issue-1996-06-17•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-06-17
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-06-17
issue-1996-06-17Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-06-17Proposed Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 96-15334 Air Traffic Control Radar Beacon System and Mode S Transponder Requirements in the National Airspace System
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30551-30552]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15334]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Parts 121 and 135
[Docket No. 28586; Notice No. 96-5]
RIN 2120-AE81
Air Traffic Control Radar Beacon System and Mode S Transponder
Requirements in the National Airspace System
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to the NPRM published in
the Federal Register on May 23, 1996 (61 FR 26036). The NPRM proposes
to rescind the Mode S transponder requirement for all aircraft
operations under part 135 and certain aircraft operations under part
121 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 22, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Daniel V. Meier Jr., (202) 267-3749.
Correction of Publication: In the NPRM document (FR Doc. 96-13030)
on
[[Page 30552]]
page 26036 in the issue of Thursday, May 23, 1996, make the following
correction:
In the ADDRESSES section on page 26036, in the first column, last
line, the docket number was listed as 28537. This number should be
changed to read 28586.
Issued in Washington, DC on June 12, 1996.
Joseph A. Conte,
Acting Assistant Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 96-15334 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15325 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rear View Mirrors
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30585-30588]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15325]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 30586]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 96- 53; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AG41
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rear View Mirrors
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Transportation.
ACTION: Request for Comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA has granted a petition for rulemaking from Mr. Dee
Norton, who petitioned the Agency to require convex cross view mirrors
on the left rear top corner of the cargo box of stepvan and walk-in
style delivery and service trucks. NHTSA's analysis of the petition and
the backup accident data concludes that this particular solution is
only one of many possible accident prevention measures. While it is
possible that mirrors can be a cost-effective solution, no performance
specifications for these mirrors yet exist. The agency has research
underway on this and other means to reduce such deaths and injuries,
particularly for children less than five years old and the elderly, who
both are over represented in the fatality numbers. The agency believes
it is premature to begin rulemaking until we obtain information on the
experience of fleets which have installed rear cross-view mirrors and
ask other key questions.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the docket and notice numbers cited
at the beginning of this notice and be submitted to: Docket Section,
Room 5109, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. It
is requested, but not required, that 10 copies of the comments be
provided. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 9:30 a.m. to 4
p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For nonlegal issues: Mr. Jere Medlin,
Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, D.C. 20590. Mr. Medlin's telephone number is: (202) 366-
5276. His facsimile number is (202) 366-4329. For legal issues: Mr.
Paul Atelsek, Rulemaking Division, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 400
Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590. Mr. Atelsek's telephone
number is (202) 366-5260, and his FAX number is (202) 366-3820. Please
note that written comments should be sent to the Docket Section rather
than faxed to the above contact persons.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
By letter dated March 20, 1995, Mr. Dee Norton of Seattle,
Washington petitioned the agency to issue an amendment for 49 CFR
571.111, (Standard No. 111) to require convex cross view mirrors on the
left rear top corner of the cargo box of stepvan and walk-in style
delivery and service trucks. Mr. Norton's petition arose out of a
desire to prevent the kind of fatal crash that caused the death of his
grandson. C.J. Norton, Mr. Norton's grandson, died on May 18, 1994,
when he was struck and backed over by a diaper delivery service truck
that was backing from a stall in an apartment complex parking lot. Mr.
Norton stated in his petition that the truck was equipped with side-
mounted rearview mirrors required by Standard No. 111, but that those
mirrors did not provide the driver with a view of the area immediately
behind the truck. Mr. Norton stated that, without looking behind the
truck, the driver backed up and struck his grandson, not knowing that
the child was in the way.
Mr. Norton tried unsuccessfully to get Washington State to enact a
law to require delivery vehicles to use rear-mounted cross view
mirrors. His state believes that federal law prohibits it from issuing
any laws that are different from federal laws on the subject of
mirrors. As a consequence, Mr. Norton petitioned NHTSA for changes to
Standard No. 111.
The agency has reviewed the circumstances associated with the
petitioner's desired solution, and notes that the agency has been
conducting research to investigate the feasibility of equipping motor
vehicles with cost-effective countermeasures to assist drivers in more
safely carrying out backing, lane change and merging maneuvers
including the maneuvers described by the petitioner. The objectives are
to determine the performance of one or more feasible countermeasures
and to define specifications in performance terms without constraining
the solutions to particular devices or technologies.
NHTSA has been conducting and continues to conduct research to
determine alternative countermeasures for preventing backing crashes.
This research has focused on external auditory alarms ( ``An Audible
Automobile Back-up Pedestrian Warning Device--Development and
Evaluation'', DOT-HS-802-083, November 1976) as well as in-vehicle
warning systems and mirrors. External alarms have been found to be
ineffective deterrents for very young children, who do not understand
the sound and may even be attracted to the noise. In-vehicle warning
systems that have been studied provide drivers with in-vehicle alarms
triggered by the detection of nearby objects detected by the rear
facing sensors (typically ultrasonic, radar, or infrared). The agency
recently tested six rear object detection systems and found that object
detection technology is still in the early stages of its development
(``Hardware Evaluation Of Heavy Truck Side And Rear Object Detection
Systems'', SAE Paper No. 951010, W. Riley Garrott, Mark A. Flick, and
Elizabeth N. Mazzae) . One other system, a unit that costs over $900
and uses microwave radar technology is in voluntary use in some school
districts, to detect a moving child in front of a stationary school
bus. The agency's tests (``An Evaluation of Electronic Pedestrian
Detection Systems For School Buses'', SAE Paper No. 960518, Scott A.
Johnston, Elizabeth N. Mazzae, and W. Riley Garrott) show that such
systems were intended as a supplement, not a replacement, for cross
view mirrors and were designed to work only on stationary vehicles. The
agency will continue to evaluate the effectiveness and performance of
these types of countermeasures as new technology becomes available.
Used on certain commercial and recreational vehicles, rear video
cameras can provide the driver with a view of the blind spot, but the
expense of these systems limits their use. Some vehicles use rear
mounted convex mirrors to help the driver see objects and pedestrians
in the area directly behind the vehicle that is not covered by the
currently required mirror systems. However, the small image size in the
mirror, the distortion of the image, and the task of using the left
side mirror to see the image in the rear mounted mirror may make it
difficult for drivers to reliably detect objects and small pedestrians,
especially at night and in adverse weather. The agency is initiating a
research program to collect data on the extent of obstructed view areas
behind commercial and passenger vehicles and to determine the extent to
which low cost mirror systems can improve the driver's view in that
area. It may take two years to complete this research, data collection,
and analysis. Also, the agency has requested information from some
commercial fleet owners to gain insight on the extent of
[[Page 30587]]
the backing problem and to learn of the experiences that some have had
with rear-mounted convex mirrors. As the agency learns more about the
extent of this safety problem and potential solutions, it will be in a
better position to consider whether rulemaking to mandate performance-
oriented requirements for preventing backup crashes is appropriate.
Additionally, for the past two years the agency has enlisted the
assistance of the U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and its
National Electronic Injury Surveillance System to gather data on the
involvement of children with motor vehicles in nonhighway injuries and
fatalities. This effort is not yet completed. When it is completed in
1997, the Agency may be able to estimate the size of the safety problem
better than it can today.
The agency finds that the State of Washington has misinterpreted
how federal preemption affects the ability of the state to act. It is
true that under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), no State may enact or continue in
effect a standard covering the same aspect of performance as an FMVSS
unless it is identical to the FMVSS. However, there is no federal
requirement addressing the visibility of the area directly and
immediately behind the vehicle in question. Thus, NHTSA does not concur
with the State of Washington's conclusion that the preemption clause
prohibits Washington, or any other state, from requiring the use of
rear-mounted cross view mirrors on any motor vehicle. While it is true
that nonidentical state standards would become preempted if NHTSA did
adopt a performance requirement for cross view mirrors, NHTSA would
certainly consider the existing state laws in doing so.
Thus, it is possible for the petitioner and others to seek
solutions at the state level, and those solutions can have greater
immediate effect than any Federal action. Because States regulate
vehicles-in-use and the actions of drivers, a solution at the State
level of adding rear-mounted cross view mirrors to delivery service
vehicles and restrictions on how delivery service operations are
conducted, would affect all existing subject vehicles in states that
chose to implement such regulations. A Federal rule only would affect
new trucks once implemented and could take more than twenty-five years
(ref. ``Updated Vehicle Survivability and Travel Mileage Schedules'',
DOT-HS-808-339, November ,1995) before the full benefits would be
realized because of the slow rate of fleet replacement. This study
showed that 12% of light trucks were still in use 25 years later.
II. Questions on Which Comment is Requested
A. For Fleet Users of Rear Cross-View Mirrors
1. Have your vehicles' accident rates in backing incidents
decreased since you equipped your fleet with rear cross view mirrors?
Please provide any available data on your backing crash rates.
2. What percentage of your backing incidents occur off the public
roadway?
3. Under what conditions, if any, are these mirrors difficult to
use or perhaps even unusable?
a. Dark days?
b. Rainy days?
c. Shadows behind the vehicle?
d. At night with the backup lamps?
e. Other adverse conditions; please describe.
4. What comments, if any, have your drivers made regarding their
use of rear cross view mirrors? Are they generally in favor of them?
Please explain.
5. To what extent do your drivers rely on cross view mirrors while
backing? Should the driver directly inspect the area behind the truck
before entering the vehicle and backing?
6. What depth of field (behind the vehicle) can these mirrors
provide? Does this need to be increased to allow adequate reaction time
when backing?
7. Would a depth of field of six feet be practicable and
economically feasible on such mirrors?
8. Is image distortion a problem on existing rear cross-view
mirrors?
9. Are reductions in insurance premiums available for vehicles
equipped with rear cross view mirrors? How far do any such reductions
go in offsetting the cost of the mirror and its installation?
(The next three questions are for fleet operators that have installed
rear cross-view mirrors.)
10. Why did your fleet install rear cross-view mirrors?
11. What specific mirrors were used and on what specific vehicles
were these mirrors installed?
12. What were the costs of the mirrors and their installation?
B. General
1. NHTSA must analyze both the safety benefits associated with new
or added regulations and their costs. The agency therefore requests
cost estimates for rear cross-view mirrors expressed as the increase in
the cost of a new truck (say a full-size commercial van, a step-van,
high cube van, or straight truck ) with such a mirror installed. Are
these costs significantly different for the installation of the mirrors
on existing vehicles?
2. Do these mirrors present any practical problems, such as:
a. Are there any trucks up to 26,000 pounds GVWR that cannot
accommodate such mirrors?
b. Are there loading dock interference problems?
c. Are there significant driver training changes?
d. Are there mirror vibration problems or maintenance problems?
e. Are some designs of rear cross-view mirrors vastly superior in
performance to others?
f. Are depth of field or other parameters on these mirrors in need
of improvement?
g. Are there any alternatives to these mirrors that are as
inexpensive as the mirrors desired by the petitioner?
III. Procedures for Filing Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this request
for comment. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be
submitted. Comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR
553.21). Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions
without regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to
encourage commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise
fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. (49 CFR Part 512).
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received after
the comment due date will be considered as suggestions for any future
rulemaking action. Comments on the request for comment will be
available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue to file
relevant information as it becomes available in the docket after the
closing
[[Page 30588]]
date, and it is recommended that interested persons continue to examine
the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rule's docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on: June 12, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-15325 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15324 Sea Turtle Conservation; Revisions to Sea Turtle Conservation Requirements; Restrictions to Shrimp Trawling Activities; Reopening of Comment Period
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30588-30589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15324]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 217 and 227
[Docket No.950830222-6103-02; I.D. 011696D]
RIN 0648-AH89
Sea Turtle Conservation; Revisions to Sea Turtle Conservation
Requirements; Restrictions to Shrimp Trawling Activities; Reopening of
Comment Period
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period; notice of
availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On April 24, 1996, NMFS published a proposed rule to amend the
regulations protecting sea turtles to enhance their effectiveness in
reducing sea turtle mortality resulting from shrimp trawling in the
Atlantic and Gulf Areas in the southeastern United States. In response
to several requests for an extension of the comment period, NMFS is
reopening the comment period through July 15 to provide further
opportunity to submit comments on the proposed rule and to review
additional analyses, including the preliminary report scheduled to be
submitted to NMFS by June 28, 1996, by the sea turtle expert working
group.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be submitted on or before
July 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed rule and requests for a copy of
the sea turtle expert working group report should be addressed to the
Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Oravetz, 813-570-5312, or
Therese A. Conant, 301-713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 24, 1996, NMFS published a proposed
rule (61 FR 18102) to amend the regulations at 50 CFR 227.72(e)
protecting sea turtles to enhance their effectiveness in reducing sea
turtle mortality resulting from shrimp trawling in the Atlantic and
Gulf Areas in the southeastern United States. The background and
rationale for the proposed amendments were contained in the preamble of
the proposed rule and are not repeated here. The comment period for the
proposed rule closed on June 10, 1996. However, NMFS is reopening the
comment period through July 15 to provide further opportunity to submit
comments on the proposed rule and to review additional analyses,
including the preliminary report scheduled to be submitted to NMFS by
June 28, 1996, by the sea turtle expert working group. The formation of
this group of scientists to analyze existing databases to determine sea
turtle population abundance, population trends, and sustainable take
levels was a requirement of the November 14, 1994, biological opinion.
The report will be made available for public review and distributed
upon request when it is submitted to NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
[[Page 30589]]
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; and 16 U.S.C. 742a et seq.,
unless otherwise noted.
Dated: June 11, 1996.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-15324 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15316 Customs Service Field Organization; Establishment of Sanford Port of Entry
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30552-30553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15316]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Customs Service
19 CFR Parts 101 and 122
Customs Service Field Organization; Establishment of Sanford Port
of Entry
AGENCY: Customs Service, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend the Customs Regulations
pertaining to Customs field organization by establishing a new port of
entry at Sanford, Florida. The new port of entry would include Orlando-
Sanford Airport, located in the city of Sanford, Seminole County,
Florida, which is currently operated as a user-fee airport known as
Sanford Regional Airport. This change will assist the Customs Service
in its continuing efforts to achieve more efficient use of its
personnel, facilities, and resources, and to provide better service to
carriers, importers, and the general public.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments (preferably in triplicate) may be addressed
to the Regulations Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S.
Customs Service, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20229.
Comments submitted may be inspected at the Regulations Branch, Office
of Regulations and Rulings, Franklin Court, 1099 14th St., NW, Suite
4000, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry Denning, Office of Field
Operations, Resource Management Division (202) 927-0196.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
To achieve more efficient use of its personnel, facilities, and
resources, and in order to provide better services to carriers,
importers, and the public in Central Florida, Customs proposes to amend
Sec. 101.3(b)(1), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 101.3(b)(1)), by
establishing a new port of entry at Sanford, Florida. The new port of
entry, located in Seminole County, Florida, would include the Orlando-
Sanford Airport, which currently operates as Sanford Regional Airport,
and is listed in Sec. 122.15(b) of the Customs Regulations as a user-
fee airport.
Port of Entry Criteria
No formal application procedures have been adopted for purposes of
requesting new or expanded Customs services. The procedure most
commonly followed has been for a recognized civic or government
organization (such as a chamber of commerce, seaport or airport
authority, or city government) to submit a written request to the
director of the Customs port nearest where the facility is or would be
located, setting forth the reason for the new or expanded service.
However, there is no prohibition which prevents Customs from initiating
the establishment of a port of entry where Customs has reason to
believe or made a determination that the necessity for a new facility
is justified. Favorable consideration of requests normally hinges on
whether there is a sufficient volume of import business (actual or
potential) to justify the expense of maintaining a new office or
expanding service at an existing location.
The criteria considered by Customs in determining whether to
establish a port of entry are found in T.D. 82-37 (47 FR 10137), as
revised by T.D. 86-14 (51 FR 4559) and T.D. 87-65 (52 FR 16328). Under
these criteria, which are not absolute, a community requesting a port
of entry designation must:
(1) Demonstrate that the benefits to be derived justify the Federal
Government expense involved;
(2) Be serviced by at least two major modes of transportation
(rail, air, water, or highway); and
(3) Have a minimum population of 300,000 within the immediate
service area (approximately a 70-mile radius).
In addition, if the facility applies for designation as a port of
entry based solely upon the consumption entries criterion (see below),
it must make a commitment to make optimal use of electronic data
transfer capabilities to permit integration with Customs Automated
Commercial System (ACS), which provides a means for the electronic
processing of entries of imported merchandise. Further, the actual or
potential Customs workload (minimum number of transactions per year) at
the proposed port of entry must meet one of several alternative minimum
requirements:
(1) 15,000 international air passengers; or
(2) 2,500 formal (over Sec. 1,250 in Customs value) or informal
(not over Sec. 1,250 in Customs value) consumption entries; or
(3) In the case of land border ports, 150,000 vehicles; or
(4) 2,000 scheduled international aircraft arrivals (passenger and/
or cargo); or
(5) 350 cargo vessel arrivals; or
(6) Any appropriate combination of the above.
Lastly, facilities at the proposed port of entry must include cargo
and passenger facilities, warehousing space for the secure storage of
imported cargo pending final Customs inspection and release, and
administrative office space, inspection areas, storage areas and other
space necessary for regular Customs operations.
The proposal set forth in this document is based on Customs
analysis of a report prepared for the Central Florida Regional Airport
Board which manages the airport at Sanford and shows projected workload
figures for the airport for the next decade. That report provides that
although Sanford Regional Airport only became a user fee airport in
1991, since 1980 it has become the fastest growing airport for
international passenger clearance services in Florida. In response to
this growth, the Airport Board has elected to make substantial and long
term investment in new international arrival facilities to serve this
growing Central Florida market. Current flight schedules for the
airport beginning in mid-April 1996 through October of this year
project some 413 charter airline flights carrying approximately 118,732
international passengers.
With regard to the above criteria, Customs believes that the
Federal Government would benefit from the port of entry designation
because Orlando-Sanford Airport (currently operating as Sanford
Regional Airport) would be available to share the workload presently
handled at ports of entry such as Miami International Airport. The
report further provides that State Roads 46 and 417 provide highway
access to the airport, and that the population of the Seminole county-
area was 287,529 in 1990 and forecast to reach 392,500 by the year
2000, which is well above the minimum 300,000 required. Further, the
report provides that the Central Florida Region--comprising the
surrounding counties of Lake, Volusia, Orange, Brevard, and Osceola--
offered a combined additional population of
[[Page 30553]]
1,623,518 in 1990, forecasted to reach 2,209,957 by the year 2000.
Because Sanford could qualify for port of entry status on the strength
of the potential international passenger processing figures at the
airport alone, and is not expected to process many consumption entries,
Customs believes that the facility does not, at this time, have to make
a commitment to make optimal use of electronic data transfer
capabilities to permit integration with Customs Automated Commercial
System (ACS), which provides a means for the electronic processing of
entries of imported merchandise. Lastly, since the airport is currently
a Customs user fee airport, Customs knows that office, storage, and
examination space are currently available for use by Customs.
Conditional Status
Based on the above, Customs believes that there is sufficient
justification for establishment of the proposed port of entry at
Sanford. If, after reviewing the public comments, Customs decides to
terminate Sanford's designation as a user-fee airport, then Customs
will notify the airport of that determination in accordance with the
provisions of 19 CFR 122.15(c). However, it is noted that this proposal
relies on potential, rather than actual, workload figures. Therefore,
even if the proposed port of entry designation is adopted as a final
rule, in 3 years Customs will review the actual workload generated
within the new port of entry. If that review indicates that the actual
workload is below the T.D. 82-37 standards, as amended, procedures may
be instituted to revoke the port of entry status. In such case, the
Airport may reapply to become a user fee airport under the provisions
of 19 U.S.C. 58b.
Description of Proposed Port of Entry Limits
The geographical limits of the proposed Sanford port of entry would
be as follows:
The Orlando-Sanford Airport, which consists of approximately 2,000
acres which are located in Seminole County, Florida, beginning in the
north/east at the intersection of State Road 46 and State Road 417 and
proceeding south to Lake Mary Boulevard, turning west to Sanford
Boulevard, and finally turning north to State Road 46 to the point of
beginning.
Proposed Amendments
If the proposed port of entry designation is adopted, the list of
Customs ports of entry at Sec. 101.3(b)(1) will be amended to include
Sanford as a port of entry in Florida, and Sanford Regional Airport
will be deleted from the list of user-fee airports at Sec. 122.15(b).
Comments
Before adopting this proposal as a final rule, consideration will
be given to any written comments timely submitted to Customs. Comments
submitted will be available for public inspection in accordance with
the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), Sec. 1.4 of the Treasury
Department Regulations (31 CFR 1.4), and Sec. 103.11(b) of the Customs
Regulations (19 CFR 103.11(b)), on regular business days between the
hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Regulations Branch, Office of
Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs Service, Franklin Court, 4th
floor, 1099 14th St., NW, Washington, DC.
Authority
This change is proposed under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301 and 19
U.S.C. 2, 66, and 1624.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Executive Order 12866
Pursuant to provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.), it is certified that, if adopted, the proposed amendments
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities, as the proposed amendments concern the status of only
one airport facility. Accordingly, the proposed amendments are not
subject to the regulatory analysis or other requirements of 5 U.S.C.
603 and 604. This amendment does not meet the criteria for a
``significant regulatory action'' as specified in Executive Order
12866.
George J. Weise,
Commissioner of Customs.
Approved: May 15, 1996.
Dennis M. O'Connell,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 96-15316 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15297 Mitigation of Impacts to Wetlands
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30553-30559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15297]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 777
[FHWA Docket No. 96-8]
RIN 2125-AD78
Mitigation of Impacts to Wetlands
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the President's Regulatory Reinvention
Initiative, the FHWA proposes to amend its regulation outlining the
procedures to be followed in mitigating the impacts of Federal-aid
highway projects and programs to wetlands. The current regulation has
become outdated as a result of advances in the science of wetland
management and the amendments made by sections 1006(d) and 1007(a) of
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)
(Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat.1914) to the statutory provisions of title
23, United States Code (U.S.C.). The ISTEA amendments significantly
alter the range and timing of alternatives eligible for Federal-aid
participation for mitigation of wetland impacts due to Federal-aid
highway projects. Accordingly, this proposal would revise the current
regulation to conform to the ISTEA amendments, thereby providing more
flexibility to State highway agencies in determining eligibility of
mitigation alternatives for Federal participation. This proposal would
broaden the scope of the current regulation to encompass all wetlands
mitigation projects eligible for Federal participation, not just those
involving privately owned wetlands.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed comments to FHWA Docket No. 96-8,
Federal Highway Administration, Room 4232, HCC-10, Office of the Chief
Counsel, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590. All comments
received will be available for examination at the above address between
8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. Those desiring notice of receipt of comments must include a
self-addressed, stamped postcard.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Paul Garrett, Office of
Environment and Planning, HEP-42, (202) 366-9173, or Mr. Brett Gainer,
Office of the Chief Counsel, HCC-32, (202) 366-1372, Federal Highway
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590. Office
hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Executive Order (E.O.) 11990, ``Protection of Wetlands,'' requires
all Federal agencies to ``avoid to the extent possible the long and
short term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or
modification of wetlands'' (42 FR 26961, May 25, 1977). Specifically,
this
[[Page 30554]]
order directs Federal agencies to avoid new construction in wetlands
unless (1) there is no practicable alternative to such construction,
and (2) the proposed action includes all practicable measures to
minimize harm to wetlands resulting from such construction. The
Department of Transportation subsequently issued DOT Order 5660.1A,
Preservation of the Nation's Wetlands, which provided departmental
policy and instruction for implementing E.O. 11990. Copies of these
documents are available for inspection and copying pursuant to 49 CFR
Part 7, App. D.
The provisions of E.O. 11990, the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C 1344 et
seq.), and the DOT Order proclaim that wetlands are a valuable national
resource and that special efforts are required of all Federal agencies
to preserve the beneficial values inherent in them. Wetlands are a
valuable resource for a number of reasons. They provide habitats for
numerous plants and animals, including many commercially important
species. In addition, wetlands can reduce the severity of flooding,
control erosion, and remove contaminants from polluted waters.
Consequently, wetland preservation has become a matter of concern to
Federal and State agencies charged with resource management
responsibilities and has been emphasized by resource conservation
groups.
Under E.O. 11990 each Federal agency must avoid, whenever
practicable, impacts to wetlands. Therefore, a highway location or
design which will impact a wetland must be evaluated for its natural
functions and values, in addition to all relevant social, economic, and
physical environmental values. Inevitably, there will be instances when
reasoned and balanced judgments will result in the location of highways
in wetlands and in the destruction or modification of those resources.
In such cases, E.O. 11990 requires that ``all practicable measures to
minimize harm to the wetland(s) be incorporated into the project.'' In
addition, section 404 of the Clean Water Act, entitled Permits for
Dredged or Fill Material, requires that a permit be obtained through
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for proposed discharges of dredged or
fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands (33
CFR 320-330; (Regulatory Program)). The Regulatory Program and
associated guidelines (40 CFR 230-233) require, among other things,
assessment of the functions and values of wetlands to be impacted by
proposed discharges of dredged or fill material as part of the Public
Interest Review Process. Furthermore, permits issued by the Corps of
Engineers under authority of the Regulatory Program may contain
conditions requiring mitigation to compensate for impacts to wetlands
that result in a loss of wetlands functions and values to society.
Another Federal statute applicable to Federal-aid highway projects
involving impacts to wetlands is section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act 1 (49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 U.S.C. 138). Section
4(f) provides protection for certain environmentally significant,
publicly owned land areas including parks, wildlife refuges, and
waterfowl refuges. When such lands must be used for a federally-
assisted highway project, section 4(f) requires all possible planning
to minimize harm to the protected area. If wetlands included in these
publicly owned 4(f) lands are used for or impacted by a highway
project, current FHWA policy permits Federal-aid highway funds to be
used in the acquisition, restoration, or creation of replacement
wetlands or improvement of existing wetlands as mitigation. Federal
participation must be based on a determination that such mitigation
measures are necessary to meet the section 4(f) requirement that all
possible planning and measures be undertaken to minimize harm. Federal
assistance in these instances often involves the use of Federal-aid
funds for activities outside the right-of-way. The FHWA regulations
implementing section 4(f) are found at 23 CFR 771.135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section 4(f) of Pub. L. 89-670, 80 Stat. 934, was repealed
by Pub. L. 97-449, 96 Stat. 2444, and enacted without substantive
change at 49 U.S.C. 303. Section 138 of title 23, U.S.C., remains
unchanged. Because of common usage and familiarity, the term section
4(f) continues to be used by the Department of Transportation in
matters relating to 49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 U.S.C. 138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA has long recognized that the importance of wetland
preservation is not limited to publicly owned wetlands. Privately owned
wetlands are often an important component of local, State, and Federal
wetland management programs. In addition, the requirements of E.O.
11990 and section 404 of the Clean Water Act apply to wetlands
regardless of ownership. Consequently, the FHWA is required to find
that proposed Federal-aid projects include all practicable measures to
minimize harm to privately owned wetlands adversely impacted by the
projects. The current part 777, which this NPRM proposes to amend, was
promulgated to address these requirements.
Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking
Congress included provisions in the ISTEA granting the FHWA more
flexibility to authorize the use of Federal-aid highway funds for
mitigation of impacts to wetlands caused by federally-funded highway
projects. These provisions are codified at 23 U.S.C. 103(i)(13) and
133(b)(11), and pertain to projects eligible for National Highway
System (NHS) and Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds,
respectively. Consequently, the FHWA is proposing to amend its
regulations to authorize the expenditure of Federal-aid highway funds
for mitigation of impacts to wetlands due to federally-funded highway
projects.
Mitigation activities may include, but are not limited to,
participation in wetlands mitigation banks, contributions to statewide
and regional efforts to conserve, restore, enhance and create wetlands,
and development of statewide and regional wetlands conservation and
mitigation plans, including any such banks, efforts, and plans
authorized pursuant to the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(Pub. L. 101-640, 104 Stat. 4604). Contributions toward such efforts
may take place concurrent with or in advance of project construction,
but contributions may occur in advance of construction only if such
mitigation efforts are consistent with all applicable requirements of
Federal law and State planning processes.
Most significantly, measures found by a State highway agency and
the FHWA to be appropriate and necessary to mitigate significant
adverse impacts to publicly or privately owned wetlands would be
eligible for Federal participation where the impacts actually result
from an FHWA action. Appropriate mitigation measures could include the
acquisition of additional land or interests in land for the purpose of
mitigating adverse environmental impacts to wetlands which actually
result from a Federal-aid highway project.
The justification for the cost of proposed mitigation measures
should be considered in the same context as any other public
expenditure; that is, the proposed mitigation would have to represent a
reasonable public expenditure when weighed against other social,
economic, and environmental values, and the benefit realized would have
to be commensurate with the proposed expenditure. Decisions on
mitigation measures would be required to take into account
consideration of traffic needs, safety, durability, and economy of
maintenance of the highway.
As previously mentioned, the proposed amendments to 23 CFR 777
formally express the FHWA's current
[[Page 30555]]
policy and incorporate the eligibility criteria set forth in the ISTEA
with respect to mitigation of impacts to both publicly and privately
owned wetlands which actually result from Federal-aid highway projects
or an FHWA action. The explanation of Federal participation policy
already included in Sec. 777.5 is expanded in the proposed regulation.
The proposed regulation would also include additional guidance and
procedures to be followed in the evaluation (Sec. 777.7) and mitigation
of impacts (Secs. 777.9, 777.11).
The requirements of 23 CFR 777 apply to the mitigation of impacts
to wetlands which actually result from federally-funded highway
projects or programs. The requirements and policies stated therein do
not apply to highways or other projects funded by other Federal, State,
or private agencies or entities.
Section-By-Section Analysis
The following section discusses both the current provisions of 23
CFR 777 and the proposed changes to that regulation contained in this
NPRM.
Section 777.1
Section 777.1 would be amended to expand the applicability of the
regulation to Federal-aid participation in mitigation of all impacts to
publicly or privately owned wetlands which actually result from
Federal-aid highway projects. The existing regulation applies only to
privately owned wetlands.
Section 777.2
Section 777.2 would be a new section. This section would contain
definitions for administrative, scientific, and technical terms found
in the amended regulation.
Section 777.3
Section 777.3, Background, would be amended to include discussion
of the ISTEA provisions which increased the eligibility for Federal-aid
participation of efforts to mitigate the wetlands impacts of highway
projects funded under the provisions of the National Highway System
(ISTEA Sec. 1006 (23 U.S.C. 103)) and Surface Transportation Program
(ISTEA Sec. 1007 (23 U.S.C. 133)). As in the existing regulation, this
section would also cite the authority and requirements of E.O. 11990 to
minimize wetlands losses and DOT Order 5660.1A for implementing wetland
mitigation in FHWA programs.
Section 777.5
The FHWA wetlands policy and practice, incorporating expanded
scientific knowledge and management experience, have recognized that
wetland mitigation includes a wider range of impacts, alternatives, and
activities than were known or understood when the existing regulation
was promulgated in 1980. The science and technology of wetland
mitigation have identified methods and needs for effective wetland
mitigation that were not well known at the time the existing regulation
was issued. The amended Sec. 777.5, Federal Participation Policy, would
expand applicability of the regulation to include all impacts to
wetlands which actually result from Federal-aid highway projects. The
kinds of activities needed to mitigate wetland impacts include the
general areas of planning, design, right-of-way acquisition,
construction, and establishment. Specific tasks and activities which
fall within these general areas are identified and included in the
amended section as eligible for Federal-aid participation. Specific
project criteria for Federal participation in wetlands mitigation
activities are restated from the existing regulation, and are
consistent with 23 CFR 771, Environmental Impacts and Related
Procedures. The ``test of reasonableness'' in the existing regulation
for the expenditure of public funds for wetlands mitigation is included
in the NPRM. This test is based on commensurate social, economic, and
environmental values and benefits of wetlands mitigation relative to
costs of the mitigation and benefits of the highway project or program.
Section 777.7
Section 777.7, Evaluation of Impacts, currently provides that the
extent of Federal participation in mitigation measures should be
directly related to the importance and functional capacity of the
impacted wetlands and the extent of wetland losses due to highway
impacts.
In both the existing regulation and NPRM, Section 777.7 relates the
cost of Federal-aid participation in wetland mitigation activities to
the importance of the wetlands impacted in the project area. As
amended, this section would refer to scientific functional assessment
methodologies as the appropriate tool for evaluating wetlands resources
and impacts, and would recognize the need for interdisciplinary,
interagency coordination in evaluating wetlands functions and values.
General functions of wetlands would be identified using current
scientific terminology and concepts of wetlands analysis.
Section 777.9
Section 777.9, Mitigation of Impacts, identifies general categories
of actions, taken to mitigate the impact of highway projects on
wetlands, which are eligible for Federal-aid participation. Federal
participation is not, however, limited to these activities, if other
alternatives are practicable, more ecologically desirable, and
represent a more effective expenditure of public funds. The existing
Sec. 777.9 states specific requirements for the protection of wetlands
established as compensatory mitigation. Two criteria for Federal-aid
participation in wetland mitigation are that the mitigation must
represent a reasonable expenditure of public funds and be in the public
interest.
In Sec. 777.9(a) of the NPRM, the Environmental Protection Agency's
Clean Water Act Sec. 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR 230) are referenced
to establish the required sequence of alternatives that must be
considered for mitigation of wetlands impacts. The 404(b)(1) guidelines
require that, where practicable, avoidance and then minimization of
wetland impacts be given first consideration. Under Sec. 777.9(a)(2) of
the NPRM, once practicable avoidance and minimization measures had been
exhausted, the regulation would establish the objective of selecting
ecologically desirable and practicable compensatory mitigation
alternatives consistent with the 404(b)(1) guidelines. The requirement
to consider compensatory mitigation within the highway right-of-way
before other, possibly more ecologically desirable and reasonable
alternatives outside of the right-of-way, would be removed by this
NPRM. The existing Sec. 777.9(b) contains the requirement that the
public interest in wetlands restored, enhanced, or created as part of
mitigation for wetlands impacts due to Federal-aid highway projects
must be sufficient to ensure that they will be maintained as wetlands.
This requirement would be moved to Sec. 777.11(b). Section 777.9(a)(3)
would be added, and would list examples of the specific kinds of
activities eligible for Federal-aid participation when existing
wetlands are being enhanced or restored.
A new Sec. 777.9(b) would be added, and would cite and explain the
specific mitigation alternatives listed in the ISTEA eligible for
Federal-aid participation. The activities listed in the ISTEA are
related to wetlands banking, planning, and resource inventory. These
activities are not exclusive, and other activities listed in this
regulation would also be eligible. This paragraph would
[[Page 30556]]
conform the regulation to ISTEA provisions allowing the use of Federal-
aid highway funds to pay for costs of wetland mitigation activities as
needed to mitigate impacts caused by Federal-aid highway projects and
programs.
Section 777.11
Like any other activity in which Federal funds participate, the use
of those funds is governed by various restrictions and conditions
established by Federal law and agency policy in order to protect the
public interest and provide for sound program management. A number of
these considerations are set forth in Sec. 777.11, Other
Considerations, including consultation requirements and provisions for
ownership and management of acquired lands. Depending upon the extent
of mitigation justified under the provisions of Sec. 777.7,
Sec. 777.11(f) currently permits Federal participation in the
acquisition of replacement land for privately owned wetlands directly
impacted by a Federal-aid highway project. Such privately owned lands
thus acquired, above and beyond wetlands purchased for use as highway
right-of-way, will thereafter be retained in public ownership and
dedicated to future use as wetlands. The replacement ratio for wetlands
directly affected by a Federal-aid highway project should be determined
based on use of a scientific methodology of wetland functional
assessment and best professional judgment, in combination with
interagency coordination and considerations of fiscal responsibility
and a desire to minimize adverse impacts on the local tax base of
converting land from private to public ownership.
In both the existing regulation and the NPRM, Sec. 777.11(a)
emphasizes the need for consultation with appropriate State and Federal
agencies concerning impacts to wetlands on Federal-aid highway
projects. Section 777.11(b) of the NPRM, furthermore, would require
that the public interest in all compensatory wetland mitigation
projects, where wetlands have been purchased, enhanced, restored, or
created with Federal-aid highway funds, be sufficient to ensure that
the wetlands are permanently protected. This includes both private and
public wetlands mitigation banks. The current Sec. 777.11(b), which
sets forth the definition of wetlands to be used in applying the
regulation, would be moved to Sec. 777.2, Definitions. Sections 777.11
(c) through (g) of both the existing regulation and the NPRM are
intended to state the conditions and requirements for acquisition of
interests in lands for purposes of mitigating wetlands impacts due to
Federal-aid highway projects. For its part, Sec. 777.11(g) would
emphasize that the objective of wetlands mitigation in the Federal-aid
highway program is to implement the policy of no-net-loss in area or
functional capacity. To that end, this paragraph would declare eligible
for Federal-aid participation certain activities intended to ensure the
viability of compensatory mitigation wetlands during the period of
establishment. These would include, but would not be limited to, such
activities as repair or adjustment of water control structures, pest
control, irrigation, fencing modifications, and replacement of
plantings. The NPRM would encourage mitigation bank managers to
determine the establishment period in the mitigation agreement itself
prior to beginning any mitigation activities.
The NPRM would allow Federal-aid participation in the mitigation of
impacts to both publicly or privately owned wetlands if such impacts
actually resulted from Federal-aid highway projects. This proposal
would not, however, require States to undertake mitigation efforts.
Instead, part 777 would continue to provide policy and procedures for
the evaluation and mitigation of adverse environmental impacts to
wetlands which actually result from new construction of Federal-aid
highway projects. Therefore, the FHWA believes the current
Sec. 777.11(h)--with its explicit statement that the program is not a
mandatory one--is no longer necessary and the NPRM would delete this
provision. Finally, Sec. 777.11(i) of the existing regulation, which
addresses mitigation of ecological impacts in non-wetlands, would be
deleted. Since this NPRM would apply solely to wetlands issues, the
FHWA has determined that the current Sec. 777.11(i) would not be
applicable to the policy set forth in this proposal. The FHWA has also
determined that this paragraph is not consistent with 23 U.S.C.
133(b)(1), added by the ISTEA, which allows States to obligate STP
funds to mitigate damage to wildlife, habitat, and ecosystems caused by
a transportation project funded under title 23, United States Code.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available
for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received
after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable, but the FHWA may issue a final
rule at any time after the close of the comment period. In addition to
late comments, the FHWA will also continue to file in the docket
relevant information that becomes available after the comment closing
date, and interested persons should continue to examine the docket for
new material.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures)
The FHWA has considered the impact of this document and has
determined that it is neither a significant rulemaking action within
the meaning of Executive Order 12866 nor a significant rulemaking under
the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of
Transportation. This rulemaking would amend FHWA regulations regarding
mitigation of impacts to privately owned wetlands, which have become
outdated because of provisions in Secs. 1006 and 1007 of the ISTEA
authorizing greater flexibility for Federal participation in mitigating
impacts to wetlands. These amendments have been codified at 23 U.S.C.
103 and 133.
This rulemaking would not cause any significant changes to the
amount of funding available to the States under the STP or NHS programs
or add to the process by which States receive funding. The provisions
of this proposed rulemaking would not require the additional
expenditure of Federal-aid or State highway funds. Thus, it is
anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking would be
minimal. In addition, it would not create a serious inconsistency with
any other agency's action or materially alter the budgetary impact of
any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs; nor will
amendment of this regulation raise any novel legal or policy issues.
Therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this rule on small entities
and has determined that amendment of the FHWA regulations regarding
mitigation of impacts to wetlands would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Amending this
regulation would not affect the amount of funding available to the
States through the STP or NHS programs, or the procedures used to
[[Page 30557]]
select the States eligible to receive these funds. Furthermore, States
are not included in the definition of ``small entity'' set forth in 5
U.S.C. 601. For these reasons, and for those set forth in the analysis
of E.O. 12866, the FHWA hereby certifies that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that this action does not raise sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. Amendment of this
FHWA regulation concerning the mitigation of impacts to wetlands would
not preempt any State law or State regulation. No additional costs or
burdens would be imposed on the States as a result of this action, and
the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental
functions would not be affected by this rulemaking.
Executive Order 12372
Catalog of Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway
Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order
12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and
activities apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not create a collection of information requirement
for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C.
3501-3520.
National Environmental Policy Act
The FHWA has analyzed this rulemaking for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347).
This NPRM would not, in and of itself, constitute a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
Instead, it would increase the flexibility available to States when
deciding how to mitigate impacts to wetlands caused by those Federal-
aid highway projects they undertake. Such impacts and appropriate
mitigation measures would be evaluated pursuant to NEPA on a project-
by-project basis by the States and the FHWA. Accordingly, promulgation
of this NPRM would not require the preparation of an environmental
impact statement.
Regulatory Identification Number
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 777
Flood plains, Grant programs--transportation, Highways and roads,
Wetlands.
Issued on: June 4, 1996.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA proposes to revise part
777 of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below.
PART 777--MITIGATION OF IMPACTS TO PRIVATELY OWNED WETLANDS
1. Part 777 is revised to read as follows:
Sec.
777.1 Purpose.
777.2 Definitions.
777.3 Background.
777.5 Federal participation policy.
777.7 Evaluation of impacts.
777.9 Mitigation of impacts.
777.11 Other considerations.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 49 U.S.C. 303; 23 U.S.C.
101(a), 103, 109(h), 133(b)(1), 133(b)(11), 133(d)(2), 138, 315;
E.O. 11990; DOT Order 5660.1A; 49 CFR 1.48(b).
Sec. 777.1 Purpose.
To provide policy and procedures for the evaluation and mitigation
of adverse environmental impacts to wetlands which actually result from
new construction of Federal-aid highway projects.
Sec. 777.2 Definitions.
In addition to those contained in 23 U.S.C. 101(a), the following
definitions shall apply as used in this regulation:
Biogeochemical transformations. Those changes in chemical compounds
and substances which naturally occur in ecosystems. Examples are the
carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus cycles in nature, in which these
elements are incorporated from inorganic substances into organic matter
and recycled on a continuing basis.
Compensatory mitigation. Activities such as wetland restoration,
enhancement, or creation, performed to replace or compensate for the
loss of wetlands functional capacity actually the result of Federal-aid
highway construction projects. Compensatory mitigation usually occurs
in advance of or concurrent with the impact to be mitigated, but may
occur after such impacts in special circumstances.
Ecologically desirable. A state or condition desired or wanted as
the result of a mitigation agreement that provides additional wetland
functional capacity.
No-net-loss of wetlands. A wetland resource conservation and
management principle, under which, over the long term, loss of wetlands
area or functional capacity is offset by gains in wetland area or
functional capacity due to wetland restoration, enhancement,
preservation, or creation.
On-site, in-kind mitigation. Compensatory wetland mitigation which
replaces wetlands functional capacity lost as a result of a highway
project on the same site or in the immediate vicinity of the impacts.
Wetland or wetlands. The terms wetland and wetlands have the same
meaning as the definition issued by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
(33 CFR 328.3(b)) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (40 CFR
230.3).
Wetlands banking and related measures. Efforts, or contributions to
efforts, to restore, create, enhance, or, in exceptional circumstances,
preserve wetlands functional capacity, usually undertaken outside the
area of potential effect of proposed highway projects and intended
expressly to compensate for unavoidable adverse wetlands impacts caused
by such projects, when compensation could not be achieved or would not
be as environmentally beneficial if located at individual project
sites.
Wetland enhancement. Increasing wetland functional capacity by
modifying the site conditions of an existing wetland. Examples include,
but are not limited to, alteration of hydrologic regime, vegetation
management, fencing, pest control, and fertilization.
Wetland establishment period. The period required to establish
wetland functional capacity in a compensatory wetland mitigation
project sufficient to compensate losses due to impacts of Federal-aid
highway projects. The establishment period may vary depending on the
specific wetland type being developed.
Wetland functional capacity. The ability of a wetland to perform
natural functions, such as provide wildlife habitat, store surface
water, or perform biogeochemical transformations, as determined by a
scientific assessment methodology. Natural functions of wetlands
include those listed by the
[[Page 30558]]
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at 33 CFR 320.4(b)(2) (i) through (viii).
Wetland restoration. Reestablishment of wetlands functional
capacity at a site at which such capacity formerly existed but has
since essentially been eliminated.
Wetlands mitigation credit. A unit of wetlands mitigation, defined
either by (1) area or (2) a measure of functional capacity through
application of a scientific functional assessment methodology.
Sec. 777.3 Background.
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, and DOT Order
5660.1A, Preservation of the Nation's Wetlands, emphasize the important
functions and values inherent in the Nation's wetlands. Federal
agencies are directed to avoid new construction in wetlands unless the
head of the agency determines that: (1) There is no practicable
alternative to such construction, and (2) the proposed action includes
all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result
from such use. Sections 1006 and 1007 of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (Pub. L. 102-240, 105
Stat. 1914)(codified at Secs. 103 and 133 of title 23, United States
Code, respectively) identify additional approaches for mitigation and
management of wetland impacts which actually result from highway
projects as eligible for Federal participation.
Sec. 777.5 Federal participation.
(a) Those measures which the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
and a State Highway Agency (SHA) find appropriate and necessary to
mitigate adverse environmental impacts to wetlands are eligible for
Federal participation where the impacts actually result from an FHWA
action. The justification for the cost of proposed mitigation measures
should be considered in the same context as any other public
expenditure; that is, the proposed mitigation represents a reasonable
public expenditure when weighed against other social, economic, and
environmental values, and the benefit realized is commensurate with the
proposed expenditure. Mitigation measures shall give like consideration
to traffic needs, safety, durability, and economy of maintenance of the
highway.
(b) It is FHWA policy to permit, consistent with the limits set
forth in this part, the expenditure of Federal-aid highway funds for
activities required for the planning, design, construction, and
establishment of wetlands mitigation projects, and acquisition of land
or interests therein.
Sec. 777.7 Evaluation of impacts.
(a) The reasonableness of the public expenditure should be directly
related to:
(1) The importance of the impacted wetlands, as determined through
a scientific functional assessment methodology and interagency
coordination with the appropriate resource management agencies; and
(2) The highway impact on the wetlands, as determined through a
scientific functional assessment methodology.
(b) Evaluation of the importance of the impacted wetlands should
consider:
(1) The wetlands' functional capacity;
(2) The relative importance of these functions to the total wetland
resource of the area; and
(3) Other factors such as uniqueness, esthetics, or cultural
values.
(c) A determination of the highway impact should focus on the
short- and long-term effects of the project on the wetlands' functional
capacity.
Sec. 777.9 Mitigation of impacts.
(a) Actions eligible for Federal funding. There are a number of
actions that can be taken to minimize the impact of highway projects on
wetlands. The following actions qualify for Federal-aid highway
funding:
(1) Where practicable, avoidance or minimization of wetland impacts
through realignment and special design or construction features. In
accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Water Act
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR 230 et seq.), avoidance and then
minimization must be given first consideration in the sequence for
mitigating wetlands impacts.
(2) After practicable avoidance and minimization measures have been
exhausted, other ecologically desirable compensatory mitigation
alternatives consistent with the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines, either
inside or outside of the right-of-way. This may include on-site
mitigation, when that alternative is determined to be ecologically
desirable and practicable, improvement of existing degraded or historic
wetlands through restoration or enhancement, or creation of new
wetlands from non-wetland areas. Restoration or enhancement of wetlands
is generally preferable to construction or creation of new wetlands
from non-wetland areas. Under this approach, first consideration should
be given to the development of compensatory mitigation on publicly
owned lands.
(3) Improvements to existing wetlands. Such activities may include,
but are not limited to, construction of water level control structures,
establishment of wetland vegetation, recontouring of the site,
installation or removal of irrigation or water distribution systems,
pest control, installation of fencing and other measures to protect,
enhance, or restore the wetland character of the site.
(4) Wetlands mitigation banking and related measures.
(b) Participation in wetlands mitigation banks. If the development
or acquisition of wetland mitigation credits in wetland mitigation
banks, either on or off-site, is determined to be the most ecologically
desirable and practicable alternative for compensatory mitigation, the
first alternative in mitigation bank use should be those established as
publicly owned resources. These can be--
(1) Restored or enhanced wetlands on public lands;
(2) Single purpose publicly owned banks, established by and for the
use of a highway agency with Federal-aid participation; or multipurpose
publicly owned banks, established with public, non-Federal-aid funds,
in which credits may be purchased by highway agencies using Federal-aid
funds on a per-credit basis; or
(3) Other forms of mitigation banks in which credits are purchased
by State highway agencies to mitigate wetlands impacts actually the
result of Federal-aid highway projects.
(c) Contributions to statewide and regional efforts to conserve,
restore, enhance and create wetlands. Federal-aid funds may participate
in the development of statewide and regional wetlands conservation
plans, including any efforts and plans authorized pursuant to the Water
Resources Development Act of 1990. Contributions to these efforts may
occur in advance of project construction only if such efforts are
consistent with all applicable requirements of Federal law and
regulations and State transportation planning processes.
Sec. 777.11 Other considerations.
(a) The development of measures proposed to mitigate wetlands
impacts should include consultation with appropriate State and Federal
agencies.
(b) Federal-aid funds may not participate in the replacement of
wetlands absent sufficient assurances that the area will be maintained
as a wetland.
(c) The acquisition of proprietary interests in replacement
wetlands as a mitigation measure may be in fee simple
[[Page 30559]]
or by easement, as appropriate. The acquisition of ``mitigation
credits'' in wetland mitigation banks should be accomplished through a
legally recognized instrument, such as permanent easement or deed
restriction, which provides for protection and permanent continuation
of the wetland nature of the mitigation.
(d) A State Highway Agency (SHA) may acquire privately owned lands
in cooperation with another public agency or third party. Such an
arrangement may accomplish greater benefits than would otherwise be
accomplished by the individual agency acting alone.
(e) An SHA may either transfer the title of lands acquired outside
the right-of-way, without credit to Federal funds, to an appropriate
public agency (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or State natural
resource agency) or enter into an agreement with such agency to manage
such lands. When such transfer occurs, there shall be an explicit
agreement that the lands or interests therein transferred shall remain
in the grantee agency's ownership or control so long as the lands
continue to serve the purpose of the original acquisition. In the event
the area transferred no longer serves the purpose of the original
acquisition, the lands or interests therein transferred shall revert to
the SHA for proper disposition.
(f) The reasonable costs of acquiring lands or interests therein to
provide replacement lands with equivalent wetlands functional capacity
are eligible for Federal participation.
(g) The objective in mitigating impacts to all wetlands in the
Federal-aid highway program is to implement the policy of no-net-loss
in area or functional capacity. Certain activities to ensure the
viability of compensatory mitigation wetlands during the period of
establishment are eligible for Federal-aid participation. These
include, but are not limited to, such activities as repair or
adjustment of water control structures, pest control, irrigation,
fencing modifications, and replacement of plantings. The establishment
period should be specifically determined by the mitigation agreement
among the mitigation bank managers prior to beginning any mitigation
activities.
[FR Doc. 96-15297 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15281 Clean Air Act Proposed Interim Approval and in the Alternative Disapproval of Operating Permits Program, State of Idaho; Clean Air Act Proposed Delegation of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants as They Apply to Part 70 Sources and Approval of Streamlined Mechanism for Future Delegations, State of Idaho
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30570-30575]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15281]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70
[AD-FRL-5521-3 ]
Clean Air Act Proposed Interim Approval and in the Alternative
Disapproval of Operating Permits Program, State of Idaho; Clean Air Act
Proposed Delegation of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants as They Apply to Part 70 Sources and Approval of Streamlined
Mechanism for Future Delegations, State of Idaho
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed action.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is reproposing action on two limited aspects of the
Operating Permits Program submitted by the Idaho Division of
Environmental Quality for the purpose of complying with Federal
requirements for an approvable State program to issue operating permits
to all major stationary sources and to certain other sources. The first
element involves the changes EPA believes are necessary as a condition
of full approval to the State's regulations dealing with general
permits. The second element involves the effect of the State's
environmental audit statute on the State's enforcement obligations
under title V of the Clean Air Act.
In addition, if EPA grants interim approval of Idaho's title V
operating permits program, EPA proposes to delegate the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) as adopted by
the State and as they apply to part 70 sources. EPA also proposes to
approve a streamlined mechanism for future NESHAP delegations.
DATES: Comments must be submitted by July 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted to Elizabeth Waddell, at EPA
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, M/D-108, Seattle, WA 98101. Copies of the
State's submittal and other supporting information used in developing
this proposed action are available for inspection during normal
business hours at the following location: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Docket # 10V100, Seattle,
Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Waddell, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
M/D-108, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-4303.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Purpose
A. Introduction
1. Title V
Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (sections 501-507 of
the Clean Air Act (``the Act'')), and implementing regulations at 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 70 require that States develop
and submit operating permits programs to EPA by November 15, 1993, and
that EPA act to approve or disapprove each program within 1 year after
receiving the submittal. The EPA's program review occurs pursuant to
section 502 of the Act and the part 70 regulations, which together
outline criteria for approval or disapproval. Where a program
substantially, but not fully, meets the requirements of part 70, EPA
may grant the program interim approval for a
[[Page 30571]]
period of up to 2 years. If EPA has not fully approved a program by 2
years after the November 15, 1993 date, or by the end of an interim
program, it must establish and implement a Federal program.
2. Section 112
Section 112(l) of the Act established new, more stringent
requirements upon a State or local agency that wishes to implement and
enforce an air toxics program pursuant to section 112 of the Act. Prior
to November 15, 1990, delegation of NESHAP regulations to the State and
local agencies could occur without formal rulemaking by EPA. However,
the new section 112(l) of the Act requires EPA to approve State and
local toxics rules and programs under section 112 through formal notice
and comment rulemaking. State and local air agencies that wish to
implement and enforce a Federally-approved air toxic program must make
a showing to EPA that they have adequate authorities and resources.
Approval is granted by EPA through the authority contained in section
112(l), and implemented through the Federal rule found in 40 CFR part
63, subpart E if the Agency finds that: (1) the State or local program
or rule is ``no less stringent'' than the corresponding Federal rule or
program, (2) adequate authority and resources exist to implement the
State or local program or rule, (3) the schedule for implementation and
compliance is sufficiently expeditious, and (4) the State or local
program or rule is otherwise in compliance with Federal guidance.
3. Prior Action on Idaho's Title V Submittal
On October 27, 1995, EPA proposed disapproval of Idaho's operating
permits program because of deficiencies in the State's provisions for
excess emissions and administrative amendments. In the alternative, EPA
proposed interim approval of Idaho's program provided Idaho revised its
regulations to address these deficiencies and submitted the revisions
to EPA before final action on Idaho's submittal. See 60 FR 54990. EPA
also proposed to grant interim approval under section 112(l)(5) of the
Act and 40 CFR 63.91 of Idaho's program for receiving delegation of
section 112 standards that are unchanged from Federal standards as
promulgated, but only as they apply to part 70 sources, if EPA granted
interim approval to Idaho's title V program. The EPA received a single
letter of public comment on the proposal. The commenter disagreed with
EPA's proposal to approve Idaho's program only for sources located
outside the exterior boundaries of Indian Reservations and with EPA's
failure to grant full approval to Idaho's insignificant activities
list. In addition, Idaho has submitted program revisions addressing
EPA's two proposed grounds for disapproving Idaho's program. Neither
the comments submitted in response to the October 25, 1995, proposal
nor the program revisions submitted by the State involve the two issues
on which EPA is reproposing action in this notice. Accordingly, EPA
will address the comment, any additional comments it receives in
response to this reproposal and the effect of the State's program
revisions when EPA takes final action after the close of the public
comment period on this notice.
II. Discussion
A. Reconsideration of General Permit Requirements
In the October 27, 1995, Federal Register notice proposing action
on Idaho's title V submission, EPA identified four deficiencies in
Idaho's general permitting regulations which EPA believed must be
addressed as a condition of full approval. See 60 FR 54990 (October 27,
1995). One such deficiency identified by EPA was that the Idaho
Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) 16.01.01.335.05 states that
issuance of authorization to operate under a general operating permit
is a final agency action for purposes of administrative and judicial
review of the authorization. EPA stated that this provision was in
conflict with the requirements of 40 CFR 70.6(d)(2), which allows a
permitting authority to grant a source's request for authorization to
operate under a general permit without repeating the public
participation procedures, but provides that such grant shall not be
final agency action for purposes of judicial review. Upon further
reflection, EPA believes that part 70 does not prevent a permitting
authority from subjecting a decision to grant or deny a general permit
to judicial review, but instead merely states that a permitting
authority is not required to make such a decision subject to judicial
review. In this respect, the Idaho program does not conflict with the
requirements of part 70, but instead merely requires more public
participation than required by part 70. Accordingly, EPA believes the
Idaho program does not conflict with the requirements of part 70 by
subjecting to administrative and judicial review the State's decision
that a particular source meets or fails to meet the applicability
requirements for a general permit. EPA therefore proposes that Idaho
not be required to eliminate this provision as a condition of full
approval.
B. Idaho's Environmental Audit Statute
The Clean Air Act sets forth the minimum elements required for
approval of a State operating permits program, including the
requirement that the permitting authority has adequate authority to
assure that sources comply with all applicable CAA requirements as well
as authority to enforce permits through recovery of minimum civil
penalties and appropriate criminal penalties. Section 502(b)(5) (A) and
(E) of the CAA. EPA's implementing regulations, which further specify
the required minimum elements of State operating permits programs (40
CFR part 70), explicitly require States to have certain enforcement
authorities, including authority to seek injunctive relief to enjoin a
violation, to bring suit to restrain violations imposing an imminent
and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, and to
recover appropriate criminal and civil penalties. 40 CFR 70.11. In
addition, section 113(e) of the Clean Air Act sets forth penalty
factors for EPA or a court to consider for assessing penalties for
civil and criminal violations of title V permits. EPA is concerned
about the potential impact of some State privilege and immunity laws on
the ability of such States to enforce federal requirements, including
those under title V of the Clean Air Act. Based on review and
consideration of the statutory and regulatory provisions discussed
above, EPA issued guidance on April 5, 1996, entitled, ``Effect of
Audit Immunity/Privilege Laws on States' Ability to Enforce Title V
Requirements'' to address these concerns. This guidance outlines
certain elements of State audit immunity and privilege laws which, in
EPA's view, may so hamper the State's ability to enforce as to preclude
approval the State's title V operating permits program.
In the October 27, 1995, Federal Register notice proposing action
on Idaho's title V submission, which was published prior to issuance of
the April 5, 1996, guidance, EPA discussed the impact of Idaho's
environmental audit statute, Idaho Code Title 9, Chapter 8, on the
approvability of Idaho's title V operating permits program. EPA
expressed concern with two aspects of Idaho's environmental audit
statute. See 60 FR 55000. First, EPA was concerned with the provision
prohibiting the State from compelling a source, with certain limited
exceptions, to provide the State
[[Page 30572]]
a report that meets the definition of an ``environmental audit report''
(referred to here as the ``audit privilege''). See Idaho Code 9-804 to
-807. Although EPA was concerned that the audit privilege could be used
to shield bad actors and frustrate access to crucial factual
information, however, EPA stated it did not believe that Idaho's audit
privilege posed a bar to full title V approval. Second, EPA was
concerned with the provision which grants a source immunity from civil
or criminal liability for any violations voluntarily disclosed by the
source to the State in an environmental audit report (referred to here
as the ``audit immunity provision''). See Idaho Code 9-809. EPA stated
that the audit immunity provision of the Idaho environmental audit
statute appeared to impermissibly interfere with the requirement that
States have authority to collect a penalty for each day of violation.
Therefore, EPA proposed to require, as a condition of full approval,
that Idaho eliminate the audit immunity provision of Idaho Code 9-809
or demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction that the provision does not
impermissibly interfere with the enforcement requirements of title V.
Since publishing the October 27, 1995, proposal acting on Idaho's
title V program, EPA has reviewed the audit immunity and audit
privilege provisions of Idaho's audit immunity statute in light of the
April 5, 1996, guidance. After further consideration of the enforcement
requirements of title V and the Idaho environmental audit statute in
light of this guidance, EPA believes that both the immunity and
privilege provisions of the Idaho environmental audit statute deprive
the State of Idaho of adequate authority to enforce the requirements of
title V of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, EPA proposes that Idaho be
required to revise both the audit immunity and audit privilege
provisions of its environmental audit statute or demonstrate to EPA's
satisfaction that these provisions do not impermissibly impair the
enforcement authorities required for full title V approval.
1. Audit Immunity Provision
EPA continues to believe that the Idaho immunity statute (Idaho
Code 9-809) impermissibly interferes with the enforcement requirements
of title V and part 70. In addition, EPA has identified additional ways
in which the Idaho audit immunity provision appears problematic. The
Idaho statute provides that any person who makes a voluntary disclosure
of an environmental audit report identifying circumstances that may
constitute a violation of State environmental laws to the appropriate
agency shall be immune from civil or criminal penalties or
incarceration for the underlying associated acts. Idaho Code 9-809(1).
This provision does contain some restrictions. First, the immunity does
not apply to the extent the disclosure is required by law or a specific
permit condition or order because such a disclosure is not considered
``voluntary'' under the Idaho statute. Idaho Code 9-809(5). Because of
the recordkeeping, reporting and compliance certification requirements
of 40 CFR 70.6, which Idaho has adopted as part of its title V program
(see IDAPA 16.01.01.322), the scope of the audit immunity should be
greatly restricted with respect to title V sources in Idaho. Second,
the immunity is not available if the person has committed ``serious
violations that constitute a pattern of continuous or repeated
violations of environmental laws, regulations, permit conditions,
settlement agreements, consent orders, and were due to separate and
distinct events giving rise to the violations within the three (3) year
period prior to the date of the disclosure.'' Idaho Code 9-809(6).
These restrictions do diminish the scope of the immunity to some
extent. Nevertheless, the Idaho statute appears to bar prosecution of
``knowing'' violations of title V requirements unless the source has
previously and repeatedly violated the same requirements within the
past three years. EPA believes, such a restriction on criminal penalty
authority deprives the State of authority to recover ``appropriate''
penalties for criminal conduct, as required by section 502(b)(5)(E) of
the Act and 40 CFR 70.11(a)(3)(ii), 70.11(a)(3)(iii) and 70.11(c).
Moreover, the Idaho statute would preclude the assessment of civil
penalties for violations voluntarily disclosed in an environmental
audit even if the violations resulted in serious harm or risk of harm
to the public or the environment or resulted in substantial economic
benefit to the violator. Section 113(e) of the Clean Air Act requires
EPA or the court to consider these factors in assessing penalties. To
the extent the Idaho statute prevents consideration of these factors,
EPA believes that Idaho does not have adequate authority to assess
appropriate penalties as required by section 502(b)(5)(E) of the Clean
Air Act and 40 CFR 70.11(c).
In addition to the impermissible restrictions on criminal and civil
penalties, EPA also believes that the Idaho immunity statute unduly
interferes with the State's authority to issue emergency orders and
seek injunctive relief. Title V requires a State to have clear
authority to restrain or enjoin immediately activities that present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare or
the environment and to seek injunctive relief where necessary to stop a
violation, correct noncompliance and prevent its recurrence. See
section 502(b)(5)(E); 40 CFR 70.11(a) (1) and (2). The Idaho audit
immunity provision could be interpreted to interfere with these
requirements in two respects. First, Idaho Code 9-809(7) states that
the audit immunity does not affect the authority of the State to
require remedial action through a consent order or action in district
court or to abate an imminent hazard ``[e]xcept as specifically
provided,'' but the exception to the immunity provision also states
that ``[a] person may, but is not required, to enter into a voluntary
consent order with the environmental regulatory agency to achieve
compliance.'' Idaho Code 9-809(5). This provision suggests that the
State may be precluded from issuing a unilateral order or seeking a
court order requiring a source to correct a violation on a specified
schedule, at least where the violation does not involve an imminent
hazard.
Second, Idaho Code 9-809(3) states that ``where audit evidence
shows the noncompliance to be the failure to obtain a permit or other
governmental permission, appropriate efforts to correct the
noncompliance may be demonstrated by the submittal of a permit
application or equivalent document within a reasonable time.'' A source
must generally demonstrate that it has achieved compliance within a
reasonable period in order to demonstrate that an audit was voluntary
and thus a basis for seeking immunity. See Idaho Code 9-809(2)(c). It
is unclear, however, whether Idaho Code 9-809(3) was intended to allow
a source to continue the unlawful activity for which a permit was
required (for example, construction of a new major source without a
permit) without being subject to penalty or other enforcement action or
whether it was merely intended to give the source immunity for its past
activities of constructing without a permit. As noted above, EPA
believes that the Idaho audit immunity provision does not comport with
the title V requirements for penalty authority to the extent it grants
immunity for criminal violations and for civil violations resulting in
serious harm or risk of harm or a substantial economic benefit. If
Idaho Code 9-809(3) would also prevent the State from issuing or
seeking an order
[[Page 30573]]
enjoining the violation (for example, an order halting construction),
EPA believes that the Idaho law would also impermissibly interfere with
the enforcement requirements of title V and part 70. In short, EPA
believes that the effect of Idaho's audit immunity provision on the
requirements of 40 CFR 70.11(a) (1) and (2) for emergency orders and
injunctive relief is unclear and must be clarified by the State as a
condition of full approval.
2. Audit Privilege
The part 70 regulations governing program approval do not
specifically address the scope of privileges available in State
enforcement actions. Nonetheless, EPA believes that where a State
adopts a very broad privilege law specifically directed at evidence
related to environmental violations, that privilege could go so far as
to render the overall State enforcement program inadequate even if
other authorities are nominally available (such as injunctive relief
and penalty authority). An excessively broad privilege could so
interfere with the exercise of these nominal enforcement authorities as
to render them meaningless by depriving the State of the ability to
gather evidence needed to establish a violation.
The Idaho audit privilege (Idaho Code 9-804 to -807) broadly
prohibits the State from requiring a source to disclose an
``environmental audit report,'' thus depriving the State of potentially
important information for determining whether a source is in violation,
whether a violation was knowing and whether the source took prompt
action to correct the violation. The Idaho legislation does contain
some restrictions on the scope of this privilege. Importantly, the law
makes clear that ``[d]ocuments, data and other information which must
be collected, developed and reported pursuant to federal and state law,
rule and regulation must be disclosed in accordance with the applicable
law, rule or regulation.'' Idaho Code 9-805; See also Idaho Code 9-807.
Because of the recordkeeping, reporting and compliance certification
requirements of 40 CFR 70.6, which Idaho has adopted as part of their
title V program (see IDAPA 16.01.01.322), the scope of the audit
privilege should be greatly restricted with respect to title V sources
in Idaho. In addition, the audit privilege does not apply if an
environmental agency or a court, after in camera review, determines
that the environmental audit privilege is asserted for a fraudulent
purpose or that the material sought to be withheld is not an
appropriate subject for an environmental audit. Idaho Code 9-806(2).
Nonetheless, where an audit produces evidence of noncompliance, the
Idaho privilege would prevent the State from reviewing that evidence to
determine whether the violation will be corrected and compliance
assured. Similarly, where an audit reveals evidence of prior criminal
conduct on the part of managers and employees, Idaho would be barred
from obtaining and using such information. As a result, the State would
be prevented from obtaining appropriate criminal penalties. In these
respects, EPA believes that the Idaho audit privilege set forth in
Idaho Code 9-804 to -807 is so broad so as to deprive the State of its
ability to obtain appropriate criminal penalties and assure compliance,
as required by section 502(b)(5)(E) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR
70.11.
C. Proposed Action on Section 112(l) Submittal
As stated above, the requirements for title V approval, specified
in 40 CFR 70.4(b), encompass section 112(l)(5) requirements for
approval of a State program for delegation of section 112 standards as
promulgated by EPA as they apply to part 70 sources. Section 112(l)(5)
requires that the State's program contain adequate authorities,
adequate resources for implementation, and an expeditious compliance
schedule, which are also requirements under part 70. On October 27,
1995, EPA proposed to grant interim approval under Section 112(l)(5) of
the Act and 40 CFR 63.91 of the State of Idaho's program for receiving
delegation of 112 standards that are unchanged from Federal standards
as promulgated but only as they apply to Part 70 sources, if EPA
granted interim approval to Idaho's operating permits program.
By letter dated December 14, 1995, Idaho also requested that EPA
approve its use of the automatic delegation mechanism for delegation of
future section 112 standards unchanged from the Federal standards as
described in section 5.1.2.a of EPA's ``Interim Enabling Guidance for
the Implementation of 40 CFR Part 63'', Subpart E, EPA-453/R-93-040,
November 1993 (Subpart E Enabling Guidance). After reviewing Idaho's
legal authorities, EPA has determined that Idaho does not meet the
criteria set forth in the Subpart E Enabling Guidance to receive
automatic delegation of future section 112 standards because it cannot
immediately implement and enforce future section 112 standards without
additional rulemaking at the State level.
Although Idaho has the authority to include Federal standards in
part 70 permits without adopting such standards by reference, the
section 112 requirements for some part 70 sources will take effect (or
already have taken effect) prior to the issuance of their part 70
permits. To obtain approval of the delegation of section 112 standards,
Idaho must be able to implement and enforce those standards upon
approval and assure compliance by all sources within the State with
each applicable regulation promulgated under section 112. EPA is
therefore denying Idaho's request for automatic delegation as described
by the State's December 14, 1995 letter.
However, in IDAPA 16.01.107, Idaho has adopted by reference all
Federal standards contained in 40 CFR part 61 and part 63 as in effect
on April 1, 1994. In addition, Idaho has the authority to implement and
enforce those 112 standards that it has adopted by reference.
Therefore, if EPA grants interim approval to Idaho's operating permits
program, EPA proposes to interimly delegate the section 112 standards
contained in 40 CFR parts 61 and 63 which were in effect on April 1,
1994, and as those rules apply to part 70 sources. Those standards
consist of 40 CFR part 61, subparts A through F, H through R, V, W, Y,
BB, and FF; and 40 CFR part 63, subparts A, D, L, and M. EPA would
retain implementation and enforcement authority for these rules as they
apply to non-part 70 sources. EPA recommends that by the time of final
interim approval of this submittal, Idaho should adopt by reference 40
CFR part 61 and 63 at least as in effect June 1, 1996, and continue to
update its incorporation by reference as the federal 112 standards are
revised and new Federal standards are issued.
In addition, EPA proposes to approve the mechanism described in
Section 5.1.2.b of the Subpart E Enabling Guidance for those Federal
standards that Idaho adopts by reference unchanged, if EPA grants
interim approval to Idaho's operating permits program. Using this
streamlined approach, upon adoption of a NESHAP(s) by reference, Idaho
will only need to send a letter of request to EPA. EPA would in turn
respond to this request by sending a letter back to the State
delegating the appropriate NESHAP(s) as requested. No further formal
response from the State would be necessary at this point, and if a
negative response from the State is not received within 10 days of this
letter of delegation from EPA, the delegation would then become final.
Although EPA is proposing to delegate authority to Idaho to enforce
the NESHAP regulations as they apply
[[Page 30574]]
to part 70 sources, it is important to note that EPA will retain
oversight authority for all sources subject to these federal CAA
requirements. EPA has the authority and responsibility to enforce the
Federal regulations in those situations where the State is unable to do
so or fails to do so.
III. Proposed Action and Implications
EPA is reopening the public comment on two conditions EPA proposed
in the October 27, 1995, Federal Register notice (60 FR 54990) as
conditions that Idaho must meet to obtain full approval of its
operating permits program. First, upon further reflection, EPA believes
that IDAPA 16.01.01.335.05, which states that issuance of authorization
to operate under a general operating permit is a final agency action
for purposes of administrative and judicial review of the
authorization, does not conflict with the requirements of 40 CFR
70.6(d)(2), but instead merely requires more public participation than
required by part 70. If EPA takes final action on this proposal,
condition ``n. General Permits'' of Section II.B.2 of the October 27,
1995 Federal Register notice (60 FR 54997) would be revised to read as
follows:
n. General Permits
Idaho must revise its regulations authorizing general permits to
be consistent with 40 CFR 70.6(d), including provisions requiring:
(a) that if a permitting authority has issued a general permit, the
authority must grant the conditions and terms of the general permit
to sources that qualify; (b) specialized general permit applications
meet the requirements of title V; and (c) that the State may take
enforcement action for operation without a permit if the source is
later determined not to qualify for the conditions and terms of the
general permit.
Second, EPA believes that Idaho's environmental audit privilege, as
well as Idaho's environmental audit immunity provision, interfere with
the enforcement requirements of title V and part 70 and must be revised
or otherwise shown to be consistent with title V and part 70
requirements. If EPA takes final action on this proposal, condition
``aa. Environmental Audit Statute'' of Section II.B.2 of the October
27, 1995 Federal Register notice (60 FR 54997) would be revised to read
as follows:
aa. Environmental Audit Statute
Idaho must revise both the immunity and audit provisions of the
Idaho environmental audit statute, Idaho Code title 9, chapter 8, to
ensure that it does not interfere with the requirements of section
502(b)(E)(5) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.11 for adequate
authority to pursue appropriate criminal and civil penalties, issue
emergency orders, obtain injunctive relief and otherwise assure
compliance. In the alternative, Idaho must demonstrate to EPA's
satisfaction that these required enforcement authorities are not
impaired by Idaho's environmental audit statute.
Also, if EPA grants interim approval of Idaho's operating permits
program, in addition to approving the program submitted by the State of
Idaho for the purpose of implementing and enforcing the hazardous air
pollutant requirements under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, EPA
proposes to delegate all federal NESHAPs adopted by the State, as they
apply to part 70 sources and to approve the streamlined mechanism for
delegation described in Section 5.1.2.b of the Subpart E Enabling
Guidance.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Request for Public Comments
EPA is requesting comments on the three issues addressed in this
notice, namely, (1) conditioning full approval of the Idaho title V
operating permits program on specified changes to Idaho's regulations
addressing general permits (IDAPA 16.01.01.335); (2) conditioning full
approval of the Idaho title V operating permits program on specified
changes to Idaho's environmental audit statute (Idaho Code title 9,
chapter 8) or a satisfactory explanation of why the statute does not
interfere with title V enforcement requirements; and (3) EPA's proposal
to delegate all federal NESHAPs adopted by the State, as they apply to
part 70 sources and to approve the streamlined mechanism for delegation
described in Section 5.1.2.b of the Subpart E Enabling Guidance. All
other aspects of EPA's October 27, 1996 Federal Register notice (60 FR
54990), including all other conditions on interim and full approval of
Idaho's operating permits program, remain unchanged by this reproposal
and are no longer open for public comment. Copies of the State's
submittal and other information relied upon for this proposed action
and notice are contained in a docket maintained at the EPA Regional
Office. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the
information submitted to, or otherwise considered by, EPA in the
development of this proposed action. The principal purposes of the
docket are:
(1) to allow interested parties a means to identify and locate
documents so that they can effectively participate in the approval
process, and
(2) to serve as the record in case of judicial review.
The EPA will consider any comments received by July 17, 1996.
B. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from
Executive Order 12866 review.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 600 et. seq.,
EPA must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact
of any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. Secs. 603 and
604. Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
EPA actions under section 502 of the Act do not create any new
requirements, but simply address operating permits programs submitted
to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR part 70. NESHAP rule or program
delegations approved under the authority of section 112(l) of the Act
also do not create any new requirements, but simply confer Federal
authority for those requirements that the State of Idaho is already
imposing. Because this action does not impose any new requirements, it
does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100
million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203
requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the proposed approval action promulgated
today does not include a federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal
action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local, and
imposes no new federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs
to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector,
result from this action.
[[Page 30575]]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Hazardous substances.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: June 6, 1996.
Phil Millam,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-15281 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15279 Animal Welfare; Marine Mammals
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30545]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15279]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 30545]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 1 and 3
[Docket No. 93-076-9]
RIN 0579-AA59
Animal Welfare; Marine Mammals
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to announce the third and final
meeting of the Marine Mammal Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
DATES: July 8, 9, and 10, 1996, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. each day.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the USDA Center at Riverside,
Conference Center Rooms A and B, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, Maryland
20737, (301) 734-7833.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Barbara Kohn, Senior Staff
Veterinarian, Animal Care Staff, REAC, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 84,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1234, (301) 734-7833.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a Federal Register notice published on
May 22, 1995 (60 FR 27049-27051, Docket No. 93-076-3), we announced our
intent to establish a Marine Mammal Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory
Committee (Committee), chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (Pub. L. 92-463). The Committee will review the current regulations
and standards under the Animal Welfare Act concerning the care and
maintenance of captive marine mammals, and provide consensus language
to amend the regulations. The first meeting of the Committee, which was
announced in a Federal Register notice published on September 8, 1995
(60 FR 46783-46784, Docket No. 93-076-7), was held on September 25-26,
1995. The second meeting of the Committee, which was announced in a
Federal Register notice published on March 8, 1996 (61 FR 9371, Docket
No. 93-076-8), was held on April 1-3, 1996. The March 8 Federal
Register notice stated that the April 1-3 meeting would be the final
Committee meeting. However, following that meeting, funding was
obtained to allow for one more meeting. This notice announces the third
and final meeting of the Committee.
The purpose of the meeting is to bring together members of the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, representatives of the
marine mammal public display community, the marine mammal research
community, the animal welfare community, and members of other Federal
agencies with a definable stake in marine mammal care issues to frame a
recommended rulemaking proposal to amend the current regulatory program
concerning care and maintenance standards for captive marine mammals.
The Committee will determine the final agenda for the meeting at
its beginning. The tentative agenda for the meeting is as follows:
First Day
Morning Session--8:30 a.m.
Establish Agenda for Meeting
Discussion of Marine Mammal Regulations
Afternoon Session--1 p.m.
Discussion of Marine Mammal Regulations
Public Comments
Second Day
Morning Session--8:30 a.m.
Establish Agenda for Day
Committee Administrative Issues
Discussion of Marine Mammal Regulations
Afternoon Session--1 p.m.
Discussion of Marine Mammal Regulations
Public Comments
Third Day
Morning Session--8:30 a.m.
Establish Agenda for Day
Committee Administrative Issues
Discussion of Marine Mammal Regulations
Afternoon Session--1 p.m.
Discussion of Marine Mammal Regulations
Public Comments
The meeting will be open to the public. Public participation at the
meeting will be allowed during periods announced at the meeting for
this purpose.
This notice is given pursuant to section 10 of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act.
Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of June 1996.
Terry L. Medley,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 96-15279 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15268 Provision of Aeronautical Services via the Inmarsat System
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30579-30581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15268]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Chapter I
[CC Docket No. 87-75; FCC 96-161]
Provision of Aeronautical Services via the Inmarsat System
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission adopted restrictions on use of the Inmarsat
system for aeronautical services in the U.S. in Aeronautical Services
Order II. In a Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (FNPRM), the
Commission is examining the prior restrictions and seeking comment on
alternative arrangements. In the FNPRM the Commission proposed to
establish the scope of permissible uses of Inmarsat aeronautical
services in the United States. The Commission has generally promoted
competition in satellite communications in both the international and
U.S. domestic markets. Due to spectrum availability constraints in the
L-band it was necessary to propose limits on the use of Inmarsat
aeronautical services in the United States. The spectrum in which
mobile satellite services (MSS) will operate is limited and appears
insufficient to meet the stated spectrum requirements for the North
American coverage area for American Mobile Satellite Corporation,
Inmarsat and three other countries developing MSS systems--Canada,
Mexico and Russia. In the future, the Commission may permit entry by
Inmarsat into the U.S. domestic aeronautical market--but not until the
U.S. has ensured sufficient spectrum for domestic needs without
interference to communications links. The intended effect of this
proceeding is to establish the manner in which Inmarsat aeronautical
services will be available in the U.S. consistent with competition
policies and spectrum availability.
DATES: Comments are due July 17, 1996; reply comments are due August
16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Olga Madruga-Forti, International
Bureau, Satellite and Radiocommunication Division, Satellite Policy
Branch, (202) 418-0766.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in CC Docket 87-75, Provision of
Aeronautical Services via the Inmarsat System, Commission 96-161,
adopted April 9, 1996, released May 9, 1996. The Commission is
considering adopting geographical restriction to Inmarsat aeronautical
services similar to those established in Aeronautical Services Order
II, 54 FR 33224 (August 14, 1989). The complete text of this FNPRM is
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the Commission Reference Center, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.,
and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,
International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street,
N.W., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
I. Introduction
In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission
initiated a further notice of proposed rulemaking concerning the
geographic restrictions on the domestic use of Inmarsat-based
aeronautical satellite services adopted in Aeronautical Services Order
II, 54 FR 33224 (August 14, 1989). The Commission identified three
possible models for geographic limitations: (1) Decline to authorize
Inmarsat aeronautical services in U.S. airspace; (2) Authorize Inmarsat
aeronautical services in the U.S. for aircraft in international flight
up to the first port of entry and from the last port of departure from
the U.S.; and (3) Authorize Inmarsat aeronautical services in the U.S.
for all international flights including the domestic legs of
international flights. Analysis and comment should consider the
reliability and quality of communications and the Commission's desire
to promote competition. Furthermore, in order to ensure continuity of
service the Commission granted those parties already authorized to
provide Inmarsat aeronautical mobile satellite service to aircraft in
international flight special temporary authority to provide service to
aircraft in domestic flight.
II. Background
In 1987, the Commission initiated a rulemaking to determine how
aeronautical mobile satellite service (``AMSS'') via Inmarsat would be
provided in the United States. In Aeronautical Services Order II, the
Commission authorized COMSAT to provide Inmarsat aeronautical services
to United States aeronautical earth stations for aircraft in flight:
(1) from the United States to a foreign point; (2) from a foreign point
into the United States; and (3) between any two foreign points. The
Commission also specified that aircraft in flight between two U.S.
domestic points may use only the domestic mobile satellite system for
satellite communications to the extent the coverage area of that system
permits.
3. We have generally promoted competition in satellite
communications in both the international and U.S. domestic markets. The
circumstances presented here pose certain limitations on the extent to
which we can achieve a fully competitive U.S. market for MSS systems in
the L-band. The spectrum in
[[Page 30580]]
which the MSS systems will operate is limited and appears insufficient
to meet the stated spectrum requirements for the North American
coverage area for AMSC, Inmarsat and three other countries developing
MSS systems--Canada, Mexico, and Russia. In seven years of
negotiations, the five systems have been unable to successfully
complete coordination to operate the same frequencies on a co-coverage
basis in North America and the surrounding geographical area. The five
systems are vying for access to 33 MHz of spectrum in each direction
but have claimed requirements for significantly more than that amount.
Moreover, this problem is complicated because the current designs of
the MSS systems do not permit sharing frequencies in the same
geographic area or adjacent areas. Inmarsat claims a need for exclusive
use of considerable spectrum over the continental United States (CONUS)
for its maritime and other services. However, AMSC likely will have to
use noncontiguous spectrum segments and share some of these segments
with other MSS systems. We have two specific concerns about permitting
Inmarsat to provide aeronautical services in the United States under
these circumstances: (1) Inmarsat may claim additional spectrum needs
over CONUS in order to provide this service; and (2) AMSC may receive
technical interference from proximate Inmarsat channels and not be able
to operate on those channels assigned to it.
4. We want competition in the U.S. market, but the first step is to
ensure sufficient spectrum for the U.S. domestic MSS system to become
an effective competitor. This will require successful completion of the
current coordination process. Any policy that we propose here for
aeronautical services must not exacerbate this situation or complicate
ongoing negotiations. Therefore, we propose an approach similar to that
in our l989 Aeronautical Services Order II. That is, we propose that
Inmarsat continue to provide primarily international AMSS to the United
States. We may, at a future date, permit entry by Inmarsat into the
U.S. domestic aeronautical market--but, we will not propose to do so
until we have successfully coordinated sufficient spectrum for the U.S.
licensed domestic MSS system.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The circumstances under which Inmarsat may offer domestic
services within the U.S. are also a subject under consideration in a
notice of proposed rulemaking on the provision of domestic service
by non-U.S. satellites. See Amendment of the Commission's Regulatory
Policies to Allow Non-U.S. Licensed Space Stations to Provide
Domestic and International Satellite Service in the United States,
Commission 96-210, adopted May 9, l996, released May 14, l996.
Inmarsat could only enter the domestic aeronautical MSS market in
accordance with the rules and policies adopted in this rulemaking as
well as any rules or policies that may be adopted in the broader
proceeding. We also defer consideration of NTIA's request in its
comments for initiation of a Further NPRM on the issue of direct
access to Inmarsat by multiple providers. This direct access issue
is a part of a broader review of U.S. satellite policy by relevant
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. We do not propose to adopt a policy that takes into account the
economic impact on the AMSC system of Inmarsat entry into the U.S.
aeronautical service market. AMSC already faces competition from other
U.S. satellite systems such as Qualcomm's OmniTracs service and
Orbcomm's land mobile and maritime services. It will eventually face
competition from low earth orbit (LEO) systems recently authorized by
the Commission.2 There does not appear to be any reason to single
out Inmarsat's economic impact on the AMSC system. Moreover, Inmarsat
does not consider economic impact in evaluating the provision of
aeronautical and land mobile services by non-Inmarsat satellite
systems, and no longer considers it for competing maritime
services.3 The United States has been in the forefront of the
effort to ensure that Inmarsat does not use economic impact analysis to
prevent or discourage competition in the provision of international
satellite services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See e.g., Motorola Satellite Communications, Inc. Order and
Authorization, 10 F.C.C. Rcd. 2268 (International Bureau, released
January 31, l995); Loral/Qualcomm Partnership, L.P., 10 F.C.C. Rcd.
2333 (International Bureau, released January 31, l995); TRW, Inc.
Order and Authorization, 10 F.C.C. Rcd. 2263 (International Bureau,
released January 31, l995).
\3\ Article 8 of the Inmarsat Convention provides, in general,
that in order to ensure technical compatibility and avoid economic
harm to the Inmarsat system, a Party shall notify Inmarsat before
the Party uses separate space segment facilities for maritime
purposes. The Ninth Assembly of the Inmarsat Assembly of Parties
decided that no system which falls within the scope of Article 8 of
the Convention shall be deemed to cause significant economic harm to
the organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Accordingly, in this FNPRM, we seek comment on the circumstances
in which we should permit the use of Inmarsat aeronautical satellite
services in the United States. We tentatively conclude that due to
spectrum availability constraints, we must limit the scope of Inmarsat
aeronautical services in the United States pending completion of
current negotiations. We believe that this approach will ensure that
the available spectrum is adequate to serve the United States public
interest in the provision of aeronautical satellite services. We
specifically request parties disputing our spectrum analysis to submit
detailed comments addressing this issue. We seek comment on our
tentative conclusion and on defining the scope of Inmarsat aeronautical
service.
7. Initially, we identify three possible models for establishing
geographic limitations:
1. Decline to authorize the use of Inmarsat aeronautical services
in U.S. airspace.
2. Authorize the use of Inmarsat aeronautical services, both safety
and APC, via U.S. earth stations for aircraft in international flight:
(a) from the United States to a foreign point; and (b) from a foreign
point into the United States.
3. Authorize the use of Inmarsat aeronautical services, both safety
and APC, via U.S. earth stations for aircraft in international flight:
(a) from the United States to a foreign point; (b) from a foreign point
into the United States; and (c) on domestic legs of international
flights.
8. We seek comment on the definitions of the scope of service
proposed in this FNPRM and we invite additional or alternative
proposals. We believe that this approach is necessary to ensure the
development of a United States domestic MSS-AMSS(R) system that has
sufficient reliable spectrum to meet the needs of the public, including
safety needs. We propose to adopt one of the definitions of the scope
of Inmarsat aeronautical services discussed above as reasonable to
fulfill this objective.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
9. Pursuant to Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the
Commission has prepared the following initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (``IRFA'') of the expected impact of these proposed policies
and rules on small entities. Written public comments are requested on
the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same
filing deadlines as comments on the rest of the Further NPRM, but they
must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses
to the regulatory flexibility analysis. The Secretary shall cause a
copy of the FNPRM, including the initial regulatory flexibility
analysis, to be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration in accordance with Section 603(a) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5
U.S.C. Sec. 601 et. seq. (1981).
10. Reason for Action. This FNPRM proposes to establish regulations
establishing geographical boundaries for
[[Page 30581]]
the use of Inmarsat aeronautical services in the United States.
11. Objectives. To propose rules to govern the use of Inmarsat-
based aeronautical services in the United States.
12. Legal Basis. Authority as proposed for this rulemaking is
contained in the provisions of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
Secs. 151, 154, 303(r), 403, and 405.
13. Description, Potential Impact and Number of Small Entities
Affected. None.
14. Reporting, Record Keeping and Other Compliance Requirements.
None.
15. Federal Rules Which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict with this
Rule. None.
16. Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing Impact on Small
Entities and Consistent with Stated Objectives. None.
Paperwork Reduction Act
17. This NPRM contains a proposed information collection. The
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collections contained in
this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public
Law No. 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same time as
other comments on this NPRM; OMB notification of action is due August
16, 1996. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden
estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on the respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
Procedural Provisions
18. This is a non-restricted notice and comment rulemaking
proceeding. Ex Parte presentations are permitted, except during the
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in 47
CFR Sec. 1.1206(a).
19. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415
and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Secs. 1.415 and 1.419,
interested parties may file comments on or before July 17, 1996 and
reply comments on or before August 16, 1996. To file formally in this
proceeding, you must file an original plus four copies of all comments,
reply comments and supporting comments. If you want a Commissioner to
receive a personal copy of your comments and reply comments you must
file an original plus nine copies. You should send comments and reply
comments to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and
reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular
business hours in the Commission Public Reference Center, Room 239,
Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C.
20554.
20. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified
information collections are due July 17, 1996 and reply comments on or
before August 16, 1996. Written comments must be submitted by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified
information collections on or before August 16, 1996. In addition to
filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the
information collections contained herein should be submitted to Dorothy
Conway, Federal Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street,
N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected] and
to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725-17th Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to [email protected]. For
additional information concerning the information collections contained
in this NPRM contact Dorothy Conway at 202-418-0217.
Ordering Clauses
21. Accordingly, it is further ordered that the Secretary shall
send a copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance
with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law No.
96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. Secs. 601 et. seq. (1981).
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-15268 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15232 Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Hearing
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15232]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 669
[I.D. 060496E]
Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Hearing
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Public hearing; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Caribbean Council)
will convene one public hearing on alternatives for closed areas to
protect spawning aggregations of red hind in an area off Mayaguez, PR.
DATES: Written comments will be accepted on or before July 15, 1996.
The public hearing will be held on June 19, 1996, from 7 p.m. to 10
p.m.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to, and copies of a document
summarizing the management alternatives to be considered are available
from, Mr. Miguel A. Rolon, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery
Management Council, 268 Munoz Rivera Ave., Suite 1108, San Juan, PR
00918. The hearing will be held at the Joyuda Plaza Hotel, Cabo Rojo,
PR.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Miguel A. Rolon, 809-766-5926; Fax:
809-766 6239.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Caribbean Council will be holding a public hearing on
alternatives for closed areas to protect the spawning aggregations of
the red hind grouper, which usually form during the period December 1
through February 28 of each consecutive year.
The current regulations implementing the Fishery Management Plan
for the Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands
establish a closed area off Mayaguez, PR, to protect the spawning
grounds of this grouper species. Recent information obtained by the
Caribbean Council indicates that the red hind aggregations are taking
place in other sites outside the present closed area. The Caribbean
Council will be considering closed area alternatives that would be more
effective in protecting the red hind spawning aggregations while
resulting in fewer adverse regulatory impacts to fishers.
Alternatives under consideration include: (1) No action (i.e., keep
the same area of seasonal closure (Amendment 2 of the Reeffish FMP,
1993)); (2) closing an area of 1/2 mile (2.41 km) radius around ``Buoy
8'' to all fishing from December 1 to February 28 of each fishing year;
(3) closing an area of 1/2 mile (2.41 km) radius around ``Buoy 6'' to
all fishing from December 1 to February 28 of each fishing year; (4)
closing an area of 1/2 mile (2.41 km) radius centered around a buoy to
be deployed in the area known as ``El Bajo de Sico'' to all fishing
between December 1 to February 28 of each fishing year; and (5) closing
all three areas identified above to all fishing between December 1 and
February 28 of each fishing year.
Special Accommodations
This hearing is physically accessible to people with disabilities.
For more information or requests for sign language interpretation and/
or other auxiliary aids please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolon at 809-766-
5926 (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the hearing date.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: June 11, 1996.
Richard H. Schaefer,
Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-15232 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15214 Airworthiness Directives; Schweizer Aircraft Corporation and Hughes Helicopters, Inc. Model 269A, 269A-1, 269B, and TH-55A Helicopters
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30548-30550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15214]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 94-SW-17-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Schweizer Aircraft Corporation and
Hughes Helicopters, Inc. Model 269A, 269A-1, 269B, and TH-55A
Helicopters
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness
directive (AD), applicable to Schweizer Aircraft Corporation and Hughes
Helicopters, Inc. Model 269A, 269A-1, 269A-2, and 269B helicopters,
that currently requires initial and repetitive inspections of the main
rotor thrust bearing (bearing) for bearing rotational roughness,
corrosion, inadequate lubrication, physical damage, or excessive zinc
chromate paste or moisture. This action would require the same initial
and repetitive inspections required by the existing AD, but would
extend the retirement life for certain bearings, and would remove the
Model 269A-2 helicopter from, and add the Model TH-55A helicopters to
the applicability of this AD. This proposal is prompted by an FAA
analysis of service information issued by the
[[Page 30549]]
manufacturer that extends the retirement life for certain bearings. The
actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent failure of
the bearing, loss of the main rotor, and subsequent loss of control of
the helicopter.
DATES: Comments must be received by August 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:
Rules Docket No. 94-SW-17-AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas 76137. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00
a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Schweizer Aircraft Corporation, P.O. Box 147, Elmira, New
York 14902. This information may be examined at the FAA, Office of the
Assistant Chief Counsel, Room 663, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth,
Texas.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Ray O'Neill, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch,
New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, New England Region, 10 5th
Street, Valley stream, New York 11581, telephone (516) 256-7505, fax
(516) 568-2716.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket No. 94-SW-17-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 94-SW-17-AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas
76137
Discussion
On October 11, 1968, the FAA issued AD 68-21-05, Amendment 39-672
(33 FR 15543, October 19, 1968), to require, for Model 269A
helicopters, serial numbers (S/N) 0011 through 0979 (except Model TH-
55A helicopters), Model 269A-1 helicopters, S/N 0001 through 0041,
Model 269A-2 helicopter, S/N 0001, and Model 269B, S/N 0001 through
0370, an initial inspection at 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) and
thereafter, repetitive inspections at 150 hours TIS intervals of the
bearing, part number (P/N 269A5050-50 or P/N 269A5050-51, for bearing
corrosion, inadequate lubrication, physical damage, or evidence of
excessive zinc chromate paste or moisture; and, to establish a bearing
retirement life of 300 hours TIS. The AD was revised and issued on July
24, 1970 (35 FR 12532, August 6, 1970) to require, for bearings, P/N
269A5050-73, repetitive inspections at 600 hours TIS intervals for
bearing corrosion, rust, freedom of rotation, looseness, binding,
nicks, burrs, cracks, and inadequate lubrication; and to establish a
bearing retirement life of 1,800 hours TIS. These actions were prompted
by several reports of failures of the bearings in military-use
helicopters (Model TH-55a) that were equipped with the same bearings.
That condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the main
rotor thrust bearing, loss of the main rotor, and subsequent loss of
control of the helicopter.
Since the issuance of that AD, Hughes Helicopters, Inc., issued a
report (Hughes Report JS-10-3, Revised May 4, 1979), which stated that
the retirement life for the bearing, P/N 269A5050-73, should be
extended from 1,800 hours TIS to 3,000 hours TIS. There have been no
reports of failures of that bearing since the issuance of AD 68-21-05.
In 1979, the FAA incorporated the 3,000 hours TIS retirement life into
Type Certificate Data Sheet 4H12, Revision 19, which governs Schweizer
Aircraft Corporation Model 269A, 269A-1, 269B, and former TH-55A
helicopters. Additionally, the Model 269A-2 Serial No. 0001) was
deleted from that Type Certificate Data Sheet. Therefore, the Model
269A-2 is removed from the applicability of this AD. Finally the Model
TH-55A helicopter was omitted from the applicability of the existing
AD, and has been added to the applicability of this AD.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop another Schweizer Aircraft Corporation and Hughes
Helicopters, Inc. Model 269A, 269A-1, 269B, and TH-55A helicopters of
the same type design, the proposed AD would supersede AD 68-21-05 to
require the same initial and repetitive inspections required by the
existing AD, but extend the retirement life for bearings, P/N 269A5050-
73, from 1,800 hours TIS to 3,000 hours TIS.
The FAA estimates that 500 helicopters of U.S, registry would be
affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 8 work
hours per helicopter to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the
average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost
approximately $1,890 per helicopter. Based on these figures, the total
cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$1,185,000.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
[[Page 30550]]
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, and 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing Amendment 39-1055 (35 FR
12532, August 6, 1970), and Amendment 39-672 (33 FR 15543, October 19,
1968), and by adding a new airworthiness directive (AD), to read as
follows:
Schweizer Aircraft Corporation and Hughes Helicopters, Inc.: Docket
No. 94-SW-17-AD. Supersedes AD 68-21-05, Amendment 39-1055 and
Amendment 39-672.
Applicability: Model 269A helicopters, serial numbers (S/N) 0011
through 1109, Model 269A-1 helicopters, S/N 0001 through 0041, Model
269B, S/N 0001 through 0444, and Model TH-55A, with main rotor
thrust bearing, part number (P/N) 269A5050-50, -51 or -73,
installed, certified in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each helicopter identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For helicopters that have been modified
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the authority
provided in paragraph (g) to request approval from the FAA. This
approval may address either no action, if the current configuration
eliminates the unsafe condition, or different actions necessary to
address the unsafe condition described in this AD. Such a request
should include an assessment of the effect of the changed
configuration on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no
case does the presence of any modification, alteration, or repair
remove any helicopter from the applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required within 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) after
the effective date of this AD, unless accomplished previously.
To prevent failure of the main rotor thrust bearing, loss of the
main rotor, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter,
accomplish the following:
(a) From available helicopter records, determine the TIS of the
appropriate main rotor thrust bearing (bearing), part number (P/N)
269A5050-50, 269A5050-51, or 269A5050-73.
(1) If the TIS on the bearing, P/N 269A5050-50 or -51, equals or
exceeds 300 hours TIS, replace the bearing before further flight.
(2) If the TIS on the hearing, P/N 269A5050-50 or -51, equals or
exceeds 275 hours TIS, retire the bearing from service within 25
hours TIS after the effective date of this AD.
(b) Inspect bearing, P/N 269A5050-50 or -51, for rotational
roughness, corrosion, inadequate lubrication, physical damage,
moisture or inadequate drainage due to build-up of zinc chromate
paste in accordance with Step II, paragraph b of Schweizer Service
Notice (SSN) No. N-59, dated October 9, 1968.
(1) If bearing rotational roughness, corrosion, inadequate
lubrication, physical damage, moisture or inadequate drainage due to
build-up of zinc chromate paste is found, replace the bearing with
an airworthy bearing.
(2) If no bearing rotational roughness, corrosion, lack of
lubrication, physical damage, moisture or inadequate drainage due to
build-up of zinc chromate paste is found, thereafter, inspect the
bearing in accordance with this paragraph upon attaining an
additional 150 hours TIS.
(3) For replacement bearings, inspect in accordance with this
paragraph upon attaining 150 hours TIS, unless the bearing reaches
its 300 hour TIS retirement life limit prior to this inspection.
(c) For bearing, P/N 269A5050-73:
(1) Inspect the bearing for corrosion, rust, freedom of
rotation, looseness, binding, nicks, burrs, cracks and lubrication.
Thereafter, inspect the bearing at intervals not to exceed 600 hours
TIS.
(2) As necessary, repack the bearing cavity in accordance with
Schweizer Aircraft Corporation CKP-C-41 ``Installation Instructions
For 269 Series Helicopters, SA-269K-057-1 Main Rotor Thrust Bearing
Kit,'' dated June 9, 1994.
(d) This AD establishes a retirement life of 300 hours TIS for
bearings, P/Ns 269A5050-50 and -51 and a retirement life of 3,000
hours TIS for bearing, P/N 2695050-73. However, bearings, P/Ns
269A5050-50 and -51, with at least 275 hours TIS but less than 300
hours TIS on the effective date of this AD, need not be retired
until or before the accumulation of an additional 25 hours TIS after
the effective date of this AD.
(e) Inspect the thrust bearing nut (nut), P/N 269A1306-5, for
corrosion and physical damage and determine whether the nut has been
modified in accordance with Step III of SSN No. N-59, dated October
9, 1968.
(1) If corrosion or physical damage is found, replace the nut
with an airworthy nut that has been modified in accordance with Step
III of SSN No. N-59, dated October 9, 1968.
(2) If the nut has not been modified, modify the nut in
accordance with Step III of SSN No. N-59, dated October 9, 1968.
(f) Inspect the interior of the main rotor mast (mast) for
corrosion, physical damage, foreign materials, moisture or
inadequate drainage due to a buildup of zinc chromate paste and
determine whether the mast has been modified in accordance with Step
II of SSN No. N-59, dated October 9, 1968 to install a drain hole.
(1) If corrosion or physical damage is found, replace the mast
with an airworthy mast that has been modified in accordance with
Step III of SSN No. N-59, dated October 9, 1968.
(2) If the interior of the mast has foreign materials, moisture
or inadequate drainage due to a buildup of zinc chromate past, clean
the area with a suitable solvent in accordance with Step II of SSN
No. N-59, dated October 9, 1968.
(3) If the mast has not been modified, modify the mast in
accordance with Step III of SSN No. N-59, dated October 9, 1968.
(g) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification
Office. Operators shall submit their requests through an FAA
Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may concur or comment and then
send it to the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the New York Aircraft Certification Office.
(h) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the helicopter to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 6, 1996.
Larry M. Kelly,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 96-15214 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15213 Proposed Establishment of VOR Federal Airways V-603 and V-605; SC
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30550-30551]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15213]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ASO-22]
Proposed Establishment of VOR Federal Airways V-603 and V-605; SC
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would establish two Federal Airways, V-603
from Pulaski, VA, to Columbia, SC, and V-605 fro Holston Mountain, TN,
to Spartanburg, SC. Establishing new airways would expedite the flow of
air traffic and reduce the workload for the pilot and controller.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 29, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager, Air
Traffic Division, ASO-500, Docket No. 95-ASO-22, Federal Aviation
Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, GA 30320.
The official docket may be examined in the Rules Docket, Office of
the Chief
[[Page 30551]]
Counsel, Room 916, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC,
weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours at the office of the Regional Air Traffic Division.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia P. Crawford, Airspace and Rules Division, ATA-400 Office of
Air Traffic Airspace Management, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 95-
ASO-22.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received on or before the specified
closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on
the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed
in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available
for examination in the Rules Docket both before and after the closing
date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.
Availability of NPRM's
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration,
Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, Attention: Airspace and
Rules Division, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20591, or by calling (202) 267-8783. Communications must identify the
notice number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a
mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, to request a copy
of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which describes the application
procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is proposing to amend 14 CFR part 71 by establishing two
Federal Airways, V-603 from Pulaski, VA, to Columbia, SC, and V-605
from Holston Mountain, TN, to Spartanburg, SC. Presently, aircraft
transitioning through the terminal airspace at Charlotte/Douglas
International Airport operating at or below 12,500 feet are being radar
vectored west of that airport to provide for a safe and efficient
operation. Establishing V-603 and V-605 would provide a published route
through the Charlotte terminal airspace, expedite the flow of air
traffic, and reduce the workload for pilots and controllers. Domestic
Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range Federal airways are published
in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.9C, dated August 17, 1995, and
effective September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The airways listed in this document would be published
subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6010(a)--Domestic VOR Federal Airways
* * * * *
V-603 [New]
From Pulaski, VA; Barretts Mountain, NC; INT Barretts Mountain
183 deg.T(189 deg.M) and Columbia, SC, 350 deg.T(352 deg.M) radials;
to Columbia.
* * * * *
V-605 [New]
From Holston Mountain, TN; INT Holston Mountain 171 deg.(175 deg.M)
and Spartanburg, SC, 358 deg.T(360 deg.M) radials to Spartanburg.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 5, 1996.
Harold W. Becker,
Acting Program Director for Air Traffic, Airspace Management.
[FR Doc. 96-15213 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15209 Radio Broadcasting Services; Fort Bragg and Willits, CA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30584-30585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15209]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-114; RM-8786]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Fort Bragg and Willits, CA
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making
filed on behalf of Henry Radio Company, licensee of Station KLLK-FM,
Fort Bragg, California, requesting the reallotment of Channel 228B from
Fort Bragg to Willits, California, and modification of the license for
Station KLLK-FM to specify Willits as its community of license,
pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's
Rules. Coordinates for Channel 228B at Willits are 39-24-36 and 123-21-
12.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before July 29, 1996, and reply
comments on or before August 13, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC
20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties
should serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: Richard M. Riehl,
Esq., Haley, Bader & Potts, P.L.C., 4350 North Fairfax Dr., Suite 900,
Arlington, VA 22203-1633.
[[Page 30585]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)
418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-114, adopted May 3,
1996, and released June 5, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
See 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-15209 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15208 Radio Broadcasting Services; Forestville, WI
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15208]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-121; RM-8806]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Forestville, WI
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition filed by Lyle
Robert Evans d/b/a The Radio Company proposing the allotment of Channel
281A to Forestville, Wisconsin, as that community's first local FM
service. Canadian concurrence has been requested for this allotment at
coordinates 44-41-37 and 87-27-16. There is a site restriction 2.1
kilometeres (1.3 miles) east of the community.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before July 29, 1996, and reply
comments on or before August 13, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner, as follows: Lyle Robert Evans d/b/a The Radio
Company, 1296 Marian Lane, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54304.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-121, adopted May 20, 1996,
and released June 5, 1996. The full text of this Commission decision is
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the Commission's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International
Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,
Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contact.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-15208 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15207 Radio Broadcasting Services; Riverdale, CA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15207]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-122; RM-8795]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Riverdale, CA
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making
filed on behalf of Happy Nice Valley Broadcasting (``petitioner'')
seeking the allotment of FM Channel 252A to Riverdale, California, as
that locality's first local aural transmission service. Petitioner is
requested to provide additional information to establish Riverdale's
status as a community for allotment purposes. Coordinates used for this
proposal are 36-20-39 and 119-53-59.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before July 29, 1996, and reply
comments on or before August 13, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC
20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties
should serve the petitioner, as follows: Happy Nice Valley
Broadcasting, Attn: Joe S. Mauk, 365 W. Menlo Avenue, Fresno, CA 93704.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)
418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-122, adopted May 17,
1996, and released June 5, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
See 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-15207 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15164 Rules Governing Misconduct by Attorneys or Party Representatives Before the Agency
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15164]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
29 CFR Part 102
Rules Governing Misconduct by Attorneys or Party Representatives
Before the Agency
AGENCY: National Labor Relations Board.
ACTION: Notice of Extension of Time for filing comments to proposed
rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to a request from the Management Co-Chair of the
American Bar Association Subcommittee on NLRB Practice and Procedure,
the NLRB gives notice that it is extending by approximately 45 days the
time for filing comments on the proposed rule changes governing
misconduct by attorneys or party representatives before the Agency (61
FR 25158, May 20, 1996).
DATES: The comment period which currently ends on June 19, 1996, is
extended to August 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed rulemaking should be sent to:
Office of the Executive Secretary, 1099 14th Street, NW., Rm. 11600,
Washington, DC 20570.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John J. Toner, Executive Secretary, Telephone: (202) 273-1940.
Dated, Washington, DC, June 11, 1996.
By direction of the Board:
John J. Toner,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-15164 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7545-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15147 Billed Party Preference for O+ InterLATA Calls
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30581-30584]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15147]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CC Docket No. 92-77, FCC 96-253]
Billed Party Preference for O+ InterLATA Calls
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission adopted a Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comment on tentative conclusions that it
should establish benchmarks for the rates that consumers are asked to
pay for operator service calls reflecting what consumers expect to pay
for those calls and require that, if consumers will be charged rates
above the benchmarks, the operator service provider (OSP) offering
services through payphones and other aggregator locations disclose the
applicable charges for the call to the consumer orally before
connecting the call. The NPRM also seeks comment on what benchmark
rates the Commission should establish, as well as on an alternative
that would require all OSPs to disclose their rates orally on all
operator service calls. The NPRM also solicits comment on whether the
FCC should forbear from applying informational tariff filing
requirements for interstate operator services, and, if not, on proposed
rules and a waiver policy with respect to the filing of such tariffs.
Finally, the Commission seeks comment on the best means to remedy the
problem of high rates charged by some carriers that serve phones in
prisons that are used by inmates to make collect calls. The proposed
rule changes are intended to enable consumers to make better informed
decisions whether to use a particular OSP when making a call from a
payphone or other aggregator location away from home.
DATES: Written comment by the public on the Second Further Notice of
Proposed RuleMaking and the proposed and/or modified information
collections are due July 17, 1996. Reply comments are due on August 16,
1996. Written comments by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on
the proposed and/or modified information collections are due on or
before August 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments and reply comments should be sent to the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M St. N.W., Washington, DC
20554. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any
comments on the information collections contained herein should be
submitted to Dorothy Conway, Federal Communications
[[Page 30582]]
Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via
the Internet to [email protected], and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer,
10236 NEOB, 725-17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the
Internet to [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adrien Auger, Enforcement Division,
Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418-0960. For additional information
concerning the information collections contained in this Second Further
Notice of Proposed RuleMaking contact Dorothy Conway at 202/418-0217,
or via the Internet at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in Billed Party Preference, CC
Docket No. 92-77, FCC 96-252, adopted June 4, 1995, and released June
6, 1996. The full text of this Commission NPRM is available for
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M St., N.W., Washington, DC. The
complete text of the NPRM may also be purchased from the Commission's
duplicating contractor, International Transcription Services, 2100 M
St., N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 857-3800. The NPRM
contains proposed or modified information collections subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law No. 104-13 (PRA). It has
been submitted to OMB for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB,
the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment
on the proposed or modified information collections contained in this
proceeding.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The NPRM contains proposed or modified information collections. The
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burdens, invites the general public and OMB to comment on the
information collections contained in the NPRM, as required by the PRA.
Public and agency comments are due at the same time as other comments
on the NPRM; OMB comments are due August 16, 1996. Comments should
address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
(1) OMB Control Number: None.
Title: Proposed benchmark system.
Type of Review: New collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit, including small
business.
Number of Respondents: 10.
Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.
Total Annual Burden: 20 hours.
Estimated Cost Per Respondent: $0.
Needs and Uses: Oral disclosure, at point of purchase, of the
specific charges, including any surcharges, that would be charged for
interstate operator services is necessary to enable consumers to make
informed decisions whether to use a particular OSP when making a call
from a payphone or other aggregator location.
(2) OMB Control Number: None.
Title: Proposed certification requirement.
Type of Review: New collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit, including small
business.
Number of Respondents: 190.
Estimated Time per Response: 10 minutes.
Total Annual Burden: 1900 minutes.
Estimated Cost Per Respondent: $0.
Needs and Uses: Certification that an interstate operator service
provider's rates and associated surcharges do not exceed FCC-
established benchmarks will better protect consumers from unexpected
high charges and obviate the need for the operator service provider to
file and maintain an informational tariff, which does not provide
potential consumers with advance notice of rate changes.
(3) OMB Control Number: None.
Title: Proposed reporting requirement.
Type of Review: New collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit, including small
business.
Number of Respondents: 10.
Estimated Time per Response: 50 hours.
Total Annual Burden: 500 burden hours.
Estimated Cost Per Respondent: $0.
Needs and Uses: Currently, under 47 U.S.C. 226(h)(1)(A), OSPs must
file and maintain informational tariffs of applicable charges for
interstate operator services provided from payphones and other
aggregator locations. Should the Commission determine that it should
not forbear from enforcing this section of the Communications Act,
informational tariffs specifying applicable rates and surcharges for a
particular call in dollars and cents will enable consumers to ascertain
whether they wish to use a particular OSP when making a payphone call.
Summary of Notice of Proposed Rule Making
I. Background
In 1992, the Commission adopted Billed Party Preference for 0+
InterLATA Calls, CC Docket No. 92-77, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 7
FCC Rcd 3027, 57 FR 24574 (June 10, 1992), initiating a rulemaking
proceeding to consider the merits of an automated ``billed party
preference'' (BPP) routing methodology for 0+ interLATA traffic. The
Commission tentatively concluded that BPP is, in concept, in the public
interest, but sought comments on the costs and benefits of BPP as well
as on a number of aspects of how BPP might be implemented.
In 1994, the Commission adopted a Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 9 FCC Rcd 3320, 59 FR 30754 (June 15, 1994), seeking
further comment. The Commission found that the available evidence
indicated that the benefits of BPP outweighed its costs, but that some
of the data underlying its cost/benefit analysis were not as precise
and current as it desired. Therefore, the Commission sought additional
and updated data, further comment on its cost/benefit analysis of BPP,
and proposals for less costly alternatives to BPP.
II. Discussion
Currently, interstate 0+ calls--that is, interstate calls that are
made by entering a ``0'' followed by a telephone number--are routed to
the OSP selected by either the premises owner or the provider of the
phone. The Commission found that this has led many callers to be
charged substantially higher rates than they expected. Therefore, the
Commission now tentatively concludes that it should adopt a benchmark
reflecting what consumers expect to pay for interstate 0+ calls and
require OSPs to orally disclose the total charges for which consumers
will be liable for a call if those charges are above the benchmark. The
Commission believes that this will help ensure that consumers are not
surprised by unexpectedly high charges for their 0+ calls, but rather,
that consumers can make better informed choices about which OSP to use
for their calls.
The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should,
alternatively, require all OSPs to disclose the prices for all 0+
calls, thereby avoiding the need to establish benchmarks, or whether
the cost of such a disclosure requirement to OSPs, and ultimately to
consumers, would exceed the benefit to
[[Page 30583]]
consumers, especially with regard to 0+ calls priced at or below levels
that consumers generally expect. The Commission also seeks comment on,
if it establishes a benchmark, where it should be set. The NPRM
describes a number of benchmark options proposed by interested parties,
including the average rate charged by AT&T, MCI, and Sprint, a level
15-percent above that average, and a fixed set of rates proposed by an
OSP industry coalition. The Commission also considers several
qualifications to the benchmark that would make OSP compliance
administratively easier.
The Commission also seeks comment on whether, under the recently-
enacted Telecommunications Act of 1996, it must forbear from applying
informational tariff filing requirements and, if not, on proposed rules
and a waiver policy with respect to the filing of such tariffs.
Comments are also requested on whether the public interest would be
better served by means other than BPP for calls from inmate-only
telephones in prisons and other correctional institutions.
III. Comments and Ex Parte Presentations
All interested parties may file comments on the issues set forth in
the NPRM, on which comment is specifically sought, by July 17, 1996,
and reply comments by August 16, 1996. All relevant and timely comments
will be considered by the Commission before final action is taken in
this proceeding. To file formally in this proceeding, participants must
file in accordance with the ordering clauses below. Parties are invited
to submit, in conjunction with their comments or replies, proposed text
for rules that the Commission could adopt in this proceeding. Specific
rule proposals should be filed as an appendix to a party's comments or
reply.
This is a non-restricted notice and comment rule making proceeding.
Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda
period, provided they are disclosed as provided in Commission rules.
See, generally, 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).
IV. Conclusion
The NPRM tentatively concludes that the FCC should: (1) establish
benchmarks for OSPs' rates and associated charges that reflect
consumers' expectations; and (2) require OSPs whose charges and related
aggregator surcharges or premises-owner fees exceed such benchmarks to
disclose orally to consumers, before connecting a call, the total
charges for which consumers would be liable. In the alternative, the
FCC seeks comment on whether it should require OSPs to give specific
rate information for all 0+ calls before connecting the calls. It also
solicits comment on proposed rules with respect to the filing of
informational tariffs for interstate operator services and the extent
to which it must or may forbear from enforcing the requirements for
such tariffs. Finally, it solicits comment whether the public interest
would be better served by alternative remedies than BPP for high rates
charged by some carriers serving prisons.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Reason for Action
The Commission is issuing the NPRM to consider alternatives to the
implementation of Billed Party Preference by local exchange carriers,
to protect consumers from excessive charges in connection with
interstate operator services, and to help ensure that consumers are
aware of the price of a long distance operator service call before
incurring charges.
Objectives. The objective of the NPRM is to propose requirements
regarding charges and surcharges applicable to interstate operator
services and to provide an opportunity for public comment thereon.
Legal Basis. Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, 226 and 228 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),
201-205, 226, 228.
Description, potential impact, and number of small entities
affected. The proposed rules will require that interexchange carriers'
Informational Tariffs, filed pursuant to Section 226 of the
Communications Act, contain specific rates for their operator services.
Hundreds of small operator services companies may have to file
substitute tariffs and will have to implement other information
disclosure requirements if their rates, and related payphone premises-
owners' fees or aggregator surcharges, substantially exceed the rates
charged by AT&T, MCI and Sprint. Small entities may feel some economic
impact in additional printing costs, message production and recording
costs due to these requirements.
Reporting, record-keeping, and other compliance requirements. The
proposed rules would require carriers charging rates above an
established benchmark to provide audibly to consumers the price, or
maximum price, of the call before connecting a call.
Federal rules that overlap, duplicate, or conflict with the
Commission's proposal. None.
Any significant alternatives minimizing impact on small entities
and consistent with stated objectives. None apparent at this time.
Comments are solicited. The FCC requests written comments on this
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. These comments must be filed
in accordance with the same filing deadlines set for comments on the
other issues in the NPRM, but they must have a separate and distinct
heading designating them as responses to this Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis. The FCC is sending a copy of the NPRM to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with
Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. See 5 U.S.C. 601, et
seq.
VI. Ordering Clauses
1. Accordingly, It is Ordered, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j),
10, 201-205, 218 and 226 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. Sec. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 160, 201-205, 218, 226, that a
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making is Issued, proposing the
amendment of 47 CFR Part 64 as set forth below.
2. It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures
set forth in Secs. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR
1.415, 1.419, comments Shall be filed with the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554 on or before July 17,
1996. Reply comments should be filed no later than August 16, 1996. To
file formally in this proceeding, participants must file an original
and six copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting
comments. If participants want each Commissioner to receive a personal
copy of their comments, an original plus nine copies must be filed. In
addition, parties should file two copies of any such pleadings with the
Enforcement Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Room 6008, 2025 M Street
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties should also file one copy of any
documents filed in this docket with the Commission's copy contractor,
International Transcription Services, Room 140, 2100 M Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20037. Comments and reply comments will be available
for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC
Reference Center (Room 239) of the Federal Communications Commission,
1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.
[[Page 30584]]
3. It is further ordered that, in order to facilitate review of
comments and reply comments, both by parties and by Commission staff,
we require that comments and reply comments include a summary of the
substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments and reply
comments must also comply with section 1.49 and all other applicable
sections of the Commission's Rules. See 47 CFR Sec. 1.49. Parties are
also asked to submit comments and reply comments on diskette. Such
diskette submissions would be in addition to the formal filing
requirements addressed above. Parties submitting diskettes should
submit them to Adrien Auger of the Common Carrier Bureau, 2025 M
Street, N.W., Room 6120, Washington, D.C. 20554. Such submission should
be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible form using MS
DOS 5.0 and WordPerfect 5.1 software. The diskette should be submitted
in ``read only'' mode. The diskette should be clearly labelled with the
party's name, proceeding, type of pleading (comment or reply comments)
and date of submission. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover
letter.
4. It is further ordered that any written comments by the public,
as provided for in the Paper Reduction Act of 1995, on the proposed
and/or modified information collections are due July 17, 1996. Written
comments must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget on
the proposed and/or modified information collections on or before
August 16, 1996. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a
copy of any comments on the information collections contained herein
should be submitted to Dorothy Conway, Federal Communications
Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via
the Internet to [email protected] and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer,
10236 NEOB, 725-17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the
Internet to [email protected].
5. It is further ordered, that the Chief of the Common Carrier
Bureau is delegated authority to require the submission of additional
information, make further inquiries, and modify the dates and
procedures in this docket if necessary to provide for a more complete
record and a more efficient proceeding.
6. It is further ordered, that the Secretary shall mail a copy of
this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with
section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.
Sec. 603(a)(1981). The Secretary shall also cause a summary of this
NPRM to appear in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
Rule Changes
Part 64 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154,
unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply secs. 201, 218, 226, 228,
48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 226, 228,
unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 64.703 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 64.703 Consumer information.
* * * * *
(c) Information disclosure.
(1) Informational tariffs filed pursuant to 47 U.S.C.
Sec. 226(h)(1)(A) shall contain specific rates expressed in dollars and
cents for all interstate operator services of the carrier and shall
also contain applicable surcharges, if any, billed on behalf of
aggregators by the carrier or another billing agent.
(2) Surcharges billed on behalf of aggregators, if any, shall be
specified in informational tariffs in dollars and cents.
(3) In order to remove all doubt as to their proper application,
all informational tariffs must contain clear and explicit explanatory
statements regarding the rates, i.e., the tariffed price per unit of
service, and the regulations governing the offering of service in that
tariff.
(4) Operator services providers whose charges and any applicable
aggregator surcharge for any call exceed any benchmark established by
the Commission, or exceed benchmarks established by the Commission for
the initial minute or additional minutes, shall provide, at no charge
before the call is connected, either the specific charges, including
any aggregator surcharge or premises owner fee, applicable to that
call, or the maximum charges, including any aggregator surcharge or
premises owner fee, that the consumer may be billed for that call.
(5) Informational tariffs shall be accompanied by a cover letter,
addressed to the Secretary of the Commission, explaining the purpose of
the filing.
(i) The original of the cover letter shall be submitted to the
Secretary without attachments, along with FCC Form 159, and the
appropriate fee to the Mellon Bank, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
(ii) Copies of the cover letter and the attachments shall be
submitted to the Secretary's Office, the Commission's contractor for
public records duplication, and the Chief, Tariff Review Branch.
(6) Any changes to the tariff shall be submitted under a new cover
letter with a complete copy of the tariff, including changes.
(i) Changes to a tariff shall be explained in the cover letter but
need not be symbolized on the tariff pages.
(ii) Revised tariffs shall be filed pursuant to the procedures
specified in subsection 64.703(c)(5).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-15147 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15123 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Special Rule for the Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl on Non-Federal Lands
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30588]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15123]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AD20
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Special
Rule for the Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl on Non-Federal
Lands
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Extension of public comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Service issued a Draft Environmental Alternatives Analysis
(EAA) (February 23, 1996, 61 FR 6964) for the proposed special rule for
the conservation of the northern spotted owl on non-Federal lands in
California and Washington, which is currently out for public comment.
The proposed special rule was published in the Federal Register on
February 17, 1995 (60 FR 9484). The comment period for both documents
was scheduled to end on June 3, 1996. The intent of this document is to
extend the comment period to June 27, 1996.
The Service is briefly extending the comment period in order to
accept the comments of The Resources Agency of California, and invites
other interested parties who have not yet submitted comments to do so.
DATES: The comment period for written comments is extended until June
27, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning this Draft Environmental
Alternatives Analysis and the proposed rule should be sent to Mr.
Michael J. Spear, Regional Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181. The complete
file for this proposed rule will be available for public inspection, by
appointment during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Office of Technical Support for Forest Resources, 333 SW. 1st
Avenue, 4th Floor, Portland, Oregon 97204, (503/326-6218).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Curt Smitch, Assistant Regional
Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3704 Griffin Lane
SE., Suite 102, Olympia, Washington 98501, (206/534-9330); or Ron
Crete, Office of Technical Support for Forest Resources, 333 SW. 1st
Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181, (503/326-6218).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Service has prepared a draft document
called an Environmental Alternatives Analysis (EAA) that describes and
analyzes the potential environmental effects of the proposed special
rule and six alternatives for the conservation of the northern spotted
owl on non-Federal lands in Washington and California. Each alternative
would revise to varying degrees the Federal prohibitions and exceptions
regarding the incidental take of spotted owls on non-Federal lands in
California and Washington. The proposed rule, analyzed in the Draft EAA
as Alternative 3, was published in the Federal Register on February 17,
1995 (60 FR, No. 33, Page 9484).
The Service's Draft EAA, including all maps, tables, charts, and
graphs, remains available on the Internet's World Wide Web at http://
www.r1.fws.gov/4deaa/welcome.html.
Dated: June 10, 1996.
H. Dale Hall,
Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1,
Portland, Oregon.
[FR Doc. 96-15123 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15120 Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30545-30548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15120]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Part 204
[Regulation D; Docket No. R-0929]
Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is
proposing to amend its Regulation D regarding reserve requirements of
depository institutions issued pursuant to section 19 of the Federal
Reserve Act in order to reduce regulatory burden and simplify and
update requirements. This proposal to modernize Regulation D is in
accordance with the Board's policy of regular review of its regulations
and the Board's review of its regulations under section 303 of the
Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994.
DATES: Comments must be received by August 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments, which should refer to Docket No. R-0929, may be
mailed to Mr. William W. Wiles, Secretary, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20551. Comments addressed to Mr. Wiles also may be
delivered to the Board's mail room between 8:45 a.m. and 5:15 p.m., and
to the security control room outside of those hours. Both the mail room
and the security control room are accessible from the courtyard
entrance on 20th
[[Page 30546]]
Street between Constitution Avenue and C Street, N.W. Comments may be
inspected in Room MP-500 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. weekdays,
except as provided in Sec. 261.8 of the Board of Governors' Rules
Regarding Availability of Information, 12 CFR 261.8.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Reid, Economist, Division of
Monetary Affairs (202/452-3589); Sue Harris, Economist, Division of
Research and Statistics (202/452-3490); or Rick Heyke, Staff Attorney,
Legal Division (202/452-3688). For the hearing impaired only,
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD), Dorothea Thompson (202/
452-3544).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
As part of its policy of regular review of its regulations, and
consistent with section 303 of the Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (``Riegle Act''), the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System (``Board'') is proposing to
amend its Regulation D regarding reserve requirements of depository
institutions (12 CFR Part 204) issued pursuant to section 19 of the
Federal Reserve Act. Section 303 of the Riegle Act requires each
federal banking agency to review and streamline its regulations and
written policies to improve efficiency, reduce unnecessary costs, and
remove inconsistencies and outmoded and duplicative requirements. The
proposed amendments are designed to reduce regulatory burden and
simplify and update the Regulation.
The principal amendments being proposed are described below. In
general, the amendments delete transitional rules relating to the
expansion of reserve requirements to nonmember depository institutions,
the authorization of NOW accounts nationwide, and other matters that no
longer have a significant effect.
Time Deposits
Section 204.2(c)(1) defines time deposits as deposits from which
the depositor may not make withdrawals within six days after the date
of deposit (or notice of withdrawal) or partial withdrawal unless such
withdrawals are subject to an early withdrawal penalty. Under certain
circumstances specified in footnote 1, a time deposit may be paid
before maturity without imposing the early withdrawal penalty. A time
deposit generally may be paid without penalty from the seventh day
after deposit through maturity, absent partial withdrawals, as the
imposition of an early withdrawal penalty is required under the time
deposit definition only during the first six days after deposit. The
Board proposes to clarify that the footnote is not intended to impose a
prohibition on withdrawals before maturity, but to permit penalty-free
withdrawals under certain circumstances during the period when the
imposition of an early withdrawal penalty otherwise would be required.
Nonpersonal Time Deposits
The definition of nonpersonal time deposit in Sec. 204.2(f)(1)
(iii) and (iv) distinguishes between transferable time deposits
originally issued before October 1, 1980, and those issued on or after
that date. Since the Board believes that most of these deposits have
since matured, this distinction is no longer meaningful and the Board
proposes to delete it.
Section 204.2(f)(3) requires that a nonpersonal time deposit with a
stated maturity or notice period of 1\1/2\ years or more either be
subject to a minimum withdrawal penalty of 30 days' interest (if
withdrawn more than six days but within 1\1/2\ years after the date of
deposit) or be treated as a deposit with an original maturity or notice
period of less than 1\1/2\ years. Since 1991, the reserve requirement
ratio has been set at zero for all time deposits regardless of
maturity. Moreover, the form for reporting reservable liabilities (Form
FR 2900) no longer requires depository institutions to report the
amount of time deposits by category of maturity. The requirement to
treat time deposits not subject to a minimum penalty of 30 days'
interest as having an initial maturity of less than 1\1/2\ years is
thus of no practical impact. The Board therefore proposes to delete it
and footnote 2 to Sec. 204.2(c)(1)(i), which refers to it.
Eurocurrency Liabilities
The definition of Eurocurrency liabilities in section 204.2(h)(1)
includes an amount equal to certain assets that were held by a
depository institution's International Banking Facility or by non-
United States offices of the depository institution or of an affiliated
Edge or agreement corporation and that were acquired from the
depository institution's United States offices on or after October 7,
1979. The Board proposes to delete the exclusion of assets acquired
before October 7, 1979, because it believes that the amount of these
assets is immaterial.
Allocation of Reserve Requirements Exemption
The allocation of the reserve requirements exemption specified in
Sec. 204.3(a)(3)(i) requires that the exemption be allocated first to
net transaction accounts in the form of NOW (and similar) accounts and
second to other transaction accounts. This provision was related to the
phase-in of reserve requirements for nonmember banks and the
authorization of NOW and similar transaction accounts nationwide. Since
the phase-in is now complete and nonmember institutions are subject to
the same reserve requirements as member banks, the provision has ceased
to have any effect, and the Board proposes to delete it.
Deductions Allowed in Computing Reserves
The deduction in Sec. 204.3(f)(1) limits the amount of cash items
in process of collection and balances subject to immediate withdrawal
due from domestic depository institutions that may be subtracted from
an institution's NOW accounts. Amounts in excess of this limit may be
subtracted from other transaction accounts. Since the phase-in of
reserve requirements for nonmember banks is now complete, all types of
transaction accounts are subject to the same reserve requirements.
Therefore, this limitation has ceased to have any effect and the Board
proposes to delete it.
Federal Reserve Credit for Depository Institutions Maintaining Pass-
Through Balances
Section 19(e) of the Federal Reserve Act prohibits member banks
from acting as the medium or agent of a nonmember bank in applying for
or receiving discounts from a Federal Reserve Bank except by permission
of the Board. Regulation A, Extensions of Credit by Federal Reserve
Banks (12 CFR Part 201), was amended in 1993 to delegate authority for
this permission to the Federal Reserve Bank that extends the credit. 12
CFR 201.6(d). The proposal would correspondingly amend
Sec. 204.3(i)(5)(iv) of Regulation D effectively to complete the
delegation of this authority to the Federal Reserve Bank that extends
the credit.
Transition Rules
The regulation currently includes in Sec. 204.4(a) a transition
rule for depository institutions outside of Hawaii that were nonmembers
of the Federal Reserve System on July 1, 1979, and that remained
nonmembers. With the completion of the phase-in on September 10, 1987,
this rule ceased to
[[Page 30547]]
have any effect. Section 204.4(b) contains a transition rule for
depository institutions that were not members between July 1, 1979, and
September 1, 1980, and that subsequently became members; since reserve
requirements for nonmember institutions are fully phased in, this rule
also has ceased to have any effect. Section Sec. 204.4(d) contains a
transition rule for nonmember depository institutions that were engaged
in business in Hawaii on August 1, 1978, and that remained nonmembers;
this rule ceased to have any effect on January 7, 1993. Therefore, the
Board proposes to delete these rules.
Section 204.4(c) sets forth a transition rule for de novo
depository institutions with daily average reservable liabilities of
less than $50 million whereby their reserve requirement is 40 percent
of the reserves otherwise required in maintenance periods during the
first quarter after entering into business, increasing to 100 percent
in maintenance periods during the eighth and succeeding quarters. The
low reserve tranche of a depository institution's net transaction
accounts is currently subject to a reserve requirement of 3 percent, as
compared with 10 percent for its net transaction accounts in excess of
the low reserve tranche. Since 1982, the low reserve tranche cutoff has
been indexed to net transaction accounts of all depository
institutions; as a result, the cutoff has increased from $25 million to
$52 million. Thus, all transaction accounts of de novo depository
institutions that could avail themselves of this transition rule are
now covered by the low reserve tranche. Moreover, beginning in 1982, $2
million of reservable deposits have been subject to a zero percent
reserve requirement; this exemption is indexed to total reservable
liabilities of all depository institutions and is currently $4.3
million.
In addition, a depository institution's vault cash may be used to
meet its reserve requirement. Since de novo depository institutions
generally have relatively low levels of deposits in relation to the
reserve requirement exemption and the low reserve tranche cutoff, most
are able to meet reserve requirements with vault cash and the others
maintain minimal reserve balances. (Currently 18 depository
institutions are receiving de novo phase-ins, and 14 of them are fully
meeting their reserve requirements with vault cash.) Thus, this rule
provides minimal benefits in terms of reducing required reserve
balances of de novo institutions and unnecessarily complicates the
processing of deposit reporting and reserve calculations. Consequently,
the Board proposes to delete it. In order to avoid disrupting economic
expectations based on the de novo transition rule, however, any
institution covered by the de novo transition rule on the effective
date of the amendments will be grandfathered for purposes of
determining its required reserves.
Section 204.4(e) governs transition requirements in cases of
mergers and consolidations. Paragraph (e)(1) covers ``similar''
mergers, where all depository institutions are subject to the same
transition rules, and paragraph (e)(2), ``dissimilar'' mergers, where
the institutions are subject to different transition rules. Currently,
no institution is subject to the ``dissimilar'' merger transition
rules. With the phase-in of reserve requirements for nonmember
institutions, the transition rules (other than the merger and de novo
rules) have become inoperative. Moreover, as discussed above, the de
novo rules no longer have a significant effect in most cases, and the
Board is proposing to delete them. Therefore, the difference between
the ``similar'' and ``dissimilar'' merger rules is minimal, and would
be eliminated under the proposal. As a result, all mergers would be
``similar'' mergers. Therefore, the Board proposes to delete the
``dissimilar'' merger transition rule and apply the current ``similar''
merger transition rule to all mergers.
Reserve Ratios
Section 204.9(b) sets forth the reserve ratios in effect during the
last reserve computation period prior to September 1, 1980, for use in
transition adjustments that are no longer applicable. The Board
proposes to delete the section.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires an
agency to publish an initial regulatory flexibility analysis with any
notice of proposed rulemaking. Two of the requirements of an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (5 U.S.C. 603(b))--a description of the
reasons why the agency is considering the action and a statement of the
objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule--are contained in
``Supplementary Information--Background'' above. The Regulation D
amendments being proposed require no additional reporting or
recordkeeping requirements and do not overlap with other federal rules.
Another requirement for the initial regulatory flexibility analysis
is a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities to which the proposed rule will apply. The proposal will
apply to all depository institutions regardless of size, except that
the transition rule for de novo institutions applies only to
institutions with total transaction accounts, nonpersonal time
deposits, and Eurocurrency liabilities of less than $50 million.
Currently there are 18 institutions subject to the de novo transition
rule.
Except for the transition rules relating to dissimilar mergers and
de novo institutions, the amendments are burden-reducing. The current
transition rules for dissimilar mergers provide a minor temporary
potential reduction in reserve requirements for certain merged
institutions. However, no institutions are currently benefiting from
the dissimilar merger rules. The transition rules for de novo
institutions, which are only applicable to institutions with reservable
liabilities of less than $50 million and provide only a temporary
benefit, have become much less significant with the increase in the
low-reserve tranche cutoff to $52.0 million. Partly for this reason,
only 4 of the 18 institutions currently receiving de novo phase-in
benefits are not fully meeting their reserve requirements with vault
cash. If the de novo transition rule were eliminated, the number of de
novo institutions with required reserves in excess of vault cash would
not change, and the additional required reserves of these 4
institutions would be small. Moreover, in order to avoid disrupting
economic expectations based on the de novo transition rule, any
institution covered by the de novo transition rule on the effective
date of the amendments will be grandfathered for the purpose of
determining its required reserves. Therefore, the Board believes that
the amendments will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act notice of 1995 (44
U.S.C. Ch. 3506; 5 CFR part 1320, Appendix A.1), the Board has reviewed
the proposed rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the
Office of Management and Budget. No collection of information pursuant
to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 204
Banks, banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board proposes to
amend part 204 of chapter II of title 12 as follows:
[[Page 30548]]
PART 204--RESERVE REQUIREMENTS OF DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS
(REGULATION D)
1. The authority citation for part 204 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 248(a), 248(c), 371a, 461, 601, 611, and
3105.
2. Section 204.2 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (c)(1)(i), the introductory text of footnote 1 is
amended by removing ``before maturity'' and adding in its place,
``during the period when an early withdrawal penalty would otherwise be
required under this part'', removing ``the'' after ``imposing'' adding
in its place, ``an'', removing ``penalties'' and adding in its place
``penalty'', and footnote 2 is removed.
b. In paragraphs (c)(1)(iv)(C), (c)(1)(iv)(E), and (d)(2),
footnotes 3 through 6 are redesignated as footnotes 2 through 5,
respectively.
c. Paragraph (f)(1)(iii) is revised.
d. Paragraph (f)(1)(iv) is removed and paragraph (f)(1)(v) is
redesignated as paragraph (f)(1)(iv).
e. In newly redesignated paragraphs (f)(1)(iv)(C) and
(f)(1)(iv)(E), footnotes 7 and 8 are redesignated as footnotes 6 and 7,
respectively.
f. Paragraph (f)(3) is removed.
g. In paragraph (h)(1)(ii)(A), footnote 10 is redesignated as
footnote 8 and is amended by removing ``(1) that were acquired before
October 7, 1979, or (2)''.
h. In paragraphs (h)(2)(ii) and (t), footnotes 11 and 12 are
redesignated as footnotes 9 and 10, respectively, and newly
redesignated footnote 9 is amended by revising ``Footnote 10'' to read
``footnote 8''. The revisions are as follows:
Sec. 204.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(f)(1) Nonpersonal time deposit * * *
* * * * *
(iii) A transferable time deposit. A time deposit is transferable
unless it contains a specific statement on the certificate, instrument,
passbook, statement or other form representing the account that is not
transferable. A time deposit that contains a specific statement that it
is not transferable is not regarded as transferable even if the
following transactions can be effected: a pledge as collateral for a
loan, a transaction that occurs due to circumstances arising from
death, incompetency, marriage, divorce, attachment, or otherwise by
operation of law or a transfer on the books or records of the
institution; and
* * * * *
3. Section 204.3 is amended as follows:
a. Paragraph (a)(3)(i) is removed and the paragraph designation
(a)(3)(ii) is removed.
b. Paragraph (f)(1) is revised.
c. Paragraph (i)(5)(iv) is removed.
The revisions are as follows:
Sec. 204.3 Computation and maintenance.
* * * * *
(f) Deductions allowed in computing reserves. (1) In determining
the reserve balance required under this part, the amount of cash items
in process of collection and balances subject to immediate withdrawal
due from other depository institutions located in the United States
(including such amounts due from United States branches and agencies of
foreign banks and Edge and agreement corporations) may be deducted from
the amount of gross transaction accounts. The amount that may be
deducted may not exceed the amount of gross transaction accounts.
* * * * *
4. Section 204.4 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 204.4 Transitional adjustments in mergers.
In cases of mergers and consolidations of depository institutions,
the amount of reserves that shall be maintained by the surviving
institution shall be reduced by an amount determined by multiplying the
amount by which the required reserves during the computation period
immediately preceding the date of the merger (computed as if the
depository institutions had merged) exceeds the sum of the actual
required reserves of each depository institution during the same
computation period, times the appropriate percentage as specified in
the following schedule:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage
applied to
difference
Maintenance periods occurring during quarters following to compute
merger or consolidation amount to
be
subtracted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................................................... 87.5
2........................................................... 75.0
3........................................................... 62.5
4........................................................... 50.0
5........................................................... 37.5
6........................................................... 25.0
7........................................................... 12.5
8 and succeeding............................................ 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Section 204.8 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B)(5), footnotes 13 and 14 are
redesignated as footnotes 11 and 12, respectively.
b. In paragraph (a)(3)(v), footnotes 15 and 16 are redesignated as
footnotes 13 and 14, respectively, and revised to read as follows:
Sec. 204.8 International banking facilities.
(a) Definitions. * * *
* * * * *
(3) International banking facility extension of credit or IBF loan
* * *
* * * * *
(v) * * * \13\ * * * \14\ * * *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See footnote 11.
\14\ See footnote 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 204.9 [Amended]
6. Section 204.9 is amended by removing paragraph (b), by
redesignating paragraph (a)(1) as paragraph (a), and by redesignating
paragraph (a)(2) as paragraph (b).
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, June 10, 1996.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-15120 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15033 National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Proposed Rule No. 20
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30575-30579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15033]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL-5520-3]
National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites,
Proposed Rule No. 20
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (``CERCLA'' or ``the Act''), as amended, requires
that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (``NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List
(``NPL'') constitutes this list.
This rule proposes to add 15 new sites to the NPL, 13 to the
General Superfund Section and 2 to the Federal Facilities Section. The
NPL is intended primarily to guide the Environmental Protection Agency
(``EPA'' or ``the Agency'') in determining which sites warrant further
investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and
environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what
CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Mail original and three copies of comments (no facsimiles or
tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. EPA, CERCLA Docket
Office, (Mail Code 5201G); 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460,
703/603-8917. Please note this is the mailing address only. If you wish
to visit the HQ Docket to view documents, and for additional Docket
addresses and further details on their contents, see Section I of the
Supplementary Information portion of this preamble.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Keidan, State and Site
Identification Center, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (Mail
Code 5204G), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, or the Superfund Hotline, Phone (800) 424-9346 or
(703) 412-9810 in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
II. Contents of This Proposed Rule
III. Executive Order 12866
IV. Unfunded Mandates
V. Governors' Concurrence
VI. Effect on Small Businesses
I. Introduction
Background
In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (``CERCLA'' or
``the Act''), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (``SARA''), Pub. L. 99-499, stat.
1613 et seq. To implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the revised National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (``NCP''), 40
CFR part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA
section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981).
The NCP sets forth the guidelines and procedures needed to respond
under CERCLA to releases and threatened releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants. EPA has revised the NCP on
several occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March
8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).
Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA requires that the NCP include
``criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened
releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking
remedial action * * * and, to the extent practicable taking into
account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking
removal action.'' ``Removal'' actions are defined broadly and include a
wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise
address releases and threatened releases. 42 U.S.C. 9601(23).
``Remedial actions'' are those ``consistent with permanent remedy,
taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. * * *'' 42 U.S.C
9601(24).
Pursuant to section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, EPA
has promulgated a list of national priorities among the known or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United States. That list, which is appendix
B of 40 CFR part 300, is the National Priorities List (``NPL'').
CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of
``releases'' and as a list of the highest priority ``facilities.''
CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) also requires that the NPL be revised at
least annually. A site may undergo remedial action financed by the
Trust Fund established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the
``Superfund'') only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the
NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1). However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2)
placing a site on the NPL ``does not imply that monies will be
expended.'' EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to remedy the
releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.
Further, the NPL is only of limited significance, as it does not assign
liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. See
Report of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senate
Rep. No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 (1980), quoted above and at 48
FR 40659 (September 8, 1983).
Three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial
action are included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c). Under 40 CFR
300.425(c)(1), a site may be included on the NPL if it scores
sufficiently high on the Hazard Ranking System (``HRS''), which EPA
promulgated as appendix A of 40 CFR part 300. On December 14, 1990 (55
FR 51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to
CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four
pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil exposure, and air. The HRS
serves as a screening device to evaluate the relative potential of
uncontrolled hazardous substances to pose a threat to human health or
the environment. As a matter of Agency policy, those sites that score
28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL.
Under a second mechanism for adding sites to the NPL, each State
may designate a single site as its top priority, regardless of the HRS
score. This mechanism, provided by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2),
requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include within the
100 highest priorities, one facility designated by each State
representing the greatest danger to public health, welfare, or the
environment among known facilities in the State.
The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR
[[Page 30576]]
300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed regardless of their
HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health
advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the
release.
EPA determines that the release poses a significant
threat to public health.
EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to
use its remedial authority (available only at NPL sites) than to use
its removal authority to respond to the release.
EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983
(48 FR 40658). The NPL has been expanded since then, most recently on
September 29, 1995 (60 FR 50435).
The NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are evaluated and
cleaned up by EPA (the ``General Superfund Section''), and one of sites
being addressed generally by other Federal agencies (the ``Federal
Facilities Section''). Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January
29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each Federal agency is responsible
for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own
jurisdiction, custody, or control, although EPA is responsible for
preparing an HRS score and determining whether the facility is placed
on the NPL. EPA is not the lead agency at these sites, and its role at
such sites is accordingly less extensive than at other sites. The
Federal Facilities Section includes facilities at which EPA is not the
lead agency.
Site Boundaries
The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms;
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of
the NPL (as the mere identification of releases), for it to do so.
CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) directs EPA to list national priorities
among the known ``releases or threatened releases.'' Thus, the purpose
of the NPL is merely to identify releases that are priorities for
further evaluation. Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined
to include any area where a hazardous substance release has ``come to
be located'' (CERCLA section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not
intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or
releases. Of course, HRS data upon which the NPL placement was based
will, to some extent, describe which release is at issue. That is, the
NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS
analysis (including noncontiguous releases evaluated under the NPL
aggregation policy, described at 48 FR 40663 (September 8, 1983)).
When a site is listed, it is necessary to define the release (or
releases) encompassed within the listing. The approach generally used
is to delineate a geographical area (usually the area within the
installation or plant boundaries) and define the site by reference to
that area. As a legal matter, the site is not coextensive with that
area, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not the
``boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists of all
contaminated areas within the area used to define the site, and any
other location to which contamination from that area has come to be
located.
While geographic terms are often used to designate the site (e.g.,
the ``Jones Co. plant site'') in terms of the property owned by the
particular party, the site properly understood is not limited to that
property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due to contaminant
migration), and conversely may not occupy the full extent of the
property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of the identified
property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of the ``site'').
The ``site'' is thus neither equal to nor confined by the boundaries of
any specific property that may give the site its name, and the name
itself should not be read to imply that this site is coextensive with
the entire area within the property boundary of the facility or plant.
The precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at
the time of listing. Also, the site name is merely used to help
identify the geographic location of the contamination. For example, the
``Jones Co. plant site,'' does not imply that the Jones company is
responsible for the contamination located on the plant site.
EPA regulations provide that the ``nature and extent of the threat
presented by a release'' will be determined by a Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) as more information is
developed on site contamination (40 CFR 300.430(d)). During the RI/FS
process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was
originally thought, as more is learned about the source and the
migration of the contamination. However, this inquiry focuses on an
evaluation of the threat posed; the boundaries of the release need not
be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover
the full extent of where the contamination ``has come to be located''
before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site.
Indeed, the boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change
over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe the
boundaries of a release with absolute certainty.
Further, as noted above, NPL listing does not assign liability to
any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party
does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of
property, supporting information can be submitted to the Agency at any
time after a party receives notice it is a potentially responsible
party.
For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended if further research
into the extent of the contamination expands the apparent boundaries of
the release.
Deletions/Cleanups
EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is
appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(e). This section also provides that EPA shall consult with
states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether the following
criteria have been met:
(i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
(ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been
implemented and no further response action is required;
(iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of
remedial measures is not appropriate.
To date, the Agency has deleted 108 sites from the final NPL.
EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list
(``CCL'') to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better
communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR
12142, March 2, 1993). Sites qualify for the CCL when:
(1) Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not
final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved;
(2) EPA has determined that the response action should be limited
to measures that do not involve construction (e.g., institutional
controls); or
(3) The site qualifies for deletion from the NPL.
Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal significance.
In addition to the 102 sites that have been deleted from the NPL
because they have been cleaned up (6 sites have been deleted based on
deferral to other authorities and are not considered cleaned up), an
additional 251 sites are also on the NPL CCL. Thus, as of June 1996,
the CCL consists of 353 sites.
[[Page 30577]]
Public Comment Period
The documents that form the basis for EPA's evaluation and scoring
of sites in this rule are contained in dockets located both at EPA
Headquarters and in the appropriate Regional offices. The dockets are
available for viewing, by appointment only, after the appearance of
this rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters docket are from
9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding Federal holidays.
Please contact individual Regional dockets for hours.
Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office, (Mail
Code 5201G), Crystal Gateway #1, 1st Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, 703/603-8917. (Please note this is
visiting address only. Mail comments to address listed in ``Addresses''
section above.)
Jim Kyed, Region 1, U.S. EPA Waste Management Records Center, HRC-CAN-
7, J.F. Kennedy Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203-2211, 617/573-9656.
Ben Conetta, Region 2, U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866,
212/637-4435.
Diane McCreary, Region 3, U.S. EPA Library, 3rd Floor, 841 Chestnut
Building, 9th & Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19107, 215/566-5250.
Kathy Piselli, Region 4, U.S. EPA, 345 Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta,
GA 30365, 404/347-4216.
Cathy Freeman, Region 5, U.S. EPA, Records Center, Waste Management
Division 7-J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, IL 60604, 312/886-6214.
Bart Canellas, Region 6, U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Mail Code 6H-MA,
Dallas, TX 75202-2733, 214/655-6740.
Carole Long, Region 7, U.S. EPA, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS
66101, 913/551-7224.
Bob Heise, Region 8, U.S. EPA, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO
80202-2466, 303/312-6831.
Carolyn Douglas, Region 9, U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105, 415/744-2343.
David Bennett, Region 10, U.S. EPA, 11th Floor, 1200 6th Avenue, Mail
Stop HW-114, Seattle, WA 98101, 206/553-2103.
The Headquarters docket for this rule contains HRS score sheets for
each proposed site; a Documentation Record for each site describing the
information used to compute the score; information for any site
affected by particular statutory requirements or EPA listing policies;
and a list of documents referenced in the Documentation Record.
The Headquarters docket also contains an ``Additional Information''
document which provides a general discussion of the statutory
requirements affecting NPL listing, the purpose and implementation of
the NPL, and the economic impacts of NPL listing.
Each Regional docket for this rule contains all of the information
in the Headquarters docket for sites in that Region, plus the actual
reference documents containing the data principally relied upon and
cited by EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS scores for sites in
that Region. These reference documents are available only in the
Regional dockets. Interested parties may view documents, by appointment
only, in the Headquarters or the appropriate Regional docket or copies
may be requested from the Headquarters or appropriate Regional docket.
An informal written request, rather than a formal request under the
Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary procedure for
obtaining copies of any of these documents.
EPA considers all comments received during the comment period.
During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters
docket and are available to the public on an ``as received'' basis. A
complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the Regional
docket approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.
Comments received after the comment period closes will be available in
the Headquarters docket and in the Regional docket on an ``as
received'' basis. Comments that include complex or voluminous reports,
or materials prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point
out the specific information that EPA should consider and how it
affects individual HRS factor values. See Northside Sanitary Landfill
v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988). EPA will make final listing
decisions after considering the relevant comments received during the
comment period.
In past rules, EPA has attempted to respond to late comments, or
when that was not practicable, to read all late comments and address
those that brought to the Agency's attention a fundamental error in the
scoring of a site. Although EPA intends to pursue the same policy with
sites in this rule, EPA can guarantee that it will consider only those
comments postmarked by the close of the formal comment period. EPA has
a policy of not delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate
consideration of late comments.
In certain instances, interested parties have written to EPA
concerning sites which were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If
those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their
earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for
consideration during the formal comment period. Site-specific
correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and
comment will not generally be included in the docket.
Contents of This Proposed Rule
Table 1 identifies the 13 sites in the General Superfund Section
being proposed to the NPL in this rule. Table 2 identifies the 2 sites
in the Federal Facilities Section being proposed to the NPL in this
rule. These tables follow this preamble. All sites are proposed based
on HRS scores of 28.50 or above. The sites in Table 1 and Table 2 are
listed alphabetically by State, for ease of identification, with group
number identified to provide an indication of relative ranking. To
determine group number, sites on the NPL are placed in groups of 50;
for example, a site in Group 4 of this proposal has a score that falls
within the range of scores covered by the fourth group of 50 sites on
the NPL.
This action along with a final rule published elsewhere in today's
Federal Register, results in an NPL of 1,227 sites, 1,073 in the
General Superfund Section and 154 in the Federal Facilities Section. An
additional 52 sites are now proposed and are awaiting final agency
action, 47 in the General Superfund Section and 5 in the Federal
Facilities Section. Final and proposed sites now total 1,279.
III. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
IV. Unfunded Mandates
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. When a written statement is needed for an EPA rule,
[[Page 30578]]
section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider
a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, giving
them meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (within the meaning of
Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector. Nor does it contain any regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This is
because today's listing decision does not impose any enforceable duties
upon any of these governmental entities or the private sector.
Inclusion of a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. It
does not establish that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action,
nor does it require any action by a private party or determine its
liability for site response costs. Costs that arise out of site
responses result from site-by-site decisions about what actions to
take, not directly from the act of listing itself. Therefore, today's
rulemaking is not subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203 or
205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
V. Governor's Concurrence
On May 2, 1996, Congress enacted the Omnibus Consolidated
Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 Public Law (Pub. L.) 104-
134, which established federal government spending limitations for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1996. Pub. L. 104-134 provides that
EPA may not use funds made available for fiscal year 1996 ``to propose
for listing or to list any additional facilities on the National
Priorities List * * * unless the Administrator receives a written
request to propose for listing or to list a facility from the Governor
of the State in which the facility is located. * * *'' EPA has received
letters from the appropriate governors requesting that the Agency list
on the NPL all the facilities in this rule with one exception. EPA
received a letter for the Del Amo site from the State environmental
agency with prior verbal agreement from the Governor of California.
These letters are available in the docket for this rulemaking.
VI. Effect on Small Businesses
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires EPA to review the
impacts of this action on small entities, or certify that the action
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities. By small entities, the Act refers to small businesses, small
government jurisdictions, and nonprofit organizations.
While this rule proposes to revise the NPL, an NPL revision is not
a typical regulatory change since it does not automatically impose
costs. As stated above, adding sites to the NPL does not in itself
require any action by any party, nor does it determine the liability of
any party for the cost of cleanup at the site. Further, no identifiable
groups are affected as a whole. As a consequence, impacts on any group
are hard to predict. A site's inclusion on the NPL could increase the
likelihood of adverse impacts on responsible parties (in the form of
cleanup costs), but at this time EPA cannot identify the potentially
affected businesses or estimate the number of small businesses that
might also be affected.
The Agency does expect that placing the sites in this proposed rule
on the NPL could significantly affect certain industries, or firms
within industries, that have caused a proportionately high percentage
of waste site problems. However, EPA does not expect the listing of
these sites to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small businesses.
In any case, economic impacts would occur only through enforcement
and cost-recovery actions, which EPA takes at its discretion on a site-
by-site basis. EPA considers many factors when determining enforcement
actions, including not only a firm's contribution to the problem, but
also its ability to pay. The impacts (from cost recovery) on small
governments and nonprofit organizations would be determined on a
similar case-by-case basis.
For the foregoing reasons, I hereby certify that this proposed
rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Therefore, this proposed
regulation does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
National Priorities List Proposed Rule #20, General Superfund Section
[Number of Sites Proposed to General Superfund Section: 13]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/County NPL Gr 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA........... Del Amo.................. Los Angeles........ 22
FL........... MRI Corp (Tampa)......... Tampa.............. 16
FL........... Stauffer Chemical Co Tampa.............. 1
(Tampa).
IL........... Circle Smelting Corp..... Beckemeyer......... 1
IL........... Sauget Area 1............ Sauget............. 1
LA........... Madisonville Creosote Madisonville....... 7
Works.
MD........... Central Chemical Hagerstown......... 5/6
(Hagerstown).
NH........... Beede Waste Oil.......... Plaistow........... 1
NY........... Cross County Sanitation Patterson.......... 5/6
Landfill.
PR........... V&M/Albaladejo........... Vega Baja.......... 5/6
SC........... Shuron Inc............... Barnwell........... 1
TX........... Tex-Tin Corp............. Texas City......... 5/6
WV........... Sharon Steel Corp Fairmont........... 2
(Fairmont Coke Works).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sites are placed in groups (Gr) corresponding to groups of 50 on the
final NPL.
[[Page 30579]]
National Priorities List Proposed Rule #20, Federal Facilities Section
[Number of Sites Proposed to Federal Facility Section: 2]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/County NPL Gr 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL........... Tyndall Air Force Base... Panama City........ 5/6
VA........... Sewells Point Naval Norfolk............ 5/6
Complex.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sites are placed in groups (Gr) corresponding to groups of 50 on the
final NPL.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Air pollution control, Chemicals, Environmental Protection,
Hazardous materials, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources,
Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund,
Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control, Water supply.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Dated: June 6, 1996.
Elliott P. Laws,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 96-15033 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14944 Passenger Equipment Safety Standards
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30672-30724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14944]
[[Page 30671]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Railroad Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
49 CFR Parts 223, 229, 232, and 238
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday June 17, 1996 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 30672]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Parts 223, 229, 232, and 238
[FRA Docket No. PCSS-1; Notice No. 1]
RIN 2130-AA95
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FRA announces the initiation of rulemaking on rail passenger
equipment safety standards. FRA requests comment on the need for
particular safety requirements and the costs, benefits, and
practicability of such requirements. FRA anticipates this rulemaking
will address the inspection, testing, and maintenance of passenger
equipment; equipment design and performance criteria related to
passenger and crew survivability in the event of a train accident; and
the safe operation of passenger train service, supplementing existing
railroad safety standards. FRA also announces the formation of a
working group to assist FRA in developing this rule. FRA makes
available preliminary safety concepts that have been placed before the
working group. This notice is issued in order to comply with the
Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994, to respond to
concerns raised by the General Accounting Office and the National
Transportation Safety Board, to respond to public concerns, to respond
to petitions for rulemaking, and to consider possible regulations
derived from experience in application of existing standards.
DATES: (1) Written comments: Written comments must be received on or
before July 9, 1996. Comments received after that date will be
considered to the extent possible without incurring additional expense
or delay.
(2) Public Hearing: Requests for a public hearing must be made on
or before July 9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Address comments to the Docket Clerk, Office of Chief
Counsel, RCC-30, Federal Railroad Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
S.W., Room 8201, Washington, D.C. 20590. Comments should identify the
docket and notice number and be submitted in triplicate. Persons
wishing to receive confirmation of receipt of their comments should
include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. The dockets are housed in
Room 8201 of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20590. Public dockets may be reviewed between the hours of 8:30
a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Edward W. Pritchard, Acting Staff
Director, Motive Power and Equipment Division, Office of Safety
Assurance and Compliance, RRS-14, Room 8326, FRA, 400 Seventh Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone 202-366-0509 or 202-366-9252),
or Daniel L. Alpert, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 400
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone 202-366-0628).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
Mandate
FRA requests comment on possible regulations governing rail
passenger equipment. FRA believes such regulations are necessary for
several reasons. In particular, effective Federal safety standards for
freight equipment have long been in place, but equivalent standards for
passenger equipment do not currently exist. The Association of American
Railroads (AAR) sets industry standards for the design and maintenance
of freight equipment that add materially to the safe operation of this
equipment. However, over the years AAR has discontinued the development
and maintenance of passenger equipment standards.
Worldwide, passenger equipment operating speeds are increasing.
Several passenger trainsets designed to European standards have been
proposed for operation at high speeds in the United States. In general,
these trainsets do not meet the structural or operating standards that
are common practice for current North American equipment. The North
American railroad operating environment requires passenger equipment to
operate commingled with very heavy and long freight trains, often over
track with frequent grade crossings used by heavy highway equipment.
European passenger equipment design standards may therefore not be
appropriate for the North American operating environment. A clear set
of safety and design standards for future passenger equipment tailored
to the North American operating environment is needed to provide for
the safety of future rail operations and to facilitate sound planning
for those operations.
The Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994 (the Act),
Pub. L. 103-440, 108 Stat. 4619 (November 2, 1994), requires FRA to
develop initial rail passenger equipment safety standards within 3
years of enactment and final regulations within 5 years of enactment.
The Act also gives FRA an important tool to be used to help develop
these safety standards: FRA is allowed to consult with the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), public authorities, passenger
railroads, passenger organizations, and rail labor organizations
without being subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C.
App.).
Approach
FRA established a Passenger Equipment Safety Standards Working
Group (Working Group) comprised of representatives of the types of
organizations listed in the Act to provide the consultation allowed by
the Act. The Working Group first met on June 6, 1995, and continues to
meet to assist FRA in developing passenger equipment safety standards.
This ANPRM describes the issues before the Working Group, and seeks the
assistance of other interested persons in providing information and
views pertinent to this effort. FRA intends to use the Working Group
throughout this rulemaking. The minutes of the Working Group meetings
and the materials distributed at these meetings to date have been
placed in the docket. FRA intends to keep a current record of the
Working Group's activities and decisions in the docket.
Topics Covered
Specific topics discussed by this ANPRM include:
(1) System safety programs and plans;
(2) Passenger equipment crashworthiness;
(3) Inspection, testing and maintenance requirements;
(4) Training and qualification requirements for mechanical
personnel and train crews;
(5) Excursion, tourist and private equipment;
(6) Commuter equipment and operations;
(7) Train make-up and operating speed;
(8) Tiered design standards based on a system safety approach;
(9) Fire safety; and
(10) Operating practices and procedures.
FRA solicits suggestions for other matters related to passenger
train safety standards that should be considered in order to promote
safe and efficient train operations. FRA also solicits suggestions for
alternate approaches or ways to structure passenger equipment safety
standards.
[[Page 30673]]
Purpose of Notice
Section 215 of the Act (49 U.S.C. 20133) requires the Secretary of
Transportation to prescribe minimum standards ``for the safety of cars
used by railroad carriers to transport passengers.'' The Act
specifically requires the Secretary to consider--
(1) The crashworthiness of the cars;
(2) Interior features (including luggage restraints, seat belts,
and exposed surfaces) that may affect passenger safety;
(3) Maintenance and inspection of the cars;
(4) Emergency procedures and equipment; and
(5) Any operating rules and conditions that directly affect safety
not otherwise governed by regulations.
Given the breadth of the specific items listed in the Act, it is
clear that the Congress intended the agency to consider the safety of
rail passenger service as a whole, determining the extent to which
existing regulations should be supplemented or strengthened. Existing
regulations affecting the safety of rail passenger service include
standards for signal and train control systems, track safety, power
brakes, glazing, programs of testing and training for railroad
operating rules, and hours of service of safety-critical personnel,
among others. While existing locomotive safety regulations address the
structural characteristics of multiple-unit powered cars, non-powered
cars are not subject to the same standards. In addition, FRA has not
issued regulations addressing interior features of passenger equipment.
The Act requires issuance of initial passenger safety regulations
within 3 years and final regulations within 5 years. FRA intends to
establish a reasonably comprehensive structure of necessary safety
regulations for rail passenger service in initial standards. Where
further research is needed to develop a technical foundation for safety
improvements, rulemaking may be completed over the 5-year period
referred to in the Act.
The Act permits FRA to apply new requirements to existing passenger
cars, but requires FRA to explain why any such ``retrofit''
requirements are imposed. FRA believes that passenger equipment
operating in permanent service in the United States has established a
good safety record, proving its compatibility with the operating
environment. Many of the structural design changes identified during
preliminary analyses are likely to be cost effective only if
implemented for new equipment. Appropriate analysis should be conducted
to evaluate whether selected safety measures can be applied to existing
equipment or to rebuilt equipment on a cost-effective basis.
Collaborative Rulemaking and This Advance Notice
FRA is committed to the maximum feasible use of collaborative
processes in the development of safety regulations. As a means to allow
the industry to collaborate with FRA to develop this rulemaking, FRA
established the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards Working Group, as
described earlier. FRA structured the Working Group to give a balanced
representation of the types of organizations listed in the Act.
A list of the private sector members of the Working Group is given
in Table 1.
Table 1.--Rail Passenger Equipment Safety Standards; Working Group Membership List
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization represented Representative Mailing address Telephone Fax
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak.......................... George Binns, National Railroad (215) 349-2731 (215) 349-2767
General Manager Passenger
for Compliance and Corporation, 30th
Standards. Street Station,
4th Floor South,
Philadelphia, PA
19104.
United Transportation Union..... David Brooks, 15200 Brooksview, (301) 888-1277 .................
Conductor. Brandywine, MD
20613.
National Association of Railroad Ross Capon, 900 Second Street, (202) 408-8362 (202) 408-8287
Passengers. Executive Director. N.E., Washington,
DC 20002-3557.
American Public Transit Frank Cihak, Chief 1201 New York (202) 898-4080 (202) 898-4049
Association. Engineer. Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, DC
20005.
Federal Railroad Administration. Grady Cothen, 400 Seventh Street, (202) 366-0897 (202) 366-7136
Deputy Associate S.W., Washington,
Administrator for DC 20590-0002.
Safety Standards.
Electro-Motive Division, General Harvey Boyd, Senior 9301 West 55th (708) 387-6013 (708) 387-5239
Motors Corporation. Research Engineer. Street, La Grange,
IL 60525.
Federal Transit Administration.. Jeffrey Mora, 400 Seventh Street, (202) 366-0215 (202) 366-3765
Office of S.W., Washington,
Technology. DC 20590-0002.
American Association of State William Green, New York State Dept (518) 457-4547 (518) 457-3183
Highway and Transportation Senior Railroad of Transportation,
Officials. Inspector. 120 Washington
Avenue, Albany,
New York 12232.
Safe Travel America............. Arthur Johnson, 10600 Red Barn (301) 762-7903 .................
Chairman. Lane, Potomac, MD
20854.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Leroy Jones, 400 North Capitol (202) 347-7936 (202) 347-5237
Engineers. International Vice Street, N.W.,
President. Suite 850,
Washington, DC
20001.
Brotherhood Railway Carmen...... Hank Lewin, Vice AFL/CIO Building, (202) 783-3660 (202) 783-0198
President. Suite 511, 815
16th Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC
20006.
Siemens Transportation Systems, Frank Guzzo, 700 South Ewing, (314) 533-6710 .................
Inc.. Director Rolling St. Louis, MO
Stock. 63103.
Bombardier Corporation, Larry Kelterborn, 1084 Botanical (905) 577-1052 (905) 577-1055
Transportation Equipment Group. Consultant. Drive, Burlington,
Ontario, Canada
L7T 1V2.
National Transportation Safety Russ Quimby, 490 L'Enfant Plaza, (202) 382-6644 (202) 382-6884
Board. Investigator. S.W., Washington,
DC 20594.
American Public Transit Dennis Ramm, Chief 547 W. Jackson (312) 322-6575 (312) 322-6502
Association. Mechanical Blvd., Chicago, IL
Officer, Metra. 60661.
[[Page 30674]]
Federal Railroad Administration. Brenda Moscoso, 400 Seventh Street, (202) 366-0352 .................
Economist, Office S.W., Washington,
of Safety Analysis. DC 20590-0002.
Federal Railroad Administration. Thomas, Tsai, 400 Seventh Street, (202) 366-1427 .................
Program Manager, SW., Washington,
Office of Research. DC 20590-0002.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Passenger Train Occupant Casualties; Ten Year Period 1985-1994
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Train accidents Grade crossing Non-accident Total passenger
---------------------- accidents passenger train train occupants
---------------------- incidents ---------------------
Killed Injured ----------------------
Killed Injured Killed Injured Killed Injured
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1985............................................................ 0 287 0 30 3 424 3 741
1986............................................................ 1 409 0 72 4 269 5 750
1987............................................................ 17 258 0 20 1 261 18 539
1988............................................................ 2 160 0 39 2 246 4 445
1989............................................................ 1 103 2 123 8 253 11 479
1990............................................................ 0 238 1 41 3 280 4 559
1991............................................................ 9 61 0 29 0 333 9 423
1992............................................................ 0 48 1 114 3 299 4 461
1993............................................................ 54 171 1 86 9 402 64 659
1994............................................................ 3 129 0 96 3 343 6 568
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals........................................................ 87 1864 5 650 36 3110 128 5624
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
[[Page 30675]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17JN96.010
BILLING CODE 4910-06-C
[[Page 30676]]
An FRA representative chairs the Working Group, and a
representative of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) serves as
associate member. Staff members from the National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) also attend and assist the Working Group. In addition, the
Working Group is supported by FRA program, legal and research staff,
including technical personnel from the Volpe National Transportation
System Center (Volpe Center). Vendors of equipment to passenger
railroads constitute another essential source of information about rail
passenger equipment safety. Accordingly, FRA has included vendor
representatives designated by the Railway Progress Institute (RPI) as
associate members of the Working Group. As one of its first tasks, the
Working Group developed a statement of its charter and scope of effort.
The Working Group is broadly representative of interests involved
in intercity and commuter service nationwide. This service is regularly
scheduled, employs contemporary electric multiple-unit (MU) equipment,
electric or diesel electric power, is often intermingled on common
rights-of-way with freight movements, and often involves maximum speeds
in the range of 79 to 125 miles per hour (mph) with speeds up to 150
mph projected in the near future.
FRA also regulates approximately 100 additional railroads that
provide service often characterized as historic, excursion, or scenic.
These ``tourist'' or ``museum'' railroads often employ steam
locomotives or older generation diesel power, and historic coaches or
freight equipment modified for passenger use. Tourist and museum
railroads vary widely in the nature of their operating environment,
personnel, train speeds, and other characteristics. FRA intends to form
a small, separate working group comprised of tourist and museum
operators and freight or passenger railroads that host or provide this
type of service. FRA will request that the Tourist Railway Association,
the Association of Railway Museums, and AAR provide representation for
this effort.
Regulations governing emergency preparedness and emergency response
procedures for rail passenger service will be covered by a separate
rulemaking and are being addressed by a separate working group. Persons
wishing to receive more information regarding this separate effort
should contact Mr. Dennis Yachechak, Operating Practices Division,
Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, RRS-11, Room 8314, FRA, 400
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone 202-366-0504)
or David H. Kasminoff, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA,
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone 202-366-
0628).
FRA's commitment to developing a proposed rule through the Working
Group necessarily influences the role and purpose of this ANPRM. FRA
sets forth in this ANPRM numerous preliminary ideas regarding
approaches to safety issues affecting passenger service. These are
ideas that have already been placed before the Working Group as
concrete, illustrative approaches to possible improvements in the
safety of passenger service. They are provided in this ANPRM as
information to any interested person not involved in the Working
Group's deliberations. FRA wishes to emphasize, however, that these
concepts do not constitute specific proposals of the agency in this
proceeding, nor do they represent the position of the Working Group. In
addition, issuance of this ANPRM should not be considered a diminution
of FRA's intent to prescribe passenger equipment safety regulations
within the 5-year period required by the Act.
FRA expects that the Working Group will develop proposed rules
based on a consensus process. The proposals will be based on facts and
analysis flowing from the Working Group's deliberations. Accordingly,
FRA has requested that the Working Group's members and the
organizations that they represent refrain from responding formally to
this ANPRM.
Just as FRA will not prejudge the outcome of the Working Group
deliberations, FRA asks organizations represented on the Working Group
to avoid adopting fixed positions that could polarize the discussion
within the Working Group. Rather, the deliberations of the Working
Group should be permitted to mature through a careful, fact-based
dialogue that leads to appropriate recommendations for cost-effective
standards. The evolving positions of the Working Group members--as
reflected in the minutes of the group meetings and associated
documentation, together with data provided by the membership during
their deliberations--will be placed in the docket of this rulemaking.
FRA invites other interested parties to respond to the questions
posed in this ANPRM, submitting information and views that may be of
assistance in developing a proposed rule. All comments provided in
response to this ANPRM will be provided to the Working Group for
consideration in preparation of the proposed rule.
Working Group's Scope of Effort
The Working Group will focus on developing safety standards for
rail passenger equipment by applying a system safety approach--where
practical--to:
(1) Determine and prioritize safety risks;
(2) Determine steps or corrective actions to reduce risks; and
(3) Optimize safety benefits.
The Working Group will recommend future research or test programs
when a technology appears to have the potential for a safety benefit,
but is not yet mature enough to be applied with confidence.
The Working Group will provide advice to FRA on all phases of the
rulemaking process, to include:
(1) Recommending what issues or requirements must be covered by
Federal regulations, and what issues or requirements can be effectively
handled outside the body of Federal regulations by industry standards
or some other means;
(2) Reviewing the written comments in response to the ANPRM, and
recommending those comments that should affect a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM);
(3) Providing cost information to support FRA's economic analysis
of the proposed rule;
(4) Providing information and advice on the potential benefits of
the proposed rule and its individual elements;
(5) Providing advice regarding critical assumptions required for
the economic analysis;
(6) Reviewing and critiquing a draft NPRM prepared by FRA based on
Working Group guidance;
(7) Reviewing the oral and written comments to the NPRM and
recommending those comments that should affect a final rule;
(8) Reviewing and critiquing a draft final rule prepared by FRA
based on Working Group guidance; and
(9) If requested by FRA, recommending actions to take to respond to
any petitions for reconsideration received as a result of the final
rule.
The Working Group will also assist FRA in drafting a second NPRM
for passenger equipment power brake standards.
To ensure full development of the issues, the Working Group will
attempt to draw on all sources within the industry to collect
information necessary to conduct comparative analyses and reach
decisions.
The Working Group will establish a procedure for considering ideas,
approaches, and performance standards
[[Page 30677]]
for use as part of the safety standards. This procedure should be based
on the concept of reaching an overall consensus. Overall consensus
means represented organizations may object--even strongly--to
individual ideas, approaches, or standards, but the organization can
accept and ``live with'' the evolving set of standards as a whole. FRA
believes the success of this entire innovative approach to rulemaking
depends on the ability of the group to reach overall consensus.
The Working Group will consider whether to continue to meet on a
periodic basis after final rulemaking to consider changes necessary to
keep any rules or other standards current and responsive to the needs
of the industry.
Background
Need for Passenger Equipment Safety Standards
Rail passenger service is currently operated with a high level of
safety. However, accidents continue to occur, often as a result of
factors beyond the control of the passenger railroad. Further, the rail
passenger operating environment in the United States is rapidly
changing--technology is advancing; equipment is being designed for
ever-higher speeds; and many potential new operators of passenger
equipment are appearing. With this more complex operating environment,
FRA must become more active to ensure that passenger trains continue to
be designed, built, and operated with public safety foremost.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) recognizes this need in Report
GAO/RCED-93-196, entitled ``AMTRAK Should Implement Minimum Safety
Standards for Passenger Cars.'' In addition, NTSB has issued several
recommendations to FRA and to the railroad industry concerning the
crashworthiness of locomotives. Although the recommendations directly
apply to freight locomotives, the same concerns exist for passenger
train locomotives or power cars.
NTSB's Crashworthiness Concerns
NTSB's interest in locomotive crashworthiness dates to 1970, and
NTSB has made several safety recommendations to FRA and the industry
concerning increased protection for crew members in the cab based on
the following accidents:
On September 8, 1970, a collision between an Illinois
Central (IC) and an Indiana Harbor Belt (IHB) train occurred at
Riverdale, Illinois. The collision caused the IC caboose to override
the heavy under frame of the IHB locomotive demolishing the control cab
of the locomotive. Two following cars continued in the path established
by the caboose, completing the destruction of the locomotive cab. The
IHB engineer was found dead in the wreckage. NTSB recommended that FRA
and the industry expand their cooperative effort to improve the
crashworthiness of railroad equipment (NTSB Safety Recommendation R-71-
44).
An accident on October 8, 1970, involving a Penn Central
Transportation Company freight train and a passenger train near Sound
View, Connecticut, again demonstrated the weakness of the locomotive
crew compartment. This collision caused NTSB to reiterate its
recommendation to improve the crash resistance of locomotive cabs (NTSB
Safety Recommendation R-72-005). This recommendation was ultimately
classified as ``Closed-No Longer Applicable'' following the issuance of
Safety Recommendation R-78-27 which addressed the same issue.
The investigation of the collision of three freight trains
near Leetonia, Ohio, on June 6, 1975, again prompted NTSB to recommend
increased cab crashworthiness, including consideration of a readily
accessible crash refuge (NTSB Safety Recommendation R-76-009). This
recommendation was classified as ``Closed-Acceptable Action'' on August
6, 1978, following FRA's assurance that studies were continuing in this
area.
On September 18, 1978, a Louisville and Nashville freight
train collided head-on with a yard train inside yard limits at
Florence, Alabama. The lead unit of the yard train overrode the lead
unit of the freight train. The cab provided no protection for the head
brakeman and engineer, who jumped but were run over by their train.
On August 11, 1981, a Boston and Maine Corporation freight
train and a Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority commuter train
collided head-on near Prides Crossing, Beverly, Massachusetts. The lead
car of the commuter train overrode the freight locomotive, pushing
components of the locomotive into the cab killing three people.
NTSB's investigations of the above accidents resulted in
recommendations to FRA regarding crashworthiness protection to the
locomotive operating compartments (NTSB Recommendations R-77-37, R-78-
27, R-79-11, and R-82-34). As a result of the FRA-sponsored report
``Analysis of Locomotive Cabs,''1 NTSB classified these four
recommendations ``Closed-Acceptable Action'' on November 24, 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Analysis of Locomotive Cabs.'' (Report No. DOT/FRA/ORD-81/
84, National Space Technology Laboratories, September 1982.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A rear-end collision of two Burlington Northern (BN)
freight trains occurred near Pacific Junction, Iowa, on April 13, 1983.
The operating compartment of the lead locomotive on the striking train,
BN train 64T85, was overridden by the caboose of train 43J05 when the
trains collided. The locomotive operating compartment was crushed. (In
general, when a locomotive strikes a caboose or a light freight car,
the lighter vehicle overrides the locomotive, frequently with
devastating results.) As a result of this accident, NTSB issued a
recommendation that FRA initiate and/or support a design study to
provide a protected area in the locomotive operating compartment for
the crew when a collision is unavoidable (NTSB Recommendation R-83-
102). This recommendation was subsequently classified as ``Closed-
Unacceptable Action/Superseded'' based on a future investigation that
reiterated similar concerns regarding locomotive crashworthiness.
On July 10, 1986, Union Pacific (UP) freight train CLSA-09
struck a standing UP freight train near North Platte, Nebraska, at a
speed of approximately 32 mph. Three locomotives and eleven cars from
both trains derailed, and the accident resulted in one fatality and
three injuries. This accident, in which the locomotive cab section of
train CLSA-09 was destroyed on impact, probably would have resulted in
fatal injuries to the engineer and head brakeman of train CLSA-09 had
they not jumped from the cab prior to the collision. As a result, NTSB
issued Safety Recommendation R-87-23, which recommends that FRA:
Promptly require locomotive operating compartments to be
designed to provide crash protection for occupants of locomotive
cabs.
NTSB believes that locomotive collision investigations continue to
demonstrate that improvements are needed in the crashworthiness design
standards of locomotives.
As a result of investigations of numerous accidents involving
passenger trains over the past 20 years, NTSB has recommended that FRA
or the passenger railroad industry:
(1) Prescribe regulations requiring emergency means of escape from
railroad passenger cars;
(2) Prescribe regulations requiring emergency lighting for railroad
passenger cars;
(3) Initiate studies to determine the relationship between
passenger car design and passenger injuries;
[[Page 30678]]
(4) Prescribe regulations requiring passenger cars with secured
seats and luggage retention devices;
(5) Apply system safety principles to the acquisition, design,
construction and renovation of passenger cars;
(6) Prescribe regulations to require back-up power for emergency
lights and doors that can be opened in the event of loss of power;
(7) Require that rail passenger equipment be fitted with roof
escape hatches;
(8) Promulgate regulations to establish minimum standards for the
interior of commuter cars so that adequate crash injury protection and
emergency equipment will be provided;
(9) Promulgate regulations to establish minimum standards for the
design and construction of interiors of passenger cars so adequate
crash injury protection will be provided;
(10) Promulgate regulations to establish minimum safety standards
for the inspection and maintenance of railroad passenger cars; and
(11) Amend the power brake regulations to provide appropriate
guidelines for inspecting power brake equipment on modern passenger
cars.
Accident/Incident Data
FRA has compiled a 10-year history of passenger equipment
accidents/incidents that railroads have reported to FRA. FRA supplied
this information to the Working Group and placed it in the docket.
Table 2 summarizes the deaths and injuries reported to FRA by railroads
for occupants of passenger trains during this 10-year period. The
``train accidents'' column of Table 2 includes all collisions,
derailments, or fires involving passenger trains that resulted in more
than $6,300 damage to on-track equipment, signals, track, track
structure, or road bed. The ``grade crossing accidents'' column of
Table 2 includes all reported impacts of a passenger train with cars,
trucks, busses, farm equipment, or pedestrians at grade crossings. The
``non-accident passenger train incidents'' column of Table 2 includes
all reports of injuries or deaths of passenger train occupants not
caused by a train accident or grade crossing accident.
Figure 1 is a pie chart depicting the percentages of deaths to
passenger train occupants caused by train accidents, grade crossing
accidents, and non-accident incidents. Figure 2 shows the 10-year trend
for each of these causes of deaths.
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
[[Page 30679]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17JN96.011
[[Page 30680]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17JN96.012
BILLING CODE 4910-06-C
[[Page 30681]]
Figure 3 is a pie chart depicting the percentages of injuries to
passenger train occupants caused by train accidents, grade crossing
accidents, and non-accident incidents. Figure 4 shows the 10-year trend
for each of these causes of injuries to occupants of passenger trains.
(Amtrak has noted that the showing of only 10 years of accident data is
somewhat distorted in that two accidents account for over 80 percent of
the deaths, and one of the accidents had substantial intermodal
implications.)
Comment is requested regarding the significance of this data,
elements of societal and railroad cost not included in the reported
data, and factors to be considered in evaluating the risk of future
catastrophic passenger train accidents.
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
[[Page 30682]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17JN96.013
BILLING CODE 4910-06-C
[[Page 30683]]
Approach/Structure for Safety Standards
Scope and Context
FRA recognizes that safety standards that apply only to passenger
equipment provide only a partial solution to improving rail passenger
safety, and the best way to increase rail passenger safety is to keep
trains on the track and spaced apart.
Keeping trains on the track and apart requires a systems approach
to safety that includes railroad track, right-of-way, signals and
controls, operating procedures, station- and platform-to-train
interface design, as well as equipment. FRA has active rulemaking and
research projects ongoing in a variety of contexts that address non-
equipment aspects of passenger railroad system safety.
While reflecting the other aspects of passenger railroad system
safety, this rulemaking will focus on:
(1) Equipment inspection, testing, and maintenance standards;
(2) Equipment design and performance standards;
(3) Platform- and station-to-train interface design and procedures
to promote safe ingress and egress of passengers; and
(4) Other issues specifically related to safe operation of rail
passenger service not addressed in other FRA regulations, proceedings,
or program development efforts.
Existing Rail Passenger Operations
FRA intends to structure any proposed actions to cause a minimum of
disruption to existing safe operations of passenger equipment. This
notice is designed to bring to FRA's attention the special situations
and problems confronting tourist and excursion railroads, private
passenger car owners, commuter railroads, and the existing operations
of Amtrak, which all have a long history of safe operation. FRA
believes the first objective of this rulemaking should be to construct
common sense minimum safety floors under these existing operations. To
the extent new technology or innovative approaches might offer
opportunities for improving safety performance on a cost- effective
basis, FRA seeks the appropriate means to exploit these opportunities.
A common sense safety floor under existing safe operations includes
a complete pre-departure (or daily) safety inspection of each departing
train conducted by skilled inspectors, and a well-planned test and
preventive maintenance program for safety-critical components of the
system triggered by time, mileage, or some other reliability-driven
parameter. (A ``safety critical component'' is a component whose
failure to function as intended results in a greater risk to passengers
and crew.) One of the main purposes of this ANPRM is to solicit
information concerning:
(1) The steps necessary to conduct a complete pre-departure or
daily safety inspection of the equipment;
(2) A means to demonstrate (e.g., training, testing, supervision,
certification) that safety inspectors have the knowledge and skills
necessary to perform effective inspections or tests;
(3) The minimum planned or periodic maintenance program required to
keep the equipment in safe operating condition;
(4) The frequency of required planned or periodic maintenance; and
(5) The costs and benefits associated with the requirements under
consideration.
Special Consideration for Tourist and Excursion Railroads
Tourist and excursion railroads generally provide passenger rail
service as entertainment or recreation, often at low speed on track
dedicated to that service alone. FRA recognizes the extensive service
provided by this growing sector of the railroad industry, and the need
to tailor appropriate safety requirements to the level of risk
involved. Accordingly, FRA will work to identify appropriate criteria
for creating relatively simple system safety plans and programs for
tourist and excursion railroads that recognize the special needs of
this sector of the industry.
Speed and distance limits may be helpful to define tourist and
excursion railroads excepted from many of the effects of any proposed
passenger equipment safety standards. For instance, less stringent
requirements might be applied to a railroad with a maximum operating
speed of 30 mph and a maximum trip distance of 250 miles. In addition,
operations segregated from the general railroad system may warrant
consideration for less stringent requirements. FRA seeks comment on
these proposed limits and, as noted earlier, will request assistance of
an appropriately representative working group to develop these issues.
Special Consideration for Private Passenger Cars
FRA recognizes private passenger cars as another segment of the
industry that may need special consideration. However, some important
differences between the two types of operations exist that need to be
taken into account. Private passenger cars often operate as part of
freight, Amtrak, and commuter trains at track speeds over long
distances. Providing regulatory relief to private passenger car owners
through speed and/or distance limitations could severely restrict
current operations. The host railroads often impose their own safety
requirements on the private passenger cars and have a strong interest
in any Federal safety standards that apply to private passenger cars.
FRA intends to fully involve Amtrak, the American Association of
Private Railcar Owners, and the American Public Transit Association
(APTA) as standards for private passenger cars are developed.
Does the simple system safety program proposed for tourist and
excursion railroads make sense for private passenger cars? If not, why?
Do alternate means exist to provide regulatory relief to private
passenger car owners without imposing restrictive speed and distance
limits? How should railroad business or observation cars be treated?
New Rail Passenger Service or Systems
FRA intends the main thrust of any proposed safety standards for
equipment design to be focused on new equipment and new rail passenger
service. New equipment and new service present the opportunity to
analyze the proposed equipment and its intended use to ensure that a
systematic approach is taken to design safety into the operation.
However, some of the safety enhancements that the final rule resulting
from this ANPRM deem necessary for new equipment may have the potential
to be applied to existing or to rebuilt equipment. Without such
consideration, opportunities to increase safety that stand up to a
cost/benefit analysis could be lost. In addition, not requiring rebuilt
equipment to meet the latest standards provides an incentive to rebuild
equipment rather than purchase new equipment, thus delaying the full
benefit of the new standards.
Passenger Equipment Power Brakes
On September 16, 1994, FRA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking on power brakes. 59 FR 47676. Much of the public testimony
received in response to the NPRM emphasized the differences between
freight operations and passenger operations, and the differences
between freight equipment brake systems and passenger equipment brake
systems. In light of this testimony, and because passenger equipment
power brake standards are a logical subset of passenger equipment
safety standards,
[[Page 30684]]
FRA will separate passenger equipment power brake standards from
freight equipment power brake standards. The Working Group will assist
FRA to develop a second NPRM that covers passenger equipment power
brake standards. Since power brakes have already been the subject of a
recent ANPRM, NPRM, and supplementary notice, FRA is not seeking
additional information on passenger equipment power brakes, and they
will not be addressed in this ANPRM.
Regulatory Flexibility
FRA conducts this proceeding to determine how best to meet the need
to assure the public of continued safe operation of passenger trains in
a more complex operating environment. Although FRA is required by law
to issue minimum standards for passenger equipment safety, FRA
recognizes that the level of detail properly embodied in regulations
can and should be powerfully influenced by the presence of voluntary
standards adhered to by those participating in their development. FRA
encourages the formation of a rail passenger industry forum (similar to
AAR in some functions, but more representative of all segments of the
rail passenger industry) to establish supplementary safety standards
developed through industry consensus. Such an organization could reduce
the need for detailed Federal regulations beyond such basic
requirements as may be appropriate to provide for safety.
FRA desires to structure regulations to provide the flexibility
necessary for introduction of new technology or new operating concepts
that could improve service and safety. Use of performance standards--
where feasible--can best achieve this objective.
FRA desires this ANPRM to stimulate discussion focused on how FRA
can meet its responsibility to the public while imposing a minimum
regulatory burden on the rail passenger industry. Does the industry
have plans to establish a forum with the charter and authority to
develop safety standards by consensus for the industry, or can an
existing organization serve this function? If such a group can be
established, what safety concerns have a high potential of being
resolved through industry consensus and voluntary action? What time
frame would be required to develop industry safety standards by
consensus? What role could/should rail labor organizations, equipment
builders, component suppliers, and state agencies play in developing
these safety standards? What assurances could be provided that the
industry would adhere to these safety standards? What role could/should
FRA play to assist the industry in developing these standards? When
consensus cannot be reached or is not adequate, and Federal regulations
are required, how can the flexibility/adaptability of the regulations
to meet a dynamic operating environment and changing technology be
maximized? To what extent might development of voluntary industry
guidelines limit the need for highly detailed or prescriptive Federal
standards?
Discussion of Issues
An introductory discussion of several concepts--crucial to rail
equipment safety--may convey a better understanding of the approach FRA
is considering to develop safety standards for new passenger equipment.
These concepts are:
(1) system safety plan and program;
(2) rail vehicle crashworthiness;
(3) crash energy management;
(4) suspension system performance; and
(5) wheel thermal stress.
System Safety Plan and Program
The heart of the approach to new passenger equipment safety
standards will be a system safety program. A system safety plan is a
document developed by the operator--with a large input from the builder
of new equipment--to describe the system safety program. The plan
should lay out a top-down approach to how the system--including the
equipment, the inspection, the testing and maintenance program, the
routes over which the equipment will operate, and the operating rules
that will be applied to it--will be designed, tested, and verified to
meet all safety requirements and provide a safe operation.
A true and complete system safety approach begins at the top level
of the system--in this case, the ``system'' is the entire railroad
operation. For the purpose of risk analysis, the railroad system must
be broken down into its component systems. No one--or right--way exists
to perform this breakdown. It can be done many ways. Figure 5 is just
one logical example.
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
[[Page 30685]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17JN96.014
BILLING CODE 4910-06-C
[[Page 30686]]
Many passenger railroads operate at least partially as a tenant on
the right-of-way and property of another railroad. In this case, the
passenger railroad may have little or no control under the contractual
terms of the tenancy arrangement, and little or no prospect of gaining
future control over some of the major risk components of the risk
analysis. The actions of the passenger railroad cannot change these
risk components, and for the purpose of performing a system safety
analysis, they must remain fixed and be accepted as a given unless
subject to separate changes in Federal standards.
For example, a passenger railroad that operates largely as a tenant
would have little or no control over the Interfaces (RC1) and Right-of-
Way (RC2) risk components. By holding these risk components fixed, the
system safety approach degrades to a systems approach applied to the
remaining two subsystems rather than to the railroad as a whole. The
``systems'' methodology still has considerable merit when applied to
the remaining subsystems, but a true system safety approach cannot be
applied to a system that has major risk components that are
constrained. This analysis could help define the equipment
crashworthiness features required for its intended purpose, or the
operational limitations needed to improve or retain safety levels.
What practical constraints must be taken into account when applying
a system safety approach to passenger railroads? When all practical
constraints are taken into account, how should the system safety
approach be applied to help develop passenger equipment safety
standards?
The system safety plan can range from a relatively simple
document--for conventional equipment being procured to continue an
existing service--to a detailed document laying out a comprehensive
approach for designing, testing, and operating state-of-the-art high-
speed passenger rail systems. The outline of the system safety plan
given in Appendix A applies to the procurements of new high-speed
trainsets. For the less complex procurements of replacement equipment
for existing service, the plan should be simplified and tailored to fit
the particular need. It should be emphasized that the purpose of the
system safety plan is to force a thorough thought process to ensure
safety is optimized.
The purpose of a formal system safety program, among other things,
is to ensure safety is adequately addressed during the design of
passenger trainsets and during the development of the inspection,
testing, and maintenance program that supports these trainsets. The
system safety program also permits other high risk components in the
system to be identified, including operational aspects and the
signaling and grade crossing technology employed. The system safety
program requires:
(1) Analysis of the trainset design for identification of safety
hazards (risk assessment) and systematic elimination or reduction of
the risk associated with these hazards (mitigating actions);
(2) Analysis of operational aspects for safety hazards and, where
feasible, systematic elimination or reduction of the associated risk of
these hazards; and
(3) Development of the inspection, testing, and maintenance concept
in a step-by-step process to determine the procedures and maintenance
intervals necessary to keep the trainset operating safely.
MIL-STD-882C defines the approach taken for system safety programs
used by the United States military. A copy has been placed in the
docket. This document is an excellent reference for how to plan and
conduct a system safety program.
FRA solicits comments from all segments of the rail passenger
industry on formal system safety programs. FRA is particularly
interested in ways to tailor the program to meet the multitude of
individual situations that exist in the industry. The purpose of the
program is to ensure that safety is planned into new systems. FRA is
searching for ways to ensure the system safety program is good
business--not a regulatory burden. FRA seeks to determine the process
necessary to ensure system safety is good business and allows
flexibility in tailoring the planning to the level of the safety need.
Are any system safety plans currently in use? How much would it
cost (in terms of time and effort) to update existing or develop new
system safety plans? On average, approximately how often would system
safety plans have to be updated? How would system safety plans improve
safety? Specifically, what areas of safety would be improved, by how
much, and why? Please provide copies of any studies, data, arguments,
or opinions which support your answer.
Rail Passenger Equipment Crashworthiness
Since vehicle crashworthiness is one of the means to reduce safety
risks, it is therefore a major subset of the system safety program.
``Rail passenger equipment crashworthiness'' means a system of
interrelated vehicle design features intended to maximize passenger and
crew survivability of collisions and derailments. Vehicle
crashworthiness is the last line of defense or protection in the event
all other precautions fail, and a serious accident occurs.
A risk assessment done by Arthur D. Little, Inc., (ADL) for Amtrak
regarding operation of high-speed trainsets in the Northeast Corridor
points to the need for attention to passenger equipment crashworthiness
by showing that the following types of collisions could occur on the
Northeast Corridor:
(1) Loaded freight equipment or locomotives might derail on
adjacent track, overturning and fouling a high- speed main line. (The
derailment could be caused by defective freight equipment or
vandalism.)
(2) The braking system on a freight train or light locomotives
could fail to operate properly, causing that consist to split a switch
and occupy a high-speed main line immediately ahead of an oncoming
high-speed passenger train.
(3) A high-speed passenger train could derail on a curve due to a
track defect (e.g., a broken rail initiated by the last freight
movement) and strike a fixed object such as an abutment or pier.
Scenarios with substantially similar consequences are possible even
after the installation of an enhanced train control system. These are
the types of scenarios feared by freight railroads that allow passenger
trains to operate on their systems, and have led the freight railroads
to demand insulation from excessive tort liability.
To ensure crashworthiness, passenger equipment must:
(1) Maintain an envelope or minimum volume of survivability for
passengers and crew which resists extreme structural deformation and
separation of main structural members;
(2) Protect against penetration of the occupied compartments;
(3) Protect the occupants from being ejected from occupied
compartments; and
(4) Protect the occupants from secondary impacts with the interior
of the occupied compartments.
To make a passenger train accident survivable (1) the spaces
occupied by people must be strong enough not to collapse, crushing the
people; and (2) the initial deceleration of the people must be limited
so they are not thrown against the interior of the train with
unsurvivable force. Achieving these general objectives can be the most
difficult challenge facing equipment designers.
[[Page 30687]]
Crash Energy Management
Crash energy management is a design technique to help equipment
designers meet this challenge. The basic concept embodied by crash
energy management is that designated sections in unoccupied spaces or
lightly occupied spaces are intentionally designed to be weaker than
heavily occupied spaces. This is done so that during a collision,
portions of the unoccupied spaces will deform before the occupied
spaces, allowing the occupied spaces of the trainset initially to
decelerate more slowly and minimize the uncontrolled deformation of
occupied space.
The docket contains two technical papers 2 by the Volpe Center
that analyze the merits of crash energy management design techniques.
These studies evaluate the effectiveness of alternative strategies for
providing crashworthiness of passenger rail vehicle structures and
interiors at increased collision speeds by comparing them to a design
permitted by current standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Evaluation of Selected Crashworthiness Strategies for
Passenger Trains.'' D. Tyrell, K. Severson-Green & B. Marquis, U.S.
Department of Transportation Volpe National Transportation System
Center, January 20, 1995; ``Train Crashworthiness Design for
Occupant Survivability.'' D. Tyrell, K. Severson-Green & B. Marquis,
U.S. Department of Transportation Volpe National Transportation
System Center, April 7, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current regulations permit cars of essentially uniform longitudinal
strength. Simplified analysis done using a lumped-mass computer model
and an idealized load-crush curve predicts this type of design to be
effective in maintaining survivable volumes in coaches for train-to-
train collision speeds up to 70 mph. Further analysis needs to be done
using a more complex distributed-mass computer model and a widely
accepted load-crush curve to refine this prediction.
Using a simplified lumped-mass computer model, the assumed uniform
longitudinal strength causes the predicted structural crushing of the
train to proceed uniformly from the front to the rear of the train,
through both the unoccupied and occupied areas of the train. Using a
distributed-mass computer model, structural crushing of uniform
strength equipment tends to be predicted to occur at both ends of the
car, more in agreement with observations from actual accidents.
The crash energy management design approach results in varying
longitudinal strength, with high strength in the occupied areas and
lower strength in the unoccupied areas. This approach attempts to
distribute the structural crushing throughout the train to the
unoccupied areas to preserve the occupant volumes and to control and
limit the decelerations of the cars. The crash energy management
approach has been found to offer significant benefits. (Amtrak has
noted that while this concept seems to work well for single-level
equipment with vestibules at each end, its application to a bi-level
design--which is now Amtrak's long distance standard--was not
considered in these publications.)
The interior crashworthiness study evaluates the influence of
interior configurations and occupant restraints on injuries resulting
from occupant motions during a collision. For a sufficiently gentle
train deceleration, compartmentalization (a strategy for providing a
``friendly'' interior) can provide sufficient occupant protection to
keep widely accepted injury criteria below the threshold values applied
by the automotive industry.
The Volpe Center reports show that, if installed properly and used,
the combination of lapbelts and shoulder restraints can reduce the
likelihood of fatality due to deceleration to near-certain survival for
even the most severe collision conditions considered. However,
individual restraints may have limited practical value on a train,
where mobility within the vehicle is an important attribute of service
quality, and times of most significant risk cannot be predicted. The
most likely application of personal restraints could be in a control
compartment located at the front of the train.
The value of a crash energy management design is not in the energy
absorbed--only a few percent of the kinetic energy of a high-speed
collision can be absorbed in a reasonable crush distance. The real
safety benefit comes from allowing the occupied spaces to decelerate
more slowly, while decreasing the likelihood that occupied spaces will
fail in an uncontrolled fashion. If the occupied spaces are initially
decelerated more slowly, people will be pinned to an interior surface
of the trainset with less force, resulting in fewer and less severe
injuries. Once pinned against an interior surface, occupants can then
sustain much higher subsequent decelerations without sustaining serious
injuries. Also, since unoccupied space is intentionally sacrificed,
less occupied space will be crushed during the collision.
Crash energy management design involves a system of interrelated
safety features, in addition to controlled crushable space, that could
include: (1) design techniques to keep the trainset in line and on the
track for as long as possible during the initial impact;
(2) Interior design that eliminates sharp corners and that pads,
with shock absorbing material, surfaces that are likely to be struck by
people thrown about by a collision;
(3) Attachment of interior fittings and seats with sufficient
strength not to fail and thereby cause additional injuries; and
(4) A crash refuge for the vulnerable crew members in the cab.
To help maintain survivable volumes in passenger equipment,
particularly during collisions at higher closing speeds, minimum
standards for the following structural design parameters would be
needed:
(1) Anti-buckling to keep the train in line and on the track for as
long as possible after impact. (Prevention of buckling is not always
possible, but it can be delayed);
(2) End structures and anticlimbers to prevent override and
telescoping;
(3) Corner posts to deflect glancing collisions;
(4) Rollover strength;
(5) Truck to car body attachment; and
(6) A control cab crash refuge.
``Anti-buckling'' refers to trainset design techniques intended to
prevent to a certain force level or delay both vertical (override) and/
or lateral buckling. The current state-of-the-art in passenger rail
equipment design will impose limitations on the extent to which anti-
buckling can be achieved. (Devices that meet the anti-buckling
requirements have not been developed or tested. Those devices that have
been evaluated by the French National Railroad in actual crash testing
of their latest TGV bi-level design are intended to prevent override
similar to those devices currently required on North American
equipment.)
Standards would be necessary to address the general design
parameters to limit decelerations of passengers and crew, as well as
flying objects striking passengers and crew. One possible approach is
to define, under the dynamic conditions created by a specific collision
scenario:
(1) Limits on the maximum and average deceleration of the crew in
the control cab for the first 250 milliseconds after impact (assuming
the crew had anticipated the collision and placed themselves in the
crash refuge);
(2) Limits on the maximum and average deceleration of passengers in
passenger cars for the first 250 milliseconds after impact;
(3) Minimum longitudinal, lateral, and vertical seat attachment
strength;
(4) Minimum longitudinal, lateral, and vertical fitting attachment
and
[[Page 30688]]
luggage stowage compartment strengths; and
(5) Minimum padding requirements for seat backs and interior
surfaces. Achieving the second item requires careful design to create a
differential in structural strength between passenger seating areas
(``occupied volume'') and certain other areas that would be allowed to
fail before the occupied volume. By contrast, permitting uniform
rigidity throughout the trainset could result in unacceptably high
initial accelerations of the passenger compartments and possibly make
the accident non-survivable.
Suspension System Performance
A passenger train suspension system's purpose is to follow the
track at all speeds of operation and to minimize the vibrations and
motions transmitted to the passengers. An unsafe condition occurs
whenever the suspension system:
(1) Allows a wheel to lift from a rail;
(2) Allows a wheel to climb over a rail;
(3) Transmits excessive vibration or motion to the passengers;
(4) Exerts excessive force on a rail causing it to shift or roll;
or
(5) Allows unstable lateral hunting oscillations of a truck or
wheelset.
The vehicle no longer safely follows the track when a wheel either
climbs the rail or lifts from the rail. Wheel climb may occur in curves
where large lateral forces are generated as the truck negotiates the
curve. These lateral forces, particularly in combination with changes
in vertical wheel load caused by track surface variations, can cause
the wheel to climb the rail.
The ratio of lateral to vertical forces acting on a wheel (L/V
ratio) is generally taken as a measure of the proximity of the wheel to
derailment. If L/V remains less than Nadal's limit, which is 0.8 on
clean, dry, tangent track, then wheel derailment is remote.
Whenever insufficient vertical force exists to support the lateral
force acting on the rail, wheel climb can potentially occur under a
broad range of track alignment and surface geometry combinations. If a
wheel lifts due to excessive rolling, twisting, or other motions of the
car body or truck, it will likely return to the rail as long as no
excessive lateral forces exist to push it out of line with the rail.
However, wheel lift represents a potentially unsafe condition, because
there is no certainty of the absence of a strong lateral force that
prevents the wheel's return to the rail. To assure that the wheel
remains in contact with the rail, each wheel must maintain a minimum
vertical load of 10 percent of the nominal static wheel vertical load
on straight, level track.
Excessive lateral forces acting on a rail can cause the rail to
rollover and/or shift outward, allowing a wheelset to drop between the
rails. For this to happen, all wheels on one side of a truck must be
pushing outward on a rail. The railroad industry generally accepts that
if the ratio of the sum of the lateral forces to the sum of the
vertical forces exerted by all the wheels on one side of a truck on the
rail is less than 0.5, there is little danger of rail rollover or
shift.
Excessive lateral forces, induced by a car traversing the track,
can also cause the track as a unit to shift laterally on its ballast.
To assure that the track does not get pushed out of alignment by a
train, the ratio of the net lateral load exerted by each axle to the
net vertical load exerted by that axle must remain less than 0.5.
Passenger ride quality is generally a comfort rather than a safety
concern, unless ride quality deteriorates so that passengers are
injured by a rough ride. To provide minimum protection for passengers
from injuries due to being thrown about by excessive car body motions,
FRA believes that equipment should be designed such that car body
lateral accelerations are less than 0.30g peak-to-peak and the car body
vertical accelerations are less than 0.55g peak-to-peak, while the
square root of the sum of lateral accelerations squared plus the
vertical accelerations squared (the vector sum) is less than 0.604g
peak-to-peak. Compliance with this design standard would typically be
established as part of an equipment qualification program.
Sustained lateral oscillations of the truck (``truck hunting'') can
lead to derailment. Sensor technology allows the lateral accelerations
of the truck to be constantly monitored under service operating
conditions. FRA proposes that trucks be equipped with accelerometers to
monitor for hunting so that corrective action can be taken when hunting
is detected. FRA proposes to define ``hunting'' as a lateral
acceleration of the truck frame in excess of 0.8g peak-to-peak repeated
for six or more cycles.
Recent experience with the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority's
new bi-level commuter cars demonstrated the close relationship between
suspension system performance and track geometry. The suspension system
must be able to perform at low speed over track with relatively large
surface variations, such as 3-inch cross level deviation, while
maintaining stability and smooth ride quality at maximum service
speeds. FRA is concerned that suspension systems of all new passenger
equipment maintain passenger safety over their entire range of intended
operating conditions. The suspension system requirements, such as wheel
equalization, must therefore be established for all equipment and
service based on analysis from the system safety program. Compliance
with this requirement would typically be established as part of an
equipment qualification program.
Wheel Thermal Stress
FRA is concerned that frequent, repeated braking from high speeds
could induce thermal damage in wheels that can result in cracking and
potential wheel failure in service. New high-speed passenger equipment
may include blended brakes which combine dynamic and friction braking
(either on tread, disk, or both). Such blended systems typically
maximize the available dynamic brake portion at all speeds to minimize
wear and thermal input to the wheels, discs, and friction brake
components. Wheel slide detection and prevention is typically available
to minimize loss of wheel to track adhesion of individual wheelsets
during deceleration.
Thermal demand on wheels due to frictional heating by tread brakes
can be substantial when loaded cars are operated at high braking
ratios. This scenario may apply to blended systems which use tread
brakes more extensively to make up for the loss of failed dynamic
brakes. Recent research has shown that for wheels on some types of
passenger equipment operated at weights of 60 to 80 tons per car, at
speeds from 80 to 100 mph and retardation rates of 2 to 3 mph/second,
the brake horsepower which the wheel must absorb can flash-heat a
shallow layer of the rim to a temperature high enough to damage the
metal and possibly cause a change in its mechanical properties.
An operational test under simulated service conditions was
conducted in October 1992 using wheels instrumented with thermocouples
to measure temperatures in the rim. The test train was operated at
near-empty weight (61 tons per car) and at speeds up to 100 mph. Wheel
temperatures were measured during speed reductions and stops, at
retardation rates from 1.3 to 1.9 mph/second, with tread braking only.
Temperatures as high as 1000 deg.F. (538 deg.C.) were measured by the
thermocouple closest to the tread surface (approximately 0.1 inch below
the tread surface). The S-plate wheel
[[Page 30689]]
design common in commuter service was used to obtain these results.
Current Federal safety standards for locomotives, under which MU
cars are covered, define a defective wheel due to cracking as any wheel
with ``[a] crack or break in the flange, tread, rim, plate, or hub.''
49 CFR 229.75(k). Although the AAR Manual of Interchange Rules (1980)
applies only to i
FR Doc. 96-14944 Passenger Equipment Safety Standards
nterchange freight service, it is often applied to
equipment in passenger service and defines a wheel to be ``condemnable
at any time'' if it contains ``thermal cracks: transverse cracks in
tread, flange or plate * * *'' (Rule 41--Section A). The 1984 edition
of the same manual adds a qualification as follows: ``Thermal or heat
checks: Brake shoe heating frequently produces a fine network of
superficial lines or checks running in all directions on the surface of
the wheel tread. This is sometimes associated with skid burns. It
should not be confused with thermal cracking and is not a cause for
wheel removal.''
Heat checking is recognized by experienced failure analysts as a
phenomenon distinct from thermal cracking. In the absence of other
effects, heat checks are believed--at worst--to progress to minor
shelling or spalling which can be detected and corrected well before
they cause a risk to operational safety. However, recent research has
shown that heat checks are unsafe if the affected wheel has also been
subjected to rim stress reversal.
Wrought wheels used in commuter service are rim-quenched after
forming to create a layer of residual compressive stress in the rim
extending inward from the tread. Depths of penetration of the
compressive layer are estimated at 1.2 inches (30 mm) by finite element
simulations of the quenching process. This residual compressive stress
is beneficial since compression tends to force cracks closed and retard
crack growth.
Repeated wheel excursions to high temperatures can result in stress
reversal in the wheel rim, especially in shallow layers near the tread
surface where cracks are likely to originate. Estimates of residual
stresses in new (as manufactured) wheels were obtained by application
of an advanced finite element-based technique which uses stresses due
to quenching as an input state and then calculates the final residual
stress state after repeated simulated stop-braking from 80 mph at 2
mph/second. The results of this simulation predict stress reversal
(reversal from circumferential compression due to quenching to residual
tension) in a layer approximately \5/8\-inch (16 mm) deep from the
surface of the wheel tread.
This research causes FRA concern regarding the possibility of wheel
failures due to cracking initiated in overbraked wheels. A visual
estimation of thermal damage is difficult in the absence of cracks.
Conventional practices based on wheel discoloration have been
discredited as being unreliable indicators of wheel thermal damage.
Within the limits of current sensor technology, the best means
available to prevent wheel failure resulting from thermal damage is
careful brake system design to limit the frictional heating of wheels
to within safe limits.
Ad hoc recommendations identify the onset of thermal damage at
wheel tread near surface temperatures of 600 to 700 deg.F. In order to
better quantify the effect of temperature on wheel integrity, several
metallurgical experiments of wheel material were done. The base
material condition of a non-thermally abused wheel rim is normally a
pearlitic microstructure hardened to approximately RC 35. Metallurgical
examination near the treads of thermally cracked wheels shows a
spheroidized microstructure with an increased hardness for a layer
approximately \1/2\-inch deep.
This microstructure form is usually associated with formation by a
sequence of heating to extremely high temperatures (above 1400 deg.F.)
followed by rapid quenching to produce martensite (an undesirable steel
microstructure), followed by tempering at high temperature (800 to 900
deg.F.) to transform martensite to spheroidite.
Since field data indicated that wheel temperatures were not
reaching the elevated levels necessary to produce the laboratory
material transformation, more work was done to try to explain this
inconsistency. This laboratory work involved testing of wheel steel
samples that were exposed to combined rapid heating and high
compression. The combination of heat and compression was used to
simulate the environment of material near a wheel tread surface that is
subjected to combined stop-braking (heat) and rail contact
(compression). The results of these laboratory tests showed that the
microstructure of the material can transform at temperatures below 1200
deg.F if the material is also compressed, and the transformed
microstructure can have an appearance similar to that of spheroidite.
Based on this research, FRA is concerned that passenger equipment
in service with frequent stops from high speeds can over brake wheels.
Of particular concern is equipment that utilizes a high percentage of
tread braking and blended brake systems that require a wheel tread
friction brake to carry a greater portion of the braking load when the
dynamic portion of the brake fails.
Disc brakes are commonly used on high speed passenger trainsets as
a companion to the dynamic brake system to avoid some of the thermal
problems that can be caused by tread brakes. Disc air brakes provide
fail-safe braking and high levels of retardation. Disc brakes offer
several advantages as opposed to tread brakes. Disc brakes are less
sensitive to moisture and have more uniform coefficients of friction at
high speeds. Disc brakes can also improve ride quality due to reduced
jerk and less noise. In addition, disc brakes require lower brake
forces than tread brakes, thus permitting smaller cylinders and lighter
rigging. But the main advantage of disc brakes is that they allow
braking heat to be dissipated using a heat sink other than the wheel.
Brake discs can be mounted directly to the wheel with bolts or can
be axle mounted. Axle mounted discs are installed on the axle between
the wheels. The disc consists of two friction rings interconnected by
cooling fins, which exist in several forms, including a vane design and
a ventilated design. The vanes and fins increase the convective cooling
of the disc as it rotates. Retarding force is provided by means of a
caliper--actuated by a pneumatic cylinder--that clamps brake pads
against the rotating disc.
Substantial research and development effort has gone into the
design of disc brakes, especially for European high-speed trains. While
disc brakes are well suited for high-energy dissipation and high-
temperature events, disc pad wear and thermally damaged discs are two
of the cost drivers in maintaining high-speed passenger trainsets.
One manufacturer of disc brakes has recommended limiting disc pad
temperatures to 750 deg.F. to prevent thermal damage to the wheels or
brake pads during stop distance tests of a European trainset to be
tested in the Northeast Corridor.
Based on these concerns and research, FRA wishes to explore
requiring each railroad establish the maximum safe speed that each type
of its equipment can be operated over a specific route, when the
dynamic portion of the brake has failed or is disabled. These speed
limits should be established as part of the system safety program.
Another possible concern involving disc brakes is wheel slide. Due
to the high retardation rate that can be achieved with disc brakes,
failure of the
[[Page 30690]]
wheel slide protection system can cause the formation of martensite in
the vicinity of the wheel/rail contact region. This can lead to wheel
mechanical damage similar to that caused by excessive tread braking.
What steps have the passenger rail industry taken to prevent wheel
damage due to over braking? What wheel thermal problems continue to
occur in the field? How should thermal limits on wheels and discs be
handled in safety regulations?
Tiered Equipment Design Standards Based on Risk Analysis
FRA believes there may be merit in a tiered approach to equipment
safety standards based on a risk analysis of the operating environment
in which the equipment will operate. (Tiers are levels of design
requirements determined by system safety considerations.) The advantage
of such an approach is that it takes into account system safety factors
other than equipment design that reduce safety risks. The tiered
approach also readily lends itself to amending the safety standards for
a new type of service--a new tier could be added without changing the
existing standards. The disadvantage is that such an approach can
rapidly become very complex. Further, when applied to design
performance criteria for new equipment, an excessively tiered approach
could result in purchases of equipment that might be severely limited
with respect to its future uses and marketability.
For simplicity, FRA had initially envisioned tiered safety
standards based on operating speed alone. FRA suggested the following
logical break points to the Working Group for tiered equipment
standards:
Level 1--up to 30 mph--Tourist and Excursion Railroads.
Level 2--up to 79 mph--Conventional Passenger Operations.
Level 3--up to 125 mph--Intermediate Speed Operations.
Level 4--up to 150 mph--High Speed Operations.
However, discussions with the Working Group highlighted several
objections to this approach based on tiering by maximum operating speed
alone. Conventional intercity passenger trains operated by Amtrak,
powered by diesel- electric locomotives, frequently operate at speeds
up to 90 mph, and commuter railroads provide ``conventional'' service
at speeds up to 110 mph. Both Amtrak and commuter railroads expressed a
strong opinion that their ``conventional'' equipment had proven itself
capable of operating safely at ``intermediate'' speeds.
The majority of the Working Group has expressed a preference for
only two tiers of equipment standards for intercity and commuter
service, and for basing the criteria for distinguishing between the
tiers on a system safety approach rather than solely on operating
speed. As a result, the discussion of tiered safety standards that
follows centers around a two-tiered approach. FRA recognizes that
approaches containing more than two tiers may be desirable.
Accordingly, FRA will carefully consider alternate approaches received
in response to this ANPRM that contain more than two tiers of safety
standards. Such alternate approaches should attempt to explain the
safety/economic advantages of safety standards based on more than two
tiers, and should attempt to define and state the logic behind the
criteria used to distinguish between these tiers. (A formal vote by the
Working Group on the number of tiers to use has not been taken. Amtrak
can envision the need for at least three tiers, as specified in the
introduction of Appendix B.)
The basic concept behind a system safety approach for tiering is
that safety risks can be reduced by controlling any number of operating
environment factors in addition to equipment design, inspection,
testing, and maintenance. Factors that should be considered when
performing a risk analysis to determine the correct tier of equipment
requirements include:
(1) Maximum operating speed;
(2) Presence of at-grade rail crossings;
(3) Type of protection at highway grade crossings;
(4) Number of at-grade rail crossings;
(5) Current and projected train traffic densities;
(6) Capabilities of current and planned signal systems;
(7) Tracks shared with freight trains;
(8) Shared rights-of-way with freight or light rail type
operations;
(9) Wayside structures; and
(10) Special right-of-way safety features such as track separation
distance, barriers or track obstruction detection systems.
If the risk analysis shows that the type of operation or non-
equipment safety features result in a very low risk operation, less
restrictive--or Tier I--equipment safety standards would be
appropriate. If the risk analysis shows a higher risk of operation due
to higher operating speeds, traffic densities, or some other factor,
Tier II equipment safety standards--which reduce risk more than Tier I
standards--would be used. A good example of a risk analysis of a
passenger railroad operating environment is provided in a report
prepared by ADL under contract to Amtrak, entitled ``Northeast Corridor
Risk Assessment'' (August 26, 1994). A copy of this report is included
in the docket.
One of the factors that will make an approach to equipment safety
standards based on risk assessment difficult to implement is that the
industry must quantify and make public the degree of risk that is
considered acceptable. Is the level of risk per billion highway
passenger miles the criterion? Is the level of risk per billion
passenger miles in scheduled air carrier service the criterion?
FRA seeks industry comments on a tiered approach or alternate
approaches to passenger equipment safety standards. Does the initial
approach of speed break points suggested by FRA make sense? What would
be the impact of imposing this set of break points? What existing
commuter operations would be caught between conventional and
intermediate speed standards? Should FRA grandfather the current
equipment providing this service and apply the more stringent standards
only to the new or refurbished equipment procured to provide service in
this speed range? Should FRA also grandfather all of Amtrak's equipment
providing service at speeds greater than 79 mph? Should other sets of
break points be considered? If so, which and why? What should be the
major change in equipment safety standards at each break point? What
problems could be caused by the approach to grandfathering current
equipment operating in each speed range?
Rather than the initial FRA approach, does the concept of tiered
standards based on the outcome of a risk analysis make sense? Would
such an approach be too complex? Is the industry willing to undertake
the thorough risk analysis process necessary to make such an approach
effective? What would the industry use as an acceptable level of risk
to determine break points between tiers of requirements?
The discussion of possible safety standards that follows is based
on a two-tiered approach. The question of exactly how to draw the line
between the two tiers of requirements is not answered. For purposes of
discussion, Tier I requirements are broadly applied to operations with
a known low risk or record of proven safe operation, e.g., passenger
equipment operating at speeds of 110 mph or less. Tier II requirements
are broadly applied to higher risk operating environments, e.g.,
Amtrak's planned operation at 150 mph in the Northeast Corridor or
perhaps
[[Page 30691]]
cab-car-forward operations under some sets of higher risk operating
conditions.
Although the discussion of possible safety standards that follows
is based on a two-tiered approach, this does not mean FRA assumes a
proposed rule will be based on two tiers. A discussion of a two-tiered
approach serves only as the simplest means to present the concept of
tiering. FRA remains open to alternate concepts based on more than two
tiers, or concepts that define the break point between two tiers
differently.
FRA recognizes the need to handle special equipment such as that
operated by tourist and excursion railroads and private passengers cars
outside this two-tiered system.
FRA also recognizes the possible future need for a third tier for
equipment intended to operate at very high speeds--in excess of 150
mph. However, operations at such speeds would be considered only on
dedicated rights-of-way with no at-grade highway or rail crossings. In
such instances, FRA will review equipment safety criteria as an
integral part of an overall system safety program, issuing a rule of
particular applicability.
Discussion of Possible Safety Standards
Basis for Safety Parameters Under Consideration
In preparation for rulemaking, FRA considered the service history
of general system railroads in the United States, research and
technical advice from the Volpe Center (incorporating learning from
human trauma studies in other modes of transportation), staff analysis,
and learning gleaned from extensive consultations with knowledgeable
persons (both within the United States and abroad) over several years
of study. In addition, FRA has worked with Amtrak to develop safety
features incorporated into Amtrak's specification for high-speed
trainsets.
Safety features suggested by FRA to Amtrak for high-speed
trainsets--intended for use in the mixed passenger/freight
environment--serve as the basis for sample safety parameters used by
FRA to evoke a discussion of Tier II equipment safety standards.
Current North American passenger rail safety practice, recent NTSB
recommendations, and selective use of requirements gleaned from
recommendations made to Amtrak for high-speed trainsets serve as the
basis for the sample safety parameters used to evoke a discussion of
safety standards appropriate for a less challenging operating
environment (Tier I equipment standards).
FRA made both Tier I and Tier II equipment safety concepts
available to the Working Group for discussion and consideration. The
safety parameters contained in these concepts draw upon AAR
Specification S-580 for locomotive crashworthiness, existing
regulations (49 CFR Part 229), NTSB recommendations, and an analysis of
the forces produced as a result of realistic collision scenarios.
Appendix B outlines safety parameters provided for consideration
for Tier I and Tier II equipment. Given that Tier II equipment is
intended to operate in an environment that can create a greater safety
risk than Tier I equipment, most Tier I parameters outlined in Appendix
B also become Tier II parameters. To simplify the task of responding to
this ANPRM, Appendix B contains only those Tier II requirements that
are in addition to, or different from, Tier I requirements.
It is emphasized that neither FRA nor the Working Group has
endorsed these safety parameters, except to the extent that they mirror
existing regulations. FRA is not proposing their adoption; rather, FRA
makes available for discussion the results of efforts by the technical
staff to identify safety risks and to suggest possible means to address
these risks.
While the basis for many of the safety parameters suggested for
discussion will be self evident, certain of the more novel concepts
warrant explanation. The following discussion addresses that need.
Limiting initial decelerations of passengers to 6g maximum and 4g
average--as suggested in Appendix B--is based on automobile
crashworthiness research. These decelerations are identified as levels
that unrestrained people are likely to survive if the interior of the
vehicle is designed to mitigate secondary impacts (i.e., the
compartmentalization design strategy). Analysis shows peak longitudinal
deceleration of the occupied spaces of coach cars protected by a
leading or trailing locomotive or power car is expected to be
approximately 8g for a train-to-train collision at a speed in excess of
30 mph. Greater collision speed does not significantly increase the
peak deceleration of the occupied coach volume, but it does increase
the time over which the occupied volume is decelerated.
During the collision, unrestrained occupants of such a coach will
be thrown into interior fixtures, such as seatbacks, with a force
substantially greater than that associated solely with the deceleration
of the train. This increase in force is due to the occupant striking
the interior at a relative speed of up to 25 mph. If the seat is to
remain attached during a train-to-train collision in excess of 35 mph,
simulation analysis indicates that coach seat attachment strength must
be able to resist the inertial force of 8g acting on the mass of the
seat plus the impact force of the mass of the passenger(s) being
decelerated from a relative speed of 25 mph.
FRA believes that sufficient potential crush distance is available
in single-level equipment with end vestibules such that good crash
energy management design can achieve the 6g-maximum and 4g-average
limits for passengers (other than those riding in a leading control
cab) even for a high- speed crash scenario. Other equipment types (bi-
level, gallery, and food service with no vestibules) need to be studied
to determine the limits of potential crush distance.
On the other hand, FRA recognizes the difficulty in limiting the
initial deceleration of the crew in the cab to a survivable level
during a high-speed collision because little unoccupied crush space is
available forward of the control cab. As a result, Appendix B contains
a design goal of limiting decelerations on the crew in the cab to 24g
maximum and 16g average for the first 250 milliseconds of the crash
pulse. (The 250-millisecond duration was selected as the time required
for people to make their initial impact with an interior surface and be
pinned by inertia against that surface. After this time, the peak
deceleration can be greatly increased without causing extensive
injuries.) Based on analysis results, the peak deceleration of a
leading control cab is approximately 12g. Analysis indicates that this
peak deceleration does not increase as collision speed increases, but
it does increase the time over which this peak deceleration is exerted
on the cab. During the collision, unrestrained crew members may be
thrown against the interior of the cab with a force substantially
greater than that associated solely with the deceleration of the train.
This increase in force is due to the crew member striking an interior
surface or object at a relative speed of up to 25 mph. Decelerations of
this magnitude require restraint systems or a crash refuge to protect
the crew in the cab.
FRA believes that many crash survivability issues can be resolved
without great difficulty. However, protecting persons from secondary
impacts is a considerable challenge. To limit the decelerations of
people to survivable levels, high-speed trainsets
[[Page 30692]]
must be designed with a crash energy management feature.
The greater the crush distance that can intentionally be designed
into the trainset before reaching an occupied volume, the more
survivable a collision will be. In equipment operated with a cab car
forward, the control cab is necessarily near the leading surface of the
trainset, so very little crush distance is available to protect people
in the cab. As a result, the decelerations of people will be large,
resulting in more numerous and more severe injuries.
An argument presented against increases in structural strength
requirements for new passenger equipment is that the new equipment
would be a hazard to existing passenger equipment operating in the same
corridor. This argument is based, in part, on a 1972 rear-end collision
between two passenger trains in Chicago. In this collision, an older,
heavier car climbed over a newer car of lighter construction,
telescoping into the passenger compartment of the lighter car,
resulting in the deaths of many people.
Some have contended that increased structural strength for new
passenger equipment would create an equivalent incompatible situation
between new equipment and existing equipment. However, several
differences between the situation in 1972 and today refute this
argument. Today's passenger equipment has collision posts,
anticlimbers, and strong truck-to-car body attachments--all intended to
prevent climbing and telescoping. In addition, both existing equipment
and new equipment will have the same basic static end strength
(backbone). While new equipment may have a more substantial end
structure, the crash energy management system will cause this end
structure to be pushed back into the unoccupied space of the new
equipment rather than forward into the existing equipment.
Alternatively, some of the end structure strength characteristics might
be placed inboard of the crush zones.
Once the crash energy management system crush distance is consumed,
the full height of the collision posts and corner posts recommended for
the new equipment will likely deflect the older equipment up over the
new equipment rather than creating a telescoping situation. The fears
expressed are therefore unlikely to materialize.
The basis of the concern for side impact strength and the point of
application of side impact forces stems from two facts:
(1) Approximately 25 percent of all highway-rail crossing accidents
involve a highway vehicle striking the side of a train; and
(2) Designs of some passenger equipment have floor levels low to
the rail, creating the tendency for a heavy highway vehicle striking
the side of the train to climb into the occupied passenger volume
rather than being driven under the underframe of the passenger rail
car.
Analysis shows that current single-level intercity passenger coach
equipment is sufficiently strong, and will derail in collision
scenarios similar to that described above before a significant amount
of crushing of the occupied passenger volume occurs. FRA believes that
future equipment should perform at least as well as current equipment
in such collisions, and that a need exists to specify minimum side
impact protection for rail cars with low floor levels such as bi-level
equipment.
Other scenarios where reasonable side strength may be of value
include side impacts at switches and at railroad crossing diamonds
(when e.g., a single freight car rolls free during switching).
A proposed concept for a side impact strength design requirement
involves the ability of a car body to withstand--with limited
deformation of the car body structure--the load applied by a loaded
tractor trailer travelling at a selected speed which collides with the
side of the car over an area and at a height typical of tractor trailer
bumpers. What specific parameters should be used to implement this
concept, or what alternate concepts can be proposed for a side impact
strength design requirement?
FRA's concern for a minimum rollover strength requirement is based
on accidents such as that which occurred to Amtrak's Lakeshore Limited
in January 1994. The train derailed while travelling from Albany, New
York, to Chicago, and several cars rolled down an embankment. Very
little crushing of the occupied volumes of any of the cars involved
occurred. The current design of single-level intercity passenger cars
generally performs well when subjected to the impact loads associated
with tipping on a side or rolling onto its roof from an upright
position. While these loads may vary significantly depending upon the
nature of the wayside where the rolling occurs, FRA believes that
passenger cars should have minimum side strength and roof strength to
help minimize the loss of occupied volume should a rollover occur. FRA
also believes that locomotives and power cars should have sufficient
side and roof structural strength to minimize loss of volume in the
operator's cab under such conditions.
The sections of this ANPRM addressing design standards seek input
from the industry on how to take advantage of the safety improvements
offered by a crash energy management design approach for future
passenger equipment.
Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance Requirements
Pre-Departure or Daily Safety Inspections
A pre-departure or daily safety inspection is an essential element
of a system safety program for all trains that carry passengers. The
pre-departure or daily inspection should include the steps necessary to
ensure the train departs without mechanical, electrical, or electronic
defects that could degrade the safe operation of the train.
Amtrak has voluntarily implemented a pre-departure safety
inspection of all passenger trains. Amtrak developed the inspection
procedures in close cooperation with FRA. The procedures combine a
power brake inspection and test, a mechanical inspection similar to
that required for freight cars, a safety appliance inspection, and spot
checks by supervisors. Amtrak has been using these procedures since
April 1994, and they do not appear to have an adverse impact on train
schedule. Appendix C contains a copy of the inspection procedures used
by Amtrak. These inspection procedures are offered as an example only.
They are not a general solution to how to conduct pre-departure safety
inspections of passenger trains.
Using the Amtrak procedures as a starting point, FRA solicits
comments on how these procedures need to be tailored to fit the needs
of each segment of the industry. What train schedule impacts will
result from implementing a pre-departure or daily safety inspection
program? Does FRA need to be made aware of any circumstances or reasons
for not performing a pre-departure or daily safety inspection? What
range of options should an operating railroad have when the safety
inspection uncovers a defect? How should any proposed safety standards
take into account and encourage the potential that technology provides
to automate pre-departure or daily inspections of future equipment? As
automated features are added to passenger trains, does a train
information system that records and logs inspection and test results
and maintenance status make sense?
[[Page 30693]]
In terms of labor, materials, etc., what additional resources would
each operator need to perform a pre-departure inspection equivalent to
Amtrak's? How many pre-departure or daily inspections are performed
annually by each operator? What potential safety benefits could result
from performing inspections equivalent to Amtrak's? Please explain or
document estimates. For those currently performing inspections, what
additional benefits could be realized by modifying those inspection
procedures to meet Amtrak's? Please explain or document.
Tourist, Museum, and Other Special or Unusual Equipment
FRA recognizes that most tourist railroads are small businesses
operating older equipment on a limited budget. As a basis for
discussion, FRA postulates a simple system safety program for excursion
and tourist railroads based on:
(1) A pre-departure safety inspection that takes into account the
type of equipment being used;
(2) A periodic testing and maintenance program based on the type of
equipment and the extent of its use; and
(3) Minimum qualifications for inspectors and maintenance personnel
to ensure that they have the knowledge necessary to perform safety-
critical tasks.
FRA needs the tourist and excursion railroad industry to address
the following questions: What are the effects of such a simple system
safety program on tourist and excursion railroad operations? How can
the requirements for a pre-departure safety inspection be written so
they are enforceable but provide necessary flexibility?
Information available to FRA indicates that there are approximately
100 excursion railroads subject to FRA jurisdiction, operating about
250 locomotives and 1,000 passenger cars. Is this information correct?
What size crews operate excursion and tourist trains? What is the
average annual passenger car mileage for tourist and excursion
railroads? What human and physical resources are available to these
railroads for inspection and maintenance of equipment?
What potential safety benefits are available from the proposed
standards for tourist and excursion railroads? To what extent will they
be realized under the proposal? Please explain.
FRA also solicits comments from the tourist and excursion railroad
industry on how passenger equipment safety standards may impact them in
unintended ways.
Private Passenger Cars
FRA believes a private passenger car should be held to the same
basic inspection standards as the other equipment being hauled in the
train hauling the private car. However, FRA intends to take into
account the financial burden imposed by requiring private passenger car
owners to modify their equipment to meet any new design standards
included as part of proposed passenger equipment safety standards.
FRA needs private passenger car owners to address the following
questions as part of their response to this ANPRM: What minimum set of
inspection requirements should host operators impose on private
passenger cars? How should these minimum standards be incorporated into
Federal regulations? What effects are foreseen from the proposed
passenger equipment safety regulations on the ability to operate this
equipment? Take care to point out all potential unintended impacts.
How many private passenger cars are in operation? On average, how
many miles do private passenger cars travel annually? What potential
safety benefits are available from the proposed standards for private
passenger cars operators? To what extent will they be realized under
the proposal? Please explain.
Tier I Equipment
FRA believes standards for pre-departure and daily inspections of
Tier I equipment should take into account the type of equipment being
used and the type of service. Pre-departure safety inspection and test
criteria implemented by Amtrak should be considered as a guide for
developing a set of core inspection criteria for incorporation into
Federal safety standards for Tier I equipment. These inspection
criteria are given as Appendix C.
FRA recommends that each operator of passenger equipment use these
criteria as a guide, and comment on how similar criteria could be--or
have been--implemented as part of its operation. Members of APTA are
encouraged to comment through the APTA members on the Working Group.
FRA recognizes that the pre-departure inspection need not be a
complete safety inspection. The combination of the daily and the pre-
departure inspections should be considered the complete safety
inspection of the train.
To what extent would daily and pre-departure inspections vary from
current practice? To what extent would these requirements impact
passenger operations? How can the requirements for pre-departure and
daily safety inspections be written so they are enforceable but provide
the flexibility required to meet service requirements, hold down costs,
and encourage innovation?
Tier II Equipment
Since Tier II equipment will be designed for operation in higher
risk and/or consequence operating environments, FRA believes the safety
inspection program to be used with the equipment should be developed
from a thorough risk analysis done as part of the system safety
program. This risk analysis should result in a set of inspection
criteria, tasks, intervals, and skills required to develop a safety
inspection program that reduces the overall risk of operation to an
acceptable level.
Planned Testing, Preventive Maintenance, and Personnel Qualification
Requirements
FRA believes planned testing and preventive maintenance
requirements of safety-critical systems or components-- triggered by
time, mileage, or some other key reliability/safety parameter--are also
an essential feature of a system safety program. A key step in the
system safety program is to perform a reliability analysis or use
accumulated reliability data to determine the planned tests and
preventive maintenance tasks--as well as what should trigger them--that
are required to maintain a safe operation. The system safety plan
should also include an approach to accumulate the data necessary to
justify changes in maintenance approaches or intervals for safety-
critical systems and components.
Most passenger equipment operators already have testing and
maintenance requirements for their equipment, though the extent to
which they are based on formalized risk analysis is not clear. FRA
searches for a means to ensure that all industry system safety programs
include preventive maintenance and planned testing requirements while
allowing the industry the flexibility needed to cope with various
operating environments. FRA also recognizes the desirability of
allowing maintenance or testing intervals to be changed based on
accumulated operating experience with the equipment.
Currently, what equipment is tested and maintained periodically?
How often (in terms of miles, time, or other parameters) is this
equipment tested and maintained? How can standards be structured to
allow testing or maintenance intervals to be changed based on either
good or bad operating
[[Page 30694]]
experience while maintaining adequate safety margins? What do periodic
tests and maintenance currently entail--labor, materials, etc.? What
benefit(s) would be associated with a periodic testing and maintenance
requirement? Please explain.
FRA views the skills and knowledge of the people responsible for
inspections, testing, and maintenance as one of the most important
requisites of an effective system safety program. FRA seeks a means for
passenger equipment operators to demonstrate that the people performing
crucial safety inspections and maintenance tasks--whether they be
mechanical forces or train crews--have the current knowledge and skills
necessary for their jobs. As equipment incorporating new technology--to
include remote sensing and automated testing--comes into widespread
use, a better trained inspection and maintenance workforce will be
required and minimum qualification standards will become more
important.
GAO Report RCED-93-68 ``Improvements Needed for Employees Who
Inspect and Maintain Rail Equipment'' highlights some of the concerns
regarding the knowledge and training of personnel performing safety-
critical tasks. GAO concludes that training programs for mechanical
employees and foremen have weaknesses that leave passenger railroads
vulnerable to skill shortfalls in the inspection, testing, and
maintenance workforce. GAO points out that the personnel who inspect,
test, and maintain European high-speed passenger trains receive much
more training and generally are more skilled than their American
counterparts. European railroads require mechanical employees either to
pass an examination or to demonstrate their proficiency. An internal
FRA assessment confirms the findings of this GAO report. Copies of both
the GAO report and the internal FRA report documenting this assessment
have been placed in the docket.
FRA seeks comment from all segments of the industry on how to
require passenger equipment operators to demonstrate that the people
(whether employees or contractors) performing safety-critical tasks
have the knowledge and skills to do so. FRA does not wish to mandate
specific training programs or experience requirements; FRA believes
that these details are the purview of each individual operator and that
each railroad should establish the minimum training and qualification
requirements based on the equipment being operated. However, an
important feature of proposed passenger equipment safety standards will
be a means to measure or to demonstrate the effectiveness of individual
training programs. Unless people with the necessary knowledge and skill
perform safety-critical tasks, passenger equipment operators cannot
have an effective system safety program.
How should the proposed safety standards be structured to ensure
that each operator meets this important responsibility to demonstrate
the skills and knowledge of personnel that perform safety-critical
tasks on passenger equipment? Currently, how many employees/contractors
are involved in inspecting, testing, and maintaining a passenger car or
locomotive? How many of these people are mechanical personnel? Are
there established minimum training and qualification requirements for
employees and contractors performing inspections, tests, and
maintenance? Approximately how many labor hours does each passenger
service operator spend each year on these activities?
What are the potential benefits of increased training in periodic
testing and maintenance? To what extent are expenditures on such
training cost effective? Historically, does this type of training
produce identifiable safety benefits? Please explain.
Tourist, Museum, and Other Special or Unusual Equipment
FRA believes that tourist and excursion railroads, museums, and
other operators of special or unusual equipment that carry passengers
should have:
(1) A planned testing program;
(2) A preventive maintenance program keyed to mileage, time, or
some other triggering parameter; and
(3) A means to demonstrate that the people carrying out these
programs have the knowledge and skills necessary to correctly perform
the safety-critical tasks identified as part of these programs.
FRA seeks to establish a minimum program for operators of special
or unusual equipment that takes into account the resource constraints
placed on these operators, and yet recognizes that even equipment
operated for short distances and at low speeds requires periodic
maintenance attention by skilled individuals to maintain safety.
What should be the basis for scheduling planned tests and
preventive maintenance, and what crucial tasks need to be performed?
How should tourist and excursion railroads demonstrate to FRA that
personnel performing safety-critical tasks have the knowledge necessary
to do the job?
Private Passenger Cars
FRA believes that a private passenger car should be held to the
same basic planned testing and preventive maintenance standards as the
other equipment being hauled in the train hauling the private car.
However, FRA anticipates that since private passenger cars tend not to
be highly used equipment, the events that trigger planned tests or
preventive maintenance (mileage, time, etc.) will occur less frequently
than for equipment in regularly scheduled passenger or commuter
service.
Since private passenger cars tend to be vintage equipment with
parts, and testing and maintenance procedures that are no longer common
in the rail passenger industry, the knowledge and skills necessary to
conduct an effective planned testing and preventive maintenance program
are likely to be possessed by only a few individuals.
What minimum set of planned testing and preventive maintenance
requirements should host operators impose on private passenger cars?
How should these minimum standards be incorporated into Federal
regulations? What should be the basis for scheduling planned tests and
preventive maintenance for private passenger cars, and what critical
tasks need to be performed? How should owners of private passenger cars
demonstrate to FRA that personnel performing safety-critical tasks have
the knowledge necessary to do the job? To what extent does any third
party monitor the quality of work performed on passenger cars by
contract shops? (Amtrak currently operates a certification process for
private passenger cars that desire to operate in Amtrak trains.)
Tier I Equipment
Since Tier I equipment will very likely be traditionally designed
equipment that operates in environments with which railroads have a
wealth of experience, planned testing and preventive maintenance
programs should be based on that experience with the type of equipment
and its extent of use. Operators of Tier I equipment should have a
planned testing and maintenance program based on operating experience
with the equipment. Changes to the program would also be based on
operating experience.
As part of the operating experience on Tier I equipment, railroads
need to identify the safety-critical maintenance tasks and the skills
required to perform them. Railroads must use this knowledge to develop
a training
[[Page 30695]]
program to ensure inspection and maintenance personnel have these
skills and are able to demonstrate them.
What should be the basis for scheduling planned tests and
preventive maintenance for Tier I equipment? What critical tasks need
to be performed? How should railroads demonstrate to FRA that personnel
performing safety-critical tasks on Tier I equipment have the knowledge
necessary to do the job?
Tier II Equipment
Because Tier II equipment will be new equipment designed for
operation in higher risk operating environments, FRA believes the
planned testing and preventive maintenance program for safety-critical
systems and components should be developed from a thorough risk
analysis done as part of the system safety program. This risk analysis
should result in a set of planned testing and preventive maintenance
criteria, tasks, intervals, and skills required to develop a program
that reduces the overall risk of operation to an acceptable level. What
is an acceptable level of risk in developing risk-based performance
standards for this type of equipment?
Equipment Design Standards
Standards for Tier I Equipment
Current passenger equipment has certainly demonstrated its ability
to operate safely at speeds up to 125 mph. However, the design of this
equipment is largely based on loose industry standards that are no
longer actively maintained or enforced. The design of new Tier I
passenger equipment should not be left to a collection of similarly
loose standards. A practical approach to establish minimum safety
standards for new Tier I equipment would be to consolidate current
safety related design standards or industry practices directly into the
new regulation.
FRA believes train operation has significantly changed since the
design requirements in 49 CFR 229.141 for trains of total empty weight
of less than 600,000 pounds and AAR Specification S-034,``Specification
for the Construction of New Passenger Cars,'' were first promulgated.
Have these requirements outlived their usefulness, and should they be
eliminated? Would a regulation based on the compilation of current
North American industry structural design standards and practices
provide the ``minimum floor'' crashworthiness requirements for Tier I
equipment?
Initial analysis and computer modeling by the Volpe Center, using a
lumped-mass model and idealized force-crush characteristics, predicts
the conventional uniform longitudinal structural strength design
approach to be as effective as a crash energy management design
approach in providing protection for passengers and crew at speeds up
to approximately 70 mph. Although crash energy management design can
benefit passengers of equipment involved in lower speed collisions,
this analysis suggests that the additional expense of a crash energy
management design may not be justified for some new Tier I passenger
equipment, depending upon the upper speed limit in this tier.
The Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act (RSERA), Pub. L. No.
102-365, 106 Stat. 972 (September 3, 1992), requires FRA to report to
the Congress on the crashworthiness of locomotives and the
effectiveness of AAR Specification S-580, which is the current industry
standard regarding crashworthiness of locomotives. Much of the research
and analysis done to comply with this law can be applied to head-on
and, potentially, rear-end collisions of passenger trains.
This analysis shows AAR Specification S-580 provides a significant
increase in crashworthiness over locomotives built prior to
implementation of this specification. However, the locomotive collision
computer model developed to support the RSERA shows a weakness in the
way locomotive builders implement the S-580 anticlimber requirement.
The model shows--at all but very low collision speeds--that at the
onset of override, the anticlimber of the locomotive being overridden
is crushed and sheared or bypassed rather than loaded vertically by the
anticlimber of the opposing locomotive. Evidence from several collision
investigations tends to confirm this prediction. Examination of
locomotives and cars equipped with anticlimbers that have been involved
in collisions where override occurred shows evidence of bending of the
anticlimber shelf due to high coupler loads. This bending appears to
prevent the shelf from being capable of resisting a vertical load.
Couplers designed to break away or load some part of the structure so
that the anticlimber shelf is not deformed before being required to
resist a vertical load appear to be necessary to allow the anticlimbers
to function as intended.
FRA believes that if passenger equipment can be designed to fully
involve (bend but not collapse) the underframe to resist collision
forces before collision posts or end structures are loaded, the ability
to maintain uncrushed, survivable volumes will be maximized. Properly
designed anticlimbers can play an important role by allowing the
significant structural strength of the underframe to resist the full
collision forces during the initial phase of an impact. Bending the
underframe before the collision posts or end structures take over the
role of protecting the cab occupants can dissipate a large amount of
the collision's energy that might otherwise cause crushing of occupied
space.
Does other evidence exist to support or refute this computer model
prediction of anticlimber effectiveness? What design analysis has been
done on existing anticlimber designs under dynamic conditions
simulating a collision? Are anticlimber design changes necessary to
ensure that anticlimbers are loaded vertically as intended during
collisions? Are practical design concepts available that may improve
anticlimber performance during collisions? Can anticlimbers be designed
that make bending (but not collapse) of the underframe likely before
collision posts or end structures are required to bear significant
loads? What would be the likely costs associated with alternative
designs to ensure that anticlimbers are loaded vertically during
collisions?
The computer model also predicts collision post designs currently
used by North American manufacturers exceed the requirements of AAR S-
580 by a factor of two for freight locomotives--weight restrictions can
prevent such a large factor of safety in passenger locomotives--and
that this additional strength provides significant additional
protection to the crew in the cab. Should a modified version of AAR S-
580 specifying a more effective anticlimber, stronger and full-height
collision posts, and full-height corner posts be considered as part of
the safety standards for new conventional passenger locomotives? What
would be the likely impacts of such a standard on locomotive weight and
performance? What costs would be associated with specifying full-height
collision posts and full-height corner posts on conventional
locomotives?
Rather than a standard similar to AAR S-580, should a unitized type
of end structure with integral collision and corner posts that extend
to the roof line be considered for a design standard for conventional
passenger locomotives? Would it be feasible to develop a purer
performance specification for train end structural strength that allows
full flexibility in the design of structures? What collision scenarios
and forces should be considered in such an approach? Such an approach
could
[[Page 30696]]
provide weight and performance advantages.
Fuel spills are both an environmental and a safety problem. Fires
resulting from fuel spills can turn a minor accident into a major
event. What is the experience of passenger railroads with fuel spills?
What clean-up costs have been incurred? Should all diesel passenger
locomotives--including self-propelled diesel cars--be equipped with the
type of strengthened fuel tanks that meet the requirements in Appendix
B proposed for Tier II equipment? If not, what performance standard
should be used for Tier I diesel passenger locomotive fuel tanks?
How much would it cost to equip conventional passenger service
locomotives with the type of strengthened fuel tanks discussed in
Appendix B? What levels of safety benefits can be realized from
strengthened fuel tanks? Please explain.
Based on the findings of recent investigations of accidents
involving passenger trains, several factors have contributed to the
number and the extent of the injuries suffered. Among these factors
are:
(1) A lack of reliable backup emergency lighting for coaches;
(2) A lack of means to exit coaches and locomotives more easily--
from both ends and all compartments--especially when they are resting
on their sides;
(3) Seats that break loose from attachment points or that rotate;
and
(4) Luggage and other objects thrown about the interior of coaches.
Amtrak believes that existing industry standards for emergency
lighting are adequate and should become the Federal standard. NTSB
would like a requirement for securing the batteries that provide power
to emergency lights so connections to the emergency lights are not
knocked loose during a collision.
During Working Group meetings, Amtrak pointed out several potential
disadvantages of roof hatches in passenger equipment because they are
difficult to maintain and are often a source of leaks. The hatches
allow passengers or trespassers access to the roof which can be
particularly dangerous in electrified territory. Amtrak has suggested
inclusion of a clearly marked structural weak spot where properly
equipped emergency personnel can quickly gain access to the interior of
the coach or locomotive through the roof as preferable to roof hatches.
Should Tier I equipment safety standards include provisions for:
(1) Emergency lighting?
(2) Roof hatches or a clearly identified structural weak point
where properly equipped emergency personnel can quickly gain access
through the roof?
(3) Minimum strength of seat attachment?
(4) Minimum strength and enclosed luggage compartments?
To what extent does passenger equipment currently have backup power
systems in place? What would it cost to install a backup power system?
What safety benefits would result from backup power systems?
How many coach units have backup emergency lighting? What would it
cost to install a backup emergency lighting system? What rationale is
used to determine whether a unit will have backup emergency lighting?
To what extent would potential safety benefits be realized? Please
explain.
What would it cost to install roof hatches or access areas on cars?
What options exist for enclosing existing luggage compartments? At
what cost? To what extent would potential safety benefits be realized
from enclosing luggage compartments? Please explain.
Safety Glazing
One of the issues addressed by existing regulations that bears on
the safety of passenger train occupants is exterior glazing. Because of
the complexity of the issues in this proceeding, satisfaction with
existing standards, and the need for coordination with freight
interests not represented on the Working Group, the Working Group has
expressed a reluctance to address glazing in this proceeding. In order
to determine whether to renew its request to the Working Group or
another advisory body to examine this issue, FRA seeks information on
incidents of glazing shattering or spalling that caused injuries to
occupants of passenger trains. Some perceived problems with current 49
CFR Part 223 requirements that have come to FRA's attention include the
following:
(1) The witness plate used for testing is too thick, allowing
spalling of pieces of glass large enough to cause injury;
(2) The impact test using a 24-pound cinder block is not
repeatable;
(3) Vendors need to be periodically recertified by an independent
testing laboratory; and
(4) The strength of the framing arrangement securing the glazing is
neither specified nor tested. (Amtrak has noted that it currently
requires glazing to be tested in its intended framing.)
Should FRA revise the glazing standards for conventional passenger
equipment to:
(1) Require testing with a thinner witness plate?
(2) Require a more repeatable impact test? If so, what should the
impact test requirement be?
(3) Require periodic recertification of vendors by an independent
testing laboratory?
(4) Address the strength of the glazing frame? If so, how could
this be practically done?
(5) Require increased strength, impact resistance, or bullet
penetration resistance?
What would the impact on glazing thickness and weight be if FRA
were to modify Part 223 as suggested above? To what extent should
interior glazing be considered in this proceeding? Are appropriate
reference standards already available? What benefits could be derived
from modifying Part 223 as suggested? What would be the cost to realize
these benefits?
Fire Safety
FRA does not have regulations covering fire safety of passenger
equipment. Current industry practice is to follow FRA guidelines
published in the Federal Register on January 17, 1989. (See 54 FR 1837,
``Rail Passenger Equipment; Reissuance of Guidelines for Selecting
Materials to Improve Their Fire Safety Characteristics.'') Fire
resistance, detection, and suppression technologies have all advanced
since these guidelines were published. Amtrak follows more stringent
specifications for fire safety than found in FRA's guidelines. A trend
toward a systems approach to fire safety is evident in most countries
with modern rail systems. Are Federal regulations or more in-depth
guidelines needed to:
(1) Prevent fire or retard its growth?
(2) Detect and suppress fire?
(3) Protect occupants from the effects of fire?
Appendix B
To stimulate thought and generate discussion on passenger equipment
design standards, FRA is providing for consideration the detailed set
of equipment design provisions contained in Appendix B. From experience
with past ANPRM's, FRA learned that such a strategy results in more and
higher quality comments on the specific issues in the proceeding. FRA
does not intend to implement the requirements given in Appendix B
without significant change based on the deliberations of the Working
Group, supplemented by information and views received in response to
this notice. FRA strongly encourages comments on these
[[Page 30697]]
provisions and proposals for alternative standards.
Standards for Tier II Equipment
For the past several years, FRA has held discussions with
manufacturers of foreign high-speed rail equipment seeking a market for
their equipment in the United States. These manufacturers sought a
clear definition of the requirements that their equipment must meet to
be allowed to operate in the United States. Because FRA recognizes
existing North American passenger equipment standards were not intended
to apply to equipment operating at speeds significantly over 100 mph,
and because current Federal regulations do not cover such operations,
FRA could not provide clear guidance. This has caused confusion, and
has led to the perception that competition for the American market is
risky.
Amtrak has hosted test and revenue service demonstrations of two
foreign, high-speed trainsets in the United States. Operating
experience gained in Europe and in the United States with these
trainsets helped place Amtrak in a position to develop a system
specification to procure trainsets to operate at speeds up to 150 mph
in the Northeast Corridor. FRA reviewed drafts of the procurement
specification for these trainsets and made safety-related
recommendations. The resulting discussions between Amtrak and FRA
highlighted the technical issues that must be resolved as part of the
process for developing safety standards for high-speed trainsets.
Sample high-speed passenger trainset design requirements are
outlined in Appendix B. FRA compiled this set of design requirements to
prepare for the review of Amtrak's system specification for high-speed
trainsets. FRA developed this set of proposed requirements based on
discussions with manufacturers and operators of European equipment,
research done or sponsored by the Volpe Center, experience gained in
developing a concept for a proposed rule specifically applicable to the
Texas TGV System, and the results of tests conducted jointly with
Amtrak on high-speed trainsets in the Northeast Corridor. FRA
recognizes that some of the requirements push the state of the art. Of
particular interest to FRA are comments on the technical limits of
crash energy management systems and on how best to define or specify
crash energy management in a set of performance requirements. FRA
attempted to specify a crash energy management system by placing limits
on the acceleration experienced by passengers during the initial phase
of a collision. To design to such a requirement requires a reference
collision scenario with defined collision parameters. The advantage of
such an approach is that it is tied directly to the parameter most
responsible for injuries due to secondary impacts. Can an approach to
designate crash energy management requirements tied to a specific
design collision scenario be adequately defined to serve as the basis
for trainset design?
An alternate approach, advocated as less complex, is to specify the
minimum energy to be absorbed at each location in the trainset designed
to crush before occupied space crushes. Such an approach has the
advantage of not being tied to a design based on a collision scenario.
However, FRA believes that the main value of a crash energy management
design is to increase the duration of the collision, allowing train
occupants to decelerate more slowly, and minimize the uncontrolled
collapse of occupied space. The amount of energy absorbed is of
secondary importance.
FRA also believes that using ability to absorb energy as a crash
energy management design parameter does not focus on the real purpose
of the crash energy management system. FRA invites comments in this
area. Is the amount of energy that can be absorbed in a collision
actually a secondary issue to slower decelerations and more controlled
collapse?
If ability to absorb energy is used as the crash energy management
system performance parameter, what are the limits on controlled crush
distance and energy absorbed that can reasonably be expected to be
achieved? What causes these limitations? How can a performance standard
based on an ability to absorb energy be tied to an ability to decrease
the initial acceleration of train occupants which is the key parameter
for a crash energy management design? What flexibility is needed in
end-strength requirements of occupied versus unoccupied volume to allow
effective crash energy management system design?
A second safety-critical design feature of key interest to FRA is
the strength and construction of the end frame (or end structure) of
both power cars and coaches. As noted above, a unitized or monocoque
end structure with vertical members (collision post(s) and corner
posts) that extend to the roofline, with significant structural
strength where they are tied into the roofline, may be capable of
protecting crew space more effectively and with less weight penalty
than more traditional designs. FRA believes such an end structure may
play a significant role when override occurs to prevent crushing or
penetration of the occupied volume that it protects. When combined with
an effective crash energy management design, such an end structure
would be pushed back as a unit (similar to being mounted on a spring)
through the volume designed to crush.
Through the Working Group, FRA will pursue a thoughtful technical
discussion of such an approach including suggestions on how best to set
performance requirements and reasonable limits for design strengths.
Should a monocoque end structure--or equivalent structure--that ties
together the floor, collision posts, corner posts and roof into a
single structure be required or authorized for high speed passenger
trains? FRA welcomes proposed alternative approaches designed to
provide equivalent protection. What costs would be associated with
alternative approaches designed to prevent crushing or penetration of
the occupied volume in power and coach cars? Please be specific in
defining the alternative approach and its cost elements.
A third safety feature that needs a thorough technical review is
how to design the trainset to stay in line and on the track during the
initial phase of a collision to give the crash energy management system
an opportunity to perform its intended function. If the trainset
buckles laterally and leaves the track too soon, volumes designed to
crush will not be crushed, resulting in higher decelerations of
occupants, and possibly negating the significant structural protection
provided by end structures. If the trainset buckles vertically causing
early override, the protection provided by the underframe may be
bypassed. A discussion of the design innovations necessary to delay
buckling of the trainset as long as possible is needed.
What practical design techniques exist to delay either lateral or
vertical buckling of passenger trainsets involved in collisions? How
much would installation of alternative buckling delay systems cost in
terms of labor hours and materials?
As train speed increases, the human decision and reaction time
necessary to avoid potential calamity decreases. Automatic control
techniques that briefly take the operator out of the control loop are a
means to eliminate the human decision and reaction delays in situations
where taking quick and positive action can be crucial. FRA believes
technology can allow safety-critical parameters pertaining to the
following high-speed trainset
[[Page 30698]]
subsystems or events to be monitored by remote sensors:
(1) Truck hunting;
(2) Dynamic brake status;
(3) Friction brake status;
(4) Fire detection;
(5) Head-end power status;
(6) Alerter;
(7) Horn and bell;
(8) Wheel slip and wheel slide control; and
(9) Tilt control system, if equipped.
FRA intends to require monitoring of dynamic brake status. If the
friction brake of the trainset is designed to be able to safely handle
the entire braking load without assistance from the dynamic brake, the
dynamic brake may not be considered a primary safety-critical system.
FRA considered including bearing overheat in the above list.
However, the Working Group cautioned FRA that on-board bearing sensors
have proven to be unreliable. In the Working Group's view, until on-
board bearing sensor technology matures, the industry will continue to
rely on wayside bearing overheat detection.
Should automatic monitoring for each of the above events/subsystems
be required? Do other safety-critical subsystems/events lend themselves
to monitoring by remote sensors? Could safety be enhanced by requiring
an automatic response from the train control system--such as slowing
the train--when a monitored parameter falls outside pre-determined safe
limits? Which events/subsystems are prime candidates for some form of
initial automatic response followed by a return to operator or manual
control?
Seat arrangement design and passenger restraint systems have a
potential to reduce the number and the extent of injuries in the event
of a passenger train collision. This potential is present at all
speeds, but becomes greater as speed increases. A copy of a technical
paper 3 published by the Volpe Center describes a study of the
occupant dynamics and predicted fatalities due to secondary impact for
passengers involved in train collisions with impact speeds up to 140
mph. The principal focus of the paper is on the effectiveness of
alternative strategies for protecting occupants in train collisions,
including ``friendly'' interior arrangements and occupant restraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Train Crashworthiness Design for Occupant Survivability.''
See note 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three different interior configurations were analyzed: forward-
facing seats in rows, facing rows of seats, and facing rows of seats
with a table. Two of these three configurations--the forward-facing
consecutive rows of seats and the facing rows of seats--were evaluated
with the occupant unrestrained, restrained with a seat belt alone, and
restrained with a seat belt and shoulder harness.
The injury criteria used to evaluate interior performance included
Head Injury Criteria (HIC), chest deceleration, and axial neck load.
Based upon these criteria, the probability of fatality resulting from
secondary impacts was evaluated for each of the interior configurations
and restraint systems modeled.
In some configurations, such as seats in rows, compartmentalization
is shown to be as effective as a restraint system for the 50th
percentile male occupant simulated. (As noted earlier,
``compartmentalization'' is an occupant protection strategy that
requires seats or restraining barriers to be positioned in a manner
that provides a compact, cushioned protection zone surrounding each
occupant.) FRA intends to work closely with the Working Group to
structure requirements for the interior of new passenger equipment that
take advantage of the compartmentalization concept.
In cases where occupants are allowed to travel relatively long
distances before impacting the interior, such as the facing-seats
interior, restrained occupants have a much greater chance of survival.
Fatalities from secondary impacts are not expected in any of the
scenarios modeled if the occupant is restrained with a lap belt and
shoulder harness.
Design approaches for passenger coaches that exploit this potential
are needed. FRA briefed the Working Group on this research, and the
Working Group has discussed the advantages and disadvantages of
passenger restraint systems (primarily lap belts) and coach interior
arrangement design to mitigate injuries. Effectiveness of restraint
systems can be dependent on the strength of the seat attachment to the
car body. A possible worst case scenario exists when a seat containing
a belted passenger is struck from behind by an unbelted passenger. Such
a situation can require the seat attachment design to carry a double
load.
If the seat is to remain attached under the above conditions during
a train-to-train collision in excess of 35 mph, analysis indicates that
coach-seat attachment strength must be able to resist the inertial
force of 8g acting on the mass of the seat, plus the mass of the belted
passenger(s), plus the impact force of the mass of the passenger(s) in
the following seat being decelerated from a relative speed of 25 mph
against the seat back.
Should lap belts be required? Should all seating be rear facing?
Should facing seating be allowed? What are the advantages and
disadvantages of placing tables between facing seats? What are
reasonable performance requirements for padding materials? Where should
padding materials be located? What shock-absorbing characteristics
should be required of padding material? What padding thicknesses are
practical? What seat attachment strength can reasonably be expected to
be achieved?
What seat configurations do passenger cars operating at speeds
greater than 80 mph have? If configurations vary, please explain the
differences and the reasons for the variations. How many seats does the
average passenger car have? If there is no such thing as an average
passenger car, how many seats do the different types of passenger cars
have? How many cars of different types are there?
What costs would be involved with installing lap belts, shoulder
harnesses, and other safety restraints on passenger cars? To what
extent would safety benefits be realized from installing safety
restraints? Please explain. A review of the technical papers placed in
the docket may help with responses to some of these questions.
Due to the forward location of the operator of a high-speed
passenger train, he or she is often the person closest to the point of
impact and at most risk during a collision. Special provisions are
required to protect the operator. How much crushable space can
practically be located forward of the operator? Should a lap belt/
shoulder harness combination be provided for each crew member in the
cab? If lap belts/shoulder harnesses are provided for crew members,
will they wear them?
NTSB has long advocated special protective crash refuges (protected
areas) for locomotive crew members. ADL has done computer modeling to
predict the effectiveness of two types of crash refuge concepts under
dynamic conditions simulating locomotive collisions. One of these
concepts is a padded trench in the floor of the locomotive in front of
the electrical cabinets. Such a trench could be equipped with restraint
systems. The other concept is a seat equipped with a lap belt and
shoulder harness that rotates and locks in a reverse position allowing
the operator to ride out the collision in a rear-facing position. (A
report by ADL describing these concepts is part of the docket.4)
Advanced versions of some European trains
[[Page 30699]]
employ a concept where the operator's position is designed to be pushed
to the rear, relative to the rest of the cab, to provide the operator
additional protection during a collision. Could any of these concepts
be implemented into the design of new passenger equipment? Would they
be effective? Would they be used?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 ``Locomotive Crashworthiness Research,'' Volumes 1-4,
DOT-VNTSC-FRA-95-4.1, Final Report July, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are some alternative concepts for the design of such
protective refuges? Are they likely to be effective? Are they likely to
be used? What impact would they have on locomotive or power car design?
Should FRA require them as part of high-speed trainset design
requirements? What other, perhaps more practical means exist to reduce
the vulnerability of the cab crew to collisions? In terms of time,
materials, and labor, what would installation of refug
FR Doc. 96-14944 Passenger Equipment Safety Standards
es in locomotives
cost?
Lack of an accepted, recognized design tool (computer model) to
predict changes in trainset performance as well as changes in the
ability to protect people as trainset design parameters are changed
inhibits exploiting new design techniques that could result in safer
trainsets. Research by the Volpe Center on the structural response of
portions of the vehicle to the extremely high loads associated with a
collision, and research by AAR to accurately predict the performance of
suspension systems to changing track conditions, have contributed
greatly toward the goal of developing accepted analytical tools.
However, efforts need to be increased and focused on a common goal.
Because full-scale crash testing of passenger equipment is
prohibitively expensive, the development of a design tool that is
widely accepted by the industry is essential. Such a tool could
accelerate investigations of composite materials that hold promise for
increased strength at less weight than current materials. A tool of
this type could aid research into utilizing high-strength, light-weight
composite materials and other technologies to provide operational and
safety benefits.
FRA seeks comment from the industry on what the current state of
the art is regarding modeling techniques for trainset collisions. Up to
what trainset speeds are current models capable of predicting the
collision mechanics of a trainset collision? What confidence levels can
be expected with these models to predict the onset of override and
train set buckling? Are these models capable of accurately predicting
the acceleration levels in the trainset throughout the collision,
particularly for the first 250 milliseconds?
FRA also seeks input from the industry on the potential for such
models to replace full-scale crash testing. Have the current models
that are being used been validated by full-scale, partial-scale or
component impact testing? Will it be necessary to validate new models
by test? Are there limitations as to what type of accident scenarios
existing models are capable of analyzing?
The accuracy of the modeling techniques employed is dependent on
the individual vehicle and trainset crush characteristics used as input
to the models. What means should be used to quantify large deformation
and dynamic crush characteristics of the various parts of a trainset?
Can this be achieved through simulation alone? Has the industry
developed dynamic force-deflection characteristics for existing North
American rolling stock that could be used as a reference in FRA
crashworthiness studies? If these characteristics are available, for
what speeds of collision would they be valid?
What are the essential features of such a modeling tool? How can it
be developed so it will receive wide acceptance, be credible and be
used within the industry?
FRA outlines a sample set of detailed design requirements for high-
speed passenger trainsets in Appendix B to provoke thought and
discussion on these and other technical issues that need to be resolved
to develop high- speed trainset safety standards. As with the
conventional equipment design standards, FRA is pursuing an intentional
strategy by providing this level of detail. From experience with past
ANPRM's, FRA learned that such a strategy results in more and higher
quality comments. FRA does not intend to implement the requirements
given in Appendix B without significant change based on the
recommendations of the Working Group, supplemented by the information
and views obtained in response to this ANPRM. FRA strongly encourages
comments on these provisions and proposals for alternative standards.
Again, comments from interests represented on the Working Group should,
to the maximum extent possible, be expressed through those
representatives during the Working Group's deliberations.
FRA seeks comment from technically knowledgeable individuals on the
initial set of design standards for high-speed passenger trainsets
outlined in Appendix B. FRA recognizes that these standards would
preclude operation of several existing high-speed trainsets in the
United States without structural design changes. FRA believes that
because these trainsets were designed for a much less severe operating
environment, and because the American public demands and deserves the
safest possible transportation system, attention is warranted for
further development of North American standards. Do alternative
approaches exist to safety standards for high-speed trainsets that
could provide an equivalent level of safety at less cost?
Possibility of Design Standards for Other Tiers of Equipment
Amtrak and some commuter railroads have a long operating experience
safely running trains of existing equipment at speeds between 80 and
125 mph. Much of this equipment is the same equipment--designed to the
same standards--used for conventional service (herein defined as
service at speeds less than 80 mph.) This practice supports the notion
that the same set of design requirements used for conventional
equipment is adequate for intermediate-speed equipment (i.e., equipment
designed for service at speeds up to 125 mph). However, components wear
faster and are subject to higher dynamic, mechanical, and thermal
stresses at higher speeds. Perhaps more steps need to be added to the
pre-departure safety inspection for intermediate-speed equipment.
Perhaps maintenance intervals need to be more frequent and/or have more
tasks performed as part of the preventive maintenance program. FRA
seeks information on how inspection, testing, and maintenance programs
for intermediate-speed equipment should differ from those used for
conventional equipment.
If the designation between tiers were based solely on operating
speed, design or performance requirements for intermediate speed
equipment should logically fall between the requirements for
conventional equipment and the requirements for high-speed equipment
(i.e., equipment designed for service at speeds up to 150 mph).
Analysis by the Volpe Center shows a crash energy management design
provides significant benefits in terms of passenger and crew protection
over conventional designs as collision speeds increase to over 70 mph.
This suggests new intermediate- speed equipment would benefit from a
crash energy management design approach.
If standards based on more than two tiers are developed, FRA
currently believes design requirements for new intermediate-speed
equipment should include the requirements for conventional equipment
and some of the (possibly modified) requirements for high-speed
equipment. The following criteria suggested for consideration for
[[Page 30700]]
high-speed equipment may have applicability to intermediate-speed
equipment:
(1) Glazing requirements;
(2) Crash refuge for cab crew;
(3) Crash energy management system--perhaps to modified performance
standards;
(4) Interior arrangement or restraint systems to mitigate secondary
impacts; and
(5) Emergency systems.
FRA seeks comment from builders and operators of intermediate-speed
equipment as to where the design requirements for such equipment should
be placed on the spectrum between the design requirements for
conventional equipment and the design requirements for high-speed
equipment.
Design Standards for Systems with Dedicated Rights-of-Way and No At-
Grade Crossings
FRA recognizes that a system safety program that places emphasis on
the prevention of collisions is highly desirable. However, fundamental
changes are necessary in the North American railroad operating
environment before accident prevention provisions allow equipment
structural design standards to be relaxed. The main problem is North
American passenger trains generally share, or operate adjacent to, the
rights-of-way with an ever-increasing number of very heavy freight
trains, and most passenger rail routes include at-grade crossings used
by heavy highway vehicles. The risk to passengers and crew members in
this operating environment increases as passenger train speed
increases.
FRA encourages passenger systems to operate over dedicated rights-
of-way with no at-grade crossings. FRA believes such systems can
potentially provide the safest means of high-speed passenger
transportation. Should proposed vehicle crashworthiness standards be
modified for such operations? If so, to what degree? Should
consideration of equipment used exclusively on dedicated rights-of-way
be undertaken as part of this proceeding or through a system safety
approach in individual proceedings for rules of specific applicability?
Discussion of Operating Issues
Commuter Equipment and Operations
FRA is aware that unique features of some commuter equipment and
the unique operating cycle of commuter railroads may require specific
attention. Some commuter equipment is stored at outlying locations
overnight to be in position for the first morning trip into the major
city being served. Mechanical employees are generally not available at
these outlying locations to do pre-departure safety inspections. At
those outlying points where mechanical employees are not available, an
abbreviated initial daily safety inspection is generally performed by
train crew members.
During the middle of the day, the pace of commuter operations
generally slows, and the equipment is brought to a central location for
a more comprehensive inspection by mechanical personnel prior to being
dispatched for the evening rush hour. This reality of the commuter
operating cycle must be taken into account for any proposed rules
governing pre-departure safety inspections of commuter equipment.
However, where mechanical employees and facilities are available to
perform the pre-departure inspection, it must be performed by
mechanical employees. Equipment that receives an abbreviated inspection
by the train crew at outlying points at the beginning of the day must
receive a complete pre-departure inspection by mechanical employees at
the earliest opportunity during the day.
Some of the MU equipment operated by commuter railroads is very
different from intercity rail passenger equipment. FRA needs the help
of the operators of such equipment to identify the differences that may
require special regulatory treatment to avoid unintended impacts on
commuter operations. Through participation of APTA on the Working
Group, FRA anticipates that commuter railroads will make a special
effort to point out unique operating or equipment features that should
be taken into account to develop safety standards for commuter
equipment.
Information available to FRA suggests that nationwide there are
about 20 commuter railroads operating roughly 5,400 passenger cars, 400
cab cars, 2,000 multiple unit locomotive pairs, and 400 conventional
locomotives. Are these estimates accurate? What size crews operate
commuter trains? Approximately how many people stand on each train? As
a result of implementing the proposed standards, would commuter
operators realize different levels of safety benefits than intercity
operators? Please explain.
Cab Car Forward and Risk
FRA is concerned regarding operation of passenger trains with cab
cars or MU locomotives positioned at the head of the train at high
speeds. Such operations place the train operator and the passengers in
the lead vehicle at inherently greater risk than operating the trainset
with a locomotive or power car leading. Current designs of cab cars and
MU locomotives provide little structural protection to the operator and
forward-most passengers in the event of a head-on or side-swipe
collision. Cab car locomotives and passenger MU locomotives are
structurally equivalent from a crashworthiness standpoint. (Amtrak has
noted that not all cab car locomotives should be considered equivalent
to MU locomotives when the cab cars are not equipped with stairway
traps in the leading end, such as in the X2000 train).
Computer modeling of passenger train collisions at high speeds by
the Volpe Center predicts a dramatic increase in casualties in head-on
collisions of trainsets operated with a cab car forward when compared
to the same collision with a power car or locomotive leading. This
prediction is based on a limited number of hypothetical accident
scenarios. The prediction is not based on accident statistics. The
technical papers 5 documenting these predictions are part of the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 ``Evaluation of Selected Crashworthiness Strategies for
Passenger Trains''; ``Train Crashworthiness Design for Occupant
Survivability.'' See note 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent accidents involving trains operating with cab cars in the
forward position have heightened FRA's concern. On February 9, 1996, a
near-head-on collision occurred between New Jersey Transit Rail
Operations, Inc., (NJTR) trains 1254 and 1107 on the borderline of
Secaucus and Jersey City, New Jersey. Two crewmembers and one passenger
were fatally injured, and an additional 162 passengers reported minor
injuries. The passenger fatality and most of the injuries occurred on
train 1254, which was operating with the cab control car forward and
the locomotive pushing. In addition, the engineer on train 1254 was
fatally injured.
On February 16, 1996, a near-head-on collision occurred between
Maryland Mass Transit Administration (MARC) train 286 and Amtrak train
29 on CSX Transportation, Inc., at Silver Spring, Maryland. The MARC
train consisted of a cab control car in the lead, followed by two
passenger coaches and a locomotive pushing the consist. The accident
resulted in 11 fatalities, consisting of 3 crewmembers and 8 passengers
who were located in the MARC cab car, and at least 13 non-fatal
injuries to other passengers of the MARC train.
Following these accidents, FRA issued Emergency Order No. 20,
Notice
[[Page 30701]]
No. 1, on February 20, 1996, requiring prompt action to immediately
enhance passenger train operating rules and emergency egress, and to
develop a more comprehensive interim system safety plan addressing cab
car forward and MU operations that do not have either cab signal,
automatic train stop, or automatic train control systems. 61 FR 6876,
Feb. 22, 1996. FRA subsequently issued Notice No. 2 to Emergency Order
No. 20 on February 29, 1996, to refine three aspects of the original
order. 61 FR 8703, Mar. 5, 1996.
NTSB recommends that MU cars and control cab locomotives be
equipped with corner posts to provide greater structural protection
from a side-swipe collision. NTSB makes this recommendation based on
the findings of the investigation of a passenger train collision that
occurred on January 18, 1993, in which Northern Indiana Commuter
Transportation District (NICTD) eastbound commuter train 7 and NICTD
westbound commuter train 12 collided in a corner-to-corner impact in
Gary, Indiana, resulting in 7 passenger fatalities and 95 injuries. The
presence of a gauntlet bridge and absence of automatic train control
contributed to the cause of this accident. The damage that both trains
sustained after the initial impact resulted from the action of dynamic
forces that caused the left front corner and sidewall of the passenger
compartment of each car to experience a complete structural failure and
intrude inward. Because little structure was available in the corner
post areas to absorb the forces of the collision, the substantial car
body intrusion into each car left no survivable space in the left front
areas of either car. Consequently, NTSB issued Safety Recommendation R-
93-24, which recommends that:
In cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration and the
American Public Transit Association, [FRA] study the feasibility of
providing car body corner post structures on all self-propelled
passenger cars and control cab locomotives to afford occupant
protection during corner collisions.
The RSERA requires FRA to analyze the crashworthiness of
locomotives. As part of this analysis, the Volpe Center tasked ADL to
do computer modeling of collisions involving cab cars to predict the
benefit of substantial corner posts. The docket contains copies of this
report.6 ADL used the following general approach to evaluate cab
car crashworthiness: Finite element models for the major structural
elements of a typical cab car were developed and utilized to compute
the load versus deformation characteristic curves for major structural
elements involved in collisions. These characteristics were used as
input to the train collision dynamics model developed previously for
freight locomotives. The collision dynamics model was modified as
needed to represent a typical passenger train with a cab car at the
head end and a locomotive at the rear pushing, instead of a freight
train with locomotives at the head end. The modified models were then
validated by comparison of predicted results with the actual damage in
documented collisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 ``Cab Car Crashworthiness Study Final Report,'' April
1995, Reference 63065.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This modeling predicts, for control cab/MU locomotives of current
design, that when the underframe resists the forces of collision, a cab
car will sustain substantial loss of survivable volume in both operator
and passenger compartments in head-on collisions at closing speeds
above 30 mph. The result of such crush would cause severe injury or
fatality to some of the cab car occupants.
When the underframe is bypassed and collision or corner posts
resist the forces of the collision, the cab car will sustain
substantial loss of survivable volume at collision closing speeds in
the 10 to 15 mph range. These predictions emphasize the importance of
designs that increase the probability that the underframe will be fully
involved in resisting the forces resulting from a collision.
ADL took the modeling one step further by repeating the
calculations for a conceptual cab car with a 50 percent underframe
strength increase and a 400 percent corner post strength increase over
current cab car design practice. These structural changes increased the
closing speed required to result in a significant loss of survivable
space by approximately 10 mph. These results suggest that only a small
improvement in protection is possible through structural changes for a
cab car leading, train-to-train collision. However, these structural
changes may provide a much more significant increase in protection for
the less severe scenarios of a grade crossing collision, a collision
with debris including lading that falls from freight trains, or a
collision with an object overhanging the track.
Several system characteristics determine the degree of risk
involved in cab-car-forward or MU equipment operations. These
characteristics include operating speed, traffic density, signal
system, grade crossings and grade crossing warning systems (including
barriers to prevent entry onto the crossing), and right-of-way
features. In addition, the operator of a cab car or MU equipment often
has an opportunity to exit the control stand area and move through the
passenger compartment toward the rear of the car when a collision is
impending.
FRA seeks comment focusing on what is practical and what is
economical to reduce the risk associated with operating cab cars in the
forward position and operating MU equipment. FRA poses the following
set of questions to operators and builders of cab car type equipment:
What can be done to increase the protection provided to the operator
and forwardmost passengers in a head-on collision with a cab car
leading? Advanced versions of some European trains employ a concept
where the operator's position is designed to be pushed to the rear
relative to the rest of the cab to provide the operator additional
protection during a collision. Could such a technique be employed to
protect operators in future North American equipment? What design
changes can be made to increase the probability that the underframe
will be fully involved in resisting the collision forces? Recognizing
that structural changes will have only limited benefit, should speed
restrictions be placed on cab-forward operations? Should passengers be
prohibited from occupying cab cars operating above a certain speed when
in a leading position? What would be the impact of placing speed
restrictions on cab car forward operations? What mitigating factors may
exist that would alleviate FRA's concern for the increased risk
associated with cab-car-forward operations as speeds increase? If speed
restrictions are placed on cab car forward operations, what speed
restrictions should be imposed?
What costs and benefits would be associated with alternatives for
increasing crew and passenger protection in a head-on collision with a
cab car leading?
Data indicate that at least 400 cab cars operate as lead units. Is
this estimate accurate? Approximately how many trips are made each year
with cab cars operating as lead units? At what maximum speeds do trains
operate with the cab car forward?
FRA estimates that 2,000 MU locomotive pairs operate as lead units.
Is this estimate accurate? Approximately how many trips per year
involve multiple unit locomotive pairs?
Combined Passenger and Freight Trains
FRA recognizes that circumstances exist where freight trains haul
passenger cars and where passenger trains haul freight cars. For
example, freight trains on occasion include private or business
[[Page 30702]]
cars, Amtrak trains can include mail cars, and Amtrak has experimented
with roadrailer-type equipment in passenger trains. Passenger safety
standards should cover these special situations as well.
How frequent are such operations? Are any special safety
considerations necessary for passenger cars hauled by freight trains or
is normal passenger equipment safety practice adequate for this special
situation? Are any special safety considerations necessary for freight-
type equipment hauled by passenger trains or for passenger trains that
haul freight-type equipment.
Station/Platform Boarding and Exiting Passenger Trains
FRA requests comment on the safety of persons in station areas,
issues regarding boarding and exiting from trains, and other issues
affecting the safety of passenger operations. The following specific
issues have come to FRA's attention in recent years, and are
illustrative of the concerns that may warrant examination in this
proceeding:
Door Securement
The manner and extent to which end and side doors are secured
varies among passenger operators. When doors may be opened with
excessive ease, a risk exists that passengers will unwittingly fall
from moving trains. Of particular concern is the need to secure
passenger train end doors against casual operation.
However, full, interlocked securement may greatly complicate
evacuation in emergency situations. In some situations when a train is
departing, the train doors must be open as it leaves the station for
the crew to observe the platform area. In some situations when a train
is arriving, the train doors must also be open to allow trap doors to
be raised to minimize dwell time in stations not equipped with floor-
level platforms. A signal light that displays the status of the doors
to the crew in the control cab may have value for departing trains.
Many railroads currently employ such a display light. Should passenger
car doors be secured while the train is in motion during normal
operations? What provision should be made for operation of doors by
passengers in emergency situations? To what extent does the railroad's
operating environment (elevated structures, tunnels, etc.) bear on
resolving this question?
Ground-Level Stations
Ground-level stations are economical responses to light-density
boarding in both commuter and intercity service. However, particularly
where multiple tracks are present, the environment presents the
possibility that passengers may be struck by moving trains. Attention
needs to be directed toward the design of the interface of the ground-
level station to the train to ensure passengers can safely board and
leave the train. What station-to-train interface design features are
desirable to minimize the possibility of injuries resulting from
boarding or departing the train? What warning is appropriate for the
arrival of passenger trains? Should movement of freight trains through
stations be announced? What measures are appropriate to safeguard
passenger movements in stations? What alternatives have been
implemented in the United States? Internationally? With what success?
What costs are associated with alternative measures to safeguard
passenger movements in ground level stations? When is construction of
pedestrian overpasses and fencing warranted?
Floor-Level Platforms
Station platforms that are elevated to the level of the passenger
car floor permit prompt boarding and can be arranged to provide better
access for persons with disabilities. However, concern has been
expressed with regard to movement of trains through stations on tracks
that are adjacent to platforms. Attention needs to be directed toward
the design of the interface of the floor-level platform to the train to
ensure passengers can safely board and leave the train. What platform-
to-train interface design features are desirable to minimize the
possibility of injuries resulting from boarding or departing the train?
What warning is appropriate for the arrival of trains?
High-Speed Movements through Stations
Express trains often move through passenger stations without
stopping, sometimes on tracks immediately adjacent to areas where
passengers are waiting to board local trains. Could movement of high-
speed express trains through stations present an unreasonable risk? If
so, how could that risk be mitigated? What measures are utilized by
passenger railroads currently facing this situation? At what costs can
alternative measures be implemented to mitigate risks of high-speed
express trains through stations?
Additional Economic Impact Information
Information available to FRA suggests that there are about 8,200
passenger cars and 970 conventional locomotives dedicated to rail
passenger service in the United States. Is this information accurate?
What ridership levels are experienced through the year? Would meeting
the new higher standards described in Appendix B result in higher
fares? If so, how much higher? Would a decrease in ridership be
anticipated? If so, to what extent? Please explain the method of
estimation. To which alternative forms of travel would lost ridership
be expected to switch? How has this conclusion been reached? What
assumptions have been made? FRA is interested in obtaining copies of
studies or other documentation addressing the issue of passenger
diversion from rail to other modes of travel as a result of new rail
safety standards. What factors have the greatest effect on ridership
levels: price, seat availability, trip time, variability in trip time,
etc.?
Appendix D lists the economic questions posed by this ANPRM.
Regulatory Impact
FRA will evaluate any proposed action and its potential impacts to
determine whether it would be considered significant under Executive
Order 12866 or DOT policies and procedures (44 FR 11034, Feb. 26,
1979). Due to the substantial impact this rulemaking may have on a
major transportation safety problem, this rulemaking is expected to be
classified as significant pursuant to DOT Order 2100.5. FRA will also
examine any proposed action and its potential impacts to determine
whether it will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
FRA will further evaluate any proposed rule pursuant to DOT
regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 432 et seq.).
Any proposed action will be further evaluated to determine
information collection burdens pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Any proposed action will be evaluated pursuant to Executive Order 12612
to determine whether it would have substantial effects on the states,
on the relationship between the national government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
The economic impact of any rule that may be proposed on the subject
of passenger equipment safety standards cannot be accurately quantified
with the information currently available to FRA. An analysis of the
economic impact will be made after evaluating the data
[[Page 30703]]
submitted in response to this ANPRM, and the findings of that analysis
will be published as part of any further notices of rulemaking issued
in this matter. In addition, without fully evaluating the comments
solicited by this ANPRM, it is impossible to determine what action FRA
will take with regard to the other areas addressed by this ANPRM, and
thus it is impossible to determine the economic impact of those changes
at this time. Furthermore, any action taken by FRA is expected to
result in the prevention or mitigation of accidents, personal injuries
and property damage. However, until FRA fully considers the comments
requested by this ANPRM and determines what action it will take, these
benefits cannot be quantified.
Comments and Hearing
FRA solicits the submission of written comments, which should be
filed in triplicate with the Docket Clerk at the address provided
above. Specific responses to the questions set forth in this notice
would be appreciated. The comment period will close on July 9, 1996, so
that all comments can be presented to the Working Group before its next
scheduled meeting in July 1996. When responding, reference to the topic
or question number in the ANPRM will ensure full consideration of the
comments submitted.
FRA has not currently scheduled a public hearing in connection with
this ANPRM. Any interested party desiring an opportunity for oral
comment should submit a written request to the Docket Clerk before the
end of the comment period.
Issued in Washington, DC on June 5, 1996.
Jolene M. Molitoris,
Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration.
Appendix A--Sample System Safety Plan Elements
The outline that follows describes the elements of a system
safety plan for a safety program for the development of a new high-
speed passenger trainset. Safety programs for less complex
procurements of new equipment might be greatly simplified versions
of this plan.
General Description
1. The system safety plan shall describe the system safety
program to be conducted as part of the trainset design process to
ensure all safety-critical issues and Federal safety requirements
are identified and addressed.
2. The system safety program shall ensure safety issues are
treated equal to cost and performance issues when design trade-offs
are made. The basis for making safety-related design trade-offs
shall be documented.
3. The system safety plan shall be the top level document--
completed as one of the first design process deliverables--used as
guidance for the development of the following lower level safety
planning and design guidance documents:
a. Fire Protection Engineering Plan.
b. Software Safety Plan.
c. Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance Plan.
d. Training Plan.
e. Pre-Revenue Service Acceptance Test Plan
4. The system safety plan shall describe the approaches to be
taken to accomplish the following tasks or objectives:
a. Identification of all safety requirements including Federal
requirements governing the design of the trainset and its supporting
systems.
b. Evaluation of the total system--including hardware, software,
testing and support activities--to identify known or potential
safety hazards over the entire life cycle of the equipment.
c. The process to be used to raise safety issues during design
reviews.
d. The process to be used to eliminate or reduce the risk of the
hazards identified.
e. The monitoring and tracking system to be used to track the
progress made toward resolving safety issues, reducing hazards, and
meeting safety requirements.
f. The development of the testing program to demonstrate that
safety requirements have been met.
5. The system safety program shall include periodic safety
reviews that result in safety action items being assigned and
tracked.
6. The system safety program shall include adequate
documentation to audit how the design meets safety requirements and
to track how safety issues were raised and resolved.
7. The system safety plan shall address how operational
limitations may be imposed if the design cannot meet certain safety
requirements.
Fire Protection Engineering Plan
1. Develop a Fire Protection Engineering Plan to be used to
design adequate fire safety into the trainset.
2. The Fire Protection Engineering Plan shall:
a. Require the system developer to complete a thorough analysis
of the fire protection problem.
b. Require the system developer to use good fire protection
engineering practice as part of the design of the trainset design
process.
c. Describe and analyze the effectiveness of the steps to be
taken to design the train to be sufficiently fire resistant to
ensure the detection of a fire and the evacuation of the train
before the fire, smoke or toxic fumes cause injury to the passengers
or crew.
d. Identify, analyze and prioritize the fire hazards inherent in
the design of the trainset.
e. Describe the design approach taken and justify the design
trade-offs made to minimize the risk of each fire hazard.
f. Present an analysis and propose tests to demonstrate how the
fire protection engineering approach taken will lead to a train
which meets these fire protection standards.
g. Be a major subset of the overall System Safety Plan, and
dovetail with the railroad's Emergency Preparedness Plan.
h. Present the analysis required to select materials which
provide sufficient fire resistance to ensure adequate time to detect
the fire and safely evacuate the train. The system developer shall
also propose the tests to be conducted to demonstrate this analysis
has basis in fact.
i. Present the analysis done to ensure the ventilation system
does not contribute to the lethality of a fire.
j. Include the analysis performed to determine which train
components require overheat protection. If overheat protection is
not provided for a component at risk of being a source of fire, a
solid rationale and justification for the decision shall be included
in the plan.
k. Identify all unoccupied train compartments which contain
equipment or material which poses a fire hazard, and analyze the
benefit provided from including a fire or smoke detection system in
each compartment identified. Fire or smoke detectors shall be
installed in compartments where the analysis determines that they
are necessary to ensure time for safe evacuation of the train. The
analysis shall provide the reasoning why a fire or smoke detector is
not necessary if the decision is made not to install one in any of
the unoccupied compartments identified in the plan.
l. Include an analysis of the occupied and unoccupied spaces
which require portable fire extinguishers. The analysis will include
the proper type and size of fire extinguisher for each location.
m. Identify all unoccupied train compartments that contain
equipment or material which poses a fire hazard risk. On a case-by-
case basis, the plan shall analyze the benefit provided by including
a fixed, automatic fire-suppression system in each compartment
identified. The type and size of the automatic fire-suppression
system for each necessary application shall be determined. A fixed,
automatic fire suppression system shall be installed in compartments
where the analysis determines they are necessary and practical to
ensure time for safe evacuation of the train. The analysis shall
provide the reasoning why a fixed, automatic fire suppression system
is not necessary or practical if the decision is made not to install
one in any of the unoccupied compartments identified in the plan.
n. Describe the procedures to be used for inspection,
maintenance, and testing of all fire safety systems and equipment.
3. The system developer shall follow the design criteria,
perform the tests, and follow the operating procedures called for in
the plan.
Software Safety Plan
1. Trainset system software that controls or monitors safety
functions shall be treated as safety-critical.
2. The system operator shall require the system developer to
develop a software safety plan to guide the design, development,
testing, integration and verification of computer programs used to
control and/or monitor trainset functions.
[[Page 30704]]
3. The software safety plan shall include a description of how
the following tasks will be accomplished or objectives achieved to
ensure reliable, fail-safe system software:
a. Software design process used.
b. Software design documentation to be produced.
c. Software hazard analysis.
d. Software safety reviews.
e. Software hazard monitoring and tracking.
f. Software module level safety tests.
g. Safety tests of multiple modules combined to function as a
software system.
h. Hardware/software integration safety tests.
i. Demonstration of overall software safety as part of the pre-
revenue service tests of the trainset.
Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance Plan
1. The plan shall:
a. Provide adequate technical detail on the procedures to be
followed by the system operator to ensure trainset safety does not
deteriorate over time.
b. Be used as the basis for the trainset inspection, testing,
and maintenance safety standards.
c. Contain the specific, detailed inspection, testing, and
maintenance procedures and intervals required to ensure safe,
reliable long-term operation of all train systems.
d. Focus on, and give priority to, those inspections, preventive
maintenance procedures, and tests required to prevent any
deterioration in train safety.
e. Include an inspection and maintenance program that ensures
all systems and components of the train are free of general
conditions that endanger the safety of the crew, passengers, or
equipment. These conditions include but are not limited to:
i. Insecure attachment of components.
ii. Continuous accumulations of oil or grease.
iii. Improper functioning of components.
iv. Cracks, breaks, excessive wear, structural defects or
weakness of components.
v. Leaks.
vi. Use of components or systems under conditions that exceed
those for which the component or system is designed to operate.
2. The plan shall include a description of the process to be
used to develop detailed information on the inspection, testing and
maintenance procedures necessary for long-term safe operation of the
trainset. This information shall include:
a. Safety Inspection Criteria and Procedures.
b. Testing Procedures/Intervals.
c. Predetermined corrective action to take upon failure of an
inspection or test.
d. Scheduled Preventive Maintenance.
e. Maintenance Procedures.
f. Special Testing Equipment.
3. The plan shall set initial scheduled maintenance intervals
conservatively. The intervals shall be extended only when thoroughly
justified by accumulated operating data.
Training Plan
1. Develop a training plan to provide employees and contract
personnel including supervisors with the knowledge and skills
necessary to effectively implement the inspection, maintenance and
testing program, and to safely do his/her job.
2. The training plan shall include the knowledge and skills
necessary for electronic, computer software, and mechanical
personnel.
3. The plan shall contain detailed descriptions of the
training--crucial to the safe operation of the trainset-- which will
be required for each craft.
4. The plan shall contain the certification process to be used
to be sure each employee in a safety sensitive position is fit and
well qualified to do his/her job.
5. The training plan shall include the training necessary for
supervisors to be able to adequately spot check the work of the
inspection, maintenance and testing personnel that they supervise.
6. The training plan shall include:
a. Identification of all the knowledge and skills necessary to
accomplish the tasks described in the inspection, testing, and
maintenance plan.
b. Design of a training program including classroom instruction
and hands-on experience to ensure that employees and supervisors are
given the necessary knowledge and skills.
c. A means to measure that employees--including supervisors--
have the necessary knowledge and skills.
d. Modules that specifically address technology used as part of
the trainset that is new to the railroad industry.
e. A program of periodic refresher training to recertify
employees and contract personnel.
f. A schedule to have the work force adequately trained prior to
the start of revenue service.
Pre-Revenue Service Acceptance Testing Plan
1. Develop a pre-revenue service testing plan and fully execute
the plan prior to introducing new equipment into revenue service.
2. The plan shall include:
a. Identification of any waivers of Federal safety regulations
required for the tests or for revenue service operation of the
trainset.
b. A clear statement of the test objectives. One of the major
objectives shall be to demonstrate that the trainset meets safety
design requirements when operated in the environment in which it is
to be used.
c. A planned schedule for conducting the tests.
d. A description of the railroad property or facilities to be
used to conduct the tests.
e. A detailed description of how the tests are to be conducted
including:
i. Which components are to be tested;
ii. How they are to be tested;
iii. How frequently they are to be tested;
iv. What criteria are to be used to judge their performance; and
v. How the test results are to be reported.
f. A description of any special instrumentation to be used
during the tests.
g. A description of the information or data to be obtained.
h. A description of how the information or data obtained is to
be analyzed or used.
i. A clear description of any criteria to be used as safety
limits during testing.
j. A description of the criteria to be used to measure or
determine the success or failure of the tests. If acceptance is to
be based on extrapolation of less than full level testing results,
the analysis to be done to justify the validity of the extrapolation
shall be described.
k. A description of any special safety precautions to be
observed during the testing.
l. A written set of standard operating procedures to be used to
ensure that the testing is done safely.
m. A verification of the inspection, maintenance, and testing
procedures and criteria to be used for the revenue service operation
of the trainset.
3. The system operator shall report the results of the pre-
revenue service tests and correct any safety deficiencies in the
design of the trainset or in the inspection, testing, and
maintenance procedures.
4. If safety deficiencies cannot be corrected by design changes,
operational limitations may be imposed on the revenue service
operation of the trainset.
Standard Operating Procedures
1. Develop step-by-step standard operating procedures for
performing all safety-critical or potentially hazardous trainset
inspection, testing, maintenance or repair tasks.
2. Standard operating procedures shall:
a. Describe in detail each step required to safely perform the
task;
b. Describe the qualifications necessary to safely perform the
task;
c. Describe any precautions that must be taken to safely perform
the task;
d. Describe the use of any safety equipment necessary to perform
the task;
e. Be approved by the chief mechanical officer of the system
operator;
f. Be approved by the responsible official for safety of the
system operator;
g. Be read and understood by the employees and contractors
performing the tasks;
h. Be enforced by supervisors with responsibility for
accomplishing the tasks; and
i. Be updated and approved annually.
3. Knowledge of standard operating procedures shall be required
to qualify an employee or contractor to perform a task.
Appendix B--Sample Design Standards Based on a Tiered Approach
Introduction
FRA offers this sample outline of tiered design requirements to
help generate discussion on how to set safety standards for
equipment. As discussed in the body of the ANPRM, it is not clear
whether the distinction between various tiers would be based solely
on operating speed, a risk analysis of the envisioned operating
environment, or another method. For purposes of discussion, this
appendix is based on two tiers determined solely by operating speed:
Tier I: Existing and future equipment designed for operation in
an environment
[[Page 30705]]
with known risk or proven safe operation, e.g., existing passenger
equipment operating at speeds of 110 mph or less or up to 125 mph
under specific waiver conditions.
Tier II: Equipment that is envisioned to operate in higher risk
operating environments, e.g., Amtrak's planned operation at 150 mph
in the Northeast Corridor, or perhaps cab car forward operations
under some sets of higher risk operating conditions.
(APTA takes exception to the possibility of including cab car
forward operations in the Tier II category.)
FRA recognizes the need to address special equipment outside
this two-tiered system, such as that operated by tourist and
excursion railroads and private passenger cars. FRA also recognizes
the possible need to identify additional tiers in the future,
whether it be for an intermediate tier between Tiers I and II
described above or for equipment intended to operate at very high
speeds, i.e., in excess of 150 mph.
(Amtrak agrees with the logic behind the tiered safety standard
based on speed. The logical breaks for Amtrak are 0 to 90 mph, 90 to
125 mph, and 125 mph and above, thus creating a three-tiered
standard.)
It is important to emphasize that neither FRA nor the Working
Group has endorsed the parameters provided, except to the extent
that they mirror existing rail safety laws. FRA intends that the
parameters suggested in this appendix serve only as the starting
point for discussion to help determine the parameters to be included
in a subsequent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
A. Crash Energy Management System Design Requirements
Tier I: (Note: Existing equipment designs do not typically
incorporate crash energy management principles in an effort to
mitigate the consequences of a collision. However, future designs of
Tier I equipment should embrace the following guidelines.)
(APTA believes crash energy management design requirements
should be applied only to Tier II equipment.)
1. Both the power vehicle and the passenger vehicle shall be
designed with a crash energy management system to dissipate kinetic
energy during a collision. The crash energy management system shall
cause a controlled deformation and collapse of designated sections
within the unoccupied volumes to absorb collision energy and reduce
the decelerations on passengers and crew resulting from dynamic
forces transmitted to occupied volumes.
2. The design of the power vehicle and each unit of the
passenger vehicle shall consist of an occupied volume located
between two normally unoccupied volumes. Where practical, sections
within the unoccupied volumes shall be designed to be structurally
weaker than the occupied volume. During a collision or derailment,
the designated sections within the unoccupied volumes shall start to
deform and eventually collapse in a controlled fashion to dissipate
energy before any structural damage occurs to the occupied volume.
Alternately, a crash energy management strategy shall be implemented
by trainset.
3. The crash energy management system shall keep the train in
line and on the track long enough to maximize the energy absorbed by
controlled crushing of designated sections within unoccupied volumes
of the train. The train shall be designed for controlled collapse of
the designated sections within unoccupied volumes of the train,
starting from the ends of the train and working toward the center of
the train as the energy to be dissipated increases.
4. The trainset shall be designed for a crush distance and crush
force that result in survivable volumes in all occupied areas of the
trainset under the conditions of the collision scenario. A collision
scenario needs to be defined to serve as a basis for design analysis
of Tier I equipment's crash energy management system and structure.
What parameters should be used to define this collision scenario?
5. The locomotive or power car cab shall be designed to limit
the secondary impact deceleration of crew members to a maximum of
24g and an average of 16g for 250 milliseconds after initial impact
under the conditions of the collision scenario.
6. The trainset shall be designed to limit the secondary impact
deceleration acting on passengers in the leading passenger
compartment to a maximum of 6g and an average of 4g for 250
milliseconds after initial impact under the conditions of the
collision scenario.
7. The occupied volume of the power vehicle and the occupied
volumes of the passenger vehicle shall be designed and constructed
in a manner to preclude telescoping of the crushed unoccupied volume
structure into the occupied volume.
8. The unoccupied volume of the power vehicle shall have a
static end yield strength of no less than 50 percent of the required
static end strength of the power vehicle occupied volume. The
unoccupied volume of each unit of the passenger vehicle shall have a
static end yield strength of no less than 50 percent of the required
static end strength yield of the passenger unit occupied volume. Any
deviation form this requirement must be fully justified by analysis
or test.
9. The crash energy management system shall start to function at
a static end load of no less than 50 percent of the required static
end strength of the occupied volume, but no more than 90 percent of
the actual static end strength of the occupied volume.
10. An analysis based on the collision scenario shall be
performed to verify that the trainset crash energy management system
meets the requirements of this section. Assumptions made as part of
the analysis to calculate how the kinetic energy of the colliding
passenger train is dissipated shall be fully justified. The analysis
must clearly show that the designated energy absorbing sections
within the unoccupied volumes of the trainset crush before collapse
of the occupied volumes start and that the deceleration of people in
the occupied volumes is limited to the levels required by paragraphs
5 and 6 above. This analysis shall be made available to FRA upon
request.
(APTA points out that crash energy management design concepts
have not been validated by tests or analysis for equipment operating
in the speed range envisioned for Tier I equipment. APTA points to
the need for a major research and physical testing program to
demonstrate and validate crash energy management design benefits.)
(Amtrak is in full agreement with the concept of crash energy
management, but similarly feels that some form of full-scale testing
may be required to validate the computer simulations. Further,
Amtrak warns that this type of testing is expensive by nature, and
an effort to identify a funding source needs to be initiated now in
order not to delay the rulemaking process.)
Tier II: Same requirements as above for Tier I equipment.
B. Structural Design Requirements
1. Static End Strength
Tier I: The current U.S. practice is to require both locomotives
and coaches to have a minimum static end strength of 800,000 pounds
without deformation. If a crash energy management design approach is
taken, this requirement applies only to the occupied volume of the
equipment. Unoccupied volumes may have a lesser static end yield
strength.
Tier II: The longitudinal static yield strength of the trainset
occupied volumes shall be no less than 1,000,000 pounds ultimate
strength.
(APTA suggests that the static end strength requirements for
both Tier I and Tier II equipment should be the same. APTA believes
the occupants of the weaker car may suffer unduly in a collision of
cars of differing strength.)
2. Anticlimbing Mechanism
Tier I: The current U.S. practice is to require locomotives
(power cars) to have an anticlimbing mechanism capable of resisting
an upward or downward vertical force of 200,000 pounds. This
requirement is given in Association of American Railroads (AAR)
Specification S-580, that became effective in August, 1990.
Passenger coaches and MU locomotives (49 CFR 229.141(a)(2)) are
required to have an anticlimbing mechanism capable of resisting an
upward or downward vertical force of 100,000 pounds. How should the
anticlimber requirements for Tier I equipment be specified to ensure
maximum advantage is taken of the strength of the underframe to
resist collision forces?
Tier II: a. Anticlimber engagements of each end of each interior
trainset unit shall be designed to keep the trainset in line and on
the track until the energy-absorbing capability of the crash energy
management system has been exceeded and the strength of occupied
volumes of the train start to be overcome.
b. Anticlimber engagements shall be capable of resisting both
vertical and lateral buckling forces between units due to an
acceleration of 1g acting on the total loaded mass including trucks
of the heavier of the two coupled units.
3. Link Between Coupling Mechanism and Carbody
Tier I: The mechanical link which attaches the front coupling
mechanism to the car body shall be designed to resist a vertical
[[Page 30706]]
downward thrust from the coupler shank of 100,000 pounds for any
horizontal position of the coupler, without exceeding the yield
points of the materials used.
Does this requirement provide protection to passengers and crew?
If not, how should this parameter be specified?
Tier II: Same requirements as above for Tier I equipment.
4. Short Hood Structure (Non-MU Locomotives Only)
Tier I: The skin covering the short hood or forward-facing end
of the locomotive shall be equivalent to a \1/2\-inch steel plate
with a 25,000 pounds-per-square-inch yield strength. Higher yield
strength material may be used to decrease the thickness of the
material as long as an equivalent strength is maintained. This skin
shall be securely attached to the forward collision posts and shall
be sealed to prevent the entry of flammable fluids into the occupied
cab area. Does this requirement inhibit the application of crash
energy management technology to Tier I equipment?
Tier II: Same requirements as above for Tier I equipment.
5. Collision Posts
Tier I: a. Locomotive Forward Collision Posts--Two collision
posts are required, each capable of withstanding a shear load of
500,000 pounds at the joint of the collision post to the underframe
without exceeding the ultimate strength of the joint. Each post must
also be capable of withstanding, without exceeding the ultimate
strength, a 200,000 pound shear force exerted 30 inches above the
joint of the post to the underframe (AAR Specification S-580). This
requirement is independent of train weight. Alternately, an
equivalent end structure may be used in place of the two collision
posts. The single end structure must withstand the sum of the forces
required for each collision post.
b. MU Locomotive Rear Collision Posts--Two collision posts are
required, each having an ultimate shear value of not less than
300,000 pounds at a point even with the top of the underframe member
to which it is attached. If reinforcement is used to provide the
shear value, the reinforcement shall have full value for a distance
of 18 inches up from the underframe connection and then taper to a
point approximately 30 inches above the underframe connection (49
CFR 229.141(a)(4)). FRA believes this requirement needs to be
improved. The collision posts can easily be strengthened and
lengthened (preferably full height to the roofline). An equivalent
single end structure may be used in place of the two collision
posts. The single end structure must be designed to withstand the
sum of the forces required for the end posts. For analysis purposes,
the required forces can be assumed to be evenly distributed at the
end structure at the underframe joint.
c. Passenger Coach Collision Posts--Current U.S. practice is to
require a pair of collision posts at each end of a passenger coach.
If a passenger coach consists of articulated or otherwise
permanently joined units, collision posts are required only at the
ends of the permanently coupled assembly of units, not at the ends
of each unit of the assembly. In other words, collision posts are
required at ends of passenger equipment where coupling and
uncoupling are expected. The requirements for passenger coach
collision posts are identical to the requirements for locomotive
rear collision posts. FRA believes this requirement needs to be
improved. The collision posts can easily be strengthened and
lengthened (preferably full height to the roofline). An equivalent
end structure may be used in place of the two collision posts.
FRA believes a unified collision post requirement should apply
to all Tier I passenger vehicles, to include coaches and power/cab
cars. The collision posts should be stronger and preferably extend
to the roofline. How should collision posts for Tier I passenger
vehicles be specified?
Tier II: As discussed in the body of the ANPRM, FRA believes
that a unitized type of end structure with integral collision and
corner posts that extend to the roof line should be considered for a
design standard for passenger equipment.
a. Strength of the Leading and Trailing Ends of a Trainset.
i. The leading and trailing ends of the trainset shall be
equipped with an end structure capable of transmitting to the frame
of the leading or trailing unit a horizontally applied longitudinal
load of 1,000,000 pounds uniformly applied at floor level decreasing
uniformly with height to no less than 400,000 pounds uniformly
applied at the roof line without exceeding the ultimate strength of
the end structure.
(APTA points out that the need for and basis of the high
roofline strength requirement has not been established.)
ii. A leading/trailing end structure may be used to meet
requirements for corner posts and collision posts.
b. Strength of Collision Posts or End Structures. (Ends of
trainset other than leading or trailing ends.)
i. Each end of a trainset unit designed for automatic coupling
that is not a leading or trailing end of the trainset shall be
equipped with collision posts or an end structure capable of
transmitting to the frame of that unit a horizontal, longitudinal
load of 600,000 pounds applied at floor level decreasing uniformly
with height to no less than 240,000 pounds applied at the roof line
without exceeding the ultimate strength of the collision posts or
end structure.
(APTA points out that the need for and basis of the high
roofline strength requirement has not been established.)
ii. A unitized end structure may be used to meet requirements
for corner posts and collision posts.
6. Corner Posts
Tier I: Corner posts shall be full height (extending from
underframe structure to roof structure) and capable of resisting a
horizontal load of 150,000 pounds at the point of attachment to the
underframe and a load of 80,000 pounds at the point of attachment to
the roof structure without failure. The orientation of the applied
horizontal load shall range from longitudinal inward to transverse
inward. The corner posts may be positioned to provide protection or
structural strength to the occupied volume.
Tier II: As discussed in the body of the ANPRM, FRA believes
that a unitized type of end structure with integral collision and
corner posts that extend to the roof line should be considered for a
design standard for passenger equipment.
a. Strength of Corner Posts at the Leading or Trailing End of a
Trainset:
i. The leading and trailing ends of the trainset shall be
equipped with a corner post at the intersection of the end with each
side.
ii. Each corner post shall be capable of resisting--without
failure or deformation--a horizontal load applied at any point in a
90 degree arc from lateral to longitudinal of 333,000 pounds applied
at floor level decreasing uniformly to no less than 133,000 pounds
at the roof line.
iii. The corner posts may be part of the end structure.
b. Strength of Corner Posts Not at the Leading or Trailing End
of a Trainset:
i. Each end of a trainset unit that is not a leading or trailing
end of the trainset and that is equipped with automatic couplers
shall be equipped with a corner post at the intersection of the end
with each side.
ii. Each corner post shall be capable of resisting--without
failure or deformation--a horizontal load applied at any point in a
90-degree arc from lateral to longitudinal of 200,000 pounds applied
at floor level decreasing uniformly to no less than 80,000 pounds at
the roof line.
iii. The corner posts may be part of the end structure.
(APTA does not believe that the corner post requirements
proposed by FRA are realistic. APTA believes these proposed corner
post requirements should be replaced with a requirement that the
post be able to resist a load of 65,000 pounds applied at a point
30'' above the floor without permanent deformation.)
7. Crash Refuge
Tier I: (Note: Existing equipment designs do not typically
incorporate crash energy management principles in an effort to
mitigate the consequences of a collision. However, future designs of
Tier I equipment should embrace the following guidelines.)
(APTA does not believe that crash refuge requirements should be
applied to future designs of Tier I equipment.)
a. A refuge or survivable area to which the crew can retreat in
the event of an impending collision shall be provided. This refuge
or survivable area shall take maximum advantage of the structural
strength of the power vehicle or control cab and include shock-
mitigating material.
b. This refuge shall have the structural integrity and shock
mitigation necessary to allow the crew to survive the accelerations
and forces resulting from the collision scenario described as part
of the recommended crash energy management system requirements.
c. The crash refuge shall be readily accessible for quick entry
by the crew.
Tier II: Same requirements as above for Tier I equipment.
[[Page 30707]]
8. Rollover Strength
Tier I: There are no current industry or Federal specifications
for rollover protection in locomotives or passenger equipment. The
following are proposed examples of such requirements to protect crew
and passengers in the event of a rollover scenario:
a. Locomotives should be able to withstand a uniformly applied
load equal to 2g acting on the mass of the locomotive without
failure of the cab side structure or the cab roof structure. (Local
deformation of the side sheathing or roof sheathing in the cab area
is permitted as long as a survivable volume is preserved in the crew
compartment.)
(APTA believes that this specific requirement should be replaced
with a more general requirement stating that locomotives shall be
designed to provide a survivable volume in the crew compartment in
the event of a rollover.)
b. Passenger coach and MU locomotive sides and roofs shall have
sufficient structural strength to withstand the dynamic rollover
force exerted by an acceleration of 2g acting on the mass of an
individual vehicle or unit without collapse of the occupied volume.
The occupied volume may deform to the extent that no more than 10
percent of initial volume is lost due to crush caused by the
rollover. FRA believes existing North American designs will likely
meet this requirement.
Tier II: Same requirements as above for Tier I equipment.
9. Side Impact Strength
Tier I:
a. A side impact design requirement would, among other things,
protect passengers and crew from side collisions by heavy highway
vehicles at grade crossings. Such a requirement may be particularly
important for equipment with a floor height less than 36 inches
above the top of the rail. A concept for the requirement is an
ability to withstand the load applied by a loaded tractor trailer
travelling at a selected speed colliding with the side of the car
over an area and at a height typical of tractor trailer bumpers with
a limited deformation of the car body structure. What specific
parameters should be used to implement this concept or what
alternate concepts can be proposed for a side impact strength design
requirement?
b. If the highway vehicle is likely to override the trainset
unit floor structure, the trainset unit side structures shall be
designed to resist the resulting forces without penetration of the
highway vehicle into the occupied volume of the trainset unit.
Tier II: Same requirements as above for Tier I equipment.
(APTA believes the advanced bus design side penetration
requirements should be considered as an option to the requirements
proposed by FRA.)
10. Truck-to-Car-Body Attachment
Tier I: The intent of the requirement in 49 CFR 229.141(a)(5)
and (b)(5) is to keep the truck attached to the car body in the
event of a derailment or rollover. In place of this requirement, new
designs might be required to resist without failure a minimum force
applied in any horizontal direction for the link which attaches the
truck to the car body. The requirement under consideration is as
follows:
a. For all trainset units, ultimate strength of the truck-to-
car-body attachment shall be sufficient to resist without failure a
force of 250,000 pounds or the force due to an acceleration of 4g
acting in any direction on the mass of the truck, whichever is
greater.
b. The mass of the truck includes axles, wheels, bearings,
truck-mounted brake system, suspension system components, and any
other components attached to the truck.
Tier II: Same requirements as above for Tier I equipment.
11. Strength of Attachment of Interior Fittings
a. Seat Strength:
Tier I:
i. All seat components shall be designed to withstand loads due
to the impact of passengers at a relative speed of 25 mph.
ii. The seat back shall include shock-absorbent material to
cushion the impact of passengers with the seat ahead of them.
Tier II: Same requirements as above for Tier I equipment.
b. Seat Attachment Strength:
Tier I:
i. Passenger and crew seats shall be securely fastened to the
car structure in a manner so as to withstand an acceleration of 4g
acting in the vertical direction on the deadweight of the seat or
seats, if a tandem unit.
ii. The ultimate strength of a seat attachment must be such that
the seat attachment is able to resist the longitudinal inertial
force of 8g acting on the mass of the seat plus the impact force of
the mass of the passenger(s) being decelerated from a relative speed
of 25 mph.
Tier II: Same requirements as above for Tier I equipment.
(APTA questions the basis for the seat strength and seat
attachment strength requirements. APTA also believes the
requirements should apply only to passenger seats, not to crew
seats.)
c. Other Interior Fittings:
Tier I: Other interior fittings shall be attached to the car
body with sufficient strength to withstand accelerations of 8g/4g/4g
acting longitudinally/laterally/vertically on the mass of the
fitting.
Tier II: In addition to the Tier I requirement provided above,
the following is required:
The ultimate strength of a locomotive cab interior fitting and
equipment attachment shall be sufficient to resist without failure
loads due to accelerations of 12g/4g/4g longitudinally/laterally/
vertically acting on the mass of the fitting or equipment.
(APTA recommends a 3g/3g/3g requirement for the strength of
attachment of interior fittings for both Tier I and Tier II
equipment.)
d. Luggage Stowage Compartment Strength:
Tier I:
i. Luggage stowage compartments shall be of enclosed aircraft
type.
ii. Ultimate strength shall be sufficient to resist loads due to
accelerations acting longitudinally/laterally/vertically of 8g/4g/4g
on the mass of the luggage stowed.
(APTA recommends the following requirement for Tier I equipment:
Passenger luggage stowage racks shall provide longitudinal restraint
for stowed articles.)
Tier II: Same requirements as above for Tier I equipment.
(APTA recommends 3g/3g/3g for Tier II equipment luggage stowage
compartments)
e. Interior Surface Fittings:
Tier I:
i. To the extent possible, interior fittings shall be recessed
or flush-mounted.
ii. Corners and sharp edges shall be avoided.
iii. Energy-absorbent material shall be used to pad surfaces
likely to be impacted by passengers or crew members during
collisions or derailments. (APTA recommends deleting this
requirement.)
Tier II: Same requirements as above for Tier I equipment.
C. Glazing
Tier I: As addressed in the body of the ANPRM, FRA believes that
portions of the current glazing requirements in 49 CFR Part 223 may
need to be revised to adequately protect crew members and
passengers. In this proceeding or a separate future proceeding, FRA
may ask for consideration of modifications to 49 CFR Part 223 to
address the concerns listed below:
1. The witness plate used for testing is too thick, allowing
spalling of pieces of glass large enough to cause injury;
2. The impact test using a 24-pound cinder block is not
repeatable;
3. Vendors or materials should be periodically recertified by an
independent testing laboratory;
4. The strength of the framing arrangement securing the glazing
is neither specified nor tested; and
5. Interior glass breakage in the event of a collision poses a
significant hazard to passengers.
Tier II: FRA believes that the following requirements address
the concerns listed above, and also address additional issues
necessary to provide adequate protection to crew and passengers in
the higher risk environments in which Tier II equipment will be
operating.
1. Anti-Spalling Performance--.001 aluminum witness plate, 12
inches from glazing surface, no marks in witness plate after any
test.
2. Bullet Impact Performance--Able to stop without spall or
bullet penetration a single impact of a 9-mm, 147-grain bullet
traveling at an impact velocity of 900 feet/second with no bullet
penetration or spall.
3. Large Object Impact Performance.
a. End Facing--Impact of a 12-pound solid steel sphere at the
maximum speed at which the vehicle will operate, at an angle equal
to the angle between the glazing surface as installed and the
direction of travel, with no penetration or spall.
b. Side Facing--Impact of a 12-pound solid steel sphere at 15
mph, at an angle of 90 degrees to the surface of the glazing, with
no penetration.
4. Small Object Impact Performance.
a. Side Facing--Impact of a granite ballast stone with major and
minor axes of no
[[Page 30708]]
greater than 10 percent difference in length, weighing a minimum of
0.5 pounds, travelling at 75 mph, impacting at a 90-degree angle to
the glazing surface, with no penetration or spall.
5. Frame Strength--Frame holds glazing in place against all
forces that do not cause glazing penetration.
6. Passing Trains--Glazing and frame shall resist the forces due
to air pressure differences caused by trains passing with the
minimum separation for two adjacent tracks while traveling in
opposite directions, each traveling at maximum speed.
7. Interior Glazing--Interior trainset glazing shall meet the
minimum requirements of AS1 type laminated glass as defined in
American National Standard ``Safety Code for Glazing Materials for
Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways,'' ASA Standard
Z26.1-1966.
D. Emergency Systems--Each Unit and Each Level of Bi-Level Units
Tier I:
1. Emergency Lighting.
a. Illumination level shall be a minimum of 5 foot-candles at
floor level for all potential trainset evacuation routes.
b. A back-up power system capable of operating all emergency
lighting for a period of at least two hours shall be provided.
c. The back-up power system shall be capable of operation in all
trainset unit orientations. (APTA recommends adding ``within 45
degrees of vertical'' to the end of this requirement.)
d. The back-up power system shall be capable of operation after
the initial shock of a collision or derailment. (APTA proposes a 3g
shock load.)
2. Emergency Communication.
a. Both interior and exterior locations of emergency
communications equipment shall be specified. Exterior locations must
be compatible with communication equipment normally carried by
emergency response personnel.
FR Doc. 96-14944 Passenger Equipment Safety Standards
Interior locations must be provided at
both ends of every level of passenger units, for passengers to
communicate emergency conditions to the trainset operator.
b. Back-up power--Emergency communication system back-up power
shall be provided for a minimum time period of two hours.
c. Clear, concise instructions for emergency use shall be posted
at all potential evacuation locations.
(APTA recommends that these requirements be deferred to the
Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness Working Group.)
3. Emergency Equipment.
a. Locations of emergency equipment shall be clearly marked.
b. Clear, concise instructions for use of emergency equipment
shall be posted at each location.
(APTA recommends that these requirements be deferred to the
Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness Working Group.)
4. Emergency Exits.
a. Locations of emergency exits shall be clearly marked and
lighted.
(APTA recommends eliminating lighted)
b. Clear, concise instructions for use of the emergency exits
shall be posted at each location.
c. Number of exits required:
i. Four windows--one located at each end of each side--of a
passenger coach shall operate as emergency exits.
ii. If the coach is bi-level, four windows--one located at each
end of each side--on each level shall operate as emergency exits.
iii. For special design cars, such as sleepers, each compartment
shall have at least one emergency exit.
d. Size--Passenger coach sealed window emergency exits shall
have a minimum free opening of 30 inches wide by 30 inches high.
(APTA recommends 18 inches wide by 24 inches high.)
e. Each locomotive or power cab shall have a minimum of one roof
hatch emergency exit with either a minimum opening of 18 inches by
24 inches or a clearly marked structural weak point in the roof to
provide quick access for properly equipped emergency personnel.
(APTA recommends eliminating this requirement.)
f. Each passenger coach or passenger service car shall be
equipped with either a minimum of two roof hatch emergency exits
with a minimum opening of 18 inches by 24 inches (APTA recommends
eliminating the size requirement) or a clearly marked structural
weak point in the roof to provide quick access for properly equipped
emergency personnel.
g. Each emergency exit shall be easily operable by passengers
and crew members without requiring the use of any special tools.
Tier II: Same requirements as above for Tier I equipment.
E. Doors (APTA recommends this section apply only to exterior
powered side doors.)
Tier I:
1. The status of exterior doors shall be displayed to the crew.
If door interlocks are used, the sensors used to detect train motion
shall be accurate to within 2 mph.
2. Doors shall be powered by the emergency back-up power system.
3. Doors shall be equipped with a manual override that can be
used to open doors without power both from outside and inside the
trainset. Instructions for manual override shall be clearly posted
in the car interior at door locations.
4. Doors shall be easily operable by passengers and crew members
following a derailment or collision without requiring the use of any
special tools to accomplish the manual override in the event of
head-end power loss.
5. Doors shall open outward to facilitate timely egress in the
event of a collision or derailment.
Tier II: Same requirements as above for Tier I equipment.
F. Fuel Tanks
Tier I:
1. External Fuel Tanks.
a. Height off rail--With all locomotive wheels resting on the
ties beside the rail, the lowest point of the fuel tank shall clear
an 8.5-inch combined tie plate/rail height by a minimum of 1.5
inches. This requirement results in a minimum 10-inch vertical
distance from the lowest point on the wheel tread to the lowest
point on the fuel tank.
b. Bulkhead and skin--material, thickness, and strength.
i. Bulkheads--1-inch steel plate with 25,000 psi yield strength.
Higher yield-strength steel may be used to decrease the thickness
required as long as equivalent strength is maintained.
ii. Skin--1/2-inch steel plate with 25,000 psi yield strength or
equivalent. Higher yield-strength steel may be used to decrease the
thickness required as long as equivalent strength is maintained.
iii. The material used for construction of fuel tank exterior
surfaces shall not exhibit a decrease in yield strength or
penetration resistance in the temperature range of 0 to 160 deg.F.
c. Compartmentalization--The interior of fuel tanks shall be
divided into a minimum of four separate compartments designed so
that a penetration in the exterior skin of any one compartment shall
result in loss of fuel only from that compartment.
d. Vent system spill protection--Fuel tank vent systems shall be
designed to prevent them from becoming a path of fuel loss in the
event the tank is placed in any orientation due to a locomotive
overturning.
e. The bottom surface of the fuel tank shall be equipped with
skid surfaces to prevent sliding contact with the rail or the ground
from easily wearing through the tank.
f. Structural Strength--The structural strength of the tank
shall be adequate to support 1.5 times the dead weight of the
locomotive without deformation of the tank.
2. Internal Fuel Tanks.
a. ``Internal fuel tank'' is defined as a tank whose lowest
point is at least 18 inches above the lowest point on the locomotive
wheel tread and that is enclosed by, or is part of, the locomotive
structure.
b. Compartmentalization--The interior of fuel tanks shall be
divided into a minimum of four separate compartments designed so
that a penetration in the exterior skin of any one compartment shall
result in loss of fuel only from that compartment.
c. Vent system spill protection--Fuel tank vent systems shall be
designed to prevent them from becoming a path of fuel loss in the
event the tank is placed in any orientation due to a locomotive
overturning.
d. Internal fuel tank bulkheads and skin shall be 3/8-inch steel
plate with 25,000-lb yield strength or material with equivalent
strength. Skid plates are not required.
Tier II: Same requirements as above for Tier I equipment.
G. Cab Controls, Interior and Safety Features
Tier I:
1. Slip/Slide Alarms (49 CFR 229.115).
a. Each power vehicle/control cab shall be equipped with an
adhesion control system designed to automatically detect a loss of
adhesion during power application and then reduce power to limit
wheel slip. (APTA recommends eliminating this requirement.)
b. The adhesion control system shall also automatically adjust
the braking force on
[[Page 30709]]
each wheel to prevent sliding during braking. In the event of a
failure of this system to prevent wheel slip/slide within preset
parameters, a visual and/or audible wheel slip/slide alarm shall
alert the train operator. The slip/slide alarm shall alert the
operator in the cab of the controlling power vehicle/control car to
slip/slide conditions on any powered axle of the train. (APTA
recommends eliminating this requirement.)
c. Each powered axle shall be monitored for slip/slide. (APTA
recommends moving this requirement to passenger equipment power
brake rules.)
2. Operator controls in the power vehicle/control cab shall be
arranged to be comfortably within view and within easy reach when
the operator is seated in the normal train control position.
3. The control panels shall be laid out to minimize the chance
of human error.
4. Control panel buttons, switches, levers, knobs, etc., shall
be distinguishable by sight and by touch.
5. An alerter shall be provided. The alerter may allow the
operator freedom of movement in the control cab but shall not allow
the operator to move outside the area in which control of the train
is exercised while the train is in motion.
6. Cab Information Displays.
a. Simplicity and standardization shall be the driving criteria
for design of formats for the display of information in the cab.
b. Essential, safety-critical information shall be displayed as
a default condition.
c. Operator selection shall be required to display other than
default information.
d. Cab/train control signals shall be available as a display
option for the operator.
e. Displays shall be easy to read from the operator's normal
position under all lighting conditions.
7. Pilots, Snowplows, Endplates.
a. The power vehicle/control cab car shall be equipped with a
structurally substantial endplate, pilot or snowplow which extends
across both rails of the track.
b. The height of the endplate, pilot, or snowplow shall be
greater than 3 inches and less than 6 inches off the rails.
8. Headlights (49 CFR 229.125)
a. The power vehicle/control cab shall be equipped with more
than one headlight producing no less than 200,000 candela.
b. The headlights shall be focused to illuminate a person
standing between the rails at 800 feet (1000 feet for Tier II) under
clear weather conditions.
9. Crew's Field of View.
a. The cab layout shall be arranged so the crew has an effective
field of view in the forward direction and to the right and left of
the direction of travel.
b. Field-of-view obstructions due to required structural members
shall be minimized.
c. The crew's position in the cab shall be located to permit the
crew to be able to directly observe traffic approaching the train
from either side of the train. (APTA recommends this requirement be
revised to be measurable or be eliminated.)
10. Seat Placement/Features.
Seats provided for crew members shall:
a. Be equipped with quick-release lap belts and shoulder
harnesses.
b. Be secured to the car body with an attachment having an
ultimate strength capable of withstanding the loads due to
accelerations of 12g/4g/4g acting longitudinally/laterally/
vertically on the mass of the seat and the crew member occupying it.
(APTA recommends a 3g/3g/3g requirement that applies only to the
mass of the seat.)
c. Be designed so all adjustments have the range necessary to
accommodate a 5th-percentile female to a 95th-percentile male.
d. Be equipped with lumbar support that is adjustable from the
seated position.
e. Be equipped with force-assisted, vertical-height adjustment,
operated from the seated position.
f. Have manually reclining seat backs, adjustable from the
seated position.
g. Have adjustable headrests.
h. Have folding, padded armrests.
(APTA recommends that these requirements only apply to floor
mounted seats.)
11. Impact Mitigation.
a. Sharp edges and corners shall be eliminated from the interior
of the cab.
b. Interior surfaces of the cab likely to be impacted by crew
members during a collision or derailment shall be padded with shock-
absorbent material.
Tier II: Same requirements as above for Tier I equipment.
H. Fire Safety
Tier I:
1. A Fire Protection Engineering Plan shall be developed as part
of the system planning process.
a. The fire protection engineering plan shall identify and
evaluate the major sources of fire risk. (APTA recommends that this
requirement be deleted.)
b. The plan shall describe the design steps taken to delay the
onset of lethal conditions until the fire can be detected, the train
stopped and all personnel safely evacuated. (APTA recommends that
this requirement be deleted.)
2. The trainset ventilation system shall be designed so as not
to contribute to the spread of flames or products of combustion.
3. Trainset roof design shall prevent high-voltage arcs from
overhead catenaries from penetrating the skin or shell of the
occupied spaces in the trainset. The roof shall not be susceptible
to ignition due to high-voltage arcing. (APTA recommends that this
requirement be deleted.)
4. Where possible, components that are potential sources of fire
ignition shall be located outside occupied volumes and shall be
separated from occupied volumes by a structural fire-resistant
barrier. (APTA recommends that this requirement be deleted.)
5. Portions of the trainset structure separating major sources
of ignition, of energy storage, or of fuel loading from the occupied
volumes of the trainset shall have sufficient resistance to fire,
smoke and fume penetration to allow time for fire detection and safe
evacuation of the trainset. (APTA recommends that this requirement
be deleted.)
6. All materials and finishes used or installed in the
construction of the trainset shall have sufficient resistance to
fire, smoke and fume production to allow sufficient time for fire
detection, for the trainset to stop, and for safe evacuation of
passengers before lethal conditions develop. (APTA recommends that
this requirement be deleted.)
7. At a minimum, the materials used for the construction of cab
interiors including but not limited to walls, floors, ceilings,
seats, doors, windows, electrical conduits, air ducts and any other
internal equipment shall meet FRA guidelines published in the
Federal Register on January 17, 1989. (See 54 FR 1837, ``Rail
Passenger Equipment; Reissuance of Guidelines for Selecting
Materials to Improve Their Fire Safety Characteristics''; see also
the latest National Fire Protection Association ``NFPA 130, Standard
for Fixed Guideway Transit Systems.'')
8. Detection and Suppression.
a. Fire extinguishers shall be placed in each unit.
b. All trainset components with a potential to overheat in the
event of a malfunction to the extent they could be the source of an
on-board fire shall be equipped with overheat warning devices. These
components shall include, but not be limited to:
i. Diesel Engines;
ii. Traction Motors;
iii. Dynamic Brake Energy Dissipation System Components;
iv. Transformers;
v. Inverters; and
vi. Head-End Power Generation Systems.
(APTA recommends that the system safety plan determine how to
handle components that could overheat rather than requiring
detection devices.)
Tier II: Same requirements as above for Tier I equipment.
I. Electrical System Design
No one specific, industry electrical standard adequately
addresses all of the electrical safety issues relating to the
operation of a trainset. As safe operation of trains becomes more
dependent on electronic technology, reliable electrical and
electronic systems become crucial. The industry standard most
appropriate for each major component of the trainset electrical
system needs to be carefully selected.
The requirements provided below are intended for Tier I and Tier
II equipment, as applicable.
1. Conductor Sizes--Conductor sizes shall be selected on the
basis of current-carrying capacity, mechanical strength,
temperature, flexibility requirements and maximum allowable voltage
drop. Current-carrying capacity shall be derated for grouping and
for operating temperature in accordance with nationally recognized
standards.
2. Circuit Protection.
a. The main propulsion power line shall be protected with a
lightning arrestor, automatic circuit breaker and overload relay.
The lightning arrestor shall be run by the most direct path possible
to ground with a connection to ground of not less than No. 6 AWG.
These overload protection devices shall be housed in an enclosure
designed specifically for that purpose with arc chute vented
directly to outside air.
[[Page 30710]]
b. Head end power including trainline power distribution shall
be provided with both overload and ground fault protection.
c. Circuits used for purposes other than propelling the trainset
shall be connected to their power source through correctly sized
circuit breakers or circuit breaking contactors.
d. Each auxiliary circuit shall be provided with a circuit
breaker located as near as practical to the point of connection to
the source of power for that circuit. Such protection may be omitted
from circuits controlling crucial safety devices.
3. Battery System.
a. The battery compartment shall be isolated from the cab by a
non-combustible barrier.
b. Battery chargers shall be designed to protect against
overcharging.
c. Battery circuits shall include an emergency battery cut-off
switch to completely disconnect the energy stored in the batteries
from the load.
d. If batteries are of the type to potentially vent explosive
gases, the battery compartment shall be adequately ventilated to
prevent accumulation of explosive concentrations of these gases.
4. Power Dissipation Resistors.
a. Power dissipating resistors shall be adequately ventilated to
prevent overheating under worst-case operating conditions.
b. Power dissipation grids shall be designed and installed with
adequate air space between resistor elements and combustible
material.
c. Power dissipation resistor circuits shall incorporate warning
or protective devices for low ventilation air flow, over-temperature
and short circuit failures.
d. Resistor elements shall be electrically insulated from
resistor frames, and the frames shall be electrically insulated from
the supports that hold them.
e. The current value used to determine the size of resistor
leads shall not be less than 120 percent of the RMS load current
under the most severe operating conditions.
5. Electromagnetic Interference/Compatibility.
a. No trainset system shall produce electrical noise that
interferes with trainline control and communications or with wayside
signaling systems.
b. To contain electromagnetic interference emissions,
suppression of transients shall be at the source wherever possible.
c. Trainset electrical/electronic systems shall be capable of
operation in the presence of external electromagnetic noise sources.
d. All electronic equipment shall be self-protected from damage
and/or improper operation due to high voltage transients and long-
term over-voltage or under-voltage conditions.
J. Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance
Tier I: The operating railroad shall provide detailed
information on the inspection, testing, and maintenance procedures
necessary for long-term safe operation of the trainset. This
information should include:
1. Testing Procedures/Intervals;
2. Scheduled Preventive Maintenance;
3. Maintenance Procedures;
4. Special Testing Equipment; and
5. Training of Mechanical Forces.
Tier II: Same requirements as above for Tier I equipment.
K. Brake System
Existing brake system equipment must meet the applicable
requirements of 49 CFR Parts 229, 231, and 232, and 49 U.S.C.
Chapters 203 and 207 as they relate to the specific equipment and
operation.
FRA has recognized that the current regulations fail to
adequately delineate between requirements for conventional freight
braking systems and the more diverse systems for various categories
of passenger service. FRA also recognizes that the regulations
should be updated to recognize the contemporary electronic systems
that are used to control elements of power brake systems.
In response to the above concerns, FRA published a NPRM for
power brake regulations in September 1994. Four public hearings were
held to discuss particular issues regarding the proposed rules, and
FRA is in the process of reviewing comments received for inclusion
in a revision to the original proposed rule.
Proposed brake system design requirements for Tier I and II
equipment will be determined by the Passenger Equipment Safety
Standards Working Group using the information on passenger equipment
brakes accumulated in docket PB-9 in response to the NPRM on power
brakes.
L. Automated Monitoring and Diagnostics
As train speed increases, the human decision and reaction time
necessary to avoid potential calamity decreases. Automatic control
techniques that briefly take the operator out of the control loop
are a means to eliminate the delays associated with human decision
and reaction in situations where taking quick and positive action
can be crucial. (APTA recommends that this paragraph be deleted.)
Tier I: There are no current requirements for Tier I equipment
to incorporate automatic monitoring and control measures as
described above. Specific functions are identified below for Tier II
equipment, as increased train speeds and higher risk operating
environments make reactions to these functions more time-sensitive
with respect to safety. If the functions identified below can be
shown to be practically and economically feasible in Tier I
equipment, implementation should be considered. (APTA recommends no
such requirements for Tier I equipment.)
Tier II:
1. The trainset shall be equipped with a system that monitors
the performance of the following safety-critical items:
a. Reception of Cab Signals/Train Control Signals;
b. Truck Hunting;
c. Dynamic Brake Status;
d. Friction Brake Status;
e. Fire Detection Systems;
f. Head End Power Status;
g. Alerter;
h. Horn and Bell;
i. Wheel Slip/Slide; and
j. Tilt System, if so equipped.
2. The monitoring system shall alert the operator when any of
the monitored parameters are out of predetermined limits. In
situations where the system safety analysis indicates that operator
reaction time is crucial to safety, the monitoring system shall take
immediate, automatic corrective action such as limiting the speed of
the train.
3. The self-monitoring system shall be designed with an
automatic self-test feature that notifies the operator that the
system is functioning correctly.
M. Trainset System Software
The requirements provided below are intended for Tier I and Tier
II equipment, as applicable.
1. Software used to monitor and control trainset safety features
or functions shall be treated as safety-critical.
2. A formal system software safety program shall be used to
develop the system software. This program shall include a software
hazard analysis and thorough software design walk-through and
verification tests to ensure software is reliable and designed to be
fail-safe.
(APTA recommends that Section M be eliminated.)
N. Trainset Hardware/Software Integration
The requirement provided below is intended for Tier I and Tier
II equipment, as applicable.
1. A comprehensive hardware/software integration program shall
be planned and conducted to demonstrate that the software functions
as intended when installed in a hardware system identical to that to
be used in service.
O. Suspension System Design Requirements
Tier I: FRA does not currently address suspension system
requirements for passenger equipment.
Tier II:
1. The suspension system shall be designed so no single wheel
lateral to vertical force
(L/V) ratio is greater than 0.8 for a duration required to travel 3
feet at any operating speed or over any class of track used by the
trainset unless the axle sum ratio is less than 1.0. The L/V should
be measured with an instrument with a band pass of 0 to 25 Hz.
2. Net axle lateral force may not exceed 0.5 times the static
vertical axle load.
3. The minimum vertical wheel/rail force shall be a minimum of
10 percent of the static vertical wheel load.
4. The maximum truck side L/V ratio shall not exceed 0.5.
5. When positioned on track with a uniform 6-inch
superelevation, trainsets shall have no wheel unload to a value less
than 60 percent of its static value on perfectly level track.
6. When the equipment is positioned on level, tangent track, and
any one wheel is raised by three inches, no other wheel of the
equipment shall unload to a value of less than 0.65 times the weight
of the unit divided by the number of wheels supporting the unit.
(Builders of passenger equipment take exception to this proposed
requirement as too stringent. They prefer a more flexible
requirement allowing individual railroads to
[[Page 30711]]
define wheel unloading requirements for safe operation under worst
case track conditions for the intended use of the equipment.
Compliance with this requirement must be demonstrated as part of the
vehicle qualification tests.)
7. All Tier II equipment shall be equipped with lateral
accelerometers mounted above an axle of each truck. The
accelerometer output signals shall be accurately calibrated and
shall be passed through signal conditioning circuitry designed to
determine if hunting oscillations of the truck are occurring.
Hunting oscillations are defined as six or more consecutive
oscillations having a peak acceleration in excess of 0.8g peak-to-
peak at a frequency of between 1 and 10 Hz. If hunting oscillations
are detected, the train monitoring system shall provide an alarm to
the operator and automatically slow the train to a speed where
hunting oscillations no longer occur before returning total control
of the trainset to the operator.
8. Ride Vibration (Quality)--While traveling at the maximum
operating speed over the intended route, the train suspension system
shall be designed to:
a. Limit the vertical acceleration as measured by a vertical
accelerometer mounted over the leading truck of each trainset unit
to no greater than 0.55g single event, peak-to-peak.
b. Limit the lateral acceleration as measured by a lateral
accelerometer mounted over the leading truck of each trainset unit
to no greater than 0.3g single event, peak-to- peak.
c. Limit the combination of lateral and vertical events
occurring within any time period of 2 consecutive seconds to the
square root of (V2+L2) to no greater than 0.604--where L
may not exceed 0.3g and V may not exceed 0.55g.
9. If hunting oscillations are detected on any equipment in the
train, the maximum speed of that train shall be limited to 10 mph
less than the speed at which hunting stops as the train speed is
decreased from the initial hunting speed.
10. If the ride quality limitations of paragraph 8 of this
section are exceeded, the operating speed shall be restricted to
that which would result in a peak-to-peak lateral acceleration no
greater than 0.25g and a peak-to- peak vertical acceleration no
greater than 0.5g.
11. Passenger cars of a non-tilting design shall not operate
under conditions resulting in a cant deficiency of greater than 6
inches or that corresponds to a steady-state lateral acceleration of
0.1g, whichever is less.
12. Trainsets of a tilting design shall not operate under
conditions resulting in a cant deficiency greater than 9 inches or
that corresponds to a steady-state lateral acceleration of 0.1g
(measured parallel to the car floor), which ever is less.
13. All wheels shall be heat treated, curved-plate type or a
design with equivalent resistance to thermal abuse.
14. Bearing overheat sensors are required. These are not
required to be on board, and may be placed at reasonable wayside
intervals. Periodic bearing inspection required at 50 percent of the
L10 life at a load factor of 2.
P. General Locomotive/Power Car Design Requirements
Tier I: 1. All moving parts, high voltage equipment, electrical
conductors and switches, and pipes carrying hot fluids or gases
shall be installed in non-exposed locations or shall be
appropriately equipped with interlocks or guards to minimize the
chance of personal injury. (APTA recommends eliminating this
requirement for Tier I equipment.)
Tier II: Same requirement as above for Tier I equipment.
Q. Power Vehicle/Control Cab Health and Comfort Design Features
Issues under this heading may be added to this proceeding
following submission of FRA's Report to Congress on Locomotive
Crashworthiness and Working Conditions.
R. Coupler/Draft System Performance (Only Leading and Trailing
Couplers of Integral Trainsets)
Note: This requirement is applicable only for use in integral
trainsets, envisioned to be prevalent in the higher speed operating
environments of Tier II equipment. Otherwise, guidance regarding
coupler/draft system performance requirements remain as specified.
Tier II: 1. Leading and trailing automatic couplers of the
trainset shall be compatible with standard AAR couplers with no
special adapters used. These couplers shall include automatic
uncoupling devices that comply with the Safety Appliance Standards
(49 CFR Part 231) and 49 U.S.C. 20302(a)(1)(A).
2. The leading and trailing trainset unit's coupler/draft system
design shall include an anti-climbing feature capable of resisting
without failure a minimum vertical force between the coupled units
in either the up or the down direction resulting from an
acceleration of 1g acting on the total mass including trucks of the
leading or trailing unit of the trainset. The coupler/draft system
itself may fail (shear back type coupler) to allow the anti-climbing
feature to engage.
S. Safety Appliance Design Requirements
Tier I: Current safety appliance requirements are found at 49
CFR Parts 229, 231 and 232, and 49 U.S.C. Chapters 203 and 207.
(Existing requirements which are statutorily based cannot be changed
by this rulemaking.)
Tier II: 1. The leading and the trailing ends of the trainset
shall be equipped with automatic couplers that:
a. Couple on impact and allow uncoupling without necessitating a
person going between cars; and
b. Shall be activated either by a traditional uncoupling lever
or some other means of automatic uncoupling mechanism that does not
require a person to go between equipment units.
2. Leading and trailing end automatic couplers and uncoupling
devices may be stored within a shrouded housing, but shall be easily
removed when required for emergency use.
3. If the units of the trainset are semi-permanently coupled,
with uncoupling done only at maintenance facilities, the trainset
units need not be equipped with sill steps, end or side handholds.
4. If the units of the trainset are coupled with automatic
couplers, the units shall be equipped with sill steps, end handholds
and side handholds that meet the requirements of 49 CFR 231.14.
5. Passenger handrails or handholds shall be provided on both
sides of steps used to board or depart the train.
6. Power vehicle and control cab exits shall be equipped with
handholds and sill steps.
7. Safety appliance mechanical strength.
a. All handrails and sill steps shall be made of 1-inch diameter
steel pipe or \5/8\-inch thickness steel or a material of equal or
greater mechanical strength.
b. All safety appliances shall be securely fastened to the
carbody structure with mechanical fasteners that have mechanical
strength greater than or equal to that of a \1/2\-inch diameter SAE
steel bolt mechanical fastener.
8. Handrails.
a. Throughout their entire length, handrails shall be a
contrasting color to the surrounding vehicle body.
b. Vertical handrails shall be installed so as:
i. The maximum distance above the top of the rail to the bottom
of the handrail shall be 51 inches and the minimum distance shall be
21 inches.
ii. To continue to a point at least equal to the height of the
top edge of the control cab door.
iii. Minimum hand clearance distance between the handrail and
the vehicle body shall be 2\1/2\ inches for the entire length.
iv. All vertical handrails shall be securely fastened to the
vehicle body.
v. If the length of the handrail exceeds 60 inches, it shall be
securely fastened to the power vehicle body with two fasteners at
each end.
9. Sill steps.
a. Each power vehicle or control cab shall be equipped with sill
steps below each door.
b. Power vehicle or control cab sill steps shall be a minimum
cross-sectional area \1/2\ by 3 inches, of steel or a material of
equal or greater strength and fatigue resistance.
c. Sill steps shall be designed and installed so:
i. The minimum tread length of the sill step shall be 10 inches.
ii. The minimum clear depth shall be 8 inches.
iii. The outside edge of the tread of the sill step shall be
flush with the side of the power vehicle or cab car body structure.
iv. Sill steps shall not have a vertical rise between treads
exceeding 18 inches. The lowest sill step tread shall be not more
than 20 inches above the top of the track rail.
v. The sill step shall be a color which contrasts with the
surrounding power vehicle body color.
vi. All sill steps shall be securely fastened.
vii. As a minimum, 50 percent of the tread surface area shall be
open space.
viii. The portion of the tread surface area which is not open
space and is normally contacted by the foot shall be treated with an
anti-skid material.
10. Safety appliance mechanical fasteners.
[[Page 30712]]
a. Safety appliance mechanical fasteners shall have mechanical
strength and fatigue resistance equal to or greater than a \1/2\-
inch diameter SAE steel bolt.
b. Fasteners shall be installed with a positive means to prevent
unauthorized removal.
c. Fasteners shall be installed to facilitate inspection.
11. Safety appliances installed at the option of the system
operator shall be firmly attached with mechanical fasteners and
shall meet the design and installation requirements given herein.
12. If two trainsets are coupled to form a single train by an
automatic coupler, the coupled ends must be equipped with end
handholds, side handholds and sill steps. If the trainsets are semi-
permanently coupled, these safety appliances are not required.
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
[[Page 30713]]
Appendix C.--AMTRAK Passenger Train Safety Inspection Criteria
(Serves as a Sample Only)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17JN96.000
[[Page 30714]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17JN96.001
[[Page 30715]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17JN96.002
[[Page 30716]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17JN96.003
[[Page 30717]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17JN96.004
[[Page 30718]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17JN96.005
[[Page 30719]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17JN96.006
[[Page 30720]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17JN96.007
[[Page 30721]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17JN96.008
[[Page 30722]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17JN96.009
BILLING CODE 4910-06-C
[[Page 30723]]
Appendix D--Economic Questions for Passenger Equipment Safety
Standards
Economic questions which appear in the body of this document are
posed to help FRA gain a clear understanding of what costs the
industry would incur to meet possible passenger equipment safety
standards. To estimate the total costs that the industry would incur
as a result of complying with possible passenger equipment safety
standards, we need to understand how performance of existing
structures, equipment, programs, and procedures compare with what
would be required to meet the standards. FRA also needs to gain a
better understanding of both the qualitative and quantitative
benefits associated with the requirements under consideration.
FRA would appreciate receiving economic information from all
concerned parties including individual passenger service operators
and equipment manufacturers. Information regarding only one
particular sector or operator is useful. Use of this information
will result in a more accurate analysis of costs and benefits.
1. Questions on System Safety Plans
Are any system safety plans or similar plans currently in use?
How much would it cost (in terms of time and effort) to update
existing or develop new system safety plans? On average,
approximately how often would system safety plans have to be
updated?
How would system safety plans improve safety? Specifically, what
areas of safety would be improved, by how much, and why? Please
provide copies of any studies, data, or arguments which support your
answer.
2. Questions on Pre-Departure or Daily Safety Inspections
In terms of labor, materials, etc., what additional resources
would each operator need to perform a pre departure inspection
equivalent to Amtrak's? How many pre-departure or daily inspections
are performed annually by each operator?
What potential safety benefits would result from performing
inspections equivalent to Amtrak's? Please explain/document
estimates. For those currently performing inspections, what
additional benefits could be realized by modifying those inspection
procedures to meet Amtrak's? Please explain/document. What
additional costs would result from performing inspections equivalent
to Amtrak's, or for those operators currently performing
inspections, what additional costs would be incurred by modifying
inspection procedures to be equivalent to Amtrak's? Please explain/
document.
3. Questions on Periodic Testing and Maintenance
Currently, what equipment is tested and maintained periodically?
How often (in terms of miles or time) is this equipment tested and
maintained? What do periodic tests and maintenance currently
entail--labor, materials, etc.? What benefit(s)/costs would be
associated with a periodic testing and maintenance requirement?
Please explain.
4. Questions on Personnel Qualifications
Currently, how many employees/contractors are involved in
inspecting, testing, and maintaining a passenger car or locomotive?
How many of these people are mechanical personnel? Are there
established minimum training and qualification requirements for
employees and contractors performing inspections, testing, and
maintenance? Approximately how many labor hours does each passenger
service operator spend each year on these activities?
What are the potential benefits of increased training in
periodic testing and maintenance? To what extent are expenditures on
such training cost effective? Historically, does this type of
training produce identifiable safety benefits? Please explain.
5. Questions on Tourist and Excursion Railroads
Information available to FRA indicates that there are
approximately 100 excursion railroads operating about 250
locomotives and 1,000 passenger cars. Is this information correct?
What size crews operate excursion and tourist trains? What is the
average annual passenger car mileage for tourist and excursion
railroads?
What potential safety benefits are available from possible
passenger equipment standards for tourist and excursion railroads?
To what extent can these safety benefits be realized, and what will
they cost? Please explain.
6. Questions on Private Passenger Cars
How many private passenger cars are in operation? On average,
how many miles do private passenger cars travel annually?
What potential safety benefits are available from possible
passenger equipment standards for private passenger car operators?
To what extent can these safety benefits be realized, and what will
they cost? Please explain.
7. Questions on Commuter Equipment and Operations
Information available to FRA suggests that there are about 20
commuter railroads nationwide operating roughly 5,400 passenger
cars, 400 cab cars, 2,000 multiple unit locomotive pairs, and 400
conventional locomotives. Are these estimates accurate? What size
crews operate commuter trains? Approximately how many people stand
on each train?
As a result of implementing possible passenger equipment
standards, would commuter operators realize different safety
benefits and costs than intercity operators? Please explain.
8. Questions on Operations With Cab Car Forward and MUs
What costs and benefits would be associated with alternatives
for increasing crew and passenger protection in a head-on collision
with a cab car leading?
Data indicate that at least 400 cab cars operate as lead units.
Is this estimate accurate? Approximately, how many trips are made
each year with cab cars operating as lead units? At what maximum
speeds do trains operate cab car forward?
Information available to FRA suggests approximately 2,000
multiple unit locomotive pairs operate as lead units. Is this
estimate accurate? Approximately how many trips per year involve
multiple unit locomotive pairs?
9. Questions on Operating Practices and Procedures
a. What costs and potential benefits are associated with
alternative measures to safeguard passenger movements in ground
level stations?
b. At what costs can alternative measures to mitigate risks of
high-speed express trains through stations be implemented?
10. Questions on Equipment Design Standards
a. What would be the likely costs associated with different
alternatives available for ensuring that anticlimbers are loaded
vertically during collisions?
b. What costs would be associated with specifying a more
effective anticlimber, stronger and full height collision posts, and
full height corner posts on conventional passenger locomotives?
c. How much would it cost to equip conventional passenger
service locomotives with the type of strengthened fuel tanks
discussed in Appendix B? What levels of safety benefits can be
realized from strengthened/ruggedized fuel tanks?
d. How many units have backup power systems currently in place?
What would it cost to install a backup power system? What levels of
safety benefits would result from backup power systems?
How many coach units have backup emergency lighting? What would
it cost to install a backup emergency lighting system? What
rationale is used to determine whether a unit will have backup
emergency lighting? To what extent would potential safety benefits
be realized? Please explain.
What would it cost to install roof hatches on cars?
What options exist for enclosing existing luggage compartments?
At what cost? To what extent would potential safety benefits from
enclosing luggage compartments be realized? Please explain.
e. What levels of benefits would be realized from modifying 49
CFR Part 223 as suggested? At what cost would these benefits be
realized?
11. Questions on Design Standards for High-Speed Equipment
a. What costs would be associated with alternative approaches
designed to prevent crushing or penetration of the occupied volume
in power and coach cars? Please be specific in defining the
alternative approach and its cost elements.
b. How much would installation of alternative buckling delay
systems cost in terms of labor hours and materials?
c. What seat configurations do passenger cars operating at
speeds greater than 80 mph have? If configurations vary, please
explain the differences and why they vary. How many seats does the
average passenger car have? If there is no such thing as an average
passenger car, how many seats do the different types of passenger
cars have? How many cars are there of each different type?
[[Page 30724]]
What costs would be involved with installation of lap belts,
shoulder harnesses, and other safety restraints on passenger cars?
To what extent would safety benefits be realized from installing
safety restraints? Please explain.
d. In terms of time, materials, and labor, what would
installation of crash refuges (protected areas for the crew when a
collision is unavoidable) in locomotives cost?
12. Question Regarding Size of Fleet Affected
Information available to FRA suggests that there are about 8,200
passenger cars and 970 conventional locomotives dedicated to rail
passenger service in the United States. Is this information
accurate?
13. Questions Regarding Ridership and Ticket Prices
What ridership levels are experienced through the year? Would
meeting the new higher standards described in Appendix B result in
higher fares? If so, how much higher? Would a decrease in ridership
be expected? If so, to what extent? Please explain the method of
estimation. To which alternative forms of travel would any lost
ridership be expected to switch? How has this conclusion been
reached? What assumptions are made? FRA is interested in obtaining
copies of studies or other documentation addressing the issue of
passenger diversion from rail to other modes of travel as a result
of new rail safety standards. What factors have the greatest effect
on ridership levels: price, seat availability, trip time,
variability in trip time, etc.?
[FR Doc. 96-14944 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14641 Osage Roll; Certificate of Competency
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30559-30560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14641]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
25 CFR Part 154
RIN 1076-AD41
Osage Roll; Certificate of Competency
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs is proposing to amend its
regulations on the Osage competency roll as required by the National
Performance Review regulatory reform effort.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand carry your comments to Terrance L. Virden,
Acting Director, Office of Trust Responsibilities, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW, MS 4513 MIB,
Washington, DC 20240. Comments may be hand delivered from 9:00 a.m. to
4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or sent by facsimile to Facsimile No.
(202) 219-1065.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alice Harwood, Acting Chief, Division of Real Estate Services, Office
of Trust Responsibilities, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the
Interior, 1849 C Street, NW, MS 4513 MIB, Washington, DC 20240,
Telephone No. (202) 208-7737.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed rule has been rewritten to
facilitate its use by the general public and the individual Indians
affected by the rule. Sections that no longer apply have been deleted
and sections added for clarification. No substantive revisions are
proposed in this rule.
The authority to issue rules and regulations is vested in the
Secretary of the Interior by 5 U.S.C. 301 and sections 463 and 465 of
the Revised Statutes, 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9, and delegated to the Assistant
Secretary-Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8.
Publication of the proposed rule by the Department of the Interior
(Department) provides the public an opportunity to participate in the
rulemaking process. Interested persons may submit written comments
regarding the proposed rule to the location identified in the addresses
section of this document.
This rule is not a major rule under Executive Order 12866 and will
not require a review by the Office of Management and Budget.
The Department has determined that this rule:
Does not have significant federalism effects.
Will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.) because this rule applies only to Osage
Indian applicants.
Does not have significant takings implications under E.O.
12630.
Does not have significant effects on the economy, nor will
it result in increases in costs or prices for consumers, individual
industries, Federal, State, or local governments, agencies, or
geographical regions.
Does not have any adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the export/import
market.
Is categorically excluded from the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 because it is of an administrative, technical, and
procedural nature. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor
an environmental impact statement is warranted.
Does not impose any unfunded mandates on any governmental
or private entity and is in compliance with the provisions of the
Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995.
Has been found to contain no information collection
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. By memorandum
January 11, 1984, then Deputy Administrator for the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), determined that information collections related to Indian land
records and title documents did not require OMB clearance.
Drafting Information
The primary author of this document is Pearl Kennedy, Realty
Specialist, Division of Real Estate Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW, MS 4522 MIB, Washington,
DC, 20240.
List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 154
Indians, Indians--lands.
For the reasons given in the preamble, Part 154 of Title 25,
Chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be revised
as set forth below.
PART 154--OSAGE ROLL, CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY
Sec.
154.1 What are the definitions of the terms used in this part?
154.2 Why do I need a certificate of competency?
154.3 How do I apply for a certificate of competency?
154.4 How do I qualify for a certificate of competency?
[[Page 30560]]
154.5 What is a competency eligibility roll?
154.6 How is age determined?
154.7 Who pays for the recording of certificates of competency?
154.8 When will I get delivery of my funds, if any?
Authority: 62 Stat. 18; 25 U.S.C. 331 note.
Sec. 154.1 What are the definitions of the terms used in this part?
Certificate of competency is a certificate issued by the
Superintendent of the Osage Agency declaring a certain Osage Indian to
be competent to handle his or her allotted or inherited Osage Indian
lands or Osage headright interest(s).
Commissioner includes the Deputy Commissioner of Indian Affairs or
authorized representative acting under delegated authority.
Person means an unallotted member of the Osage Tribe of Oklahoma of
less than one-half Osage Indian blood who has not received a
certificate of competency.
Secretary means the Secretary of the Interior or authorized
representative acting under delegated authority.
Superintendent means the Superintendent of the Osage Agency, Bureau
of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior.
Sec. 154.2 Why do I need a certificate of competency?
If you do not wish to be under the supervision of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and feel that you are competent to handle your own
allotted or inherited Osage Indian lands or Osage headright interests,
you may apply for a certificate of competency which will remove the
restrictions from your land as well as make any income deriving from
your Osage headright interests fully taxable by both Federal and State.
In addition, a certificate of competency will make any Osage lands or
headright subject to creditors' claims.
Sec. 154.3 How do I apply for a certificate of competency?
You must complete and file with the agency superintendent a written
application in the form approved by the Secretary.
Sec. 154.4 How do I qualify for a certificate of competency?
You must be at least 21 years old and be determined by the Osage
Agency Superintendent to be competent to handle your own land and
financial affairs.
Sec. 154.5 What is a competency eligibility roll?
It is a listing, prepared for the Osage Agency Superintendent, of
persons 21 years or older who have not received a certificate of
competency. It contains the following information for each individual:
(a) Name;
(b) Last known address;
(c) Date of birth; and
(d) Total quantity of Osage Indian blood of each person listed.
Sec. 154.6 How is age determined?
The date of birth as shown on a standard or delayed birth
certificate or census records maintained by the Osage Indian Agency is
accepted as prima facie evidence in determining the age of a person.
Sec. 154.7 Who pays for the recording of certificates of competency?
The Superintendent may disburse IIM funds of the persons to whom a
certificate of competency is issued in order to provide for the direct
payment of costs of recording the certificate of competency into the
official land records of the Osage County Clerk.
Sec. 154.8 When will I get delivery of my funds, if any?
After a certificate of competency is issued and recorded, the
Superintendent will deliver to the individual or legal guardian named,
the original copy of the certificate and a check for all funds on
deposit in the IIM account of the individual at the Osage Indian
Agency. At the request of the Superintendent, you will be required to
sign a receipt.
Dated: May 31, 1996.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-14641 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14640 Leasing and Permitting
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30560-30570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14640]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
25 CFR Part 162
RIN 1076-AA29
Leasing and Permitting
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rulemaking action will revise the leasing and permitting
regulations in 25 CFR Part 162, and incorporate the general grazing
permit regulations now found in 25 CFR Part 166. The rule will also
implement the relevant provisions in a number of statutes of general
application, including the American Indian Agricultural Resource
Management Act (AIARMA). Finally, the rule will implement many policy
decisions, legal opinions, and administrative actions which have been
issued or implemented by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) since the
last publication of these regulations in the 1960's.
DATE: Comments must be submitted on or before October 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Mail comments to: Mark Bradford, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Division of Land and Water, 1849 C Street, N.W., Mail Stop 4559 MIB,
Washington, D.C. 20240.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stan Webb, Branch of Real Estate
Services, Phoenix Area Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, at 602-379-
6781, or Virgil Dupuis, Lands Division, Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation, at 406-675-2700.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 301 of the AIARMA requires that the
act be implemented through the promulgation of final regulations within
24 months, and that such regulations be ``developed by the Secretary
with the participation of the affected Indian tribes.'' Four work
groups (including a leasing and permitting group) were established by a
steering committee, with the work groups and the steering committee
each being comprised of BIA and tribal representatives. The work groups
met in March 1994, and a first set of draft regulations was distributed
for comment to some 3000 addressees on April 29, 1994. The first draft
did not provide for a consolidation of the permitting provisions in 25
CFR Parts 162 and 166, although such a consolidation had been planned
by the BIA since 1988; it did, however, include a number of proposed
revisions (unrelated to the AIARMA) intended to address questions
raised during the past 25 years by other statutory enactments and
various administrative actions and judicial decisions.
After five formal hearings were conducted throughout the nation, a
second mailing was distributed for comment on June 28, 1994. The second
mailing included a cross-references summary sheet which indicated how
most of the permitting provisions in the existing 25 CFR Part 166 would
be incorporated in Subpart D of the proposed 25 CFR Part 162, but it
did not include the text of the proposed Subpart D. The text of a
revised Subpart D--and all of the other proposed regulations drafted to
implement the AIARMA--were distributed for a final round of comments on
November 30, 1994. The leasing and permitting work group met in
September 1994 and March 1995, respectively, to review the written
comments and public testimony received in response to the mass
mailings.
[[Page 30561]]
The Statutory Framework
Early Statutes--Tribal Land
Under the trade and intercourse acts which are codified at 25
U.S.C. 177, valid leases of tribal land may be made only with specific
statutory authorization. The first general leasing statute for Indian
land was enacted on February 28, 1891 (26 Stat. 795, 25 U.S.C. 397),
and a proviso in that act authorized tribal councils to lease tribal
``purchased'' land (on treaty reservations) for grazing purposes, for
up to five years. These tribal leases, unlike the leases of allotments
authorized by the same statute, were expressly made subject to approval
by we of the Interior. A proviso in an August 15, 1894, appropriations
act (28 Stat. 305) authorized tribal councils to lease any unallotted
``surplus'' land for farming purposes, for up to five years. By act
dated July 3, 1926 (44 Stat. 894, 25 U.S.C. 402a), leases of irrigable
tribal land were authorized for up to ten years, ``with the consent of
the tribal council, business committee, or other authorized body.'' By
Section 17 of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of June 18, 1934 (48
Stat. 988, 25 U.S.C. 477), tribes which did not vote to reject the IRA
were authorized to adopt corporate charters (to be ``issued'' by us).
Among other things, these charters initially allowed tribes to grant
leases for up to ten years, without further secretarial approval.
Section 17 of the IRA was amended on May 24, 1990 (104 Stat. 207), to
eliminate the need for a special tribal election to support a proposed
corporate charter, and to allow tribes which rejected the IRA to
nonetheless adopt a charter pursuant to Section 17. The amendment also
authorized 25-year leases of tribal land without secretarial approval,
where such leases are authorized by a secretarially-issued charter. The
legislative history of the amendment does not reveal why corporate
leases were limited to 25 years, when longer terms would have been
consistent with the long-term leasing statutes enacted between 1934 and
1990.
Early Statutes--Allotted Land
Leases and other dispositions of allotted land are generally
prohibited by the treaties and statutes which authorized the allotments
and established the periods during which the land would be held in
trust or restricted status. These prohibitions were modified by a
series of statutes which authorized the leasing of allotments, subject
to various limitations as to the lease purpose, maximum lease term, the
leasing authority of the individual Indian landowners, and our approval
power. The Act of February 28, 1891, authorized an allottee who could
not personally occupy and improve his land--``by reason of age or other
disability''--to lease the allotment for farming and grazing purposes.
The statute limited the maximum term of the authorized leases to three
years, and the legislative history dictated that applications to lease
be made directly to us (rather than to the ``agent in charge of any
reservation'').
In its August 15, 1894, appropriations act, Congress lessened the
1891 act's restrictions by authorizing farming and grazing leases by
any allottee with an ``inability'' to personally occupy and improve his
land. In this statute, Congress also extended the maximum term of
farming and grazing leases to five years, and authorized leases of up
to ten years for business purposes. In appropriations acts from 1897
and 1900, however, Congress vacillated in defining the restrictions to
be imposed on the owners of allotted land. In the 1897 act (30 Stat.
85), the ``inability'' provision was dropped, and the maximum terms for
farming/grazing and business leases were reduced to three and five
years, respectively. Then, in the 1900 act (31 Stat. 229, 25 U.S.C.
395), the ``inability'' provision was restored, and five-year farming
leases were re-authorized.
A more expansive leasing statute was enacted on June 25, 1910 (36
Stat. 856, 25 U.S.C. 403), authorizing five-year leases of allotments
held under trust patents, without regard to the purpose of the lease or
the Indian landowner's age, ``disability,'' or ``inability.'' This act
also provided that lease ``proceeds'' could be paid directly to the
allottee or his/her heirs, or expended for their benefit by us.
Congress attempted to both expand and limit its leasing policy in the
Act of May 18, 1916 (39 Stat. 128, 25 U.S.C. 394), which authorized
leases of irrigable allotted land for up to ten years, but made such
leases subject to the ``age or other disability'' restrictions set
forth in the Act of February 28, 1891. By statute enacted on March 3,
1921 (41 Stat. 1232, 25 U.S.C. 393), allottees and their heirs were
authorized to grant farming and grazing leases of ``restricted''
allotments (which were not covered by trust patents, and thus fell
outside the scope of the 1910 act). (In earlier statutes, the leasing
authority of the heirs of allottees had been left to inference.) Leases
granted under the 1921 act were expressly made subject to ``the
approval of the superintendent or other officer in charge of the
reservation where the land is located.'' A September 21, 1922, statute
(42 Stat. 995, 25 U.S.C. 392) subsequently authorized us to approve
leases of allotments wherever the patents covering such allotments
prohibited any type of alienation without the consent of the President.
When the IRA was enacted in 1934, its purposes included the
prohibition of the further allotment of Indian reservations and the
curtailment of the future alienation of allotted land. Although none of
the provisions in the final version of the IRA specifically addressed
the leasing or permitting of allotments, Section 6 (48 Stat. 986, 25
U.S.C. 466) directed us to make rules ``to restrict the number of
livestock grazed on Indian range units to the estimated carrying
capacity * * *, to protect the range from deterioration, to prevent
soil erosion, to assure full utilization of the range, and like
purposes.''
A statute was enacted on July 8, 1940 (54 Stat. 745, 25 U.S.C.
380), to address questions which had arisen about our authority to
approve leases that had not been executed by all of the individual
Indian owners. This act expressly authorized us to grant leases of
heirship land (owned by the heirs or devisees of the original allottee)
under specific circumstances. The act provided, in its entirety, as
follows:
[R]estricted allotments of deceased Indians may be leased,
except for oil and gas mining purposes, by the superintendent of the
reservation within which the lands are located (1) when the heirs or
devisees of such decedents have not been determined and (2) when the
heirs or devisees of the decedents have been determined, and such
lands are not in use by any of the heirs and the heirs have not been
able during a three-months' period to agree upon a lease by reason
of the number of the heirs, their absence from the reservation, or
for other cause, under such rules and regulations as the Secretary
of the Interior may prescribe. The proceeds derived from such leases
will be credited to the estates or other accounts of the individuals
entitled thereto in accordance with their respective interests.
The 3 month negotiation period required by the 1940 act is now
subject to modification by tribes, insofar as agricultural leases are
concerned, through the enactment of the American Indian Agricultural
Resource Management Act on December 3, 1993. The provisions of this act
are described in some detail below.
The Long-Term Leasing Act
Before 1955, leases for more than five years were generally
prohibited on both tribal and individually-owned land; 10 year leases
were authorized only where irrigable land was involved, or where the
leases were made pursuant to a
[[Page 30562]]
tribal corporate charter or a reservation-specific statute. Section 1
of the Act of August 9, 1955 (69 Stat. 539, 25 U.S.C. 415), authorized
long-term leases of both tribal and individually-owned land, but
Section 6 (25 U.S.C. 415d) expressly provided that previously-enacted
statutes would not be repealed. Specifically, ten-year leases were
authorized for grazing purposes, and 25-year leases were authorized
``for public, religious, educational, recreational, residential, or
business purposes, * * * and for those farming purposes which require
the making of a substantial investment in the improvement of the land
for the production of specialized crops.'' Single renewal periods of up
to 25 years were authorized in leases made for purposes other than
farming or grazing.
Section 1 of the 1955 act authorized leases by the Indian
landowners, subject to the approval of the Secretary, and Section 2 (25
U.S.C. 415a) confirmed that long-term leases of heirship land could be
granted by the Secretary pursuant to the Act of July 8, 1940. Section 2
also provided that if this grant authority was delegated by the
Secretary, any ``heirs and devisees'' whose interests were leased under
such authority would have a right to appeal. Section 4 (25 U.S.C. 415b)
generally prohibited the payment of rentals more than one year in
advance of the rental period, and Section 5 (25 U.S.C. 415c) absolutely
prohibited lease provisions which would prevent or delay a termination
of federal trust responsibilities during the lease term.
The legislative history of the 1955 act indicates that it was
intended to facilitate the long-term financing of development on Indian
land, and to thereby increase the rental income payable to Indian
landowners. The House Report reflects that Section 4 was intended to
serve the termination-era ``objective of removing restrictions from
Indian lands as rapidly as the Indian owners become able to handle
their own affairs without assistance from the Federal Government.'' The
House Report also indicates that a statutory provision which would have
mandated rental adjustment clauses in long-term leases (``to insure
adjustments * * * reflecting appreciation or depreciation of real and
personal property values'') was deleted in favor of a committee
recommendation to that effect. Specifically, the House Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs recommended that adjustment provisions be
included in leases wherever ``applicable and appropriate,'' and that
decisions not to include such provisions be documented on a case-by-
case basis. Finally, the Conference Report indicates that the ten-year
maximum term for grazing leases was established in the belief it would
provide adequate security for private loans to livestock operators.
To date, the 1955 act has been amended numerous times, and 99-year
leasing authority now exists on several reservations. A June 2, 1970,
amendment (84 Stat. 303) added the following sentence at the end of
Section 1 of the 1955 act:
Prior to approval of any lease or extension of an existing lease
* * *, the Secretary of the Interior will first satisfy himself that
adequate consideration has been given to the relationship between
the use of the leased lands and the use of neighboring lands; the
height, quality, and safety of any structures or other facilities to
be constructed on such lands; the availability of police and fire
protection and other services; the availability of judicial forums
for all criminal and civil causes arising on the leased lands; and
the effect on the environment of the uses to which the leased lands
will be subject.
Miscellaneous Statutes--The American Indian Agricultural Resource
Management Act
The AIARMA was enacted on December 3, 1993 (107 Stat. 2011, 25
U.S.C. 3701 et seq.), and amended on November 2, 1994 (108 Stat. 4572).
Section 102(a) of the AIARMA requires that all ``land management
activities''--defined in Section 4(12)(D) to include the
``administration and supervision of agricultural leasing and permitting
activities, including a determination of proper land use, * * *
appraisal, advertisement, negotiation, contract preparation,
collecting, recording, and distributing lease rental receipts''--
conform to agricultural resource management plans, integrated resource
management plans, and all tribal laws and ordinances. Section 102(b)
requires that we recognize and enforce all tribal laws and ordinances
which regulate land use or pertain to Indian agricultural land, and
provide notice of such laws and ordinances to individuals or groups
``undertaking activities'' on any affected land. Section 102(c)
authorizes--but does not require--waivers of federal regulations or
administrative policies which conflict with an agricultural resource
management plan or a tribal law. It should be noted, however, that
Sections 102(a)-(c) expressly provide for the recognition of only those
tribal enactments which are not contrary to federal law or our trust
responsibility.
Section 105 of the AIARMA confirms and expands the existing leasing
and permitting authority of both us and Indian landowners, and it also
limits the authority of tribes to regulate such activities under
Section 102. First, Section 105(a)(1) extends the existing 25-year
authority for farming leases requiring a ``substantial investment'' to
grazing leases that meet the same requirement. Second, Section
105(a)(2) confirms existing authority to grant or approve a lease or
permit at less than the appraised rental value of the land, when the
land has been advertised and it has been determined that the lease or
permit would serve the best interests of the Indian landowners. Third,
Section 105(b)(5) of the amended AIARMA confirms that tribes may
determine the rentals to be paid under agricultural leases and permits
of tribal land. Fourth, the negotiation rights of the owners of
heirship land are expanded by Section 105(c)(2), which authorizes the
owners of a ``majority interest'' to grant an agricultural lease or
permit which will bind the remaining owners (so long as the minority
owners receive ``fair market value'' for their interests). Finally,
while Sections 105(b)(1)-(4) confirm the newly-recognized authority of
tribes to supersede federal rules and regulations on preferences,
bonding, and the leasing or permitting of heirship land, Section
105(c)(3) allows individual landowners to exempt their land from these
specific types of tribal actions where the owners of at least a 50
percent interest in such land object in writing.
Although renewals of farming and grazing leases and permits were
not previously authorized by statute, Section 105(b)(1) of the AIARMA
implicitly authorizes such renewals, at least on land under the
jurisdiction of a tribe which has established preferences for
individual Indian lessees and permittees. Moreover, the three-month
negotiation period required by the Act of July 8, 1940, has been
expressly made subject to modification by tribes under Section
105(b)(4), insofar as ``highly fractionated'' heirship land is
concerned; the three-month period may only be modified, however, where
a tribe defines ``highly fractionated'' and establishes an alternative
plan for providing the individual Indian owners of heirship land with
notice of our intent to lease their land pursuant to the 1940 act. In
an apparent reference to the newly-recognized authority of tribes to
establish alternative notice/negotiation periods, Section 105(c)(1)
originally confirmed the rights of individual ``allottees'' to use
their own property and negotiate their own leases and permits. (By
contrast, the 1940 act allowed the ``heirs and devisees'' of
[[Page 30563]]
allottees to prevent us from exercising our broad grant authority on
heirship land, by putting the land to direct use or by entering into a
lease or permit during a three-month negotiation period.) Section
105(c)(1) was subsequently amended to clarify that nothing in the
AIARMA should be construed as ``limiting or altering'' the use and
negotiation rights of either an ``allottee'' or a tribe, but the
amendment failed to address the question of whether the ``heirs and
devisees'' of allottees (or individual Indian landowners who acquired
their interests by deed) may exercise ``owner's use'' rights under the
1940 act.
Interpretation and Implementation
Audits and Opinions
Since 1984, the Department of the Interior's Office of Inspector
General (OIG) has completed audit reports on: (1) Agricultural leasing
and permitting activities in Montana, South Dakota, and North Dakota;
(2) conservation problems on leased property within the Crow Indian
Reservation in Montana; and (3) the administration of commercial leases
on the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation in California. In the latter
report (from 1992), the OIG expressed concern about whether lessees
should benefit from favorable or subsidized lease rentals by entering
into ``sandwich'' leases which allow them to retain all or part of the
differential between market (sublease) and contract (lease) rents.
While the Agua Caliente audit report criticized existing regulations as
providing ``insufficient guidance for commercial leasing activities,''
it also asserted that such regulations now make us responsible for
ensuring that: (1) All lease rentals (including percentage rentals and
interest on delinquencies) are paid; (2) adequate security for such
payments is maintained throughout the lease term; (3) negotiated leases
provide for a fair rental throughout the lease term, without fixed (or
capped) rental adjustments; and (4) all leases and subleases are
recorded in accordance with 25 CFR 150.
In three audit reports from 1984--1986, the OIG reviewed the
agricultural leasing and permitting activities on six reservations in
North and South Dakota. In two reports pertaining to the Fort Berthold
Reservation, the OIG criticized the BIA's failure to: (1) Identify
unleased agricultural land and advertise such land for lease or permit;
(2) advertise land on which leases or permits will be expiring, where
the landowners have not granted a new lease or permit (to the existing
lessee/permittee or anyone else) within a three-month period; (3) issue
timely notices of delinquent rentals; (4) require a minimum cash rental
where cropshare rentals are authorized; and (5) monitor and document
crop production where cropshare rentals are to be paid. In a 1986
report pertaining to five other reservations in North and South Dakota,
the OIG reiterated most of the Fort Berthold criticisms, and also
recommended that: (1) Minimum grazing rentals be set at a higher rate,
with adjustments to off-reservation market data based on such
``factors'' as seasonal limitations, tribal taxes, interest on rental
``advances,'' administrative fees, and bonding requirements; (2) the
``brokering'' of unauthorized ``subleases'' on allocated range units be
monitored, so that minimum grazing rentals are paid for all livestock
owned by non-Indians; (3) the grazing rentals for the various tracts
within a range unit reflect any differences in the production
capabilities of such tracts; and (4) stocking rates be continuously
reviewed and adjusted as range conditions warrant.
In four audit reports from 1985--1988, the OIG reviewed selected
leasing and permitting activities on three reservations in Montana (as
well as the Turtle Mountain Chippewa allotments in eastern Montana),
focusing primarily on trespass, conservation, and income collection
issues. Two of these reports also reiterated the above-referenced
concerns about unleased land, expiring leases, and delinquent rentals.
Two of the reports dealt solely with conservation issues on the Crow
Indian Reservation, with specific reference to (unapproved) leases
granted by competent Indian landowners pursuant to the amended Crow
allotment act. Based on its review of the legislative history--and its
view of our continuing trust responsibility to the allotments in
question--the OIG recommended that the BIA clarify its responsibility
and authority over land under leases granted by competent Indian
landowners, by legislation if necessary.
National Environmental Policy Act
Sec. 162.16(c)(1) provides that the lessee must comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.). The courts
have held in Davis v. Morton, 469 F.2d 593 (10th Cir. 1972), that the
National Environmental Policy Act applies to the Bureau of Indian
Affairs approval of leases of trust land.
List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 162
Agriculture and agricultural products; Grazing lands; Indian-lands.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we propose to revise Part
162 of Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 162--LEASING AND PERMITTING
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec.
162.1 Definitions.
162.2 Objectives.
162.3 Scope.
162.4 Tribal laws.
162.5 Information collection.
Subpart B--Administrative Provisions
162.10 How are leasing and permitting units created?
162.11 How are leasing and permitting units advertised?
162.12 Can landowners grant leases or permits?
162.13 When do we grant leases or permits?
162.14 What land is exempt from leasing and permitting?
162.15 What administrative fees are required?
162.16 Who reviews and approves leases or permits?
162.17 What happens if you default?
162.18 When can leases or permits be canceled?
Subpart C--General Requirements
162.20 Who can obtain a lease or permit?
162.21 How do we describe leased or permitted areas?
162.22 What uses of leased or permitted areas are allowed?
162.23 For how long are leases or permits valid?
162.4 What provisions must be in every lease or permit?
162.25 How much will the lease or permit cost?
162.26 Will you have to provide a security deposit?
162.27 How can leases or permits be amended or modified?
162.28 Can leases or permits be assigned, transferred, or sublet?
162.29 Can you use a lease or permit as collateral for a loan?
162.30 What restrictions apply if you acquire interest in a lease
or permit?
162.31 What fees, taxes and assessments must you pay?
162.32 What happens if your lease or permit includes improvements?
162.33 Do you need insurance?
162.34 What remedies are available if there is a default or
dispute?
Subpart D--Special Provisions for Grazing Permits
162.40 How are grazing units established?
162.41 How many animals can you graze?
162.42 When do we issue grazing permits?
162.43 What happens when we implement a tribal allocation program?
[[Page 30564]]
162.44 When will we give stocking rate credit?
162.45 How much will grazing rental cost?
162.46 When will permits or tracts be revoked or withdrawn?
Subpart E--Special Provisions for Specific Reservations
162.50 Crow Reservation
162.51 Cabazon, Augustine, and Torres-Martinez Reservations
162.52 Salt River and San Xavier Reservations
162.53 Tulalip Reservation.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, R.S. 463 and 465; 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9.
Interpret or apply sec. 3, 26 Stat. 795, sec. 1, 28 Stat. 305, secs.
1, 2, 31 Stat. 229, 246, secs. 7, 12, 34 Stat. 545, 34 Stat. 1015,
1034, 35 Stat. 70, 95, 97, sec. 4, 36 Stat. 856, sec. 1, 39 Stat.
128, 41 Stat. 415, as amended, 751, 1232, sec. 17, 43 Stat. 636,
641, 44 Stat. 658, as amended, 894, 1365, as amended, 47 Stat. 1417,
sec. 17, 48 Stat. 984, 988, 49 Stat. 115, 1135, sec. 55, 49 Stat.
781, sec. 3, 49 Stat. 1967, 54 Stat. 745, 1057, 60 Stat. 308, secs.
1, 2, 60 Stat. 962, sec. 5, 64 Stat. 46, secs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 64
Stat. 470, 69 Stat. 539, 540, 72 Stat. 968; 25 U.S.C. 380, 393,
393a, 394, 395, 397, 402, 402a, 403, 403a, 403b, 403c, 413, 415,
415a, 415b, 415c, 415d, 477, 635. 25 U.S.C. 3701, 3702, 3703, 3715,
107 Stat. 2018, 108 Stat. 4572.
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec. 162.1 Definitions.
Adult means an individual Indian who is 18 years or older.
Agricultural land means farmland, rangeland, or other land which is
used in conjunction with farmland or rangeland.
Agricultural lease or permit means a lease or permit or permit for
farming and/or grazing purposes.
Allocation means the apportionment of grazing units to tribal
members or tribal entities, including the tribal designation of
permittees and the number and kind of livestock to be grazed.
Conservation plan means a statement of management objectives for an
agricultural lessee or permittee, including contract stipulations
defining required uses, operations, and improvements. A conservation
plan may be prepared or adopted by us, and will be reviewable on an
annual basis.
Fair annual rental means consideration for a lease or permit which
provides a reasonable return on land value, as may be determined by an
appraisal of comparable properties, advertisement and/or competitive
bidding, or a negotiated percentage of the income to be derived from
the land. Fair annual rental will reflect the highest and best use of
the land, consistent with applicable law, and will take into account
the costs associated with the proposed use and the reversionary value
of any improvements to be made by the lessee or permittee.
Farmland means land which is used for the development of crops,
pasture, or other agricultural products grown or harvested for personal
consumption or for commercial purposes.
Government land means the surface estate of a tract of land, or any
interest therein, which is owned by the United States and administered
by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, not including tribal land which has
been reserved for the Bureau's administrative purposes but is not
immediately needed for such purposes.
Grazing permit means a permit of specified duration, granting the
permittee a privilege to use tribal, individually-owned, and/or
Government land for grazing purposes. Unless otherwise provided by
agreement, a grazing permit will be assignable by the permittee, with
the consent of the owners and our approval, and may only be canceled or
revoked by us pursuant to Secs. 162.18 and 162.46 of this part,
respectively.
Grazing unit means one or more tracts which have been designated
for grazing purposes, pursuant to Sec. 162.40.
Heirship land means the surface estate of a tract of land having
two or more owners, in which any interest is owned by an individual
Indian in trust or restricted status. Any such interest will be
characterized as individually-owned land, while the entire tract will
be considered to be heirship land. Other interests in a tract of
heirship land may be owned by Indian or non-Indian individuals or
entities, in unrestricted status, or by tribes, in trust or restricted
status.
Individual Indian means any person for whom the United States holds
title in trust status, or who holds title subject to federal
restrictions against alienation or encumbrance.
Individually-owned land means the surface estate of a tract of
land, or any interest therein, which is held by the United States in
trust for an individual Indian, or a tract of land, or any interest
therein, which is owned by an individual Indian subject to federal
restrictions against alienation or encumbrance.
Interest means an undivided fractional share in the ownership of
heirship land.
Lease means a grant to a lessee of a right to possession of tribal
and/or individually-owned land, for a specified purpose and duration.
Majority interest means an aggregate of tribal and individually-
owned interests totaling more than 50 percent of the total ownership in
heirship land.
Owner means the tribe or individual Indian holding beneficial or
restricted title to tribal or individually-owned land.
Permit means a grant to a permittee of a privilege to enter on and
use tribal, individually-owned, and/or Government land for a specified
purpose.
Rangeland means land on which the native vegetation is
predominantly grasses, forbs, or shrubs suitable for grazing.
Secretary means the Secretary of the Interior or his authorized
representative, acting pursuant to delegated authority.
Tract means a distinct parcel of Government or heirship land, or a
distinct parcel of tribal or individually-owned land in which the full
beneficial or restricted title is held by or on behalf of a single
tribe or individual Indian owner. A tract may be leased or permitted
either in all or in part, or it may be incorporated in a unit for
leasing or permitting purposes.
Tribal corporation means a corporation chartered by us under
Section 17 of the Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat.
984, 25 U.S.C. 477).
Tribal land means a tract of land, or any interest therein, which
is held by the United States in trust for a tribe or tribal
corporation, or a tract of land, or any interest therein, which is
owned by a tribe subject to federal restrictions against alienation or
encumbrance.
Tribal law means an ordinance or other enactment by a tribe, which
applies to leasing and permitting activities on tribal land and/or
individually-owned agricultural land and is applicable under
Sec. 162.4.
Tribe means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized
Indian group or community, including any Alaskan Native village, which
is recognized by us as having special rights and responsibilities, and
as being eligible for the services provided by the United States to
Indians because of their status as Indians.
Unit means two or more tracts which have been combined for leasing
or permitting purposes, pursuant to Sec. 162.10 of this part.
We means the Secretary of the Interior or a Federal official with
delegated authority.
Sec. 162.2 Objectives.
(a) We will prepare and administer leases and permits in accordance
with tribal laws which are not contrary to Federal law or our trust
responsibility to protect the resources of individual
[[Page 30565]]
Indian owners. That means we will manage tribal and individually owned
agricultural land in a manner which is consistent with recognized
principles of sustained yield management, integrated resource
management planning, sound conservation practices, and other community
goals as expressed in tribal laws.
(b) We will assist owners in the granting of leases and permits
through negotiation, advertisement, or allocation. We will also
recognize the rights of owners to use their own land, if the other
owners receive a fair annual rental for this use and the long term
value of the land is preserved.
(c) We will ensure that lessees and permittees comply with the
terms of their leases and permits, through cancellation or other action
necessary to protect the interest of the owners. If the effective use
of the land requires, we may grant leases and permits on behalf of the
owners and obtain a fair annual rental.
Sec. 162.3 Scope.
(a) The regulations in this part prescribe the procedures, terms,
and conditions under which non-mineral leases and permits covering
tribal, individually owned, and government land may be granted,
approved, and administered. The regulations in subparts A through C of
this part apply to all leases and permits, except as otherwise
indicated, and the regulations in subpart D also apply to grazing
permits. Mineral leases and permits will be subject to the regulations
in subchapter I of this chapter.
(b) The regulations in subpart E prescribe certain procedures,
terms, and conditions which apply to leasing and permitting activities
on specific reservations. The provisions in subparts A through D will
also apply on these reservations, unless superseded by subpart E.
(c) The regulations in this part will not apply if a lease or
permit is granted by an owner without our approval being required. Such
leases and permits must be recorded according to part 150 of this
chapter.
Sec. 162.4 Tribal laws.
(a) Tribal laws may apply to tribal land and individually owned
agricultural land under the jurisdiction of the enacting tribe. To be
applicable, the law must apply equally to all land under the
jurisdiction of the tribe.
(b) Tribes must notify us of the content, record of public notices
and hearings, and effective date of new tribal laws. If the new tribal
law applies to individually owned agricultural land, we will notify the
affected owners. Either actual or constructive notice may be provided,
depending on whether the tribe afforded any notice and hearing rights
to the owners before enactment. Actual notice is required if the tribal
law is of the type described in paragraphs (c) (1) through (3) of this
section.
(c) A tribal law may supersede the regulations in this part, except
when the law conflicts with a Federal statute or with the objectives in
Sec. 162.2. Also, owners of individually-owned land or the owners of at
least a 50 percent interest in heirship land may exempt their land from
a tribal law if it:
(1) Provides a preference for Indians or tribal members in issuing
or renewing agricultural leases or permits;
(2) Establishes specific security requirements for agricultural
leases or permits, or waives our security requirements; or
(3) Defines ``highly fractionated'' heirship land and establishes a
plan to provide the owners with notice of our intent to grant an
agricultural lease or permit under Sec. 162.13(b).
(d) The owners of a tract of individually owned or 50 percent
interest in heirship land may exempt their land from a tribal law by
submitting a written statement or petition to us. We will notify the
tribe of your request. The same procedure applies to changing your
request for exemption.
Sec. 162.5 Information collection.
The information collection requirements contained in this part do
not require the review and approval of the Office of Management and
Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Subpart B--Administrative Provisions
Sec. 162.10 How are leasing and permitting units created?
We may establish a unit if it is consistent with prudent management
or efficient administration of tribal, individually owned, or
Government land. If the value of each tract is not identified in a
lease or permit, the value of each tract will be proportionate to its
acreage within the unit.
Sec. 162.11 How are leasing and permitting units advertised?
(a) If necessary to establish a fair annual rental, we will
advertise a tract of individually owned or heirship land before
granting or approving a lease or permit. Advertisements will require
sealed bids, and may also provide for competitive bidding among the
potential lessees.
(b) Advertisements will provide potential lessees with notice of
the applicable tribal laws, and the basic terms and conditions of the
lease or permit. Advertisements will state if there is preference for
Indians or members of the tribe that has jurisdiction over the land.
Sec. 162.12 Can landowners grant leases or permits?
(a) We will approve a lease or non grazing permit of individually
owned land negotiated and granted by:
(1) Adult owners, except those under a legal disability;
(2) Parents and other persons standing in loco parentis to minor
children owners; and
(3) Guardians, conservators, and other fiduciaries appointed by
courts of competent jurisdiction to act on behalf of individual Indian
owners.
(b) We will approve leases or permits of tribal land negotiated and
granted by tribes and tribal corporations. If allowed by its charter, a
tribal corporation may grant a lease or permit for up to 25 years,
including any option period, without our approval. If tribal land
assigned to a tribal member under tribal law or custom which authorizes
further leasing and permitting, the assignee and tribe may jointly
grant a lease or permit with our approval.
(c) We will approve agricultural leases or permits granted by
owners of a majority interest in heirship land to owners of a minority
interest. The lease or permit must provide a fair annual rental to the
other owners who do not grant the lease or permit.
Sec. 162.13 When do we issue leases or permits?
(a) We may grant leases or non grazing permits, or join in
agreements which have been negotiated by other owners under
Sec. 162.12(a), on behalf of the following owners of individually owned
land:
(1) Adults who are legally disabled;
(2) Orphaned minors;
(3) The undetermined heirs or devisees of individual Indian
decedents;
(4) Individual Indians who have given us written authority to act
on their behalf; and
(5) Individual Indians whose whereabouts are unknown.
(b) We may grant a lease or permit covering all tribal and
individually owned interests in heirship land, if a lease or permit
cannot be granted for each interest under paragraph (a) of this section
and/or Sec. 162.12.
(c) When a tribal law applies, we may only grant a lease or permit
after providing the tribal and individual
[[Page 30566]]
Indian owners with written notice, and allowing owners 3 months to
grant a lease or permit pursuant to Sec. 162.12. We may grant a non-
grazing permit covering all trust and restricted interests in a tract
of heirship land if it is impractical to provide notice to the owners
and no substantial injury to the land would occur. If we grant a lease
or permit for 10 years or more, we will notify the owners of their
right to appeal under part 2 of this chapter.
(d) We will grant permits for Government land.
Sec. 162.14 What land is exempt from leasing and permitting?
(a) The parent, guardian, or other person standing in loco parentis
to minor children may use a tract of individually owned or heirship
land without charge, if the minor children are the only owners and will
directly benefit from the use. This use may continue until one of the
owners becomes an adult.
(1) In that event a lease or permit must be obtained for the use to
continue.
(2) The user must provide evidence of a direct benefit to the minor
children, or we will proceed to lease or permit.
(b) We will not grant a lease or permit pursuant to Secs. 162.13(b)
or 162.42(b), if the land is used by an individual Indian owner and the
other owners are receiving a fair annual rental. An individual Indian
owner who is personally using heirship land must notify us of the use
and provide evidence of an accounting to the other owners before the
end of the applicable notice period.
Sec. 162.15 What administrative fees are required?
(a) We will collect an administrative fee before we approve any
lease, permit, sublease, assignment, encumbrance, modification, or
other related document. The fee will be based on the annual rental
payable by the lessee or permittee, calculated as follows: 3 percent of
the first $500, 2 percent of the next $4500, and 1 percent of all
rentals exceeding $5000. Grazing permittees will also pay an annual
administrative fee for the duration of their permits, at the same
rates. In no event will an administrative fee be less than $2, nor
exceed $250.
(b) For leases or permits with percentage rentals, we will collect
an administrative fee based on the minimum annual rental or an
estimated percentage rental. For crop share rental or another type of
special consideration is authorized by a lease or permit, we will
establish a cash rental value. We will collect an administrative fee
based on the cash rental value.
(c) If a tribe performs all or part of the administrative duties,
the tribe may establish an alternate fee schedule. We must approve the
alternative schedule if any of the fees collected will not be deposited
in the U.S. Treasury.
(d) If less than fair annual rental is payable under a lease or
permit, or if a document is being processed primarily for the benefit
of the owners, we will waive collection of the administrative fee. No
refund of previously collected fees is allowed.
Sec. 162.16 Who reviews and approves leases or permits?
(a) We must identify potential impacts and ensure compliance with
all applicable environmental and land use laws and ordinances before we
grant or approve a lease or permit. Usually a formal assessment of
potential impacts is not required if the proposed action will not
result in a physical alteration of the land or a change in the land
use.
(b) To assess potential impacts of approving a permit or lease, we
will consider the following:
(1) Relationship between the proposed land use and the use of
adjoining land;
(2) Type of improvements;
(3) Availability of essential community services; and
(4) Existence of appropriate regulatory controls and forums for
adjudicating disputes.
(c) We may conditionally approve a permit or lease and reserve the
right to further modify or rescind it as necessary to mitigate
significant environmental impacts. You must not take possession or
start operations until:
(1) You complete an environmental analysis under the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.) and we approve it and
decide to approve the permit or lease;
(2) The lease or permit is modified to incorporate mitigation
measures identified in the record of decision; and
(3) We certify that all conditions in the original grant or
approval are satisfied, and we authorize you to take possession and
commence operations.
(d) There is no standard format for a lease or permit. The
provisions must conform to the general and special requirements in
subparts (C) through (E) of this part. A lease or permit must include a
citation of the authority used to grant or approve it and the
delegation authority to the granting or approving official.
(e) We will not grant or approve a lease or permit more than one
year before its starting date. If a lease or permit is granted or
approved after its starting date, it is retroactive to that starting
date except when another date is stipulated.
Sec. 162.17 What happens if you default?
(a) We will determine when a default occurs. We will then notify
you and any sureties or encumbrancers.
(b) You have 30 days from the receipt of the notice to cure the
default or provide information to justify not canceling the lease or
permit. We may grant you additional time to complete corrective
actions, but you must immediately begin the work necessary to cure the
default and diligently proceed to completion within the time allowed.
(c) You have the right to appeal our decision on whether you
defaulted under part 2 of this chapter.
Sec. 162.18 When can leases or permits be canceled?
(a) We will cancel a lease or permit if you fail to justify extra
time to correct or fail to complete required corrective actions. We
will notify you and any sureties or encumbrancers of our decision to
cancel.
(b) In our notice, we will advise you of your right to appeal under
part 2 of this chapter, and we will demand the payment of delinquent
rentals and damages due. An appeal bond may be required, the amount of
the bond will be the amount of delinquent rentals, damages, and
additional rentals expected to accrue during the settlement of the
appeal. An appeal filed without the required bond will be dismissed.
Subpart C--General Requirements
Sec. 162.20 Who can obtain a lease or permit?
(a) The lease or permit must identify all parties, including the
owners, the lessee or permittee, and representatives. If a
representative executes a lease or permit, it must be clearly stated
who is represented and under what authority the representation is
allowed.
(b) We may grant a lease or permit to an individual who has ability
to contract under applicable law. If a lease or permit is granted to
several individuals or an informal association of individuals, the
lease or permit will be executed by each individual.
(c) Where a lease or permit is granted to a partnership, all of the
general partners must execute the lease or permit in the absence of
evidence that all partners are not authorized to bind the lessee or
permittee.
(1) A lease or permit to a partnership will indicate whether
general partners whose partnership interests are later
[[Page 30567]]
terminated will continue to be liable for the debts of the lessee or
permittee.
(2) A lease or permit to a limited partnership, corporation, or
other limited liability company will identify the place where the
organizational documents of the lessee or permittee have been filed.
(d) If a lease or permit is granted to a governmental entity, that
is prohibited by law from complying with any of the requirements in
this part, we may waive those requirements. But, we must ensure that
your sovereign immunity has been waived to the extent necessary to
protect the interests of the owners.
Sec. 162.21 How do we describe leased or permitted areas?
A legal description or the parcel number of the premises must be in
the lease or permit. If you propose any development or a metes and
bounds description is used, you must provide a current survey plat
showing encroachments and the natural features of the land.
Sec. 162.22 What uses of leased or permitted areas are allowed?
(a) A lease or permit must include:
(1) Authorized uses;
(2) Restricted uses;
(3) Prohibited uses; and
(4) Prohibition of creating a nuisance, any illegal activity, and
negligent use or the waste of resources.
(b) You must conduct farming and grazing operations in accordance
with the principles of sustained yield management, integrated resource
management planning, sound conservation practices, and other community
goals as expressed in tribal laws.
(c) You must comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules,
regulations, and other legal requirements. You must also pay all costs
if you do not comply.
Sec. 162.23 For how long are leases or permits valid?
(a) Leases and permits will specify the beginning and ending dates.
The length of time allowed will be the shortest possible considering
the purpose, your investment, prudent management, and efficient
administration.
(b) The maximum term will depend on the purpose for the lease or
permit, the location of the land, and the leasing and permitting
authority.
(1) The maximum primary term for public, religious, educational,
recreational, residential, or business purposes is 25 years, unless a
longer term is specifically authorized by Federal statute. The maximum
term for renewals and extensions is 25 years.
(2) We will usually grant agricultural leases or permits not to
exceed 10 years including renewals and extensions. The maximum term is
25 years, including renewals and extensions, if substantial investment
in development or production of a specialized crop is required. To
determine if a long term is justified, we will consider the feasibility
of the proposed development or crop production.
(3) The maximum term is 2 years when we grant a lease or permit for
the undetermined heirs of an individual Indian decedent, under
Sec. 162.13(a)(3).
(c) You cannot extend a lease or permit by holdover. The only ways
a lease or permit can be extended is by renewal or automatic extension.
Only one extension is allowed. Leases or permits may provide multiple
options for unilateral termination. The lease or permit must specify
the time and manner an option to renew or terminate is allowed.
Sec. 162.24 What provisions must be in every lease or permit?
A lease or permit must include provisions stating that:
(a) If the land has trust or restricted status, you and your
sureties obligations will be to the United States and the owners;
(b) The lease will not delay or prevent the issue of a fee patent;
and
(c) If a fee patent is issued, our responsibilities are assumed by
the owners; and
(d) We will notify you of any change land status.
Sec. 162.25 How much will the lease or permit cost?
(a) We will not approve leases or permits at less than fair annual
rental by individual Indian owners or their representatives except:
(1) For religious, educational, recreational, or other public
purposes;
(2) For a homesite for the owner's spouse, brother, sister, lineal
ancestor, lineal descendent or co-owner.
(3) When a special relationship exists between the parties; or
(4) When we determine it is in the best interest of the owners.
(b) We will not approve leases or permits at less than fair annual
rental by a tribe or tribal corporation for tribal land, except:
(1) For religious, educational, recreational, or other public
purposes;
(2) For housing or agriculture to a tribal member or tribal entity;
or
(3) For a business subsidy for a tribal member or tribal entity.
(c) We will specify in the lease or permit the dates that rents are
due and payable. We will also develop a formula for apportionment and/
or abatement of rent when you are unable to take possession for the
entire rental period. We will not collect rent or other consideration
more than one year before its due date unless agreed to by all parties.
(d) We will specify who receives rental payments. If we do not
receive the rental payments, you must provide us proof of payment. We
may suspend direct payment provisions at any time. If an owner that
receives direct payments dies, you must make all future payments to us
until the estate is probated.
(e) All leases or permits of more than 5 years duration must have
periodic rental adjustments, except when the rental is less than fair
annual rental, or if rentals are a percentage of income. We will
specify how, and when the adjustments are made, who will make them, and
how disputes will be settled. Unless agreed to before hand, adjustments
will not:
(1) Give consideration to the value of improvements or developments
completed;
(2) Be retroactive if not made on time; and
(3) Be appealable under part 2 of this chapter.
Sec. 162.26 Will you have to provide a security deposit?
(a) We will usually require that you provide a deposit of cash or
marketable securities, a surety bond, an irrevocable letter of credit,
a chattel mortgage on personal property located on the premises, or
some other type of security, to ensure:
(1) Payment of one year's rental;
(2) Construction of improvements; and
(3) Performance of additional obligations, including the
restoration of the land to its original condition.
(b) Tribal laws may establish specific security requirements for
agricultural leases or permits, or waive our requirements.
(c) We may waive security requirements for agricultural leases or
permits if annual rental is payable in advance, and if performance is
secured by compliance to a conservation plan and participation in
conservation programs administered by other Federal agencies.
(d) We can adjust security requirements at any time. If you
default, we may apply the security and seek replenishment, or we may
retain the security and proceed with a notice of default under
Sec. 162.17. We may release a security required to ensure the
[[Page 30568]]
construction of improvements after completion of construction.
Sec. 162.27 How can leases or permits be amended or modified?
(a) We will amend leases and permits the same way we approve them
under Secs. 162.12 and 162.13(a).
(b) Some owners of heirship land may designate one or more of their
fellow owners to negotiate and/or agree to amendments or permits on
their behalf. In these cases the designated owner:
(1) May negotiate or agree to amendments or permits;
(2) May consent to or approve other items as necessary; and
(3) Cannot negotiate or agree to amendments that reduce the rentals
payable to the other owners or terminate or modify the term of the
lease or permit.
Sec. 162.28 Can leases or permits be assigned, transferred, or sublet?
(a) We will approve subleases or assignments of a lease or permit
only with the written consent of all parties and sureties.
(b) Under a lease or permit for business purposes, you may sublet a
portion of the premises without the consent of the owners, sureties, or
us, if the owners receive a fair annual rental for this additional use.
A sublease will not relieve you of any liability under the lease or
permit, nor will it diminish our supervisory authority.
(c) A tribal housing authority leasing tribal land may make
assignments without the consent of the tribe or our approval, if the
assignment is to a tribal member and associated with the transfer of a
home.
Sec. 162.29 Can you use a lease or permit as collateral for a loan?
Yes. You may use a lease or grazing permit as loan collateral if
you get our approval and the written consent of the owners and
sureties. The lease or permit then has an approved encumbrance.
Sec. 162.30 What restrictions apply if you acquire interest in a lease
or permit?
(a) If you acquire interest in a lease or permit by sale or
foreclosure of an approved encumbrance:
(1) You may give amortization of the loan priority over your rental
payments; and
(2) You may assign your interest without consent or approval, if
the assignee agrees in writing to be bound by the terms of the lease or
permit.
(b) If you acquire interest in a lease or permit other than by sale
of foreclosure of an approved encumbrance:
(1) You need our approval and the consent of the owners and
sureties before you may assign your interest; and
(2) The assignee must agree in writing to be bound by the terms of
the lease or permit.
Sec. 162.31 What fees, taxes and assessments must you pay?
(a) If you lease or permit tribal land, you must pay all tribal
fees, taxes, and assessments associated with the use of the premises.
If you lease or permit individually owned land, you may have to pay
also. You will make the payments to the appropriate tribal official.
(b) If you lease or permit land within an Indian irrigation project
or drainage district, you will have to pay all charges accruing during
the term of the lease or permit, except if part 171 of this chapter
supersedes this section. You will make payment to the appropriate
Federal official.
Sec. 162.32 What happens if your lease or permit includes
improvements?
(a) We will set starting and ending dates for development of the
premises or the construction of improvements. We will also require
plans and specifications be submitted before work begins.
(b) Permanent improvements will remain on the premises at the
termination of a lease or permit. You can remove other improvements
within a set time period if all parties agree. You must restore the
premises after removal.
Sec. 162.33 Do you need insurance?
You must provide enough insurance to protect all insurable
improvements on the premises. You must also obtain liability insurance
to protect the interests of the owners. All insurance policies must
identify the individual Indian and tribal owners and the United States
as insured parties.
Sec. 162.34 What remedies are available if there is a default or
dispute?
(a) A lease or permit covering a tract of tribal land may provide a
tribe with self-help remedies such as a right of entry. Upon default, a
tribe may elect to exercise its rights under the lease or permit, or it
may request that we cancel the lease or permit pursuant to Sec. 162.18.
(b) If a lease or permit covering a tract of tribal land authorizes
termination pursuant to state or tribal law, or provides for the
resolution of certain types of disputes through arbitration, the lease
or permit provisions will govern the termination or dispute
arbitration.
Subpart D--Special Provisions for Grazing Permits
Sec. 162.40 How are grazing units established?
We will establish and modify grazing units boundaries to provide
for the conservation, development, and effective use of Indian, and
Government rangeland. We will consult with the tribe having
jurisdiction to comply with tribal land management policies.
Sec. 162.41 How many animals can you graze?
(a) We will prescribe the maximum number of livestock that can
graze on a grazing unit, and the seasons of authorized grazing use
consistent with tribal land management policies. We will continuously
review stocking rates and adjust them to meet changing conditions.
(b) A tribe may prescribe the kind of livestock that graze on
rangeland within its jurisdiction. But, we may require other kinds of
livestock if it is essential to the prudent management or efficient
administration of the permitted land.
Sec. 162.42 When do we issue grazing permits?
(a) We may include one or more tracts of individually owned
rangeland in a grazing unit, and grant a grazing permit covering such
land, on behalf of the following owners:
(1) Adults who are legally disabled;
(2) Orphaned minors;
(3) The undetermined heirs or devisees of individual Indian
decedents;
(4) Individual Indians who have given us written authority to act
on their behalf; and
(5) Individual Indians whose whereabouts are unknown.
(b) We must notify the Indian owners before we grant a grazing
permit on heirship rangeland. They must have 90 days to agree to the
permit, withdraw their tract from the grazing unit, or stipulate a
higher rental than we proposed.
(c) We may include tribal rangeland within a grazing unit, and
grant a grazing permit if the tribe has given us written authority.
Without tribal authority, we can only include tribal rangeland if it is
essential to the prudent management or efficient administration of the
land. We must give the tribe written notice 60 days before the start of
a permit. We will not issue the permit if the tribe files a written
objection to the proposed permit within the notice period.
[[Page 30569]]
Sec. 162.43 What happens when we implement a tribal allocation
program?
(a) A tribe may authorize us to allocate rangeland under its
jurisdiction without negotiation or advertisement. We may grant permits
under Sec. 162.42(a) and (b), to implement a tribal allocation program,
despite there not being an applicable tribal law. The minimum grazing
rentals established under Sec. 162.45(a) will generally be payable to
any individual Indian owners of allocated land.
(b) The tribe having jurisdiction will prescribe eligibility
requirements with our concurrence. If a tribe fails to establish its
eligibility requirements on time, we may establish the requirements
after a 60-day notice.
Sec. 162.44 When will we give stocking rate credit?
A grazing permit may grant a permittee a stocking rate credit where
the permittee owns or controls other rangeland which adjoins or lies
within the grazing unit, and which is grazed in common with the
permitted land. The stocking rate credit will be reflected in the
grazing capacity of the grazing unit, established pursuant to
Sec. 162.40 of this part.
Sec. 162.45 How much will grazing rental cost?
(a) We will determine fair annual rentals for reservations with
rangeland by establishing its minimum grazing rental. These minimum
grazing rentals will apply to all livestock owned by non Indians or
nonmembers when their livestock grazes on tribal land.
(b) Owners may set alternative minimum rentals, when we grant a
grazing permit under Sec. 162.42(a) and (b). Except when lower rentals
are authorized under Sec. 162.25(a), the alterative minimum rentals may
not be lower than the minimum we set.
Sec. 162.46 When will permits or tracts be revoked or withdrawn?
(a) If you default, we may cancel the grazing permit under
Sec. 162.18, unless we agree to an alternative remedy.
(b) We may revoke or withdraw tracts from a permit if the tribe
wants to include the land in its allocation program or an individual
Indian owner wants his/her land exempt from permitting under
Sec. 162.14(b). The new user must compensate the previous user for any
improvements completed before the revocation or withdrawal, and adopt
an established conservation plan or develop a new plan acceptable to
us. Owners may only withdraw a tract after it is fenced.
(c) We must notify the user 180 days before a revocation or
withdrawal is executed. The effective date will be the next anniversary
date after notice period, unless a different date is agreed to.
Subpart E--Special Requirements for Specific Reservations
Sec. 162.50 Crow Reservation.
(a) Some Crow Indians are classified as competent under the Act of
June 4, 1920 (41 Stat. 751), as amended. They may lease their trust
lands and the trust lands of their minor children for farming or
grazing without our approval per the Act of May 26, 1926 (44 Stat.
658), as amended by the Act of March 15, 1948 (62 Stat. 80). We must
issue a public notice if competent Crow Indians authorize us to lease
or permit, or assist in the leasing and permitting their lands. When
this occurs, we will comply with the regulations in this part. We must
approve leases or permits signed by non competent Crow Indians and
leases or permits on inherited or devised trust lands owned by more
than five competent devisees or heirs.
(b) The Act of May 26, 1926 (44 Stat. 658), as amended by the Act
of March 15, 1948 (62 Stat. 80), sets five years as the maximum lease
term for farming or grazing. The maximum term for leases or permits of
irrigable lands under the Big Horn Canal is 10. You will not have a
preference right to future leases or permits if the total period of
encumbrance would exceed the maximum terms allowed.
(c) All leases or permits entered into by competent Crow Indians
must be recorded at the Crow Agency. Recording will constitute public
notice.
(1) Under these special statutes, Crow Indians classified as
competent are free to lease their property within certain limitations.
The 5-year (10-year in the case of lands under the Big Horn Canal)
limitation is intended to afford a protection to the Indians. The
essence of this protection is the right to deal with the property free,
clear, and unencumbered at intervals at least as frequent as those
provided by law. If lessees or permittees are able to obtain new leases
or permits long before the termination of existing leases or permits,
they may set their own term. In these circumstances, lessees could
perpetuate their leaseholds and bypass the statutory limitations on
terms.
(2) In implementation of the interpretation, in paragraph (c)(1) of
this section we will not record any lease which:
(i) On its face, violates statutory limitations or requirements;
(ii) Is executed more than 12 months (if a grazing lease) or 18
months (if a farming lease), before its term begins; or
(iii) Purports to cancel an existing lease with the same lessee as
of a future date and take effect upon cancellation.
(3) Under a Crow tribal program, competent Crow Indians may enter
into agreements which require that, for a specified term, their leases
or permits be approved. Information about whether a competent Crow
Indian has executed such an instrument is available at the office of
the Superintendent of the Crow Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Crow
Agency, Montana. We will return without recordation any lease entered
into with a competent Crow Indian during the time such instrument is in
effect that is not in accordance with the instrument.
(d) Where any of the following conditions are found to exist,
leases will be recorded but the lessee and lessor will be notified upon
discovery of the condition:
(1) The lease in single or counterpart form has not been executed
by all owners of the land described in the lease;
(2) There is, of record, a lease on the land for all or a part of
the same term;
(3) The lease does not contain stipulations requiring sound land
utilization plans and conservation practices; or
(4) There are other deficiencies such as, but not limited to,
erroneous land descriptions, and alterations which are not clearly
endorsed by the lessor.
(e) Any competent adult Crow Indian will have the full
responsibility for obtaining compliance with the terms of any lease
made by him/her under this section. This will not preclude action by us
to ensure conservation and protection of these trust lands.
(f) Leases made by competent Crow Indians will be subject to the
right to issue permits and leases to prospect for, develop, and mine
oil, gas, and other minerals, and to grant rights of way and easements,
in accordance with applicable law and regulations. In issuing or
granting of permits, leases, rights of way or easements we will give
due consideration to the interests of lessees and to the adjustment of
any damages to such interests. If there is a dispute over the amount of
damage, the matter will be referred to us. Our determination of the
amount of damage will be final.
Sec. 162.51 Cabazon, Augustine, and Torres-Martinez Reservations.
(a) We may grant a lease of trust or restricted land on the
Cabazon, Augustine, and Torres-Martinez Indian
[[Page 30570]]
reservations, if the land is irrigable by the Coachella Valley County
Water District and we determine that the owners are not benefitting
from its use.
(b) You must file a lease of trust or restricted land on the
Cabazon, Augustine, and Torres-Martinez Indian reservations with the
appropriate county recorder. You must also file the lease with the
Coachella Valley County Water District or other appropriate irrigation
or water district.
Sec. 162.52 Salt River and San Xavier Reservations.
(a) A lease of trust or restricted land on the Salt River or San
Xavier reservation may authorize more than one renewal period, but the
maximum term allowable by law can not be exceeded. A lease for public,
religious, educational, recreational, residential, or business purposes
may run for a maximum term of 99 years, and a lease for farming
purposes may run for up to 40 years where a substantial investment in
the development of the land or the production of a specialized crop is
required.
(b) If we determine that the governmental interests of a
municipality contiguous to either the Salt River or San Xavier
reservation would be substantially affected by the grant or approval of
a lease, and these interests cannot be adequately assessed on the basis
of the information available (under Sec. 162.16), we must notify the
municipality of the proposed action and give them 30 days to comment.
(c) The scenic, historic, and religious values of the Mission San
Xavier del Bac on the San Xavier Reservation must be protected.
Sec. 162.53 Tulalip Reservation.
The Tulalip Tribes may grant a lease without our approval, if the
term of the lease does not exceed 15 years including renewal or
extension periods. The Tulalip Tribes may grant a lease without our
approval for up to 30 years, including renewal or extension periods,
under tribal law approved by us.
Date: May 31, 1996.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-14640 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.