt to impose a duty on freight rolling stock owners
pertaining to the reflectorization of freight rolling stock that is not
specifically set forth in this part. For example, FRA intends to
preempt any State law or common law theory of liability which might
attempt to impose a duty on freight rolling stock owners to apply
additional retroreflective material other than that specified in this
part, to apply retroreflective material on a different schedule than
that specified in this part, or to inspect, or maintain retroreflective
material on a more frequent basis than that specified in this part.
Inference of any duties not specifically set forth in this part may
cause the costs of the proposed rule to outweigh the safety benefits of
the rule in direct conflict with the Congressional mandate of 49 U.S.C.
20148 (requiring that FRA initiate a rulemaking proceeding prescribing
regulations requiring enhanced visibility standards for railroad cars
if such regulations would likely improve safety in a cost-effective
manner).
Section 224.15 Special Approval Procedures
This section contains the procedures to be followed when seeking to
obtain FRA approval of alternative standards under proposed Sec.
224.103(e). FRA anticipates continued technological improvements and
product advances in the field of reflective materials. Accordingly,
this section is intended to provide a relatively quick approval process
to allow the incorporation of new technology into the standards of
[[Page 62954]]
this part, thereby making the technology available to all car owners
and railroads, while maintaining the same level of safety originally
contemplated. FRA believes this proposed procedure will speed the
process for taking advantage of new technologies over that which is
currently available through the waiver process. However, in order to
provide an opportunity for all interested parties to provide input for
use by FRA in its decision making process, as required by the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553 et seq., (APA), FRA believes
that any special approval provision must, at a minimum, provide proper
notice to the public of any significant change or action being
considered by the agency with regard to the existing regulations.
Paragraph (b) sets forth the substantive and procedural
requirements for petitions for special approval of alternative
standards. For example, paragraph (b) states that each petition must
contain (1) relevant identification and contact information of the
primary person to be contacted with regard to the petition, (2) a
detailed description of the alternative proposed, and (3) sufficient
data and analysis establishing that the alternative will provide at
least an equivalent level of safety and meet the requirements of Sec.
224.103(e). Paragraphs (c) and (d) provide opportunity for notice and
public comment on any petition for special approval of an alternative
standard received by FRA, and paragraph (e) describes the process FRA
will follow in acting on any such petitions.
Subpart B--Application, Inspection, and Maintenance of Retroreflective
Material
Section 224.101 General Requirements
This section contains the general requirement that all rail freight
rolling stock subject to this part be equipped with retroreflective
sheeting conforming to the requirements of this rule and that the
sheeting be applied, inspected, and maintained in accordance with
subpart B or in accordance with an alternative standard approved under
Sec. 224.15. This general requirement reflects FRA's understanding
that motorists need to be given as much visual information as possible
to correctly decide whether a roadway hazard (e.g., a train) exists in
a vehicle's path. Specifically, devices intended to make a train
conspicuous should: (1) Tell the motorist that something is there, (2)
tell the motorist that what he or she sees is a train, (3) tell the
motorist if the train is on or about to cross a road in the vehicle's
path, (4) aid the motorist in estimating the distance he or she is from
the train, and (5) aid the motorist in estimating the speed and
direction of the train's motion. FRA believes that the retroreflective
sheeting contemplated in this subpart B, applied and inspected in
conformance with this part, effectively achieves these objectives.
Section 224.103 Characteristics of Retroreflective Sheeting
This section sets forth the proposed construction, color, and
performance standards for the retroreflective sheeting required by
Sec. 224.101. Paragraph (a) states that retroreflective sheeting must
be constructed of a smooth, flat, transparent exterior film with
microprismatic elements embedded or suspended beneath the film so as to
form a non-exposed retroreflective optical system. Paragraph (a) also
provides that air encapsulated sheeting must be sealed around all
edges. FRA understands that air encapsulated sheeting that is not
sealed on all edges will allow water to seep between the layers of the
product. Over time, due to the normal railroad operating environment,
this water will freeze and expand, causing layers of the sheeting to
peel.
Paragraphs (b) and (c) propose to require that the retroreflective
sheeting meet the color and performance requirements, except for the
photometric requirements, of the American Society of Testing and
Measurements' (ASTM) standard D 4956-01, Standard Specification for
Retroreflective Sheeting for Traffic Control. ASTM D 4956-01 has been
chosen as the basis for the FRA specification because FRA understands
it to be the specification that manufacturers of retroreflective
sheeting are following in their current manufacturing process. NHTSA's
rule requiring reflectorization of large truck trailers (49 CFR
571.108) is also based on this ASTM standard. Information provided by
several retroreflective sheeting manufacturers indicates that the
products of most manufacturers currently meet the performance
requirements of this proposed rule, and FRA has no reason to believe
that other manufacturers could not meet the performance standards if
there was a market for the product. In addition, because FRA is
requiring that retroreflective sheeting meet the requirements of ASTM D
4956-01 only as initially applied and does not propose to require
specific minimum reflectivity for vehicles in service, FRA believes
that highly durable sheeting meeting the performance tests of the ASTM
standard is required. It is less costly to install durable material
than it would be to install less durable material but be required to
regularly test its performance relative to a performance standard.
Specifically, paragraph (b) requires that the retroreflective
sheeting be yellow as specified by the chromaticity coordinates of ASTM
D 4956-01. As explained above, the human eye is more sensitive to some
colors than others. This color sensitivity can vary in different
lighting situations, making some colors more noticeable at different
times of the day. Although the 1999 Volpe Report concluded that a
pattern of red-and-white reflectors was preferred to facilitate
motorists' recognition of a hazard as a train and convey a sense of
danger, FRA proposes to require yellow retroreflective material as
specified by the chromaticity coordinates of ASTM D 4956-01. FRA
proposes to require yellow retroreflective material because the
spectral measurement of the color (approximately 550 nm) is within the
peak sensitivity range of the human visual system and accordingly, it
is one of the most easily detectable colors under varying ambient light
and other environmental conditions (e.g., darkness, fog, haze, etc.).
In addition, the color yellow minimizes the risk of motorist confusion
with the colors of other roadway hazards (e.g., red and white
reflectors on trucks) and is not a color prevalent in most background
environments.
In comments submitted to the docket, 3M, a manufacturer of
retroreflective materials, recommended the use of a high contrast
colored corner cube retroreflective material with a spectral
measurement within the peak sensitivty range of the human visual system
(e.g., yellow/green) and fluorescent properties. 3M explained that the
efficient corner cube retroreflective material would aid nighttime
visibility and the fluorescent properties would provide additional
daytime luminance. Although FRA's own research found that fluorescent
yellow retroreflective material had the highest SIA value of all
materials tested and could be detected from a further distance than any
of the other materials, because the duration of fluorescent pigments is
substantially less than the ten-year reflector product guarantee, FRA
is not proposing to require the use of fluorescent-colored
retroreflective material at this time. However, if a fluorescent
retroreflective material meets all of the requirements of this part,
its use is acceptable.
Paragraph (c) requires that retroreflective sheeting applied in
[[Page 62955]]
accordance with the rule meet all the performance requirements, except
for the minimum photometric performance requirements, of ASTM D 4956-
01. The minimum photometric performance requirements (i.e., minimum
SIA) of the FRA standard are set forth in Table 1 of the proposed rule.
The proposed values were developed to perform above the minimum
detection threshold of 45 cd/fc/ft2 identified in the 1999
Volpe Report as necessary to enable most motorists to detect a train in
time to avoid a collision. Recognizing that in the real world railroad
operating environment, the effective SIA of retroreflective materials
depends on various factors (e.g., grade crossing configurations and
angles, ambient light conditions, vehicle headlight type and lens
cleanliness, weather, and the presence and working condition of
illumination and other warning devices) and may be reduced because of
accumulated dirt and grime, the proposed minimum photometric
performance requirements take into account these varying factors.
Specifically, extrapolating the test data detailed in the Volpe Report
out ten years, the manufacturers' stated useful life of the material,
FRA found that the forecasted SIA levels remained well above the
minimum detection level established in the 1999 Volpe Report. In
addition, although the primary degradation in the SIA of the material
occurs during the first two years as a result of ultraviolet light
exposure, after which the material maintains a relatively consistent
intensity throughout its useful life, FRA forecasted SIA degradation of
the material due to dirt and grime accumulation exponentially. As a
result, FRA's analysis substantially overestimates the degradation rate
of the material and even with this overestimation, the expected SIA
values remain well above the minimum detection level identified in the
1999 Volpe Report.
Table 1 specifies the minimum photometric performance requirement
(i.e., minimum required SIA) for yellow retroreflective material at
observation angles of 0.2[deg] and 0.5[deg] and light entrance angles
of -4[deg] and 30[deg] based on ASTM D 4956-01. FRA's Grade Crossing
Inventory identifies crossings into three categories of crossing
angles: 60-90[deg], 30-59[deg], and 0-29[deg]. Approximately 80% of all
crossings have crossing angles between 60 and 90[deg], almost 17% have
crossing angles between 30 and 59[deg], and only 4% have crossing
angles less than 30[deg]. Accordingly, the requirements of Table 1
ensures that the retroreflectors will perform above the minimum
detection threshold for the average motor vehicle at approximately 97%
of all crossings.
Although the minimum photometric performance requirements set forth
in the proposal are specific to yellow microprismatic retroreflective
material, FRA recognizes that many car owners who currently
reflectorize their cars have used white microprismatic retroreflective
material. If FRA alternatively required the use of white
retroreflective material, the minimum photometric performance
requirements (based on a required detection distance of 500 feet) for
the retroreflective material would be as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observation angle
Entrance angle -------------------------
0.2[deg] 0.53[deg]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-4[deg]....................................... 600 160
30[deg]....................................... 350 75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Photometric Performance (Coefficient of Retroreflection (RA) in
Candela/Lux/Meter2) Requirement for White Retroreflective Sheeting.
FRA requests commenters' views as to the desirability of using
white versus yellow retroreflective material and further solicits
comments and alternative suggestions to the proposed construction,
color, and performance requirements of this section.
The responsibility for compliance with the construction, color, and
performance requirements of the retroreflective sheeting used to comply
with this rule would rest upon the manufacturers of the sheeting. Thus,
manufacturers who are providing retroreflective sheeting to the
railroad industry would have to certify compliance with Sec. 224.103.
Paragraph (d) sets forth this certification requirement and would
require that the characters ``FRA-224'' be permanently stamped, etched,
molded, or printed, in characters at least 3 mm high, with each set of
characters spaced no more than four inches apart, on each piece of
retroreflective sheeting manufactured.
Although, the proposed rule generally requires application of
retroreflective sheeting meeting the specific construction, color, and
performance requirements of Sec. 224.103(a) through (c), paragraph (e)
of this section recognizes that under Sec. 224.15, freight rolling
stock owners and railroads may request FRA approval to use alternative
standards. As discussed in the analysis of Sec. 224.15 above, any
alternative standard utilized must result in an equivalent level of
safety as the sheeting described in 224.103(a) through (c) applied in
accordance with the rule.
Section 224.105 Size and Location
This section proposes to make the amount and placement of
retroreflective sheeting required to be applied to freight rolling
stock pursuant to this part dependent on the size of the car or
locomotive, as well as the car type. A primary concern in developing
the proposed standards of this part was developing a retroreflective
pattern that is detectable in time for an approaching motorist to
recognize a train in the grade crossing and respond appropriately in
time to avoid an accident. Another concern was the potential for
motorist confusion as more potential roadway hazards (particularly
truck trailers) benefit from the addition of reflectorization.
Accordingly, recognizing that a unique, uniform pattern of application
is necessary to facilitate recognition of rail cars and that the
placement of retroreflectors affects their performance, this section
proposes a specific pattern of application, striving to achieve as
uniform a pattern as possible throughout the relevant fleet, while
taking into consideration the configurational differences between
various types of freight rolling stock. Although a vertical pattern of
retroreflective material along the entire side of freight cars is
proposed, FRA recognizes that the physical configuration of locomotives
and the conspicuity issues surrounding locomotives are different.
Accordingly, in paragraph (b) of this section, FRA proposes a more
flexible approach to the reflectorization of locomotives.
As discussed earlier in the preamble, the general consensus of
research pertaining to retroreflective materials is that
retroreflective materials can increase the conspicuity of objects to
which they are attached. FRA, however, found little existing research
that suggested how retroreflective materials should be displayed on
rail cars to maximize the conspicuity of the cars for approaching
motorists. Early studies suggested that massed applications
(concentrating retroreflective material in one or two locations) were
more effective than those applications that were distributed over a
wider area. More recent studies assessing the effectiveness of
retroreflective markings on trucks used the newer prismatic materials
and concluded that providing a design that outlined the shape of the
vehicle increases conspicuity.
The recommendation to use an outline shape was based in part on the
need of a motorist to estimate closing distance when following behind a
truck. However, motorists' interaction with trains is different from
trucks. Because
[[Page 62956]]
trucks are shorter in length and pass through an intersection more
quickly than the average train, the motorist may only need to slow his
or her vehicle to avoid a collision instead of stopping prior to
reaching the intersection. Conversely, because the average train is
longer than the average truck, it spends a greater amount of time in
the intersection. For a motorist approaching a grade crossing, the
greater amount of time the train spends in the intersection means the
more likely the motorist will need to stop at the intersection in order
to avoid a collision.
FRA's own research concluded that either a pattern that outlined
the shape of the railroad equipment, or a vertically-oriented pattern
that spaced retroreflective material uniformly over a large area of the
equipments' side, was most effective. Based on the results of studies
investigating truck reflectorization, the specific findings of FRA's
targeted research, as well as input from the railroad industry and
manufacturers of retroreflective material, FRA is proposing in this
section what it believes to be the optimum placement patterns of
retroreflective material on freight rolling stock. The proposed
placement patterns in this section are designed to maximize the
effectiveness of the material, allow retroreflectorization of a variety
of freight car types with the same generally recognizable pattern, and
also minimize the degradation rate of the material. In addition, other
practical advantages to a standardized reflectorization pattern include
the potential for volume discounts on the costs of materials and
minimizing labor costs by standardizing the repair and installation of
the material.
This section proposes a vertical pattern of retroreflective
sheeting on the sides of freight cars, where the physical configuration
of the car allows, with strips of sheeting to be located as close to
each end of the car as practicable and at equidistant intervals of not
more than 10 feet. This pattern is intended to alert an approaching
motorist to the approximate dimensions of the hazard (the freight car)
in his or her path. In addition, because roadway lanes in the United
States are typically 10 to 12 feet wide, applying strips of
retroreflective sheeting at least every ten feet along the sides of
freight cars, increases the likelihood of at least one reflector being
in the sight path of an approaching motorist.
A vertically oriented pattern, as opposed to an outline pattern, is
proposed because it contrasts with the horizontally oriented pattern of
the retroreflective pattern required for truck trailers, thereby
reducing the likelihood that motorists will confuse a train in a grade
crossing with a truck trailer. In addition, because not all approaches
to grade crossings are level, to the extent that a motor vehicle's
headlights are aimed away from the retroreflective material, less light
will reach the retroreflective material if it is applied horizontally
and therefore less light will be returned to the driver and a train in
a crossing will be more difficult to detect. Orienting the
retroreflective material vertically increases the likelihood that the
maximum available light from vehicle headlights will enter the
retroreflective material and be returned to the motorist when the road
grade is not level.
This section also proposes to require four square feet of
retroreflective material on each side of the typical 50-foot freight
car and provides that freight cars longer than 50 feet would require
one additional foot of material for each additional ten feet in length.
Although the optimum configuration of retroreflectors identified in the
1999 Volpe Report, required slightly less retroreflective material,
this configuration assumed that the material would be periodically
washed. Volpe found that periodic washing of the retroreflectors could
recover the intensity of the prismatic material to nearly original
levels. However, because of practical concerns expressed by many
members of the railroad industry (e.g., increased labor costs,
environmental wastewater and water usage issues), FRA does not propose
to require the periodic cleaning of the retroreflective sheeting.
Instead, in order to compensate for the lack of cleaning, FRA is
proposing to require approximately one additional square foot of
material on each side of freight rolling stock, thereby lowering the
level of luminance needed.
Paragraph (a) of this section generally explains that the amount of
retroreflective sheeting required to be applied to freight cars under
this part is dependent on the length of the car, measured from endsill
to endsill, exclusive of the draft gear. Paragraph (a)(1) proposes to
require that on freight cars other than tank cars and flat cars,
retroreflective sheeting be applied vertically in 4x36 inch and 4x18
inch strips along the car sides, with the bottom edge of each strip no
lower than 42 inches above the top of the rail. Further, this paragraph
proposes to require that either a minimum of one 4x36 inch (one square
foot) strip of retroreflective material or two 4x18 inch strips,
directly above each other, be applied vertically as close to each end
of the car as practicable and that a minimum of one 4x18 inch strip be
applied vertically at intervals of no more than every 10 feet between
each end (i.e., for a typical 60 foot freight car, at 10 feet, 20 feet,
30 feet, 40 feet, and 50 feet). See Figure 1.
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
[[Page 62957]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06NO03.001
BILLING CODE 4910-06-C
Although paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) follow this same basic pattern,
FRA has attempted to account for the configurational differences
between various types of freight cars. Paragraph (a)(2) addresses tank
cars specifically, while paragraph (a)(3) addresses flat cars.
Paragraph (a)(2) proposes to require that on tank cars, retroreflective
sheeting be applied vertically along the car sides and centered on the
horizontal centerline of the tank, or as near as practicable. See
Figure 2. If it is not practicable to safely apply the sheeting
centered on the horizontal centerline of the tank, the sheeting may be
applied vertically with its top edge no lower than 70'' above the top
of the rail. See Figure 2(a). Similar to the pattern proposed in
paragraph (a)(1), paragraph (a)(2) requires a minimum of one 4x36 inch
(one square foot) strip of retroreflective material or two 4x18 inch
strips, directly above each other, be applied vertically as close to
each end of the tank as practicable and that a minimum of one 4x18 inch
strip be applied vertically at intervals of no more than every 10 feet
between each end of the tank. The intent of this configuration is that
the retroreflective sheeting will be centered, as practicable, on the
outermost curved area of the tank, thereby reflecting the most light.
FRA recognizes that the material applied underneath the centerline of
the tank may reflect a certain amount of light downward and not
directly back to the motorist and that illumination from a vehicle's
headlights may not even reach some of the material applied above the
centerline.
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
[[Page 62958]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06NO03.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06NO03.003
BILLING CODE 4910-06-C
[[Page 62959]]
Recognizing the limited surface area of the sides of a typical flat
car, paragraph (a)(3) proposes to require a minimum of two 4x18 inch
strips, one next to the other, be applied vertically as close to each
end of the car as practicable, with the bottom edge of each strip no
lower than 30 inches above the top of the rail, as practicable.
Consistent with the application pattern for other freight cars,
paragraph (a)(3) requires that a minimum of one 4x18 inch strip be
applied to the sides of flat cars vertically at intervals of no more
than every ten feet (i.e., at 10 feet, 20 feet, 30 feet, 40 feet,
etc.), with the bottom edges of each strip no lower than 42 inches
above the top of the rail, as practicable. See Figure 3. Because the
surface area of a typical flat car is between 4 and 18 inches in
height, if vertical application of 4x18 inch strips is not feasible,
paragraph (a)(3) allows retroreflective sheeting on flat cars to be
applied vertically in three 4x6 inch strips placed directly next to
each other, or placed horizontally along the side sills of the cars.
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06NO03.004
BILLING CODE 4910-06-C
Paragraph (a)(4) recognizes that not all freight cars will fit the
standard configuration contemplated in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(a)(3). FRA estimates that the patterns proposed for typical freight
cars, tank cars, and flat cars would be impractical to apply to
approximately 1% of the fleet (e.g., schnabel cars, etc.) due to their
unique physical configurations. Accordingly, this paragraph proposes a
more flexible application pattern for these ``cars of special
construction.'' Specifically, based on the length of a ``car of special
construction,'' this paragraph specifies the required amount of
retroreflective material and requires that the pattern of application
for these cars conform as close as practicable to the standard patterns
proposed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3).
Paragraph (b) contains the proposed requirements for the
reflectorization of locomotives. The conspicuity issues surrounding
locomotives differ from the issues surrounding freight cars in many
respects. First, the physical configuration of locomotives is obviously
quite different from the configuration of most freight cars. In some
cases, locomotives are painted brighter colors than freight cars; and
locomotives owned by major railroads and used in road service are
cleaned on a more frequent basis. Often, company logos are displayed on
the sides of locomotives in fluorescent or reflective materials and
locomotives have a light source attached at the front and sides.
However, in other cases, locomotives are painted in dark colors or are
not repainted for several years, resulting in a very dark appearance.
FRA believes that some pattern of retroreflective material
recognizable to motorists is necessary to facilitate motorists'
recognition of locomotives in grade crossings. Most major railroads
have already instituted programs to accomplish this. Application of
retroreflective material to locomotives will enhance conspicuity under
the following scenarios:
[sbull] Several locomotives are coupled in a multiple-unit consist
pulling a train and the motorists' first view of the crossing occurs
when the first locomotive is already on the crossing.
[sbull] The train is stopped with one or more locomotives on the
crossing.
[sbull] A locomotive is embedded in the consist providing
``distributed power'' or is in ``helper service'' pushing from the
rear.
[sbull] During switching operations, the locomotive is pushing the
train.
Inclusion of locomotives in this program is further warranted by
their high utilization. While many freight cars sit idle for days or
weeks at a time, locomotives are generally used on a daily basis.
Investments in improved conspicuity of locomotives should be amortized
through safety benefits even more quickly than would be the case with
freight cars.
Although requiring the same amount of retroreflective material on
locomotives as comparably sized freight cars, paragraph (b) does not
propose to mandate a specific pattern. Instead, this paragraph proposes
to allow any pattern that divides the amount of retroreflective
sheeting equally between both sides of a locomotive and is applied in a
``pattern recognizable to motorists,'' even a horizontal pattern along
the sill or side walkway of a locomotive.
Although FRA believes that the patterns of application proposed in
this
[[Page 62960]]
Sec. 224.105 represent the optimum configuration of retroreflective
material on freight rolling stock, FRA solicits comments as to the
feasibility and efficiency of these patterns and any recommendations
for alternative patterns of application.
Section 224.107 Application of Retroreflective Sheeting
This section proposes to require that all freight cars subject to
this part be equipped with retroreflective sheeting conforming to this
part within ten years of the effective date of the final rule, and
similarly, that all locomotives subject to this part be equipped within
five years. Recognizing the voluntary efforts by many freight rolling
stock owners who have already begun reflectorizing their fleets and the
practical differences involved in applying reflective materials to
freight rolling stock already in use versus newly manufactured stock,
FRA has attempted to devise a schedule for the application of
retroreflective material which assures the most efficient and cost-
effective implementation of the rule. Generally, FRA proposes that
retroreflective sheeting be applied to new freight rolling stock at the
time of construction and to existing stock when such stock is being
repainted, rebuilt, or undergoing other periodic maintenance. As an
alternative to this schedule, FRA is also proposing the more flexible
approach of allowing freight car owners to designate, in individualized
reflectorization implementation plans, a schedule for the
reflectorization of their freight car fleets.
Railroad Freight Cars
Newly constructed cars: Paragraph (a)(1) requires that
retroreflective sheeting conforming to the rule be applied to cars
manufactured after the effective date of the final rule at the time of
construction.
Existing cars without retroreflective sheeting: As applied to cars
that, as of the date of publication of the final rule, are not equipped
with at least one square foot of retroreflective sheeting on each side,
paragraph (a)(2) generally requires the application of retroreflective
sheeting to the cars as they are repainted, rebuilt, or taken out of
service for other scheduled maintenance and/or inspections.
Specifically, paragraph (a)(2)(i) requires that conforming
retroreflective sheeting be applied to existing freight cars when,
after the effective date of the final rule, either (1) the car is
repainted or rebuilt, or (2) the car first undergoes a single car air
brake test required under 49 CFR 232.305, whichever occurs first.
Paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B) also provides that the application of
retroreflective sheeting to a freight car may be deferred until the
second single car air brake test, if it is more practicable to apply
the sheeting at that time. By allowing the flexibilty to defer
application of the sheeting until the second single car air brake test,
FRA recognizes that conditions at the time of the first single car air
brake test may make it impractical to apply retroreflective sheeting at
that time.
FRA understands that most rail cars are repainted, on average,
every seven years and undergo a major overhaul or rebuild every ten
years, depending upon mileage and condition. Similarly, the single car
air brake test is required every eight years for new cars and every
five years for other cars. See 49 CFR 232.305(c), (d). Accordingly, FRA
believes that the schedule set forth in paragraph (a)(2)(i), providing
for application of the retroreflective sheeting when cars are out of
service for regularly scheduled maintenance, will allow the entire U.S.
fleet of freight cars to be reflectorized well within the ten year
implementation period and will not require cars to incur any additional
downtime outside of the normal maintenance cycle for the purpose of
reflectorization.
Although FRA believes the schedule set forth in Sec.
224.107(a)(2)(i) is the most cost-effective and efficient method of
reflectorizing freight cars, paragraph (a)(2)(ii) recognizes that some
freight car owners may prefer to develop their own schedule for
reflectorization. Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) provides that a freight car
owner may elect not to follow paragraph (a)(2)(i)'s schedule, if within
60 days of the effective date of the final rule, the owner submits to
FRA a Fleet Reflectorization Implementation Plan. This plan must set
forth the car numbers constituting the fleet subject to this part and
indicate when the identified cars will be reflectorized. The plan must
also contain an affirmation that at least 20% of the total fleet will
be equipped with retroreflective sheeting conforming to this part
within 24 months after the effective date of the final rule and that
not less than an additional ten percent of the total fleet will be
completed each 12-month period thereafter for the duration of the 10-
year implementation period. Absent identification of a car in a Fleet
Reflectorization Implementation Plan, retroreflective sheeting
conforming to this part will be applied to that car at the time of its
first single car air brake test after the effective date of the final
rule. See Appendix B for the standard form Fleet Reflectorization
Implementation Plan anticipated by this section.
If a freight car owner elects the procedures of paragraph
(a)(2)(ii) and submits a Fleet Reflectorization Implementation Plan to
FRA, the owner is thereafter responsible for compliance with the plan.
In keeping with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act and the
Government Paperwork Elimination Act, FRA anticipates providing car
owners with the option of submitting this plan (and any required
updates) to FRA electronically. If upon completion of the initial 24-
month period an owner fails to reflectorize at least 20% of the freight
car fleet, or if after any subsequent 12-month period an owner fails to
reflectorize at least an additional 10% of the total fleet, the owner
must notify FRA's Associate Administrator of such a failure.
Thereafter, the owner will be required to comply with the schedule set
forth in paragraph (a)(2)(i), the percentage requirements of paragraph
(a)(2)(ii) will continue to apply, and the fleet owner must take any
additional action necessary to bring cars under his ownership or
control into compliance.
Existing cars already equipped with retroreflective sheeting as of
publication date of final rule: Recognizing the voluntary efforts
already underway by many railroads and car owners to reflectorize their
freight car fleets, paragraph (a)(3) of this section addresses existing
freight cars that, as of the publication date of the final rule, are
already equipped with retroreflective material. FRA understands that
approximately 25% of the domestically-owned freight car fleet is
already equipped with some type of reflective material. However, many
of the color schemes, the levels of reflectivity of the material, and
the per car amount of material in use, differ from the standards
proposed in this rule. If car owners are required to replace the
retroreflective materials that they voluntarily installed to improve
safety, it would have the effect of penalizing owners that demonstrated
an extra level of safety consciousness. This would have the unintended
effect of discouraging car owners from exploring innovative approaches
to improving safety. With this in mind, FRA is proposing that freight
cars equipped with at least one square foot of retroreflective
material, uniformly distributed over the length of each car side, will
be considered in compliance with this part for ten years from the
effective date of the final rule, provided that the sheeting is not
engineering grade, super engineering grade (enclosed lens), or glass
bead
[[Page 62961]]
encapsulated type sheeting. FRA intends to exclude all engineering
grade and glass bead encapsulated type retroreflective sheeting because
such sheeting does not meet the minimum photometric performance
requirements of Sec. 224.103. Accordingly, freight cars already
equipped with engineering grade, super engineering grade, or glass bead
encapsulated type retroreflective sheeting, or any other reflective
material that is not retroreflective, must be brought into compliance
with this part in accordance with Sec. 224.107(a)(2). FRA proposes a
minimum requirement of one square foot of retroreflective sheeting per
car side under this section because based on the information provided
to FRA to date, it appears that one square foot per side is the minimum
amount currently utilized in existing voluntary reflectorization
programs.
In order for previously equipped cars to be considered in
compliance pursuant to this section, a car owner must, within 60 days
of the effective date of the final rule, file a Fleet Reflectorization
Implementation Plan with FRA identifying by car numbers the freight
cars in the fleet already equipped with complying retroreflective
sheeting and providing a description of the technical specifications of
the retroreflective material already applied (e.g., color of material,
type of material, amount and placement pattern of material on each side
of car). See Appendix B.
Locomotives
Newly constructed locomotives: Paragraph (b)(1) requires that
retroreflective sheeting conforming to the rule be applied to
locomotives manufactured after the effective date of the final rule at
the time of construction.
Existing locomotives without retroreflective sheeting: As applied
to locomotives that, as of the date of publication of the final rule,
are not equipped with at least one square foot of retroreflective
sheeting on each side, paragraph (b)(2) generally requires the
application of retroreflective sheeting to the locomotives not later
than the first biennial inspection performed pursuant to 49 CFR 229.29
occurring after the effective date of the final rule. Again, FRA's
proposal to install the retroreflective sheeting on a locomotive while
the locomotive is already out of service for the required biennial
inspection ensures that reflectorization of the entire locomotive fleet
can be completed well within the 5 years contemplated by this proposal
without incurring any additional out of service time for the
locomotives.
Existing locomotives already equipped with retroreflective sheeting
as of publication date of final rule: Again, recognizing the voluntary
reflectorization efforts already underway by many freight rolling stock
owners, paragraph (b)(3) addresses existing locomotives that, as of the
publication date of the final rule, are already equipped with
retroreflective material. Specifically, paragraph (b)(3) provides that
locomotives equipped with at least one square foot of retroreflective
sheeting, uniformly distributed over the length of each side, will be
considered in compliance with this part for a period of 5 years from
the effective date of the final rule, provided that the sheeting is not
engineering grade, super engineering grade (enclosed lens), or glass
bead encapsulated type sheeting. Again, FRA proposes to exclude all
engineering grade and glass bead encapsulated type retroreflective
sheeting because such materials do not meet the minimum photometric
requirements of the rule. Locomotives already equipped with engineering
grade, super engineering grade, or glass bead encapsulated type
retroreflective sheeting, or any other reflective material that is not
retroreflective, must be brought into compliance with this part in
accordance with Sec. 224.107(b)(2). Similar to Sec. 224.107(a)(3)
addressing freight cars, in order for previously equipped locomotives
to be considered in compliance pursuant to this part, the locomotive
owner must, within 60 days of the effective date of the final rule,
file with FRA a Fleet Reflectorization Implementation Plan identifying
by locomotive reporting marks the locomotives in the fleet already
equipped with complying retroreflective sheeting and providing a
description of the technical specifications of the retroreflective
material already applied (e.g., color of material, type of material,
amount and placement pattern of material on each side of locomotives).
See Appendix B.
For ease in understanding the requirements of this section, the
following table summarizes the schedules of application proposed in
this section.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freight Cars: At time of
New construction Locomotives: At time of construction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing stock without Earliest of: (a) when car is No later than first biennial
retroreflective sheeting. repainted, or rebuilt, or (b) when inspection performed per 49 CFR
car first undergoes single car air 229.29.
brake test under 49 CFR 232.305,
OR
In accordance with Individual
Reflectorization Plan filed with
FRA per Sec. 224.107(a)(2)(ii).
Existing stock with retroreflective 10 years from date of final rule's 5 years from date of final rule's
sheeting (not ASTM D 4956-01 Types publication. publication.
I, II, or III).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 224.109 Inspection and Replacement
This section sets forth the proposed requirements for the periodic
inspection and replacement of damaged retroreflective material on
freight rolling stock. Although FRA is not proposing any specific
maintenance requirements, paragraph (a) requires that retroreflective
sheeting on freight cars subject to this part be visually inspected for
presence and condition whenever a car undergoes a single car air brake
test required under 49 CFR 232.305. Likewise, paragraph (b) requires
that retroreflective sheeting on locomotives subject to this part be
visually inspected for presence and condition whenever the locomotive
receives the annual inspection required under 49 CFR 229.27. Upon
inspection, if more than 20 percent of the amount of sheeting required
on either side of the car or locomotive under Sec. 224.105 is damaged,
obscured, or missing, that damaged, obscured, or missing sheeting must
be replaced. In other words, if a 4x36 inch end strip (or two 4x18 inch
strips) of retroreflective sheeting is missing from one side of a
typical 50 or 60 foot freight car, that sheeting must be replaced.
Section 224.111 Renewal
This section proposes to require that all retroreflective sheeting
required under this part be replaced with new conforming sheeting,
regardless of its condition, no later than ten years after the date of
initial installation. This section is based on the manufacturers'
stated useful life of retroreflective
[[Page 62962]]
material. FRA, however, will monitor the retroreflective qualities of
various fleet segments over time and may extend the ten year interval
if warranted.
Appendix A--Schedule of Civil Penalties
This appendix is being reserved until the final rule. At that time
it will include a schedule of civil penalties to be used in connection
with this part. Because such penalty schedules are statements of
policy, notice and comment are not required prior to their issuance.
See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Nevertheless, commenters are invited to
submit suggestions to FRA describing the types of actions or omissions
under each regulatory section that would subject a person to the
assessment of a civil penalty. Commenters are also invited to recommend
what penalties may be appropriate, based upon the relative seriousness
of each type of violation.
G. Public Participation
When conducting a rulemaking, FRA must follow the APA. The APA
generally requires that FRA allow all interested parties to review and
comment on any proposed rule. Thus, by this notice, FRA is providing
the public an opportunity to study the proposed rule and comment on it.
Based on comments provided in response to this notice, FRA will, after
the close of the comment period, determine what action to take.
The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments and documents as indicated in this preamble will
become a part of this docket and will be available for inspection or
copying at Room PL-401 on the Plaza Level of the Nassif Building at the
same address during regular business hours. You may also obtain access
to this docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.
Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This proposed rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing
policies and procedures, and determined to be non-significant under
both Executive Order 12866 and DOT policies and procedures (44 FR
11034; Feb. 26, 1979). FRA has prepared and placed in the docket a
regulatory evaluation addressing the economic impact of this rule.
Document inspection and copying facilities are available at 1120
Vermont Avenue, NW., 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20590. Photocopies may
also be obtained by submitting a written request to the FRA Docket
Clerk at the Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration,
1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590. Access to the docket
may also be obtained electronically through the Web site for the DOT
Docket Management System at http://dms.dot.gov. FRA invites comments on
this regulatory evaluation.
The life expectancy of the proposed reflective material is 10
years, therefore, the potential costs and benefits are calculated for a
ten-year period. Because most of the costs of the rule for a single car
occur in the year material is applied while benefits are spread over
subsequent years, and because the benefits are discounted to present
value, use of this limitation on the study period is a very
conservative approach. If a twenty-year period were used, the benefits
would substantially increase relative to the costs. The total cost of
reflectorizing locomotives, $194,512.08 (NPV), added to the cost of
reflectorizing rail cars, $48,671,710.63 (NPV) equals the total costs
of $48,866,222.71 (NPV).
Benefits of increased rail car visibility are measured in terms of
grade crossing accidents averted. Safety benefits were calculated in
terms of the decline in the probability of accidents. The magnitude of
the reduction in the probability of accidents as a result of rail car
reflectorization depends on the effectiveness of reflectors and the
number of accidents expected absent reflectorization. The FRA employed
three completely separate approaches to the estimation of benefits
utilizing data from FRA's highway-rail grade crossing accident/incident
reports (Form F 6180.57) from 1998-2001. In each method of benefits
estimation, in order to ensure a realistic estimate, FRA took into
account various factors that could influence the effectiveness of the
retroreflective material (e.g., active versus passive grade crossings,
clear versus cloudy weather conditions, dark versus illuminated
crossings). FRA accounted for these factors by developing
``effectiveness rates'' which varied depending on the circumstances of
reported Category 1 RIT accidents. For example, the highest
effectiveness rate employed was 60% for accidents where motor vehicles
ran into the sides of trains at night at unlighted, passive crossings,
while the lowest effectiveness rate employed was 15% for accidents
where motor vehicles ran into the sides of trains at night at lighted
crossings equipped with active warning devices (i.e., flashing lights
or gates).
Each approach appears to be reasonable, and the FRA suggests that
together they provide a good idea of the order of magnitude of benefits
likely to result from a rule requiring the reflectorization of rail
freight equipment. The first approach employed the Delphi methodology
based on the opinions of FRA's grade crossing experts. The discounted
total ten-year benefit equals $87,517,527.50. Using the signal
detection model, which is based on signal detection theory, the
accident reduction potential of placing reflectors on rail cars is
estimated, once discounted, to equal a total ten-year benefit of
$69,304,986.61. Using results from a NHTSA report evaluating truck
reflector effectiveness, the average benefit estimates are
approximately $101 million. The following chart summarizes the three
different benefit estimation techniques, unique subsets of the accident
pool utilized, resulting values of collisions, and the resulting net
present value of estimated benefits.
Reflectorization Benefit Estimation Techniques
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative Approaches............... Grade Crossing Experts. Signal Detection Model. NHTSA Technical
Report.\2\
Methodology.......................... Delphi Method.......... Risk and Uncertainty Truck Reflector
Analysis. Effectiveness Rates.
Subset of RIT accident pool (1998- 67.89 accidents (271.55 53.76 accidents (768 93.68, 76, 47.72
2001 data: 768 accidents, 84 accidents/4 years x accidents/4 years x accidents (707
fatalities, 347 injuries). various scenario effectiveness rate of accidents/4 years.
effectiveness rates). 28%). (176.75) x various
effectiveness rates of
53%, 43%, and 27%).
Value of accident.................... $412,829............... $412,829............... $442,738.
[[Page 62963]]
Total Benefits (NPV)............. $87,517,527.50......... $69,304,986.61......... $101,411,947.44 (AVG).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``The Effectiveness of Retroreflective Tape on Heavy Trailers,'' National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) Technical Report, DOT HS 809 22, March 2001.
Estimated ten-year discounted benefits range from a low of $69
million based on the Signal Detection Model, to a high of more than
$101 million (NHTSA's truck reflectorization follow-up study), with FRA
subjective analysis coming in between at $87 million. While there is
certainly a broad range in these estimates, the fact that they are as
close as they are, given the vastly different approaches taken, gives
FRA confidence that together they represent a reasonable indicator of
the magnitude of benefits achievable for the reflectorization of
railroad freight equipment. FRA believes that reflectorization of rail
freight rolling stock is a feasible method of enhancing rail car
visibility, that will likely improve safety in a cost effective manner.
FRA expects that the measures called for in this proposal would prevent
or mitigate the severity of casualties greater in value than the costs
of complying with the proposed requirements.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and Executive Order 13272
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires
an assessment of the impacts of proposed rules on small entities. FRA
has conducted a regulatory flexibility assessment of this rule's impact
on small entities, and the assessment has been placed in the public
docket for this rulemaking. This proposed rule affects railroad freight
car and locomotive owners and may affect other entities as well.
Entities impacted by the proposed rule are companies and railroads
that own freight cars and locomotives. Many companies that own freight
cars are subsidiaries of larger companies that are not considered small
businesses. FRA does not expect that smaller railroads will be affected
disproportionately. The level of costs incurred by each organization
should vary in proportion to car ownership.
Passenger railroads are excepted from the proposed rule. Visibility
conditions for passenger rail cars are different than freight rail
cars. FRA solicits comments to identify the impacts of these provisions
to the extent that those affected by such provisions are small
entities.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
The sections that contain the new information collection requirements
and the estimated time to fulfill each requirement are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFR section--49 CFR Respondent universe Total annual responses Average time per response Total annual burden hours Total annual burden cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
224.7--Waivers.................... 289 Car Owners................ 20 petitions.................. 1 hour........................ 20 hours..................... $700
224.15--Special Approval
Procedures:
--Petitions For Special 289 Car Owners................ 10 petitions.................. 40 hours...................... 400 hours.................... $19,040
Approval.
--Public Comments............. Public/Railroads.............. None.......................... NA............................ NA........................... NA
--Written Request For Hearing. Interested Parties............ None.......................... N/A........................... N/A.......................... N/A
224.103--Characteristics of
Retroreflective Sheeting:
--Certification............... 4 Manufacturer................ NA............................ NA............................ NA........................... NA
--Alternative Standards....... 289 Car Owners................ Cov. Under 224.15............. Cov. Under 224.15............. Cov. Under 224.15............ Cov. Under 224.15
224.107--Application of 289 Car Owners................ 140 plans/forms............... 28 hours...................... 3,920 hours.................. $137,200
Retroreflective Sheeting:
--Reports of Failure Meet 289 Car Owners................ 15 reports.................... 16 Hours...................... 240 hours.................... $8,400
Percentage requirements.
--Existing Cars with 289 Car Owners................ Cov. Above.................... Cov. Above.................... Cov. Above................... Cov. Above.
Retroreflective Sheeting--
Forms.
224.109--Inspection and 289 Car Owners................ 2 records..................... 3 minutes..................... .10 hour..................... $5
Replacements: Locomotives--
Records of Restriction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions;
searching existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed
data; and reviewing the information. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits comments concerning: whether these
information collection requirements are necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of FRA, including whether the information
has practical utility; the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of
the information collection requirements; the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and whether the burden of
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, may be minimized. For information or a copy of
the paperwork package submitted to OMB, contact Mr. Robert Brogan,
Information Clearance Officer, at 202-493-6292.
Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
collection of information requirements should direct them to Mr. Robert
Brogan, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW, Mail
Stop 17, Washington, DC 20590. Comments may also be submitted via e-
mail to Mr. Brogan at
[[Page 62964]]
the following address: robert.brogan@fra.dot.gov.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information requirements contained in this proposed rule between 30 and
60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect
if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
FRA is not authorized to impose a penalty on persons for violating
information collection requirements which do not display a current OMB
control number, if required. FRA intends to obtain current OMB control
numbers for any new information collection requirements resulting from
this rulemaking action prior to the effective date of a final rule. The
OMB control number, when assigned, will be announced by separate notice
in the Federal Register.
D. Federalism Implications
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism,'' issued on August 4,
1999, requires that each agency ``in a separately identified portion of
the preamble to the regulation as it is to be issued in the Federal
Register, provide to the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget a federalism summary impact statement, which consists of a
description of the extent of the agency's prior consultation with State
and local officials, a summary of the nature of their concerns and the
agency's position supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a
statement of the extent to which the concerns of State and local
officials have been met.'' FRA will adhere to Executive Order 13132
when issuing a final rule in this proceeding.
E. Environmental Impact
FRA has evaluated this rule in accordance with its ``Procedures for
Considering Environmental Impacts'' (FRA's Procedures) (64 FR 28545,
May 26, 1999) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental statutes, Executive Orders,
and related regulatory requirements. FRA has determined that this
regulation is not a major FRA action (requiring the preparation of an
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment) because it
is categorically excluded from detailed environmental review pursuant
to section 4(c)(20) of FRA's Procedures. 64 FR 28547, May 26, 1999.
Section 4(c)(20) reads as follows:
(c) Actions categorically excluded. Certain classes of FRA
actions have been determined to be categorically excluded from the
requirements of these Procedures as they do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. * *
* The following classes of FRA actions are categorically excluded:
* * * * *
(20) Promulgation of railroad safety rules and policy statements
that do not result in significantly increased emissions of air or
water pollutants or noise or increased traffic congestion in any
mode of transportation.
In accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of FRA's Procedures, the
agency has further concluded that no extraordinary circumstances exist
with respect to this regulation that might trigger the need for a more
detailed environmental review. As a result, FRA finds that this
regulation is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Pursuant to Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency ``shall, unless
otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory
actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector
(other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in law).'' Section 202 of the Act
(2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that ``before promulgating any general
notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the
promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may
result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and before
promulgating any final rule for which a general notice of proposed
rulemaking was published, the agency shall prepare a written
statement'' detailing the effect on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. This proposed rule will not result
in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year, and thus preparation of such a statement is not required.
G. Energy Impact
Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a
Statement of Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' 66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001. Under the Executive Order, a ``significant
energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency (normally
published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to
lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including
notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices
of proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) that is
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a
significant energy action. FRA has evaluated this NPRM in accordance
with Executive Order 13211. FRA has determined that this NPRM is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Consequently, FRA has determined that
this regulatory action is not a ``significant energy action'' within
the meaning of Executive Order 13211.
H. Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://dms.dot.gov.
List of Subjects
Incorporation by reference, Penalties, Railroad locomotive safety,
Railroad safety, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The Proposed Rule
In consideration of the foregoing, FRA proposes to amend chapter
II, Subtitle B, of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations to add part
224 as follows:
PART 224--REFLECTORIZATION OF RAIL FREIGHT ROLLING STOCK
Subpart A--General
Sec.
224.1 Purpose and scope.
222.3 Applicability.
224.5 Definitions.
224.7 Waivers.
224.9 Responsibility for compliance.
224.11 Civil penalties.
224.13 Preemptive effect.
224.15 Special approval procedures.
Subpart B--Application, Inspection, and Maintenance of Retroreflective
Material
224.101 General requirements.
224.103 Characteristics of retroreflective sheeting.
224.105 Size and location.
224.107 Application of retroreflective sheeting.
[[Page 62965]]
224.109 Inspection and replacement.
224.111 Renewal.
Appendix A to Part 224--Schedule of Civil Penalties [Reserved]
Appendix B to Part 224--Form Fleet Reflectorization Implementation
Plan
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107 and 20148; 28 U.S.C. 2461; and
49 CFR 1.49.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 224.1 Purpose and scope.
(a) The purpose of this part is to reduce highway-rail grade
crossing accidents and deaths, injuries, and property damage resulting
from those accidents, by enhancing the conspicuity of rail freight
rolling stock so as to increase its detectability by motor vehicle
operators at night and under conditions of poor visibility.
(b) In order to achieve cost-effective mitigation of collision risk
at highway-rail grade crossings, this part establishes the duties of
freight rolling stock owners (including those who manage maintenance of
freight rolling stock, supply freight rolling stock for transportation,
or offer freight rolling stock in transportation) and railroads to
progressively apply retroreflective material to freight rolling stock,
and to periodically inspect and maintain that material. Freight rolling
stock owners, however, are under no duty to install, maintain, or
repair reflective material except as specified in this part.
(c) This part establishes a schedule for the application of
retroreflective material to rail freight rolling stock and prescribes
standards for the application, inspection, and maintenance of
retroreflective material to rail freight rolling stock for the purpose
of enhancing its detectability at highway-rail grade crossings. This
part does not restrict a freight rolling stock owner or railroad from
applying retroreflective material to freight rolling stock for other
purposes if not inconsistent with the recognizable pattern required by
this part.
Sec. 224.3 Applicability.
This part applies to all railroad freight cars and locomotives that
operate over a public or private highway-rail grade crossing and are
used for revenue or work train service, except:
(a) Freight rolling stock that operates only on track inside an
installation that is not part of the general railroad system of
transportation;
(b) Rapid transit operations in an urban area that are not
connected to the general railroad system of transportation; or
(c) Locomotives and passenger cars used exclusively in passenger
service.
Sec. 224.5 Definitions.
As used in this part--
Administrator means the Administrator of the Federal Railroad
Administration or the Administrator's delegate.
Associate Administrator means the Associate Administrator for
Safety, Federal Railroad Administration, or the Associate
Administrator's delegate.
Flat car means a car having a flat floor or deck on the underframe
with no sides, ends or roof.
Freight rolling stock means:
(1) Any locomotive subject to part 229 of this chapter used to haul
or switch freight cars (whether in revenue or work train service), and
(2) Any railroad freight car subject to part 215 of this chapter
(including a car stenciled MW pursuant to Sec. 215.305).
Freight rolling stock owner means any person who owns freight
rolling stock, leases freight rolling stock, manages the maintenance or
use of freight rolling stock on behalf of an owner or one or more
lessors or lessees, or otherwise controls the maintenance or use of
freight rolling stock.
Locomotive has the meaning assigned by Sec. 229.5 of this chapter,
but for purposes of this part applies only to a locomotive used in the
transportation of freight or the operation of a work train.
Obscured means concealed or hidden (i.e., covered up, as where a
layer of paint or dense chemical residue blocks incoming light); this
term does not refer to ordinary accumulations of dirt, grime, or ice
resulting from the normal railroad operating environment.
Person means an entity of any type covered under 1 U.S.C. 1,
including but not limited to the following: a railroad; a manager,
supervisor, official, or other employee or agent of a railroad; any
owner, manufacturer, lessor, or lessee of railroad equipment, track or
facilities; any independent contractor providing goods or services to a
railroad; and any employee of such an owner, manufacturer, lessor,
lessee, or independent contractor.
Railroad means all forms of non-highway ground transportation that
run on rails or electromagnetic guideways, including high speed ground
transportation systems that connect metropolitan areas, without regard
to whether they use new technologies not associated with traditional
railroads.
Railroad freight car has the meaning assigned by Sec. 215.5 of
this chapter.
Tank car means a rail car, the body of which consists of a tank for
transporting liquids.
Work train means a non-revenue service train used for the
administration and upkeep service of the railroad.
Sec. 224.7 Waivers.
(a) Any person subject to a requirement of this part may petition
the Administrator for a waiver of compliance with such requirement. The
filing of such a petition does not affect that person's responsibility
for compliance with that requirement while the petition is being
considered.
(b) Each petition for waiver under this section shall be filed in
the manner and contain the information required by part 211 of this
chapter.
(c) If the Administrator finds that a waiver of compliance is in
the public interest and is consistent with railroad safety, the
Administrator may grant the waiver subject to any conditions that the
Administrator deems necessary.
Sec. 224.9 Responsibility for compliance.
(a) Freight rolling stock owners, railroads, and (with respect to
certification of material) manufacturers of retroreflective material,
are primarily responsible for compliance with this part. However, any
person that performs any function or task required by this part
(including any employee, agent, or contractor of the aforementioned),
must perform that function in accordance with this part.
(b) Any person performing any function or task required by this
part shall be deemed to have consented to FRA inspection of the
person's facilities and records to the extent necessary to determine
whether the function or task is being performed in accordance with the
requirements of this part.
Sec. 224.11 Civil penalties.
Any person (including but not limited to a railroad; any manager,
supervisor, official, or other employee or agent of a railroad; any
owner, manufacturer, lessor, or lessee of railroad equipment, track, or
facilities; any employee of such owner, manufacturer, lessor, lessee,
or independent contractor) who violates any requirement of this part or
causes the violation of any such requirement is subject to a civil
penalty of at least $500, but not more than $11,000 per violation,
except that: Penalties may be assessed against individuals only for
willful violations, and, where a grossly negligent violation or a
pattern of repeated violations has created an imminent hazard of death
or injury to persons, or has caused death or injury, a penalty not to
exceed $22,000 per violation may be assessed. Each day a violation
continues shall constitute a separate offense. Appendix A to this part
contains a schedule of civil penalty amounts used in connection with
this part.
[[Page 62966]]
Sec. 224.13 Preemptive effect.
Under 49 U.S.C. 20106, issuance of this part preempts any State
law, rule, regulation, or order covering the same subject matter,
except an additional or more stringent law, rule, regulation, or order
that is necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local safety
hazard; that is not incompatible with a law, rule, regulation, or order
of the United States Government; and that does not unreasonably burden
interstate commerce.
Sec. 224.15 Special approval procedures.
(a) General. The following procedures govern consideration and
action upon requests for special approval of alternative standards
under Sec. 224.103(e).
(b) Petitions.
(1) Each petition for special approval of an alternative standard
shall contain--
(i) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the primary
person to be contacted with regard to the petition;
(ii) The alternative proposed, in detail, to be substituted for the
particular requirements of this part; and
(iii) Appropriate data and analysis establishing that the
alternative will provide at least an equivalent level of safety and
meet the requirements of Sec. 224.103(e).
(2) Three copies of each petition for special approval of an
alternative standard shall be submitted to the Associate Administrator
for Safety, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW.,
Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590.
(c) Notice. FRA will publish a notice in the Federal Register
concerning each petition under paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) Public comment. FRA will provide a period of not less than 30
days from the date of publication of the notice in the Federal Register
during which any person may comment on the petition.
(1) Each comment shall set forth specifically the basis upon which
it is made, and contain a concise statement of the interest of the
commenter in the proceeding.
(2) Each comment shall be submitted to the DOT Central Docket
Management System, Nassif Building, Room Pl-401, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590, and shall contain the assigned docket number
which appears in the Federal Register for that proceeding. The form of
such submission may be in written or electronic form consistent with
the standards and requirements established by the Central Docket
Management System and posted on its Web site at http://dms.dot.gov.
(3) Upon written request of an interested party, or in the event
FRA requires additional information to appropriately consider the
petition, FRA will conduct a hearing on the petition in accordance with
the procedures provided in Sec. 211.25 of this chapter.
(e) Disposition of petitions.
(1) If FRA finds that the petition complies with the requirements
of this section and that the proposed alternative standard is
acceptable or changes are justified, or both, the petition will be
granted, normally within 90 days of its receipt. The Associate
Administrator may determine the applicability of other technical
requirements of this part when rendering a decision on the petition. If
the petition is neither granted nor denied within 90 days, the petition
remains pending for decision. FRA may attach special conditions to the
approval of the petition. Following the approval of a petition, FRA may
reopen consideration of the petition for cause stated.
(2) If FRA finds that the petition does not comply with the
requirements of this section, or that the proposed alternative standard
is not acceptable or that the proposed changes are not justified, or
both, the petition will be denied, normally within 90 days of its
receipt.
(3) When FRA grants or denies a petition, or reopens consideration
of a petition, written notice is sent to the petitioner and other
interested parties and a copy of the notice is placed in the electronic
docket of the proceeding.
Subpart B--Application, Inspection, and Maintenance of
Retroreflective Material
Sec. 224.101 General requirements.
All rail freight rolling stock shall be equipped with
retroreflective sheeting that conforms to the requirements of this
part. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the
application, inspection, and maintenance of that sheeting shall be
conducted in accordance with this subpart or in accordance with an
alternative standard providing at least an equivalent level of safety
after special approval of FRA under Sec. 224.15.
Sec. 224.103 Characteristics of retroreflective sheeting.
(a) Construction. Retroreflective sheeting shall consist of a
smooth, flat, transparent exterior film with microprismatic
retroreflective elements embedded in or suspended beneath the film so
as to form a non-exposed retroreflective optical system.
Retroreflective sheeting construction that entraps air between
laminations shall be sealed around all edges in the final application
sufficiently to prevent water from penetrating the sheeting.
(b) Color. Retroreflective sheeting applied under this part must be
yellow as specified by the chromaticity coordinates of the American
Society for Testing and Materials' (ASTM) Standard D 4956-01,
``Standard Specification for Retroreflective Sheeting for Traffic
Control.''
(c) Performance. Retroreflective sheeting applied pursuant to this
part shall meet the requirements of ASTM D 4956-01, except for the
photometric requirements, and shall, as initially applied, meet the
minimum photometric performance requirements specified in Table 1 of
this section.
Table 1.--Minimum Photometric Performance (Coefficient of
Retroreflection (RA) in Candela/Lux/Meter \2\) Requirement for Yellow
Retroreflective Sheeting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observation angle
Entrance angle -------------------------
0.2[deg] 0.5[deg]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-4[deg]....................................... 400 100
30[deg]....................................... 220 45
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Certification. The characters ``FRA-224'', constituting the
manufacturer's certification that the retroreflective sheeting conforms
to the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section,
shall appear at least once on the exposed surface of each sheeting in
the final application. The characters shall be a minimum of 3 mm high,
and shall be permanently stamped, etched, molded, or printed within the
product and each certification shall be spaced no more than four inches
apart.
(e) Alternative standards. Upon petition by a freight rolling stock
owner or railroad under Sec. 224.15, the Associate Administrator may
qualify an alternative technology as providing equivalent safety. Any
such petition shall provide data and analysis sufficient to establish
that the technology will result in conspicuity and durability at least
equal to sheeting described in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this
section applied in accordance with this part and will present a
recognizable visual target that is suitably consistent with freight
rolling stock equipped with retroreflective
[[Page 62967]]
sheeting meeting the technical requirements of this part.
Sec. 224.105 Size and location.
(a) Railroad freight cars. The amount of retroreflective sheeting
to be applied to each car is dependent on the length of the car. For
purposes of this part, the length of a car is measured from endsill to
endsill, exclusive of the draft gear.
(1) General rule. On railroad freight cars other than tank cars,
flat cars, and cars of special construction (as defined in paragraph
(a)(4) of this section), retroreflective sheeting shall be applied
vertically to each car side, with its bottom edge as close as
practicable to 42 inches above the top of the rail. Either a minimum of
one 4x36 inch strip or a minimum of two 4x18 inch strips, one above the
other, shall be applied as close to each end of the car as practicable.
Between the ends of the car, a minimum of one 4x18 inch strip shall be
applied at equal intervals that shall not exceed 10 feet.
(2) Tank cars. On tank cars, retroreflective sheeting shall be
applied vertically to each car side and centered on the horizontal
centerline of the tank, or as near as practicable. If it is not
practicable to safely apply the sheeting centered on the horizontal
centerline of the tank, the sheeting may be applied vertically with its
top edge no lower than 70 inches above the top of the rail, as
practicable. A minimum of either one 4x36 inch strip or two 4x18 inch
strips, one above the other, shall be applied as close to each end of
the car as practicable. Between the ends of the car a minimum of one
4x18 inch strip shall be applied at equal intervals that shall not
exceed 10 feet.
(3) Flat cars. On flat cars, a minimum of two 4x18 inch strips, one
next to the other, shall be applied vertically to each car side as
close to each end of the car as practicable. The bottom edges of these
4x18 inch strips shall be no lower than 30 inches above the top of the
rail, as practicable. A minimum of one 4x18 inch strip shall be applied
vertically as can be best fit at equidistant intervals between each
end, with the bottom edge of each strip no lower than 42 inches from
the top of the rail, as practicable. Between the ends of the car, a
minimum of one 4x18 inch strip shall be applied at equal intervals that
shall not exceed 10 feet. When vertical application of a 4x18 inch
strip is not feasible, the sheeting may be applied vertically in three
4x6 inch strips placed directly next to each other or as close as
practicable, or placed horizontally along the sill of the car.
(4) Cars of special construction. This paragraph applies to any car
the design of which is not compatible with the patterns of application
otherwise provided in this section. Retroreflective sheeting shall
conform as close as practicable to the requirements of paragraphs
(a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section and shall have the following
amount of sheeting equally distributed between both sides of the car:
(i) For cars less than 50 feet long, a minimum of seven square feet
of sheeting;
(ii) For cars that are 50 to 60 feet long, a minimum of eight
square feet of sheeting; and
(iii) For cars greater than 60 feet long, one additional square
foot of sheeting for every additional 10 feet of length.
(b) Locomotives:
(1) For locomotives that are less than 50 feet long, a minimum of
seven square feet of sheeting must be equally distributed between both
sides of the locomotive in a pattern recognizable to motorists.
(2) For locomotives 50 feet long or greater, an additional square
foot of sheeting must be equally distributed between both sides of the
locomotive for every additional 10 feet of length. The sheeting must be
distributed in a pattern recognizable to motorists.
(3) For any locomotive, application of material horizontally along
the sill or side walkway of the locomotive shall be considered a
pattern recognizable to motorists.
Sec. 224.107 Application of retroreflective sheeting.
(a) Railroad freight cars. All railroad freight cars subject to
this part must be equipped with retroreflective sheeting conforming to
this part by 10 years after the effective date of the final rule. If a
car already has reflective material applied that does not meet the
standards of this part, it is not necessary to remove the material
unless its placement interferes with the placement of the sheeting
required by this part.
(1) New cars. Retroreflective sheeting conforming to this part must
be applied to all new cars at the time of construction.
(2) Existing cars without retroreflective sheeting.
(i) If as of the date of publication of the final rule a car
subject to this part is not equipped on each side with at least one
square foot of retroreflective sheeting as specified in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section, retroreflective sheeting conforming to this
part must be applied to the car at the earliest of the following
occasions occurring after the effective date of the rule or in
accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section:
(A) When the car is repainted or rebuilt; or
(B) When the car first undergoes a single car air brake test as
prescribed by 49 CFR 232.305. Application may be deferred until the
second such test if it is more practicable to do so and the test will
be made before 10 years after the effective date of the final rule.
(ii) A freight rolling stock owner may elect not to follow the
schedule in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section if, not later than 60
days after the effective date of the final rule, the freight rolling
stock owner submits to FRA a Fleet Reflectorization Implementation Plan
designating the car numbers constituting the fleet subject to this part
and affirming that the cars will be equipped with retroreflective
sheeting as required by this part such that not less than 20 percent of
the total fleet subject to this part shall be equipped within 24 months
following the effective date of the final rule and not less than an
additional 10 percent of the total fleet shall be completed each 12-
month period thereafter for the duration of the 10-year period. See
Appendix B of this part. Thereafter,
(A) The designated fleet shall be equipped with retroreflective
sheeting according to the requirements of this paragraph (a)(2)(ii);
and
(B) If, following the conclusion of the initial 24-month period or
any 12-month period thereafter, the percentage requirements of this
section have not been met--
(1) The freight rolling stock owner shall be considered in
violation of this part;
(2) The freight rolling stock owner shall, within 60 days of the
close of the period, report the failure to the Associate Administrator;
(3) The requirements of paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section shall
apply to all railroad freight cars subject to this part in the fleet;
(4) The percentage requirements of this paragraph (a)(2)(ii) shall
continue to apply; and
(5) The fleet owner shall take such additional action as may be
necessary to achieve future compliance.
(C) Cars to be retired shall be included in the fleet total until
they are retired.
(3) Existing cars with retroreflective sheeting. If as of the date
of publication of the final rule a car is equipped on each side with at
least one square foot of retroreflective sheeting, uniformly
distributed over the length of each side, that car shall be considered
in compliance with this part for a period of 10 years from the
effective date of the final rule, provided the sheeting is not
engineering grade, super engineering grade (enclosed lens), or glass
bead encapsulated type sheeting, and
[[Page 62968]]
provided the freight rolling stock owner files a Fleet Reflectorization
Implementation Plan with FRA no later than 60 days after the effective
date of the final rule identifying the cars already so equipped. See
Appendix B of this part.
(b) Locomotives. All locomotives subject to this part must be
equipped with conforming retroreflective sheeting by five years after
the effective date of the final rule. If a locomotive already has
reflective material applied that does not meet the standards of this
part, it is not necessary to remove the material unless its placement
interferes with the placement of the sheeting required by this part.
(1) New locomotives. Retroreflective sheeting conforming to this
part must be applied to all new locomotives at the time of
construction.
(2) Existing locomotives without retroreflective sheeting. If as of
the date of publication of the final rule a locomotive subject to this
part is not equipped on each side with at least one square foot of
retroreflective sheeting as specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section, retroreflective sheeting conforming to this part must be
applied to the locomotive not later than the first biennial inspection
performed pursuant to 49 CFR 229.29 occurring after the effective date
of the final rule.
(3) Existing locomotives with retroreflective sheeting. If as of
the date of publication of the final rule a locomotive is equipped on
each side with at least one square foot of retroreflective sheeting,
uniformly distributed over the length of the locomotive side, that
locomotive shall be considered in compliance with this part for a
period of 5 years from the effective date of the final rule, provided
the existing material is not engineering grade, super engineering grade
(enclosed lens), or glass bead encapsulated type sheeting, and provided
the freight rolling stock owner files a Fleet Reflectorization
Implementation Plan with FRA no later than 60 days after the effective
date of the final rule identifying the cars already so equipped. See
Appendix B of this part.
(4) Each railroad that has fewer than 400,000 annual employee work
hours, and does not share locomotive power with a railroad with 400,000
or more annual employee work hours, may bring its locomotive fleet into
compliance according to the following schedule: fifty percent of the
railroad's locomotives must be retrofitted pursuant to Sec. 224.105(b)
within five years of the effective date of this part and one hundred
percent must be retrofitted pursuant to Sec. 224.105(b) within 10
years of the effective date of this part. If a railroad with fewer than
400,000 annual employee work hours shares locomotive power with a
railroad with 400,000 or more annual employee work hours, the smaller
railroad must comply with the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and (3)
of this section.
Sec. 224.109 Inspection and replacement.
(a) Railroad freight cars. Retroreflective sheeting on railroad
freight cars subject to this part must be visually inspected for
presence and condition whenever a car undergoes a single car air brake
test required under 49 CFR 232.305. If at the time of inspection more
than 20 percent of the amount of sheeting required under Sec. 224.105
on either side of a car is damaged, obscured, or missing, that damaged,
obscured, or missing sheeting must be replaced. If conditions at the
time of inspection are such that replacement material can not be
applied, such application may be completed not later than the earliest
of the following events: when the car next receives a required single
car air brake test or when the car is taken out of service for repairs
or other maintenance.
(b) Locomotives. Retroreflective sheeting must be visually
inspected for presence and condition when the locomotive receives the
annual inspection required under 49 CFR 229.27. If more than 20 percent
of the amount of sheeting required under Sec. 224.105 on either side
of a locomotive is damaged, obscured, or missing, that damaged,
obscured, or missing sheeting must be replaced. If conditions at the
time of inspection are such that replacement material can not be
applied or if sufficient replacement material is not available, such
application can be completed at the next forward location where
conditions permit, provided a record of the restriction is maintained
in the locomotive cab or in a secure and accessible electronic database
to which FRA is provided access on request.
Sec. 224.111 Renewal.
Regardless of condition, retroreflective sheeting required under
this part must be replaced with new sheeting no later than 10 years
after the date of initial installation.
Appendix A to Part 224--Schedule of Civil Penalties [Reserved]
Appendix B to Part 224--Form Fleet Reflectorization Implementation Plan
This appendix contains the standard form Fleet Reflectorization
Implementation Plan referenced in Sec. Sec. 224.107(a)(2) and
(a)(3). Freight rolling stock owners electing not to follow the
reflectorization schedule of Sec. 224.107(a)(2)(i) and freight
rolling stock owners seeking compliance with this part under Sec.
224.107(a)(3) must file this form no later than 60 days after the
effective date of the final rule.
Fleet Reflectorization Implementation Plan
Railroad or Car Owner Name
Prepared and Submitted By:
Name:
Title:
Address:
Phone:
Fax:
E-mail:
Instructions for completing form:
Report in this plan only the freight cars in your fleet subject
to 49 CFR part 224 that will be reflectorized on a schedule other
than that specified in 49 CFR 224.107(a)(2(i), and those cars that
are already equipped with retroreflective material meeting the
requirements of 49 CFR 224.107(a)(3).
I. Column (a): Insert the car number(s) identifying each freight
car in fleet subject to 49 CFR part 224. A range(s) of car numbers
may be inserted. Note: exclusions from range(s) may be listed in
column (b).
II. Column (b): List the car number of each car subject to 49
CFR part 224 not included in range (a). (Such as cars sold, retired,
or permanently removed from fleet as of the date of filing.)
III. Column (c): Indicate the status of each car identified in
column (a) as follows:
1. Enter REFL 20XX (year) if the car(s) is scheduled to be
reflectorized by owner or other authorized party at a time other
than that specified in 49 CFR 224.107(a)(2)(i). REFL indicates that
reflective material meeting the requirements of 49 CFR part 224 will
be installed on the car specified in column (a) at a time other than
when that car is being repainted, rebuilt, or undergoing the first
single car air brake test pursuant to 49 CFR 232.305 after the
effective date of the final rule. 20XX indicates the year that
reflective material will be applied to that car. Example: REFL 2005
indicates that the car owner will reflectorize the car specified in
column (a) by the end of the 2005 calendar year.
2. Enter RET XXXX (year) if the car indentified in column(a) is
scheduled to be retired from service during the initial 10-year
implementation period. RET indicates that the car will be retired,
and 20XX indicates the year that the car is scheduled to be retired.
Example: RET 2006 indicates that the car owner will retire the car
specified in column (a) by the end of the 2006 calendar year.
3. Enter COM if the car indentified in column (a) is, as of the
date of publication of the final rule, already equipped with
retroreflective material meeting the requirements of 49 CFR
224.107(a)(3).
4. Enter REPT XXXX (year) if the car identified in column (a) is
to be repainted or rebuilt during the initial 10-year implementation
period of 49 CFR part 224, and not to be reflectorized during the
first single car air-brake test (49 CFR 232.305) after the effective
date of the final rule. 20XX
[[Page 62969]]
indicates the year that the car will be rebuilt or repainted.
Example: REPT 2008 indicates that the car owner will repaint the car
specified in column (a) by the end of the 2006 calendar year.
IV. If for any car listed in column (a), COM is entered in
column (c), please describe the technical specifications of the
retroreflective material with which the cars are presently equipped
(e.g., color of material, type of material, amount and placement
pattern of material on each side of car).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Car no. and identification no. (c) Status (REFL XXXX, RET XXXX,
(or range) (b) Subtractions from range COM, REPT XXXX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By filing this FLEET REFLECTORIZATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN and
any accompanying documents or electronic files with FRA, the
Railroad or Car Owner agrees to equip the cars identified in column
(a) with retroreflective material conforming to 49 CFR part 224 in
accordance with this plan. By filing this plan, the Railroad or Car
Owner also agrees to update, at least annually, the American
Association of Railroad's UMLER file to reflect the current
reflectorization status of each freight car in its fleet subject to
Part 224. If the Railroad or Car Owner is not able, or chooses not
to update UMLER at least annually, the Railroad or Car Owner shall
annually file an updated FLEET REFLECTORIZATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
with FRA.
(signature of Corporate Officer/Car Owner)
Name:
Title:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
Issued in Washington, DC on October 29, 2003.
Allan Rutter,
Federal Railroad Administrator.
[FR Doc. 03-27649 Filed 11-5-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P