Tuesday, April 23, 2002
Part X
Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Parts 216 and 238 Passenger Equipment Safety Standards; Final Rule
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 21, 1997. FRA considered the comments substituted throughout this part for the received on the NPRM and advice from phrases ‘‘the FRA Regional Director for Federal Railroad Administration its Working Group in preparing a final Railroad Safety,’’ ‘‘the FRA Regional rule establishing comprehensive safety Director of Railroad Safety,’’ ‘‘a Regional 49 CFR Parts 216 and 238 standards for railroad passenger Director,’’ and ‘‘the Regional Director.’’ [FRA Docket No. PCSS–1, Notice No. 7] equipment, which was published on For a discussion of FRA’s amendments May 12, 1999. See 64 FR 25540. to this section, see 64 FR 25575. RIN 2130–AB48 Following publication of the final Amendments to 49 CFR Part 238 rule, parties filed petitions seeking Passenger Equipment Safety FRA’s reconsideration of requirements Subpart A—General Standards in the rule. These petitions principally Section 238.1 Purpose and Scope AGENCY: Federal Railroad related to the following subject areas: Administration (FRA), Department of structural design; fire safety; training; FRA has amended this section by Transportation (DOT). inspection, testing, and maintenance; restoring paragraphs (c)(1)–(3) of the May 12, 1999 final rule. See 64 FR ACTION: and movement of defective equipment. Final rule; response to petitions 25661. These paragraphs were for reconsideration. On July 3, 2000, FRA issued a response to the petitions for reconsideration unintentionally omitted from the rule SUMMARY: This document responds to concerning the final rule’s requirements when FRA amended paragraph (c) in the certain of the petitions for for the inspection, testing, and July 3, 2000 petition for reconsideration reconsideration of FRA’s May 12, 1999 maintenance of passenger equipment, response document. See 65 FR 41305. final rule establishing comprehensive the movement of defective passenger Section 238.3 Applicability Federal safety standards for railroad equipment, and other related, Following publication of the final passenger equipment. This document miscellaneous provisions. See 65 FR rule, an issue arose involving the clarifies and amends the final rule. 41284. FRA is hereby responding to all circumstances in which a railroad may remaining issues raised in the petitions EFFECTIVE DATE: The amendments to the use the exclusion from the requirements for reconsideration other than those final rule are effective June 24, 2002. of the rule applicable to ‘‘tourist, scenic, issues concerning the fire safety portion FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: historic, or excursion operations,’’ as of the final rule. This notice also Ronald Newman, Staff Director, Motive specified in paragraph (c)(3). The issue clarifies the final rule in response to Power and Equipment Division, Office concerned whether a train consisting of other issues and requests for of Safety Assurance and Compliance, new passenger equipment could be interpretation that have arisen since FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, Mail Stop operated with passengers (principally publication of the rule. The 25, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: business and government officials) for amendments contained in this notice 202–493–6300); Daniel Alpert, Trial demonstration purposes without generally clarify requirements currently Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, complying with the requirements of the contained in the final rule or allow for 1120 Vermont Avenue, Mail Stop 10, rule. As FRA explained, such a train greater flexibility in complying with the Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202– operation is subject to the requirements rule, and are within the scope of the 493–6026); or Thomas Herrmann, Trial of the rule and does not fall under the issues and options discussed, Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, exclusion in paragraph (c)(3). FRA is considered, or raised in the NPRM. FRA 1120 Vermont Avenue, Mail Stop 10, amending the definition of ‘‘tourist, will address the issues raised in the Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202– scenic, historic, or excursion petitions for reconsideration concerning 493–6036). operations’’ in § 238.5 to clarify this fire safety by separate notice in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: point, as discussed below. Federal Register. Background The specific issues and Section 238.5 Definitions On June 17, 1996, FRA published an recommendations raised by the FRA is amending the definition of ‘‘in Advance Notice of Proposed petitioners and FRA’s response to those service’’ to make clear that passenger Rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning the petitions are discussed in detail in the equipment is ‘‘in service’’ when it is in establishment of comprehensive safety ‘‘Section-by-Section Analysis’’ portion passenger or revenue service in the standards for railroad passenger of the preamble, below. The section-by- United States. See the discussion of equipment. See 61 FR 30672. The section analysis also contains a detailed § 238.201, below, for an explanation of ANPRM provided background discussion of each provision of the final this clarification. FRA has also made a information on the need for such rule which FRA has clarified or conforming change to this definition by standards, offered preliminary ideas on amended. This will enable the regulated substituting section ‘‘238.305(d)’’ for approaching passenger safety issues, community to more readily compare section ‘‘238.305(c)(5).’’ Section and presented questions on various this document with the preamble 238.305(c)(5) was amended by the July passenger safety topics. Following discussions contained in both the final 3, 2000 response to petitions for consideration of comments received on rule and the July 3, 2000 response reconsideration. See 65 FR 41308. the ANPRM and advice from FRA’s document, and will thereby aid in FRA is amending the definition of Passenger Equipment Safety Standards understanding the requirements of the ‘‘MIL–STD–882C’’ to remove the ‘‘C’’ Working Group (Working Group), FRA rule. designation. The final rule cited MIL– published a Notice of Proposed Section-by-Section Analysis STD–882C as a formal safety Rulemaking (NPRM) on September 23, methodology to guide railroads in 1997, to establish comprehensive safety Amendments to 49 CFR Part 216 identifying and then eliminating or standards for railroad passenger FRA is revising §§ 216.17 and 216.23 reducing the risk posed by a hazard to equipment. See 62 FR 49728. In to correct typographical errors resulting an acceptable level. MIL–STD–882 was addition to written comment on the from the final rule’s amendments to part updated on February 10, 2000, and NPRM, FRA also solicited oral comment 216. These occurred when the phrase designated as MIL–STD–882D, at a public hearing held on November ‘‘the FRA Regional Administrator’’ was superceding MIL–STD–882C. (FRA has
VerDate 11
placed a copy of MIL–STD–882D in the movements. See 64 FR 25667. Following safety-related functionality, or both. public docket for this rulemaking.) This publication of the final rule, the APTA cautioned that the definition amendment makes clear that a railroad National Railroad Passenger Corporation should distinguish between software may use MIL–STD–882D. (Amtrak) raised the concern that the changes of a minor nature that have no FRA is removing the definition of phrase ‘‘restricted speed not to exceed safety impact and significant software ‘‘monocoque’’ and adding the new 20 mph’’ has a specific meaning which changes, modifications, or upgrades that definition ‘‘semi-monoque’’ in its place. is different from simply stating that the could have a safety impact. APTA The term ‘‘semi-monocoque’’—not ‘‘speed . . . shall be restricted to 20 believed that, through its requested ‘‘monocoque’’—was expressly used in mph or less,’’ as used in paragraph clarifications to this section, railroads the final rule text. Further, the (d)(2)(ii). FRA did not intend that the could implement minor software definition of ‘‘monocoque’’ in the final speed restriction in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) upgrades without triggering the full rule actually described a ‘‘semi- be different than the one specified in requirements of this section. monocoque’’ structure by stating that paragraph (d)(2)(ii), and FRA believes FRA agrees that hardware or software the shell or skin acts as a single unit that the way in which the speed used to control or monitor safety ‘‘with the supporting frame’’ to resist restriction is stated in paragraph functions in passenger equipment is and transmit the loads acting on the (d)(2)(ii) more accurately reflects FRA’s ‘‘materially modified’’ when structure. Reliance on the supporting intent. Consequently, for consistency microprocessor-based hardware frame to help resist and transmit loads– and to avoid confusion, FRA has components are added to the passenger as opposed to resisting and transmitting amended paragraph (e)(2)(ii) to state equipment, and when changes are made loads on the shell or skin alone—makes that the speed of the train shall be to existing microprocessor-based a structure ‘‘semi-monocoque,’’ and restricted to 20 mph or less. hardware components that provide the FRA has clarified the rule accordingly. vehicle with a new safety-related FRA is amending the definition of Subpart B—Safety Planning and General capability, or safety-related ‘‘tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion Requirements functionality, or both. FRA also believes operations,’’ as noted above. As defined Section 238.105 Train Electronic that the term encompasses significant in § 238.5 of the final rule, ‘‘tourist, Hardware and Software Safety software changes, modifications, or scenic, historic, or excursion upgrades that could have a safety operations’’ means railroad operations This section applies to electronic impact. For instance, revision of that carry passengers, often using systems, subsystems and components executive software has the potential to antiquated equipment, with the used to control or monitor safety fundamentally affect the safety-relevant conveyance of the passengers to a functions in passenger equipment characteristics of a system. Although particular destination not being the ordered on or after September 8, 2000, FRA does not suggest that every ‘‘patch’’ principal purpose.’’ FRA recognizes that and to such systems, subsystems and designed to address an error or a train consisting of new passenger components implemented or materially vulnerability would subject a system to equipment that is operated for modified in new or existing passenger this section’s requirements, significant demonstration purposes is seemingly equipment on or after September 9, revision of code that alters the basic not conveying passengers to a particular 2002. Inclusion of these requirements in logic or protocols of the system should destination as its principal purpose. passenger equipment reflects the prompt a safety review. When a review However, the very usage of new growing role of automated systems to is required, a railroad must examine the passenger equipment, as opposed to control or monitor passenger train safety safety risks resulting from a change to antiquated equipment, and the clear functions. For example, most new the hardware and software components business purposes of the train, locomotives are controlled by used in monitoring or controlling safety distinguish such demonstration train microprocessors that respond to functions, including new risks not operations from the class of train operator commands while making previously present and existing risks operations FRA intended to exclude numerous automatic adjustments to whose nature is affected by the change. from the requirements of the rule under locomotive systems to ensure efficient FRA recognizes that the requirements § 238.3(c)(3). Any person wishing to operation. FRA has renamed this section of § 238.105 lend themselves best to the operate such a demonstration train that ‘‘Train electronic hardware and software design, analysis, and testing of hardware does not comply with a requirement of safety’’ since the focus of this section is and software components used to the rule must file a request for a waiver on electronic hardware and software— control or monitor safety functions in and obtain FRA’s approval on the not on all hardware components as the new passenger equipment. A formal waiver request prior to commencing the term is generically used. safety program is necessary to ensure demonstration train’s operation. In its petition for reconsideration, the the compatibility and safety of all the American Public Transportation various hardware and software Section 238.15 Movement of Passenger Association (APTA) requested that the components used to control or monitor Equipment With Power Brake Defects term ‘‘materially modified’’ be safety functions in newly constructed FRA is modifying the requirements in specifically defined for purposes of the equipment. FRA does not intend that paragraph (e)(2) that concern the application of this section. APTA the material modification of an existing movement of a passenger train with suggested that hardware or software hardware or software component used inoperative power brakes on the front or used to control or monitor safety to control or monitor safety functions in rear vehicle in instances where a functions in passenger equipment is passenger equipment result in the handbrake on such a vehicle may not be ‘‘materially modified’’ in at least the analysis and testing of all such accessible to a member of the train crew following circumstances: when components in the equipment to the or may be located outside the interior of microprocessor-based hardware same extent as if the equipment were the vehicle. In the final rule, paragraph components are added; and when newly constructed. To the extent risk (e)(2)(ii) required that the train be changes are made to existing can be partitioned through preliminary operated at ‘‘restricted speed not to microprocessor-based hardware analysis, the focus of the analysis and exceed 20 mph,’’ as one of the components that provide the vehicle testing required by a ‘‘material restrictions imposed on such with a new safety-related capability, or modification’’ is placed on the
VerDate 11
materially modified component, the safe systems in 49 CFR part 236. Further, As stated in the final rule, paragraph operation of the component in GETS contended that because the (c) provided in part that software that controlling or monitoring a safety definition of a ‘‘safety-critical’’ function controls or monitors safety functions be function, and the compatibility of that includes a function that ‘‘increases the considered safety-critical unless a component with the existing risk of damage to passenger equipment,’’ completely redundant, failsafe, non- infrastructure, including whether the the requirements could be interpreted to software means ensuring the same modification affects the safe operation mean that any microprocessor that may function is provided. Paragraph (d) of other components that control or be utilized for reliability purposes alone required that hardware and software monitor safety functions. must also be designed and implemented that controls or monitors passenger FRA notes that the issue APTA has in a fail-safe manner. GETS stated that equipment safety functions include raised is similar to one facing FRA in a it has conducted a preliminary hazard design feature(s) that result in a safe rulemaking on Standards for analysis and functional fault tree on its condition in the event of a hardware or Development and Use of Processor- Genesis locomotive microprocessor- software failure. See 64 FR 25671. FRA Based Signal and Train Control based systems in accordance with the is aware of specific electronic system Systems, published as an NPRM on practices and criteria specified in failures that have occurred on passenger August 10, 2001. See 66 FR 42352; Institute of Electrical and Electronics and freight locomotives that have Docket No. FRA–2001–10160. Through Engineers, Inc., (IEEE) Standard 1483, presented safety concerns. As the rulemaking, FRA seeks to ensure the manufacturers intensify use of safety of processor-based signal and ‘‘Standard for the Verification of Vital Functions in Processor-Based Systems commercial off-the-shelf operating train control systems in light of rapid systems and attempt greater integration and significant changes in locomotive Used in Rail Transit Control.’’ GETS cited these as standard tools employed of on-board functions (including design. FRA is also examining the eventually train control), the potential appropriate relationship between train throughout the rail and transit industries for many years, and believed for uncovered hazards will increase control systems and locomotive control unless action is taken to ensure greater that they constitute an equivalent, systems, such as those subject to the rigor in safety analysis and testing alternate approach for applying a requirements of this section. Because before products are brought to market. the rulemaking is focused on the safety ‘‘formal safety methodology’’ to the However, on reconsideration, FRA of electronic control systems, it may hardware and software safety program agrees that this language is ultimately lead FRA to amend or clarify specified in paragraph (b). GETS also the requirements of this section of the noted that it has completed Failure unnecessarily broad in requiring that all Passenger Equipment Safety Standards Modes and Effects Analyses (FMEA’s). hardware and software that controls or for purposes of consistency. As a result, GETS further stated that it has a monitors passenger equipment safety FRA expects to consider further the comprehensive and robust process for functions in effect be designed to fail requirements of this section as a whole designing, developing, and testing safely in the event of a hardware or software failure. Consequently, FRA has with the Working Group as part of the software used in safety-related amended this section by deleting the second phase of the Passenger applications. It explained that this first sentence in paragraph (c) and by Equipment Safety Standards process includes well-defined software amending paragraph (d) to focus the rulemaking. design requirements, quality assurance requirement for vitality or functional Following publication of the final practices, and exhaustive pre-revenue rule, an issue was raised as to the redundancy on two key systems. First, verification and validation testing. In hardware and software that controls or application of § 238.105 to cab signal addition, GETS stated that formal systems. Cab signal systems are monitors a train’s primary braking technical reviews are conducted as system shall fail safely by initiating a governed by 49 CFR part 236 and are necessary at various phases in the affected by the requirements of full service brake application in the software development program event of a hardware or software failure; § 238.105 only to the extent they are including during development of the commingled with other cab electronic or access to direct manual control of the software specifications, the software systems (which currently should not be primary braking system (both service design document, the software test plan, the case). The rulemaking on Standards and emergency braking) shall be and as part of the line-by-line code for Development and Use of Processor- provided to the engineer. In the Based Signal and Train Control Systems review. According to GETS, these preamble to the final rule, FRA is specifically devoted to the safety of software design, development, and explicitly stated that in the case of processor-based signal and train control verification and validation practices primary braking systems, electronic systems. have produced highly reliable controls must either fail safely (resulting FRA also notes that General Electric microprocessor-based systems that have in a full service brake application) or Transportation Systems (GETS) has proven to be safe and effective with access to full pneumatic control must be raised concern that strict compliance to hundreds of P42 locomotive-years and provided. See 64 FR 25591. Second, the requirements of § 238.105 would over 100 million miles in revenue hardware and software that controls or result in a significant incremental service. GETS suggested that monitors the electronic ability to shut change to the complexity, consideration be given to accepting the down the main power and fuel intake sophistication, and integrity required for current, proven microprocessor-based system shall either fail safely by all locomotive safety-related systems systems as implemented, and limiting shutting down the main power and which interface with or include a the new requirements for software intake of fuel in the event of an microprocessor. GETS stated that vitality to the next generation or the uncovered system failure; or the ability § 238.105(d) of the final rule could be introduction of new technology train to shut down the main power and fuel interpreted to mean that any computer control systems, consistent with the intake system by non-electronic means involved in safety-related functions rulemaking on Standards for shall be provided to the train crew. FRA must be designed to be ‘‘fail-safe’’ or Development and Use of Processor- desires that the train crew have the ‘‘vital’’ similar to the requirements Based Signal and Train Control ability to shut down the main power applied to signal and train control Systems. and fuel intake system in the event of
VerDate 11
a collision, derailment, or fire, in modes and effects criticality analyses, as modification of the final rule is particular, to mitigate the consequences well as validation and verification warranted. Of course, FRA will of such occurrences. This has long been testing—all elements of the hardware reasonably enforce the requirements for identified as a safety requirement for and software safety program. submission and approval of test plans. fossil-fuel locomotives. See 49 CFR For instance, FRA notes that Section 238.109 Training, § 229.93. Obviously, it may also be § 238.111(b)(2) requires that a copy of a Qualification, and Designation Program critical to be able to reduce power to test plan be submitted to FRA at least 30 avoid or mitigate the seriousness of an FRA is amending paragraph (b)(6) to days prior to conducting the testing. accident to begin with, regardless of the make clear that a railroad may offer to This 30-day period is for the benefit of type of motive power. its employees and contractors the option FRA to allow sufficient time to review FRA notes for clarity that the of taking an oral examination—instead the test plan and arrange for FRA to reference to reliability in paragraph (c), of a written examination—covering the witness the testing, as necessary. In which is retained from the final rule, equipment and tasks for which they are some cases the approval, coordination, arises only within the context of responsible. As originally promulgated, and testing may be able to be systems that control or monitor safety paragraph (b)(6) stated that such accomplished in less than 30 days. functions, as stated in the initial text of contractors and employees were the section. It is important that such required to pass a written examination. Section 238.113 Emergency Window systems be available and function as However, in the preamble to the final Exits intended, since otherwise they may be rule, FRA explained that paragraph (b) In its petition for reconsideration, circumvented out of expediency. FRA ‘‘requires that employees pass either a APTA requested clarification of four does not intend to address reliability of written or oral examination.’’ See 64 FR issues concerning this section. First, electronic systems except in this 25593. Consistent with the preamble APTA requested that FRA clarify the context. discussion, FRA did not intend to meaning of ‘‘main level’’ as applied to As a separate matter, FRA notes that restrict a railroad from offering oral gallery-type cars such as those operated it has amended paragraph (c) to add the examinations to its employees and by the Northeast Illinois Regional phrase ‘‘hardware and software’’ where contractors. Consequently, FRA has Commuter Railroad Corporation (Metra). the word ‘‘software’’ previously was amended paragraph (b)(6) of this section APTA stated that approximately 30% of written. As paragraph (c) concerns the to effectuate this intent. the seating capacity of these gallery cars requirements of a hardware and is located in four separate gallery areas. Section 238.111 Pre-Revenue Service software safety program, and the APTA asked whether each of these Acceptance Testing Plan software and hardware work as a galleries is a main level, or whether only system, both components of the system This section provides requirements the lower level of the car—containing should logically be identified together. for pre-revenue service testing of 70% of the seating—is a main level. This arises out of the nature of the passenger equipment and relates to APTA stated that Metra would equip systems and merely clarifies the intent subpart G, which describes gallery areas with emergency window of the final rule. FRA has made a similar requirements for the procurement of exits as they buy new cars and as they change to paragraph (b). Tier II passenger equipment and for a overhaul existing cars but could not add Finally, with respect to GETS’s major upgrade or introduction of new emergency windows to gallery areas by suggestion to use IEEE 1483 as a formal technology that could affect a Tier II November 8, 1999. safety methodology for purposes of passenger equipment safety system. FRA recognizes that the term ‘‘main complying with the hardware and In its petition for reconsideration, level’’ was not defined in the final rule. software safety program requirements, Amtrak noted that § 213.345 of the Nor did FRA intend to define ‘‘main FRA notes that this IEEE consensus Track Safety Standards already contains level’’ strictly based on a percentage of standard developed by the rail transit an approval process for equipment passenger car seating capacity. FRA’s industry focuses principally on the qualification testing, and that §§ 238.21 use of the term ‘‘main level’’ was verification process, which is only an and 238.111 require the submission of intended to exclude from the element of the entire hardware and test plans for FRA approval in the case requirements of this section a level of a software safety program described in of Tier II passenger equipment. Amtrak car that is principally used for passage paragraph (b) and required by paragraph believed that the requirement to submit between the door exits and passenger (a). As a general matter, IEEE 1483 does and obtain approval of pre-revenue seating areas, or between passenger not address safety validation; the service acceptance testing plans could seating areas. Such an area is not definition of requirements for safe substantially delay equipment testing. principally used for seating and operation; hazard severity and FRA has explained that it desires includes a stairwell landing between the frequency assessment; hazard causes, closer monitoring of Tier II passenger two main levels of a conventional ‘‘bi- effects and resolutions; or system and equipment because of safety concerns level’’ car. A conventional bi-level car development design. While use of IEEE associated with the higher speeds at has two main levels—an upper and a 1483 is appropriate for purposes of which this equipment will travel. lower level—that are principally used hardware and software safety Although closer monitoring may for passenger seating. verification, its use alone is not lengthen the testing process for this As FRA understands, the Metra cars sufficient for purposes of complying equipment, FRA believes that safety is referenced by APTA are equipped with with the hardware and software safety better and more efficiently promoted by eight emergency window exits. Four program requirements in this section. identifying safety concerns prior to emergency window exits are located on Nonetheless, the steps GETS has placing the equipment in passenger each main level. The four separate described to provide for hardware and service. While the Track Safety gallery areas are located on the upper software safety in its P42 locomotives Standards focus on track/vehicle level of the cars; one gallery area is indicate that GETS is in at least interaction, the plan required by this located on each side of each end of the substantial compliance with the section permits a broader examination cars; and each gallery area has one requirements of this section. GETS of the equipment’s safety. Accordingly, emergency window exit. On this basis, specifically cited performing failure FRA does not believe that a FRA makes clear that the Metra cars are
VerDate 11
in compliance with paragraph (a) of this paragraph (a)(1) does not require moved away from the opening’s section. emergency window exits to be placed at clearance without requiring the use of a Second, APTA requested that the rule the extreme ends of a passenger car. tool or other implement. As a result, a not require emergency window exits to Third, APTA requested that FRA seat back that can be manually reclined be placed at the ends of a passenger car clarify the meaning of ‘‘unobstructed away from the minimum required 26- if staggering the window exits is not opening’’ in paragraph (b). APTA inch by 24-inch emergency window exit practical. APTA believed that, since suggested that an opening is obstructed opening would not obstruct the opening windows at car ends are more likely to only if an obstacle prevents or for purposes of this paragraph. be damaged and rendered unusable in a significantly delays the removal of a Finally, APTA requested that FRA collision, the rule should provide window, noting that seats and seat clarify the meaning of ‘‘rapid and easy railroads the flexibility to place window backs can help in an evacuation by removal’’ in paragraph (a)(3). APTA exits at the locations that will most providing passengers a surface to stand asked if this paragraph requires that the effectively allow for passengers to exit a on and hold as they pass through the window be designed to permit rapid car in an emergency. window. APTA also mentioned that and easy removal from not only the FRA agrees that emergency window some of the larger emergency window inside of a passenger car but also from exits need to be distributed throughout exits weigh more than fifty pounds, and the outside of the car as well. FRA is a passenger car so as to maximize that seat backs provide a surface on amending the paragraph to make clear passenger egress in a life-threatening which to place these windows safely. that the emergency window exits situation. As the discussion in the final Amtrak, in its petition for required by this section need only be rule explains, safety is advanced by reconsideration, similarly requested that designed to permit rapid and easy staggering the configuration of the term ‘‘unobstructed opening’’ be removal from the inside of the car emergency window exits—instead of defined to make clear that items such as without requiring the use of a tool or placing the exits directly across from seat backs that project in front of the other implement. As paragraph (a) each other on opposite sides of the car— window but do not prevent removal of applies to both new and existing and distributing the window exits as the emergency window do not violate passenger cars, FRA did not intend to uniformly as practical throughout the the requirements of this section. Amtrak require a retrofit of existing passenger car. See 64 FR 25596. For a main level stated that, since the purpose of this cars so that the windows could also be of a typical passenger car, this can be section is to ensure ready access to and accessed by emergency responders from conceptualized as follows: Divide the easy removal of the windows, objects the outside without requiring the use of car longitudinally into four equal such as seat backs should be allowed in a tool or other implement. Nevertheless, quadrants from the forward (A) end to front of the window opening so long as pursuant to 49 CFR 223.9(d), each the rear (B) end; number the quadrants they do not impair access to and rapid window intended for emergency access one through four, running from the A and easy removal of the window in an by emergency responders for extricating end to the B end; place one window in emergency. passengers from both new and existing each quadrant; and locate the windows FRA notes that the NTSB, in passenger cars must be clearly marked in the first and third quadrants on the commenting on the NPRM, stated that and have clear and understandable opposite side of the car from the emergency window exit dimensions instructions posted for its use. In Phase windows in the second and fourth should be based on the dimensions II of this rulemaking FRA will examine quadrants. This represents the optimal needed: (1) To extricate an injured with the Working Group the need for placement of emergency window exits person from the passenger car; and (2) requirements concerning the ease of on a main level of a typical passenger to allow an emergency responder fitted removing passenger car windows from car, and is required by paragraph (a)(1) with a self-contained breathing the outside of the car, taking into where practical. Yet, as FRA noted in apparatus to enter the passenger car. See consideration potential issues and the final rule, other considerations may 64 FR 25595. FRA agreed with the concerns such as the unintentional be taken into account, including the NTSB and paragraph (b) of the final rule dislodgement of the windows. FRA does need to provide an unobstructed exit reflects these considerations. The size of note that, pursuant to § 238.235(b), each without diminishing normal seating the emergency window exit opening powered, exterior side door on a new capacity. As a result, where staggering is cannot be determined solely on the passenger car must be equipped with a not practical, paragraph (a)(1) would dimensions needed for an able-bodied manual override that is designed and allow the emergency window exits to be passenger to exit through a window. maintained so that a person may access placed on opposite sides of the car, Although FRA recognizes that use of a the override device from both inside directly across from one another, seat back may facilitate the escape of and outside the car without requiring provided at least two emergency able-bodied passengers through a the use of a tool or other implement. window exits are located in each end of window, the same seat back may impair In the final rule, FRA reserved the car. the removal of an injured person from paragraph (c) for emergency window FRA reiterates that use of the term ‘‘in the car or block an emergency responder exit marking and operating instruction each end’’ in paragraph (a)(1) refers to fitted with a self-contained breathing requirements, which were specified in the forward and rear ends of a car as apparatus from entering through the the Passenger Train Emergency divided longitudinally by its center. window. Further, the requirements of Preparedness final rule, see 63 FR This term does not literally refer to the paragraph (b) only apply to new 24630. FRA noted that in Phase II of the extreme forward and rear ends of a passenger cars and only require that rulemaking FRA will consider passenger car, nor does it require that four windows on each main level be integrating into part 238 the emergency emergency window exits be placed at emergency window exits subject to this window exit marking and operating the extreme ends of a car. FRA also section’s requirements. In consideration instruction requirements specified in reiterates that railroads should be of APTA’s and Amtrak’s concerns, the Passenger Train Emergency mindful that if the ends of a car crush however, FRA is amending the Preparedness final rule, as well as in a collision, the window exits located paragraph to make clear that a seat back consider revising the requirements as at the car’s ends may be rendered does not obstruct an emergency window necessary. While FRA still intends to inoperable. FRA makes clear that exit opening if the seat back can be examine these requirements in Phase II,
VerDate 11
FRA has in the interim inserted a necessary implication of the term forth the content requirements for a reference to the marking and instruction ‘‘placed in service for the first time’’ is petition, service of a petition, and requirements specified in the Passenger that the equipment is placed in service commenting on a petition, as well as the Train Emergency Preparedness final for the first time in the United States. process FRA follows in acting on a rule to make clear that there are marking For example, where a requirement petition. FRA notes that, subsequent to and instruction requirements and applies to passenger equipment placed the final rule, § 238.203(g) was amended identify where to locate these in service for the first time on or after by a December 16, 1999 final rule that requirements. September 9, 2002, and the railroad revised docket filing procedures for FRA desires to purchase passenger rulemaking and adjudicatory dockets. Subpart C–Specific Requirements for equipment operating in a foreign See 64 FR 70193. Yet, the amendments Tier I Passenger Equipment country, that equipment will be to § 238.203(g) only concerned the Section 238.201 Scope/Alternative considered placed in service for the first procedures for filing comments by Compliance time on or after September 9, 2002, if it interested parties. is placed in service in the United States In its petition for reconsideration, Subpart C contains specific for the first time on or after this date. Amtrak believed that paragraph (h)(1) requirements for railroad passenger Consequently, the equipment will be provided that a hearing must be equipment operating at speeds not subject to the requirements of the rule conducted in connection with all exceeding 125 mph. In general, except applicable to passenger equipment petitions; that this would deviate from for the static end strength requirements placed in service for the first time on or the standard specified in FRA’s rules of (§ 238.203) and as otherwise provided in after September 9, 2002. As noted practice at 49 CFR 211.25(a) for this subpart, the requirements of subpart above, FRA has amended the definition convening a hearing; and that no need C apply only to passenger equipment of ‘‘In service’’ in § 238.5 to make this exists to deviate from this practice. ordered on or after September 8, 2000, clear. Overall, this clarification is Paragraph (h)(1) provided that FRA will or placed in service for the first time on consistent with the pre-revenue service conduct a hearing on a grandfathering or after September 9, 2002. acceptance testing plan requirements in petition in accordance with 49 CFR Following publication of the final § 238.111, which distinguish between 211.25, which, among other things, rule, a passenger car builder asked FRA passenger equipment that has states that a hearing will be held if at what point would a railcar, having previously been used in revenue service required by statute or the Administrator undergone extensive rebuilding, be in the United States, and that equipment finds it necessary or desirable. In the considered new and therefore subject to which has not. case of a petition for grandfathering, a the requirements for new passenger Similarly, for purposes of the hearing is not required by statute. equipment in subpart C. The builder presumption in § 238.203(b) that Consequently, in reading these two explained that it has torn down and passenger equipment placed in service sections together, paragraph (h)(1) rebuilt passenger cars using all new before November 8, 1999, is presumed would not require that a hearing be held materials except for their underframes to comply with the 800,000-pound static on every petition for grandfathering. and trucks. FRA makes clear that when end strength requirement in Nonetheless, FRA has amended the rule a passenger car is torn down to its § 238.203(a), the presumption only to make clear that a hearing will be held underframe and rebuilt, the applies to passenger equipment placed on a petition for grandfathering only if requirements of subpart C do not apply in service in the United States prior to the FRA Administrator finds it unless otherwise specified (such as in November 8, 1999. The builder had necessary or desirable. § 238.203). FRA considered the extent to asked whether this presumption applied Further, Amtrak stated that it may be which subpart C should apply to rebuilt to passenger equipment operating in appropriate for the scope of the passenger cars and generally decided Canada prior to this date, and FRA potential grandfathering of passenger against applying the requirements of the makes clear that it does not. However, equipment to be modified to permit use subpart to such rebuilt equipment. See FRA believes that typical Canadian of the grandfathered equipment for 64 FR 25601–2; see also the discussion passenger equipment would meet the detour or other emergency operations on of the definition ‘‘ordered’’ in § 238.5 requirements of § 238.203(a). a rail line or lines other than the one or (64 FR 25577). Nonetheless, FRA has FRA is only amending § 238.201 to ones specifically approved for use applied specific requirements of the rule correct a typographical error in without the necessity of a formal waiver to rebuilt equipment, such as the fire paragraph (a)(2). The reference to being obtained in such an instance. FRA safety requirements in subpart B for § 238.203 in paragraph (a)(2) of the final does not agree that the rule should materials placed in a passenger car rule was incorrectly stated as provide such general flexibility to a during a rebuild (see § 238.103(a)(2)). ‘‘§ 238.203B.’’ railroad, as the rule is structured to FRA notes that the builder’s question address the safety of the equipment on does highlight the concern that even Section 238.203 Static End Strength a specific rail line or lines. The when a car is torn down to its This section contains the grandfathering petition may of course underframe and could be fitted with requirements for the overall address this situation by specifying new or improved structural features, the compressive strength of all Tier I rail potential rail lines the equipment may rule generally does not require that it be passenger equipment, except for need to use in detour or emergency done. FRA will examine this concern equipment meeting the requirements of situations and by seeking approval for further in Phase II of the rulemaking. § 238.201. use of these rail lines in accordance The builder also asked FRA about the In the final rule, FRA included with the requirements of paragraph (d). meaning of the term ‘‘placed in service paragraphs (d) through (f) to provide a Otherwise, FRA will address such a for the first time,’’ which is used formalized process for seeking situation on a case-by-case basis. throughout rule—not only in subpart grandfathering approval of passenger Finally, Amtrak stated that there is no C—and its effect for purposes of equipment in use on a rail line or lines apparent reason to specify that equipment that has previously been on November 8, 1999, not meeting the approved grandfathering petitions are placed in service in Canada or another minimum static end strength subject to reopening per paragraph country. FRA makes clear that the requirements. These paragraphs set (h)(2). The rule provides for the
VerDate 11
reopening of approved grandfathering the other, it is not possible to apply the paragraph (b) was not to focus on petitions for cause stated so that FRA load in the same manner on these strengthening a locomotive’s draft may retain oversight of grandfathered structures. APTA contended that the arrangement, and therefore FRA could equipment. For instance, the facts or final rule should not define not agree that APTA’s approach circumstances underlying the approval requirements beyond what has proven complied with paragraph (b). (A copy of of a grandfathering petition may change to be achievable, and recommended that this letter has been placed in the public over time and bring into question the current industry practice for anti- docket for this rulemaking.) FRA’s whether usage of the equipment climbing mechanisms at the leading intent has been to encourage the use of continues to be in the public interest ends of cab cars and MU locomotives be anti-climbing mechanisms that help to and consistent with railroad safety. retained, i.e, the strength requirements prevent (1) debris from rising toward the Paragraph (h)(2) remains unchanged. provided in paragraph (a). cab and passenger compartments in the As a final matter, for a discussion of In a letter to APTA dated September case of a highway-rail collision and (2) the application of the presumption in 24, 1999, FRA announced that it would insofar as reasonably possible, any paragraph (b) to passenger equipment in amend the rule to extend paragraph (b)’s vertical disengagement that could service in a foreign country before compliance dates forward by one year reduce the effectiveness of collision and November 8, 1999, see the discussion of and encouraged APTA to work with corner post arrangements (and § 238.201, above. equipment builders to identify consequent telescoping) in the case of appropriate design criteria for cab car Section 238.205 Anti-Climbing collisions with other rail equipment. and MU locomotive anti-climbers Mechanism FRA intended to incorporate a feature of within this additional one-year period. Association of American Railroads This section contains the vertical (A copy of this letter has been placed in (AAR) Standard (S) 580 that appeared to strength requirements for anti-climbing the public docket for this rulemaking.) be helpful in this regard (along with the mechanisms on rail passenger FRA agreed that the industry needed requirements for improved collision equipment. As stated in the final rule additional time to perfect practicable posts and 1⁄2-inch or equivalent steel text, paragraph (a) applies to all designs to meet the requirements of skin protecting the forward end passenger equipment placed in service paragraph (b), but was concerned with structure). Conventional freight and for the first time on or after September excluding cab cars and MU locomotives passenger locomotives have generally 8, 2000. 64 FR 25675. However, the from the requirement. If anything, the implemented this requirement through section-by-section analysis to the final need for the requirement is greater in use of a horizontal shelf arrangement rule incorrectly stated that paragraph (a) preventing injury in the context of that protrudes forward of the applied to all passenger equipment passenger-occupied locomotives (cab locomotive. In order to be effective, placed in service for the first time on or cars and MU locomotives), where the such an anti-climbing mechanism must after November 8, 1999. 64 FR 25604. engineer is located far forward in the FRA makes clear that the September 8, be situated on the front of the vehicle in vehicle. such a way as to encourage capture of 2000 applicability date as stated in the By letter dated November 21, 2000, the object in danger of rising and be final rule text is correct. APTA informed FRA of its progress in strong enough to contain its rise. In its petition for reconsideration of achieving a practical design standard. Ideally, such an arrangement would the final rule, APTA asked FRA to (A copy of this letter has been placed in tend to interlock with the arrangement reconsider the requirement in paragraph the public docket for this rulemaking.) on the front of other rail vehicles. (b) that the forward end of a locomotive APTA explained that at least three car Certainly a coupler and drawbar can be ordered on or after September 8, 2000, builders proposed strengthening the or placed in service for the first time on forward car body structure that supports helpful, but the capture surface of a or after September 9, 2002, be equipped the coupler, in order to withstand the coupler is narrow, and the chance of with an anti-climbing mechanism required vertical loads. APTA stated achieving coupling with another vehicle capable of resisting an upward or that Bombardier had proposed meeting in higher force impacts is not high. downward vertical force of 200,000 this requirement in building MU FRA continues to have confidence pounds without failure. FRA had locomotives for the Long Island Railroad that incorporation of a separate anti- explained in the preamble to the final by designing the car body structure to climbing mechanism on the front of cab rule that specifying a vertical load resist an ultimate load of 200,000 cars and MU locomotives is both resistance requirement for lead vehicles pounds applied upward on the buffer feasible and warranted. This conclusion (locomotives) that is greater than that for beam and downward on the coupler is supported in part by successful efforts coupled vehicles is needed to address carrier. APTA sought FRA’s in rail equipment design internationally. the greater tendency for override in a concurrence on this design approach, Nonetheless, FRA has accepted the fact collision between uncoupled vehicles. maintaining that the approach is that for cab cars and MU locomotives See 64 FR 25604. However, FRA consistent with the loading implementation of effective anti- recognized that implementing this anti- requirements that have traditionally climbing arrangements that comply with climbing requirement in the leading been used to meet a 100,000-pound (to paragraph (b) will, in at least some structure of cab cars and MU yield) anti-climbing requirement. APTA cases, require more elaborate redesign locomotives presented a significant stated that the industry currently has no than initially contemplated by FRA. challenge. other viable options for anti-climbing Considering the further work that will In its petition, APTA stated that no mechanism designs for cab cars and MU be required to develop compliant car builder had been able to find a locomotives that would meet the designs and evaluate their compatibility means of constructing a cab car or an requirements of paragraph (b), and that and effectiveness, FRA has modified the MU locomotive meeting the anti- these vehicles do not lend themselves to rule to exclude cab car and MU climbing requirement in paragraph (b). the shelf-type anti-climbing locomotives from the additional APTA explained that, due to dissimilar mechanisms used on conventional forward-end anti-climbing requirements structures on the leading ends of a cab locomotives. in paragraph (b). Of course, cab car and car and an MU locomotive on the one In a letter to APTA dated February 2, MU locomotives will continue to be hand, and a conventional locomotive on 2001, FRA explained that the intent of subject to the requirements of paragraph
VerDate 11
(a). In Phase II of the rulemaking, FRA paragraph (a) applies to all passenger more protection by allowing the coach’s looks forward to restoring an equipment placed in service for the first collision posts to deform the rear of the appropriate requirement for cab car and time on or after September 8, 2000. 64 locomotive, thereby absorbing and MU locomotives, based on research FR 25675. However, the section-by- dissipating collision energy. results, continued input from APTA, section analysis to the final rule FRA has amended this section to and consultations with the Passenger incorrectly stated that paragraph (a) provide that collision posts are not Equipment Safety Standards Working applied to all passenger equipment required at the rear end of a locomotive Group as a whole. placed in service for the first time on or that is designed to be occupied only at As a final point, FRA has no objection after November 8, 1999. 64 FR 25605. its forward end. As a result, rear if a railroad wishes to exceed the FRA makes clear that the September 8, collision posts will continue to be traditional minimum standard of 2000 applicability date as stated in the required on an MU locomotive and a 100,000 pounds for the anti-climbing final rule text is correct. cab car, as well as on any locomotive capacity of the coupler carrier and In its petition for reconsideration, designed to be occupied at the rear. In buffer beam. However, FRA has APTA stated that FRA inadvertently the case of a conventional passenger amended paragraph (b) to remove the changed the requirements of this section locomotive designed only to be text stating that its requirements are ‘‘in in the final rule contrary to FRA’s intent occupied at its forward end, rear lieu of the forward end anti-climbing and the Working Group’s consensus. collision posts will not be required for mechanism requirements described in APTA maintained that consensus was Tier I operations at this time. paragraph (a) of this section.’’ Because reached for all passenger cars to have Nevertheless, FRA notes that, in paragraph (a) states that certain tight- two full-height collision posts at each considering occupant protection lock couplers satisfy the anti-climbing end, as well as not to require collision strategies for such locomotives, the mechanism requirements, the reference posts at the rear end of non-passenger focus of any collision post requirement to paragraph (a) in paragraph (b) could carrying locomotives. APTA believed should be on the rear end of the have led to the misunderstanding that that paragraph (a)(1)(i), as stated in the locomotive cab-not the rear of the increasing the strength of the coupler final rule, would not require collision locomotive in its entirety-as provided would satisfy the requirements of posts at both ends of any passenger for Tier II passenger equipment in paragraph (b) without the need for a equipment. § 238.411(b). (The locomotive cab is the separate anti-climbing mechanism. FRA FRA has revised paragraph (a)(1) to volume normally occupied by the train did not intend such a result. make clear that collision posts are crew in a locomotive.) As noted in the Nevertheless, FRA is not aware of any required at each end of passenger final rule, structural requirements for serious deficiency in the 100,000-pound equipment, unless otherwise expressly locomotives are also being considered in draft securement requirement, given the excepted. In the NPRM, FRA had the Locomotive Crashworthiness function it has typically played in generally proposed that all passenger Working Group of FRA’s RSAC, and crossing and train-to-train collisions. equipment have collision posts at each FRA expects further advances in Existing draft arrangements should be end, see 62 FR 49804, and the preamble locomotive crashworthiness safety to sufficient to prevent override in those to the final rule does not at all indicate result from this separate proceeding. cases where coupler engagement is that FRA had so radically departed from the NPRM as to limit the requirements Section 238.219 Truck-to-Car-Body sufficient to arrest vertical movement Attachment (up to the strength of the coupler for collision posts to only one end of components and the drawbar itself). passenger equipment. FRA believes that This section contains the truck-to-car- the final rule did require collision posts body attachment strength requirements Section 238.207 Link Between at each end. Nevertheless, FRA is for Tier I passenger equipment. The Coupling Mechanism and Car Body clarifying the requirements of this final rule required the attachment to This section contains the vertical section by adding the words ‘‘at each resist without failure a 2g vertical force strength requirements for the structure end’’ to paragraph (a)(1)(i) to remove on the mass of the truck and a force of that links the coupling mechanism to any ambiguity. 250,000 pounds acting in any horizontal the car body for passenger equipment. Further, FRA has generally adopted direction on the truck. The purpose of these requirements is APTA’s request to amend this section to APTA, in its petition for generally to avoid a premature failure of exempt the rear end of non-passenger reconsideration, stated that the the draft system so that the anti- occupied locomotives from the collision requirement for the vertical and climbing mechanism will have an post requirements. FRA acknowledges horizontal forces to be applied opportunity to engage. As stated in the that in preparing the final rule it simultaneously on the truck (as final rule text, this section applies to all seemingly overlooked APTA’s comment explained in the preamble to the final passenger equipment placed in service on the NPRM questioning the need for rule) is not the industry practice and for the first time on or after September collision posts at the rear end of non- was never discussed at Working Group 8, 2000. 64 FR 25675. However, the passenger occupied locomotives. In its meetings. Accordingly, APTA believed section-by-section analysis to the final comments on the NPRM, APTA stated that this requirement should not be rule incorrectly stated that this section that such collision posts could simply included in the final rule without applied to all passenger equipment have the effect of adding weight to having input from the industry placed in service for the first time on or locomotives without providing any regarding its feasibility and impact. after November 8, 1999. 64 FR 25605. additional protection to the crew, and APTA stated that no truck-to-car-body FRA makes clear that the September 8, that no evidence had been presented attachments are designed to meet this 2000 applicability date as stated in the that crewmembers of non-passenger requirement and cited potential final rule text is correct. carrying locomotives have been harmed operational and economic impacts that by trailing passenger coaches overriding may result if any new equipment Section 238.211 Collision Posts such locomotives from the rear. In ordered would be incompatible with This section contains the structural addition, APTA had commented that existing equipment as a result of this strength requirements for collision passengers in a coach overriding the requirement. APTA disagreed with posts. As stated in the final rule text, rear of a locomotive may be provided FRA’s reasoning for this requirement, as
VerDate 11
stated in the preamble to the final rule, stringent requirement than one based on FRA to focus more closely on APTA’s that ‘‘[r]equiring the truck-to-car-body ultimate strength. standard than in this response to attachment to resist the vertical and petitions for reconsideration. For Section 238.223 Locomotive Fuel horizontal forces applied at the same example, in examining how the APTA Tanks time reflects actual conditions standard provides for safety and experienced during a collision or This section contains the structural compares to the fuel tank requirements derailment.’’ (See discussion of requirements for external and internal specified in this section, FRA is § 238.419, the Tier II counterpart to fuel tanks on passenger locomotives focusing on how the hazard of a § 238.219, at 64 FR 25634.) APTA ordered on or after September 8, 2000, jacknifed locomotive is addressed by the maintained that the industry has always or placed in service for the first time on higher fuel tank ground clearance and applied these loads separately because or after September 9, 2002. The final other provisions of the APTA standard. each load case addresses a different rule required that external fuel tanks Consequently, FRA has decided to deny scenario. According to APTA, the 2g comply with the performance APTA’s petition for reconsideration load criterion is typically used to ensure requirements contained in Appendix D request to modify the final rule to that the truck remains with the car body to this part, or an industry standard permit use of its fuel tank safety when it is lifted and is not intended for providing at least an equivalent level of standard as an alternative to the a collision scenario; whereas, the safety if approved by FRA’s Associate requirements contained in this section. 250,000-pound horizontal load Administrator for Safety under § 238.21. However, FRA makes clear that this requirement is the principal strength The requirements in Appendix D are denial in no way prejudices APTA’s criterion that has historically been based on AAR Recommended Practice- petition in docket number FRA–2001– applied to passenger equipment to keep 506 (RP–506), Performance 8698. In fact, FRA is amending the truck with the car body in a Requirements for Diesel Electric § 238.223 to better address petitions for collision scenario. To meet the latter Locomotive Fuel tanks, as adopted on special approval such as APTA’s criterion, APTA explained that the July 1, 1995. because the petition appears to In its petition for reconsideration, vertical reaction to the load must also be encompass not only the external fuel APTA noted that RP–506 represents the considered in the analysis to ensure that tank safety standards specified in first contemporary attempt to the truck does not separate vertically. paragraph (a) but also the internal fuel standardize fuel tank design for crash APTA therefore recommended that FRA tank safety standards specified in performance and that it was developed address this reaction instead of paragraph (b). As originally stated in the within the framework of conventional addressing the 2g vertical and 250,000- final rule, § 238.223 did not expressly locomotive designs–i.e., locomotives provide the opportunity to seek special pound horizontal loads together. with a separate fuel tank suspended Similarly, in discussing § 238.419 in beneath the underframe and located approval of an alternative, internal fuel its petition for reconsideration, Amtrak relatively close to the rails between the tank safety standard. FRA is actively believed the final rule to be inconsistent trucks. According to APTA, the investigating the suitability of APTA’s with long-standing industry practice by passenger rail community has since fuel tank safety standard and expects to requiring that the 2g vertical and utilized RP–506 as the starting point for render a decision soon on its petition. 250,000-pound horizontal loads be further development of a standard for Nonetheless, FRA notes that GETS applied simultaneously. Further, passenger locomotive fuel tanks that: (1) has raised the concern that its Genesis Bombardier raised concerns similar to Specifically addresses the needs of the P42 series locomotive fuel tank may not APTA’s and Amtrak’s in discussing various passenger-type locomotives and technically comply with § 238.223. § 238.419 in its petition for their operation, and (2) builds upon and GETS states that the fuel tank is an reconsideration. Bombardier noted in complements RP–506 by encouraging integral part of the car body structure; particular that since the 2g vertical load the incorporation of additional safety- elevated a minimum of 29 inches above criterion is intended to keep the truck related enhancements such as increased the rail even with fully worn wheels; safely attached to the car body when height above the rail and divided into four separate lifted, the criterion is typically based on compartmentalization. APTA stated that compartments, each with a maximum yield strength rather than on ultimate one of its own standards meets these capacity of approximately 550 gallons; strength. goals: APTA SS–C&S–007–98, equipped with a fuel fill and vent FRA agrees with the petitioners that ‘‘Standard for Fuel Tank Integrity for system that minimizes the potential for the 2g vertical load and the 250,000- Non-Passenger Carrying Passenger fuel spillage in any locomotive pound horizontal load on the truck do Locomotives,’’ and requested that FRA orientation; designed with sloping end not need to be resisted simultaneously, expressly allow the use of this standard plates to deflect debris down and away and FRA has amended the rule to make as an alternative to RP–506. from the fuel tank, and a wall thickness this clear. (FRA announced this Since the filing of its petition for providing puncture resistance in excess decision in a letter to APTA dated reconsideration, APTA has petitioned of the FRA standard. However, GETS February 2, 2001, noted above.) At the FRA pursuant to § 238.21 for a finding believes that significant structural same time, FRA has amended the rule that its fuel tank safety standard, modification to the Genesis car body to state that the truck-to-car-body designated as APTA S–007–98REV10, and fuel tank design will be required if attachment must withstand the resulting provides at least an equivalent level of FRA mandates strict compliance to all vertical reaction to the applied 250,000- safety to the requirements contained in the requirements in Appendix D for pound horizontal load. Consequently, this section. APTA’s petition is external fuel tanks. According to GETS, FRA has adopted the petitioners’ identified as DOT docket number FRA– these modifications would likely recommendations on reconsideration, 2001–8698; the petition and all include eliminating the sloping end except for Bombardier’s point that the documents in the docket are available plate design of the fuel tank (a change 2g vertical load resistance requirement for examination on the Internet at the which GETS believes would degrade be based on yield strength rather than DOT’s Docket Management System Web overall fuel tank safety) and also require on ultimate strength. Use of a yield site: http://dms.dot.gov. The extensive internal structural strength criterion may result in a more proceedings on this petition will enable modification to meet the loading
VerDate 11
conditions originally intended for external fuel tank (equivalent to a 5/16- FR 25612. In addition, § 213.333 of the conventional, frame-suspended fuel inch steel plate). FRA did not intend Track Safety Standards requires that an tanks that have lower clearances above that the internal fuel tank requirements instrumented car which is the rail. GETS believes that FRA be stricter in this regard. Consequently, representative of the other equipment approval of APTA’s fuel tank safety FRA has amended § 238.223(b) to assigned to service on the railroad track standard would eliminate any replace the 3/8-inch thickness be operated over the track at the revenue compliance concerns, stating that the requirement with a 5/16-inch thickness speed profile at least twice within every Genesis fuel tank meets or exceeds all requirement to be consistent with 60 days at Class 7 track speeds and provisions of APTA’s fuel tank Appendix D. above (above 110 mph), and that the standard. Finally, FRA notes that for purposes lateral truck accelerations in the FRA recognizes that the Genesis of advancing discussion in Phase II of representative car must also not exceed locomotive fuel tank, as a fuel the rulemaking FRA is concerned with the 0.4g root mean square requirement. containment volume that is integral fuel tanks on passenger equipment other See § 213.333(k). with a structural element of the than locomotives. Such fuel tanks may In effect, the more specific hunting locomotive not designed solely as a fuel be found on head-end power generator oscillation requirements of the Track container, would have met the cars, private cars, and express cars with Safety Standards apply to all Tier I definition of an ‘‘integral’’ fuel tank as engine-generator sets. Railroads should passenger equipment operating at proposed in the NPRM and seemingly be mindful of the potential hazard speeds greater than 90 mph, at least at complied with the requirements posed by the presence of these fuel the vehicle qualification stage. For Tier proposed for ‘‘integral’’ fuel tanks. See tanks in the event of a collision and I passenger equipment operating at 62 FR 49793, 49805. However, as derailment, and their contribution to speeds not exceeding 90 mph, railroads explained in the final rule, FRA fire. FRA will consider with the are encouraged to follow as appropriate removed the definition of ‘‘integral fuel Working Group in Phase II whether to §§ 213.333 and 213.345 of the Track tank’’ and instead specified impose requirements on such fuel tanks. Safety Standards, as well as § 238.427(c) requirements for ‘‘internal’’ and of the Passenger Equipment Safety Section 238.227 Suspension System ‘‘external’’ fuel tanks to more clearly Standards, for purposes of assuring address FRA’s safety concerns. See 64 This section contains requirements for compliance with § 238.227(a). Although FR 25611. Because the Genesis the suspension system performance of railroad passenger equipment operating locomotive fuel tank extends outside the Tier I passenger equipment. FRA is at speeds not exceeding 90 mph is not body structure of the locomotive, albeit explaining but not amending the subject to any of these more specific to a significantly lesser degree than a requirements of the final rule. provisions, demonstrating compliance conventional, frame-suspended fuel In its petition for reconsideration, with the 0.4g root mean square tank, the fuel tank is not ‘‘internal’’ and APTA requested that FRA recognize that requirement will nonetheless therefore subject to the requirements for most railroad passenger equipment demonstrate compliance with ‘‘external’’ fuel tanks in the final rule. experiences laterally oscillating trucks § 238.227(a). In general, FRA will Although GE’s concerns were not raised under some operating conditions and evaluate whether hunting oscillations in a petition for reconsideration of the that most lateral oscillations are not present a ‘‘dangerous instability’’ in final rule, FRA will address them hunting oscillations because they do not light of these vehicle/track interaction concurrently with FRA’s response to lead to a dangerous instability. APTA criteria and general engineering APTA’s petition for fuel tank safety therefore asked FRA to clarify under knowledge and experience (e.g., equivalency. what circumstances a lateral oscillation possibility of wheel climb). In Phase II FRA is amending the final rule to becomes a hunting oscillation for of the rulemaking, FRA will investigate reconcile a discrepancy between the purposes of the rule. more fully the safety implications of external and internal fuel tank safety In paragraph (a), the final rule defines various types of lateral oscillations. As standards. As stated in the final rule, hunting oscillations as lateral a result, more detailed requirements paragraph (b)(3) provides in part that oscillations of trucks that could lead to may be specified concerning hunting internal fuel tank bulkheads and skin a dangerous instability. FRA recognizes oscillations for all Tier I passenger shall at a minimum be equivalent to a that this definition of hunting equipment, and revisions to the more 3/8-inch (6/16-inch) thick steel plate oscillations is less definitive than the specific requirements for Tier II with a yield strength of 25,000 pounds one provided for Tier II passenger passenger equipment may be possible as per square inch. Following publication equipment in § 238.427(c), and in well. of the final rule, FRA compared this §§ 213.333 and 213.345 of the Track requirement with those for external fuel Safety Standards (49 CFR 213)-which is, Section 238.235 Doors tanks in Appendix D, which states in ‘‘a sustained cyclic oscillation of the This section contains the part: ‘‘(4) Load case 4-penetration truck which is evidenced by lateral requirements for exterior side doors on resistance. The minimum thickness of accelerations in excess of 0.4g root mean passenger cars. These doors are the the sides, bottom sheet and end plates square (mean-removed) for 2 seconds.’’ primary means of egress from a of the fuel tank shall be equivalent to a Further, FRA recognizes that any passenger train. 5/16-inch steel plate with a 25,000 instability could be dangerous under the Paragraph (a) requires that by pounds-per-square-inch yield strength . right circumstances. December 31, 1999, each powered, . . . The lower one third of the end plates As noted in the preamble to the final exterior side door in a vestibule that is shall have the equivalent penetration rule, § 213.345 of the Track Safety partitioned from the passenger resistance . . . of a 3/4-inch steel plate Standards requires that train equipment compartment of a passenger car shall with a 25,000 pounds-per-square-inch operating at Class 6 track speeds and have a manual override device that is: yield strength . . . .’’ As a result, the final above (above 90 mph for passenger capable of releasing the door to permit rule would have required that certain equipment and above 80 mph for freight it to be opened without power from portions of an internal fuel tank be equipment) be qualified for operation by inside the car; located adjacent to the stronger (equivalent to a 6/16-inch steel meeting, among other things, the 0.4g door which it controls; and designed plate) than similar portions of an root mean square requirement. See 64 and maintained so that a person may
VerDate 11
readily access and operate the override employees and passengers to move if the alerter or deadman control fails en device from inside the car without freely between the vestibule and route.’’ See 64 FR 25678. APTA requiring the use of a tool or other passenger compartments. Consequently, explained that some controlling implement. Passenger cars subject to FRA’s statement in the preamble locomotives are equipped with both a this requirement that were not already concerning windscreens was deadman and an alerter, and stated that equipped with such manual override unnecessarily restrictive. FRA makes only if both features fail should the devices were required to be retrofitted clear that the presence of windscreens restrictions in paragraph (d) apply. accordingly. or other structures that extend across a FRA believes that the application of In its petition for reconsideration, portion of the width of a passenger car the restrictions in paragraph (d) should APTA explained that during Working do not ‘‘partition’’ the vestibule from the be consistent with the requirements in Group meetings it had pointed out that passenger compartment provided there paragraph (a) for having an alerter or certain passenger cars have quarter- is an open passageway allowing deadman feature. As a result, if a point, dual-leafed door arrangements. unobstructed movement between the locomotive is required to be equipped According to APTA, each of these side vestibule and passenger compartments. with either a working alerter or a door locations is equipped with a There would not be a door between the deadman feature pursuant to paragraph manual override device for one of the vestibule and passenger compartments (a), and the locomotive is in fact two door leafs, and each door leaf in such circumstances. Of course for equipped with both devices, then the exceeds the dimensional requirements purposes of the permanent requirement restrictions in paragraph (d) would not for an emergency door. APTA therefore applicable to new passenger cars in apply if only one of the devices fails en requested that FRA clarify the rule to paragraph (b) each powered, exterior route. Of course, alerter and deadman avoid requiring that each door leaf be side door must have a manual override control features are safety equipped with a manual override device, even if the door is located in a appurtenances which are required to be device. vestibule that is not partitioned from the in proper condition and safe to operate FRA has decided that, in the case of passenger compartment. under FRA’s Railroad Locomotive dual-leafed doors and solely for In the final rule, FRA reserved Safety Standards. See 49 CFR 229.7. purposes of the retrofit requirement in paragraph (d) for door exit marking and Further, these appurtenances are also paragraph (a), only one door leaf of a operating instruction requirements, subject to the requirements of the dual-leafed door arrangement be which were specified in the Passenger Locomotive Safety Standards in 49 CFR required to respond to a manual Train Emergency Preparedness final 229.9 that govern the movement for override device by December 31, 1999. rule, see 63 FR 24630. FRA intended in repair of a defective safety FRA previously informed APTA of this Phase II of the rulemaking to consider appurtenance. FRA recognizes that an decision and is now amending integrating into part 238 the door exit alerter is preferable to a deadman paragraph (a) accordingly. Yet, FRA marking and operating instruction feature as a safety device and will recognizes the limitation on emergency requirements specified in the Passenger reexamine in Phase II of the rulemaking egress capacity through the route of the Train Emergency Preparedness final the continued allowance of deadman single panel that is responsive to the rule, as well as consider revising the features in lieu of alerters under part manual release when the other door leaf requirements as necessary. While FRA 238. is not open. As a result, for purposes of still intends to examine these In response to questions that have the permanent requirement applicable requirements in Phase II, FRA has in the arisen since publication of the final rule, to new passenger cars in paragraph (b), interim inserted a reference to the FRA is also amending this paragraph to each door leaf in such a dual-leafed marking and instruction requirements clarify one of the remedial measure arrangement must be capable of specified in 49 CFR 239.107(a) to make provisions. FRA makes clear that responding to a manual override device clear that there are marking and paragraph (d)(1)(i) requires a second located adjacent to the door. instruction requirements and identify person stationed in the locomotive cab APTA’s petition for reconsideration where to locate these requirements. as a remedial measure to be qualified on also raised concern with FRA’s the signal system and trained to apply statement in the preamble to the May Section 238.237 Automated the emergency brake-not qualified on 12, 1999 final rule that a vestibule is not Monitoring normal brake application procedures. partitioned from the passenger This section requires an operational compartment of a passenger car solely alerter or a deadman control device in FRA did not intend that this second by the presence of a windscreen which the controlling locomotive of each person be required to be qualified on the extends no more than one-quarter of the passenger train operating in other than brake application procedures in the way width across the car from the wall to cab signal, automatic train control, or a locomotive engineer is qualified and which it is attached. See 64 FR 25616. automatic train stop territory on or after certified under 49 CFR 240. This APTA stated that windscreens on some November 8, 1999. This section further clarification will help avoid any further types of passenger cars extend one-third requires that such locomotives ordered confusion and more appropriately of the width across the car from the wall on or after September 8, 2000, or placed express FRA’s intent that the second to which they are attached, and in service for the first time on or after person be required to know how to requested that FRA clarify the rule to September 9, 2002, be equipped with a apply the emergency brake. acknowledge that these windscreens do working alerter. As a result, it is Subpart D—Inspection, Testing, and not by themselves partition a passenger prohibited to use a deadman control Maintenance Requirements for Tier I compartment from a vestibule. device alone on these new locomotives Passenger Equipment FRA notes that the preamble language operating in other than cab signal, referenced by APTA was intended to automatic train control, or automatic Section 238.315 Class IA Brake Test address the concerns of railroads that train stop territory. This section contains the windscreens not be considered In its petition for reconsideration, requirements for performing Class IA partitions. FRA did not intend that APTA requested that FRA narrow the brake tests. As stated in the final rule, windscreens constitute partitions where application of the restrictions in paragraph (c) allows a Class I or Class there is an open passageway that allows paragraph (d) which applied, as written, IA brake test to be performed at a shop
VerDate 11
or yard site without requiring that the during a Class IA brake test is communicate a service brake test be repeated at the first passenger unnecessary. application and only a pneumatic signal terminal if the train remains on air and The intent of this provision is to to propagate an emergency brake in the custody of the crew. 64 FR 25683. ensure that an emergency brake application, the emergency brake Paragraph (c) is intended to be an application occurs in a train application shall be tested to determine incentive for railroads to conduct Class compromised of MU locomotives if an that it functions as intended. As stated IA brake tests at shop or yard locations angle cock in the train is inadvertently in the final rule, paragraph (d)(2) where they can be performed more closed. For certain MU locomotives an required that for all MU equipment the safely and easily than at a passenger electric control wire or ‘‘P’’ wire is used emergency brake application and the terminal. FRA is therefore amending to make service brake applications but deadman pedal or other emergency paragraph (c) to allow a train crew to the pneumatic train line is used for control device be tested and be receive notice that a Class IA brake test making emergency brake applications. If determined to function as intended. Id. has been performed, rather than require an angle cock is closed in a train made However, for effectively the same that the train crew actually have up of such MU locomotives, the reasons discussed above for the Class IA custody of the train during and after the engineer would be able to make regular brake test counterpart to this performance of the test. To the extent service brake applications to slow or requirement in § 238.315(f)(3), FRA FRA encourages Class IA brake tests to stop the train because the brake recognizes that imposing such a be performed at shop or yard locations application signal is transmitted over requirement on all MU equipment (likely in advance of the time train the ‘‘P’’ wire. However, if the engineer during a Class II brake test is crews normally report for duty) FRA attempts to apply the emergency brakes unnecessary. recognizes that requiring train crews to either through the engineer’s control In performing a Class II brake test, have custody of the trains in these stand or the emergency dump valve, the paragraph (d)(1) requires that the circumstances is seemingly a signal to apply the emergency brakes railroad determine that the brakes on disincentive to performing the tests at would not travel beyond the closed the rear unit of a train apply and release shop or yard locations. Allowing the angle cock. As a result, the engineer in response to a signal from the train crew to receive notice that a Class would not have full emergency braking engineer’s brake valve or controller of IA brake test has been performed, ability. the leading or controlling unit, or a together with the requirement that the For the majority of MU locomotives, gauge at the rear of the train or in the train remain on a source of compressed paragraph (f)(3) is unnecessary because cab of the rear unit indicates that brake air, continues to ensure safety and is a ‘‘P’’ wire circuit is used to apply both pipe pressure changes are properly consistent with FRA’s intent. the service and emergency brakes communicated at the rear of the train. throughout the train. For such Additionally, following publication of For the majority of MU locomotives locomotives, the inspection requirement where a ‘‘P’’ wire circuit is used to the final rule FRA determined that the in paragraph (f)(2) to determine that reference to a Class I brake test in apply both the service and emergency each brake sets and releases during a brakes throughout the train, paragraph paragraph (c) may cause confusion since service brake application effectively subpart D contains specific (d)(2) is unnecessary because the tests to ensure that the emergency inspection requirement in paragraph requirements governing the performance brakes also apply as intended. Even if of Class I brake tests and Class I brake (d)(1) effectively tests the integrity of an angle cock is closed on a train both the service and emergency brake tests must be performed by qualified comprised of such MU locomotives, the maintenance persons presumably at application signals throughout the train. signal communicating the emergency However, for those MU locomotives that shop or yard locations. As a result, FRA brake application will bypass the closed is amending paragraph (c) to remove the use an electric control wire or ‘‘P’’ wire angle cock since it travels on the ‘‘P’’ to make service brake applications but reference to a Class I brake test, wire and not on the pneumatic brake consistent with the preamble discussion use the pneumatic train line for making line. emergency brake applications, the of this paragraph in the final rule which FRA has also removed the reference to inspection requirement in paragraph omits such reference as well. See 64 FR the ‘‘deadman pedal or other emergency (d)(1) is, by itself, insufficient to 25628. control devices’’ from paragraph (f)(3). determine whether the emergency FRA has also revised this section by This reference is not necessary since brakes will apply as intended. Hence, clarifying the inspection requirement such devices typically initiate service the need for this requirement. contained in paragraph (f)(3), which is brake applications—not emergency particular to MU locomotives. FRA brake applications. Further, to the Subpart E—Specific Requirements for makes clear that for MU locomotives extent any such device would initiate an Tier II Passenger Equipment that utilize an electric signal to emergency brake application, testing of Section 238.411 Rear end structures of communicate a service brake the emergency brake application is power car cabs application and only a pneumatic signal specially addressed in paragraph (f)(3) to propagate an emergency brake in those instances where it is necessary. As stated in the final rule, the rear application, the emergency brake For similar reasons, FRA is modifying end structure of a power car cab application shall be tested to determine § 238.317(d)(2), below, which is the provides protection to crewmembers that it functions as intended. As stated Class II brake test counterpart to this from intrusion of locomotive machinery in the final rule, paragraph (f)(3) paragraph. or trailing cars into the cab as a result required that for all MU equipment the of a collision or derailment. The emergency brake application and the Section 238.317 Class II brake test requirements in this section are based deadman pedal or other emergency FRA has revised this section by on a specific end structure design that control device be tested and be clarifying the inspection requirement consists of two full-height corner posts determined to function as intended. Id. contained in paragraph (d)(2), which is (paragraph (a)) and two full-height However, on reconsideration FRA particular to MU locomotives. FRA collision posts (paragraph (b)). In recognizes that imposing such a makes clear that for MU locomotives addition, this section specifies loading requirement on all MU locomotives that utilize an electric signal to requirements that each of these
VerDate 11
structural members must withstand and corresponding change to figure 2 to surface of the power car. According to permits flexibility for using other subpart E.) FRA recognizes that the Amtrak, limiting the use of replacement equipment designs that provide strength of the power car cab’s rear windows conforming to paragraph (c) equivalent structural protection. The collision posts should not necessarily be and ultimately compelling the use of required rear end structural protection dependent on the strength of the cab’s windows conforming to paragraph (b) results in considerably greater front end structure, as the front and rear would thereby affect both the thermal protection to the train operator than that end structures are intended to protect and acoustic performance of its high- provided by previous passenger against somewhat different hazards. The speed trainsets ordered prior to May 12, equipment designs. Together, the front front end structure must protect against 1999. and rear end structural protection the greater hazard of a head-on collision FRA is amending paragraph (c) to required by this rule for a power car cab with another train or object. make clear that use of the alternative make the cab a highly survivable crash safety glazing standards specified in that Section 238.419 Truck-to-Car-Body refuge. paragraph is available to passenger In its petition for reconsideration, and Truck Component Attachment equipment ordered prior to May 12, Bombardier raised concern that the FRA has modified this section in 1999, for the life of the equipment. The 750,000-pound shear strength response to petitions for only Tier II passenger equipment subject requirement for collision posts in reconsideration. See the discussion of to the provisions of paragraph (c) are paragraph (b)(1) of the final rule arose the Tier I counterpart to this section at Amtrak’s high-speed trainsets ordered due to confusion between the loading § 238.219, above. prior to May 12, 1999. FRA recognizes requirements in the following sections: Section 238.421 Glazing that well in advance of the final rule the § 238.405(a) (longitudinal static exterior windows in these trainsets were compressive strength); § 238.409 This section contains the safety specially designed for the particular (forward end structures of power car glazing requirements for Tier II shape of the trainsets and that cabs); and § 238.411. Bombardier passenger equipment exterior windows. replacement windows should be of the explained that, for Amtrak’s high-speed FRA believes that the higher speed of same design. As amended, there is now trainsets, compliance with the Tier II passenger equipment necessitates no limitation on using replacement 2,100,000-pound longitudinal static more stringent glazing standards than windows conforming to paragraph (c) in compressive strength requirement was those currently required by 49 CFR 223. these trainsets. met by applying the load at the vertical Nonetheless, in response to comments Further, for passenger equipment not centerline of the underframe as follows: on the NPRM, FRA decided to focus the subject to the alternative standards 300,000 pounds at each of the two front final rule principally on more stringent specified in paragraph (c), FRA is also corner post locations, and 500,000 safety glazing requirements for end- amending paragraph (b). As stated in the pounds at each of the three front facing exterior windows as specified in final rule, FRA had originally proposed collision post locations; 300,000 pounds paragraph (b), instead of all exterior that an end-facing exterior window at each of the two rear corner post windows. See 64 FR 25634. FRA did resist an impact with a 12-pound steel locations, and 750,000 pounds at each note, however, that well in advance of sphere at an angle equal to the angle of the two rear collision post locations. the final rule it had helped to develop between the window’s surface as As such, the 750,000-pound force the specifications for exterior window installed and the direction of travel of applied to the rear collision post safety glazing of Amtrak’s high-speed the train. See 62 FR 49817. In response locations was applied at the vertical trainsets. FRA believes that these to comments on the proposal, FRA centerline of the underframe-not at the specifications provide excellent revised the rule text to require that the shear connection at the top of the protection to the trainsets’ occupants. window glazing resist the impact with underframe-to demonstrate compliance As a result, FRA included the the 12-pound steel sphere at an impact with the longitudinal static compressive specifications as alternative standards in angle of 90 degrees to the window’s strength requirement in § 238.405(a). paragraph (c) for use by Amtrak in surface. See 64 FR 25634. However, Bombardier stated that the purpose of equipment ordered prior to May 12, upon reconsideration, FRA believes that the rear collision and corner posts is to 1999, with limitations on the this requirement was too strict. prevent intrusion into the cab from the replacement of windows. Although FRA agrees that specifying an rear. Bombardier noted that the total Following publication of the final impact angle of 90 degrees to the weight of all the components in the rule, Amtrak petitioned FRA for window’s surface provides a uniform machinery compartment behind the reconsideration of the safety glazing standard for production purposes, a power car cab is approximately 31,000 requirements. In particular, Amtrak point raised in comments on the NPRM, pounds and that these components are noted that the provision for end-facing FRA recognizes that end-facing exterior designed with an attachment strength to exterior glazing in paragraph (b)(1) windows on Tier II passenger resist an 8g longitudinal load. required testing at an impact angle of 90 equipment will likely be specially fitted According to Bombardier, to address the degrees to the window’s surface; for the design of this advanced risk of incursion into the rear of the whereas, paragraph (c) required that equipment. Additionally, end-facing power car cab, the cab’s rear collision each end-facing exterior window be windows on power cars will be sloped posts were each designed to resist a tested at an impact angle equal to the away from the vertical plane to take shear load of 500,000 pounds at the angle between the window’s surface as advantage of aerodynamic designs and, joint with the underframe. Bombardier installed and the direction of travel. therefore, any impact with the windows recommended that § 238.411(b)(1) be Amtrak stated that the requirement in will likely occur at an angle less severe modified by substituting this 500,000- paragraph (c) was consistent with the than 90 degrees to the surface of the pound loading requirement for the high-speed trainset specification and windows. 750,000-pound loading requirement for believed that complying with the Consequently, FRA has amended rear collision posts in the final rule. requirement in paragraph (b) would paragraph (b)(1) to provide that each FRA has adopted Bombardier’s likely require a thickening of the glazing end-facing exterior window in a request and modified paragraph (b)(1) which would protrude up to an inch passenger car and a power car cab, in accordingly. (FRA has also made a outward from the otherwise streamlined the orientation in which the window is
VerDate 11
installed in the car or cab, shall resist performance to be demonstrated by use framing arrangement securing the the impact of a 12-pound solid steel of a 0.002-inch thick witness plate. FRA glazing is not specified. sphere traveling (i) at the maximum continues to believe that use of a 0.001- In particular, the cinder block test speed at which the car will operate (ii) inch thick witness plate in paragraph specified in part 223 has proven at an angle no less severe than (b)(2) is appropriate for equipment impractical and, now, unrepeatable horizontal to the car, with no ordered on or after May 12, 1999. FRA because the block is no longer penetration or spall. In all cases, an is correcting paragraph (b)(2) principally manufactured. To accomplish the test, a impact angle that is perpendicular (90 because the word ‘‘inch’’ was current block must be cut down in size degrees) to the window’s surface shall inadvertently omitted from the and have material ground from its inner be considered the most severe impact paragraph. core to reduce the gross weight to meet angle for purposes of this requirement. As touched on above, in the final rule the cinder block specifications. Performance testing may be conducted FRA decided not to impose on all Tier Moreover, no frangibility requirement is using an impact angle that is II passenger equipment the particular specified for the block or the strength of perpendicular to the window’s surface, requirements for side-facing exterior the material. In addition, each but is not required. FRA has also window glazing which FRA had manufacturer that provides glazing amended paragraph (c)(1) for clarity and proposed in the NPRM. See 64 FR materials for use in achieving consistency but does not intend the 25634–6. Instead, FRA required that compliance with part 223 must certify amended paragraph to be more stringent Tier II power car cabs and passenger that each type of glazing material being than paragraph (c)(1) in the May 12, cars comply with either the existing supplied for this purpose has been 1999 final rule. Describing the impact side-facing exterior window glazing successfully tested in accordance with angle as the ‘‘angle between the requirements specified in 49 CFR 223, the requirements of part 223 and that window’s surface as installed and the or the alternative standards specified in test verification data is available to the direction of travel,’’ as stated in paragraph (c), as appropriate. FRA railroad or FRA on request. See 49 CFR paragraph (c)(1) in the May 12, 1999 included in the final rule’s preamble the 223, Appendix A, a(1). There is no final rule, may be less clear than comments received on the proposed requirement that the glazing products describing the impact angle in terms of side-facing exterior window glazing supplied to railroads be tested by an an object traveling horizontal to the standards for purposes of advancing the independent testing laboratory, and a vehicle and striking the window in the discussion of these standards in Phase glazing manufacturer’s process of producing the glazing may have orientation in which the window is II of the rulemaking. FRA also noted changed over time. FRA is also installed in the vehicle. that certain of the comments FRA had concerned that the glazing frame and received on the proposed standards In its petition for reconsideration, gasket have sufficient strength to retain addressed the sufficiency of the existing Amtrak also stated that the 0.001-inch vehicle occupants in the event of a safety glazing standards for all witness plate requirement for derailment or rollover. While the passenger equipment-both Tier I and demonstration of anti-spalling Passenger Equipment Safety Standards Tier II- and for freight equipment as performance is inconsistent with the final rule does require securement of well. In fact, in the ANPRM FRA had high-speed trainset specification. windows to resist both air pressure sought comment concerning the Amtrak stated that the high-speed difference generated by passing trains trainset specification provided for the sufficiency of the existing safety glazing and the impact forces the windows are use of a 0.002-inch witness plate, and standards in part 223 for all equipment- required to withstand, see §§ 238.221(b) that the testing of the high-speed both freight and passenger. See 61 FR and 238.421(d), part 223 contains no trainsets’ windows is complete and 30696. Nonetheless, the Passenger such express requirements. FRA will would have to be repeated using a Equipment Safety Standards Working reexamine the requirements of part 223 thinner witness plate. FRA had Group was generally reluctant to in Phase II of the rulemaking or through understood that the anti-spalling address changes to part 223 in this another appropriate forum. performance of the exterior window proceeding because of the complexity of As a separate matter, FRA also notes glazing on Amtrak’s high-speed trainsets the issues in the rulemaking, the the concern for an appropriate ballistic would be measured using a 0.001-inch satisfaction with existing standards, and impact test, as discussed in the witness plate, in accordance with a May the need for coordination with freight preamble to the final rule. See 64 FR 8, 1994 specification for the trainsets. A interests not represented on the 25636. In the final rule, FRA deferred witness plate having a thickness of Working Group. Id. imposing new requirements for ballistic 0.002 inches was apparently used FRA makes clear that it is concerned testing of exterior window glazing, instead. FRA notes that the difference with the adequacy of the requirements except for purposes of the alternative between the two witness plates is not as of part 223 as they apply to both freight glazing standards specified in paragraph significant when compared to the 0.006- and passenger equipment, and these (c). FRA will reexamine this issue in inch thick witness plate allowed by 49 concerns need a fuller examination than Phase II of the rulemaking or through CFR 223. Further, assuming that the has been done to date. FRA is therefore another appropriate forum. window glazing on Amtrak’s high-speed reiterating the principal concerns stated trainsets would not pass the in the ANPRM-namely, that the witness Section 238.423 Fuel tanks. performance testing requirements if a plate used for testing under part 223 This section contains the 0.001-inch witness plate were used, this may be too thick, allowing spalling of requirements for Tier II passenger too may require a thickening of the pieces of glass large enough to cause equipment fuel tanks. Since the glazing that would affect the thermal injury; the impact test using a 24-pound requirements for internal fuel tanks on and acoustic performance of the cinder block is not repeatable; Tier II passenger equipment are the trainsets. As a result, for purposes of the manufacturers of the window glazing or same as those for Tier I passenger standards in paragraph (c) for their products, or both, need to be equipment in § 238.223(b), FRA notes equipment ordered prior to May 12, certified (and, thereafter, periodically that it has modified the requirements of 1999, FRA is amending paragraph re-certified) by an independent testing § 238.223(b). Please see the discussion (c)(3)(ii) to permit anti-spalling laboratory; and the strength of the of § 238.223(b), above.
VerDate 11
Section 238.427 Suspension system. Similarly Amtrak, in its petition for acceleration of 0.05g to be experienced Paragraph (b) Car body accelerations. reconsideration, believed that a steady- by a passenger. As stated in the final rule, paragraph (b) state lateral acceleration limit of 0.1g for FRA believes that a limit of 0.1g for required that the steady-state lateral passenger cars is too strict as a Federal steady-state, car body lateral acceleration of passenger cars be less standard. Amtrak mentioned that it was acceleration is consistent with U.S. rail than 0.1g, as measured parallel to the providing passenger service in industry practice. However, FRA car floor inside the passenger equipment with a steady-state lateral recognizes that as stated in the final compartment, under all operating acceleration of 0.09g between New rule, compliance with the requirements conditions. In its petition for Haven and Boston without incident. of paragraph (b) must not only be reconsideration, Bombardier stated that Amtrak maintained, as Bombardier did, demonstrated during the qualification Amtrak’s high-speed trainsets are that FRA-sponsored research showed testing of the equipment, but also designed to have a nominal steady-state the discomfort level for ten percent of continually for the operational life of lateral acceleration equal to 0.1g at nine passenger car occupants to be at a the equipment. As a result, FRA has inches of cant deficiency. Bombardier steady-state lateral acceleration of 0.15g, amended the final rule to distinguish added that the actual operational cant with no impact to passengers at an between the steady-state lateral deficiency will often be slightly higher acceleration of 0.1g. Amtrak added that acceleration limit for qualification than the nominal cant deficiency upon the TGV operates in Europe within an testing of the equipment and the limit which the schedule is predicated due to acceleration limit of 0.12g, and that the for service operation of the equipment, in order to provide an operational allowable variations in operating speed, ICE train operates within a 0.15g limit. tolerance level. As amended, paragraph as well as in track cross level and Amtrak contended that a 0.12g limit (b) requires that steady-state, car body curvature consistent with 49 CFR 213, would be more appropriate. lateral acceleration be demonstrated not and believed that under normal In evaluating these petitions, FRA to exceed 0.1g at the maximum intended operating conditions it may be common examined its experience with waivers of cant deficiency only during pre-revenue for the 0.1g acceleration level to be FRA’s Track Safety Standards where service acceptance testing under exceeded on some curves. Bombardier FRA has permitted five or more inches § 238.111 and § 213.345 of this chapter. maintained that the 0.1g limit was of cant deficiency for passenger FRA has introduced the phrase ‘‘at the established by the passenger rail equipment operation. In addition, FRA maximum intended cant deficiency’’ to industry to describe ride quality and not reviewed the results of qualification address the concern that, during pre- set a safety threshold, stating that the testing of several high-speed vehicles revenue service acceptance testing, a 0.1g criterion is based on a historically that have been conducted in the past slight increase in train speed or change developed, long-standing AAR comfort few years in accordance with subpart G in track geometry may result in an limit and that the AAR Ride Index Table of the Track Safety Standards. Tests actual cant deficiency at a few locations classifies a steady-state lateral involving both tilting and non-tilting above that which was intended. Such an acceleration of up to 0.11g as merely equipment have shown that steady-state increase in actual cant deficiency at ‘‘perceptible.’’ Bombardier lateral acceleration levels below 0.1g are these locations would result in a acknowledged that at some magnitude achievable in both types of equipment. corresponding increase in steady-state lateral acceleration creates the potential Further, FRA notes that although there lateral acceleration which may exceed for injuries to passengers, and noted that is no specific 0.1g limit in the Track 0.1g. In monitoring high-speed operations are conducted in Europe Safety Standards, the roll angle equipment, FRA’s experience is that with a steady-state lateral acceleration requirement in § 213.329 effectively such isolated fluctuations in steady- of up to 0.15g. Bombardier stated that restricts non-tilting passenger state lateral acceleration caused by the lean test requirement for vehicles equipment to no more than six inches variances between the actual and intended for high cant deficiency of cant deficiency and requires that intended cant deficiencies do not pose operation under FRA’s Track Safety tilting equipment be capable of limiting a larger safety concern. As amended, Standards defines the maximum car steady-state lateral accelerations to no paragraph (b) also requires that steady- body floor angle with respect to the more than 0.1g. This static lean test state, car body lateral acceleration not horizontal when the vehicle is standing evaluates a vehicle’s suspension system exceed 0.12g when the equipment is in on track with a uniform superelevation and tilt control system, if so equipped, service. Because the higher 0.12g limit equal to the intended target cant in a static condition; whereas, paragraph takes into account operational concerns deficiency; that this requirement is (b) describes a limit on the steady-state such as unintended changes in cant intended to ensure that the nominal lateral accelerations that are deficiency, FRA has not added the steady-state acceleration does not experienced by passengers under phrase ‘‘at the maximum intended cant exceed 0.1g at the intended target cant operating conditions. Paragraph (b) is a deficiency.’’ Overall, FRA believes that deficiency; and that compliance with performance requirement concerning these amendments to paragraph (b) the static lean test requirement in the the actual dynamic operation of the appropriately address the concern that Track Safety Standards better defines suspension and tilt control systems. the original requirements were too and fulfills the intent of the steady-state Amtrak’s high-speed trainsets are strict, while helping to ensure that lateral acceleration requirement. designed with tilt control systems that passengers not experience undue Bombardier added that if FRA is to compensate for part of the lateral steady-state lateral accelerations which define a maximum allowable steady- accelerations that result from operating could cause them to lose their balance state lateral acceleration criterion, the at speeds above the balance speed. If and fall. maximum limit should be applicable to there were no car body tilt, a nine inch FRA has also amended paragraph (b) all high cant deficiency operations for cant deficiency (nine inches of to make clear that acceleration both Tier I and Tier II passenger unbalance) would correspond to an measurements shall be processed equipment since the potential for equivalent lateral acceleration of 0.15g. through a low-pass filter having a cut- passenger injury resulting from such The tilt control systems would be off frequency of 10 Hz. Processing car accelerations would be the same expected to compensate for 70% of this body acceleration data through a low- regardless of the type of equipment. acceleration, however, leaving a net pass filter having a cut-off frequency of
VerDate 11
10 Hz is consistent with the Track FRA makes clear that Tier II passenger CFR 231 and 49 U.S.C. 20302(a) apply Safety Standards, and a low pass filter equipment must demonstrate to Tier II passenger equipment, tailoring retains important information about compliance with the requirements of them specifically to this new and track curvature. FRA has also amended former paragraph (d), now contained in somewhat unconventional equipment. the rule to define the term ‘‘steady- paragraphs (b)(2) and (3), only during The final rule retained all of the state.’’ Steady-state lateral acceleration the pre-revenue service qualification requirements proposed in the NPRM, shall be computed as the mathematical testing of the equipment. These vertical with one modification concerning sill average of the accelerations in the body and lateral car body acceleration limits steps. of a curve, between the spiral/curve are consistent with the limits contained In its petition for reconsideration, points. In a compound curve, the in § 213.345(b) of the Track Safety Amtrak noted a concern with paragraph average lateral acceleration shall be Standards for vehicle qualification (f)(3) of this section, which addresses calculated over each curve segment. testing. Under the Track Safety safety appliance requirements in the FRA has merged paragraph (d) of the Standards, the vertical and lateral car case where two high-speed trainsets are final rule into paragraph (b) and body acceleration limits contained in coupled together. Amtrak stated that the changed the title of paragraph (b) to § 213.345(b) are more stringent than requirements of this paragraph will read, ‘‘Car body accelerations.’’ As those specified in § 213.333. However, prevent its high-speed trainset fleet from paragraphs (b) and (d) of the final rule like former § 238.427(d), now developing its full design potential to both established requirements for car §§ 238.427(b)(2) and (3), compliance use signal paths and station platform body accelerations, FRA believes that testing under § 213.345 of the Track time. Paragraph (f)(3) of the final rule having the requirements in separate Safety Standards is required only at the stated that if two trainsets are coupled paragraphs with separate titles was vehicle qualification stage; whereas, to form a single train that is not semi- unnecessary and potentially confusing. under § 213.333 of the Track Safety permanently coupled (i.e., that is Paragraph (d) of the final rule Standards, compliance testing is coupled by an automatic coupler), the established limits for vertical required monthly or yearly, as automatically coupled ends shall be acceleration, lateral acceleration, and appropriate. FRA believes that the more equipped with hand brakes, sill steps, the combination of lateral and vertical stringent acceleration limits specified in end handholds, and side handholds that accelerations experienced by Tier II § 213.345(b) and § 238.427(b)(2) are meet the requirements contained in 49 passenger equipment. As provided in appropriate for system qualification CFR 231.14. However, if the trainsets the final rule, Tier II passenger testing and, as the equipment and track are semi-permanently coupled, these equipment must be designed to meet wear, those more restrictive limits safety appliances are not required. See these limits while traveling at the should give way to the less restrictive 64 FR 25688. maximum operating speed over the limits specified in § 213.333 for FRA understands and agrees with intended route of the equipment. monitoring the safety of the system over Amtrak’s concern that the final rule In its petition for reconsideration, its life. would essentially negate the railroad’s Bombardier noted that the basis for the FRA notes that since paragraph (b)(2) ability to connect two currently limits in paragraph (d) of the final rule considers a single event, car body designed high-speed trainsets together appeared to have been FRA’s experience acceleration to be a peak-to-peak value to provide the passenger-carrying with the ICE and X–2000 trainsets on over a one second period, it should not capacity of two high-speed trains Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor (NEC) and matter whether the acceleration data is running on one schedule. After that neither the ICE nor X–2000 trainset processed through a filter having a low- reviewing the design of the currently could consistently meet the criteria as pass, cut-off frequency of 10 Hz or a operating high-speed trainsets, FRA has defined in the final rule because they band pass of 0.5 to 10 Hz. Further, the determined that the requirements exceeded the 0.3g peak-to-peak limit at Track Safety Standards provide for the contained in paragraph (f)(3) regarding revenue speeds at least 2–4 times per use of a low-pass filter having a cut-off handbrakes, sill steps, and side week. Bombardier further maintained frequency of 10 Hz to measure car body handholds are either not appropriate or that vehicle qualification tests accelerations. As a result, FRA is are unnecessary based on the design of conducted by FRA and Amtrak have amending the rule so that the the high-speed trainsets operated by demonstrated the impracticality of the acceleration limits be processed through Amtrak. The design of the power cars 0.3g single event, peak-to-peak a filter having a cut-off frequency of 10 utilized in the high-speed trainsets does requirement. As an alternative to the Hz, consistent with the Track Safety not require an individual to mount a sill requirements of the final rule, Standards. step in order to couple and uncouple Bombardier recommended that car body Paragraph (c) Truck (hunting) the trainsets. The coupling or accelerations be limited to the vehicle/ acceleration. FRA is revising the title of uncoupling of the trainsets can be track interaction safety limits defined in this paragraph to more appropriately accomplished from ground level § 213.333 at a speed up to 10 mph above identify its requirements. The paragraph without the necessity of an individual the maximum operating speed. This otherwise is unchanged. going between the equipment. Thus, approach, according to Bombardier, was Paragraph (d) Overheat sensors. FRA because the sill step is unnecessary proposed in the NPRM for the high- is removing paragraph (e) of the final there is no reason to equip the cars with speed track safety standards and rule and redesignating it as paragraph side handholds as the purpose of these provides a margin of safety by requiring (d). Original paragraph (d) of the final handholds would be to provide an that the limits be met at a speed up to rule has been merged into (b), as noted individual standing on the sill step a 10 mph above the maximum operating above. secure place to hold on to the speed. Bombardier also recommended equipment. In addition, the requirement that car body acceleration limits be Section 238.429 Safety appliances to have the ends of the trainsets defined in terms of sustained This section contains the Tier II equipped with a hand brake is oscillations rather than as single events, passenger equipment safety appliance misplaced. Paragraph (b) of this section to ensure that operations not be unduly requirements. In the final rule, FRA already requires a semi-permanently restricted for perturbations caused by simplified and clarified how the Safety coupled trainset to be equipped with a track switches, etc. Appliance Standards contained in 49 parking or hand brake capable of
VerDate 11
holding the train on a three percent attachments to the car body. intended that such a system allow grade. Specifically, paragraph (c) contains passengers to communicate with the Although FRA agrees that it is lateral and vertical acceleration loading train crew so as to bring to the crew’s unnecessary for paragraph (f)(3) to requirements for purposes of ensuring attention an emergency situation and require that the ends of the trainsets be sufficient seat attachment strength. The otherwise allow passengers to equipped with hand brakes, sill steps, longitudinal loading requirement is communicate directly with the crew in and side handholds for the reasons specified in paragraph (a), which states: an emergency. Amtrak has subsequently noted above, FRA does believe that an ‘‘Each seat back and seat attachment in made accessible to passengers the end handhold is necessary to ensure the a passenger car shall be designed to emergency communication system safety of an individual while withstand, with deflection but without transmission locations on its high-speed uncoupling the trainsets. An end total failure, the load associated with trainsets, and the system is now in handhold provides a secure fixture for the impact into the seat back of an compliance in this regard. individuals who are required to bend unrestrained 95th-percentile adult male Following publication of the final over the nose of the equipment to initially seated behind the seat back, rule, FRA also learned from Amtrak that accomplish the coupling or uncoupling when the floor to which the seat is not all passenger cars in its high-speed of the equipment. Consequently, FRA is attached decelerates with a triangular trainsets have emergency amending paragraph (f)(3) of the final crash pulse having a peak of 8g and a communication system transmission rule to require that when two trainsets duration of 250 milliseconds.’’ See 64 locations at each end of the cars. The are coupled together to form a single FR 25688. As a result, no modification cafe´ car in each trainset actually has train that is not semi-permanently of the final rule is necessary to address three transmission locations but only coupled, the automatically coupled Amtrak’s concern; the requirement is one at an end of the car, in the only ends must be equipped with at least an already contained in the rule. vestibule in the car. The other two end handhold that meets the basic FRA is amending paragraph (i) to locations in the car are in the galley and design and structural standards correct a grammatical error by the crew office. Further, both the first contained in this section. substituting the word ‘‘are’’ for the word class and end coach cars have only one Amtrak’s petition for reconsideration ‘‘is’’ in a phrase in the first sentence. transmission location—that at a single also noted its belief that safety end of each car in the only vestibule in Section 238.437 Emergency appliances for its high-speed trainsets the cars. Amtrak has stated that it would Communication would be addressed by an FRA approval be difficult to install transmission letter following a sample car inspection. This section requires an emergency locations at the non-vestibule ends of A sample car inspection is an inspection communication system with back-up these cars so that both ends of the cars FRA performs prior to the placement of power within a Tier II train. Following are equipped with an emergency a car in service to determine whether publication of the May 12, 1999 final communication system transmission FRA would take exception to the safety rule, an issue arose concerning the station. These cars exceed 45 feet in appliance arrangement if the car were in accessibility of emergency length and would be required by the service. FRA does not issue an communication transmission units. As May 12, 1999 final rule to have two ‘‘approval’’ letter as such but would stated in the final rule, emergency emergency communication transmission inform the car builder or railroad as communication transmission units are locations, one at each end of each car, appropriate whether FRA would take required to be accessible to both adjacent to the car’s end doors. exception to the safety appliance passengers and crewmembers. 64 FR In recognition that Amtrak’s high- arrangement. FRA has performed a 25689. However, following publication speed trainsets were in development in safety appliance inspection of Amtrak’s of the final rule, FRA learned from advance of both the proposed and final high-speed trainsets and has been in Amtrak that the emergency rules, FRA is amending paragraph (a) so discussions with Amtrak and the communication system in its high-speed that only one emergency equipment manufacturer to address trainsets was not accessible to communication transmission location is issues concerning the safety appliance passengers, but rather was designed to required in a passenger car ordered arrangement. allow the train crew to provide prior to May 12, 1999. For all other evacuation and other instructions to passenger cars exceeding 45 feet in Section 238.435 Interior Fittings and passengers in an emergency situation length ordered on or after May 12, 1999, Surfaces consistent with the NPRM’s discussion the rule will continue to require This section contains requirements for of the emergency communication emergency communication transmission Tier II passenger equipment interior proposed requirement. See 62 FR 49783. locations at each end of the cars. fittings and surfaces. Once survivable FRA acknowledges that in the NPRM space is ensured by vehicle structural the proposed rule text concerning Section 238.439 Doors strength and crash energy management emergency communication This section contains the features, the design of interior features requirements was silent as to the requirements for doors on Tier II and surfaces becomes an important accessibility of the communication passenger cars. In the final rule, FRA factor in preventing or mitigating system to passengers. However, FRA reserved paragraph (g) for door exit occupant injuries resulting from had believed the requirement for marking and operating instruction collisions or derailments. passenger accessibility to be implicit requirements, which were specified in In its petition for reconsideration, from the proposal that clear and the Passenger Train Emergency Amtrak believed that paragraph (c) does understandable operating instructions Preparedness final rule, see 63 FR not include a requirement for the seat be posted at or near each transmission 24630. FRA intended in Phase II of the attachment to resist a longitudinal force location. See 62 FR 49820. The final rulemaking to consider integrating into of 8g and requested that such a rule made clear FRA’s intent that the part 238 the door exit marking and requirement be added. FRA notes that emergency communication system be operating instruction requirements paragraphs (a) through (c) contain accessible to passengers and be more specified in the Passenger Train requirements for the design of passenger than a one-way public address system Emergency Preparedness final rule, as car seats and the strength of their from the crew to the passengers. FRA well as consider revising the
VerDate 11
requirements as necessary. While FRA amendment makes clear that even if the car’s continued use be governed by still intends to examine these headlight is not specifically focused at restrictions similar to those imposed on requirements in Phase II, FRA has in the a person 800 feet or 1,500 feet ahead of a Tier I locomotive when its only interim inserted a reference to the the trainset as the case may be, the required headlight becomes defective. marking and instruction requirements headlight is in compliance if it is Therefore, FRA has added paragraph specified in 49 CFR 239.107(a) to make arranged to illuminate a person 800 feet (b) to this section to make clear that a clear that there are marking and or 1,500 feet ahead of the trainset, or Tier II power car with one defective instruction requirements and identify both. Due to concerns regarding the headlight is to be handled as a non- where to locate these requirements. handling of a power car with a defective running gear defect in accordance with headlight, discussed below, FRA has Section 238.443 Headlights the movement for repair provisions divided this section into two paragraphs This section contains requirements for contained in § 238.17. Thus, if one of with the clarifications discussed above the headlights on a Tier II power car headlights on Tier II power cars. In its contained in paragraph (a) of the petition for reconsideration, Amtrak becomes defective en route, the power section. car may continue in passenger service noted that the power cars of its high- Amtrak also raised concern in its until the power car’s next calendar day speed trainsets have two headlights, petition for reconsideration that the mechanical inspection, provided it has each headlight focused 1,000 feet ahead failure of a single bulb in one of the two of the power cars. Amtrak was headlights on its power cars would been properly inspected and tagged concerned whether its headlights seemingly result in the trainset being in under § 238.17(c). Paragraph (b) makes complied with the requirements of this violation. Amtrak noted that service clear that when both headlights on a section. The final rule, as adopted delays could result if the headlights on Tier II power car become defective, the without comment from the NPRM, Tier II power cars were required to be power car may continue in passenger required that a power car have at least repaired immediately upon being found service only to the nearest forward two headlights producing no less than defective. location where the repairs necessary to 200,000 candela-one headlight focused FRA did not intend that a failure of bring the power car into compliance can to illuminate a person standing between a headlight on a Tier II power car be be made or to the power car’s next the rails 1,500 feet ahead of the power handled any more restrictively than the calendar day mechanical inspection, car under clear weather conditions, and failure of a headlight on a Tier I whichever occurs first. These are the other 800 feet ahead under the same locomotive. Under 49 CFR 229, a Tier I general requirements that govern the circumstances. 64 FR 25689. (For locomotive is permitted to continue in movement for repair of a Tier I comparison, under § 229.125(a), a Tier I service with a defective headlight to the locomotive with a defective headlight locomotive used in road service would earlier of either the next calendar day and are equally applicable to a Tier II be required to have one headlight inspection or the nearest forward point power car with a similar non-complying producing no less than 200,000 candela where the repairs necessary to bring it condition. FRA has also amended arranged to illuminate a person at least into compliance can be made. See 49 § 238.503(f) of this part for consistency. 800 feet ahead and in front of the CFR 229.9(b). However, since headlights Section 238.503(f) provides that the headlight.) on Tier I locomotives are governed by movement of defective Tier II passenger FRA explained in the preamble to the part 229, which requires only one front equipment other than with power brake final rule that a headlight must be headlight on such vehicles, FRA was in defects is governed by the requirements directed farther in front of a Tier II fact inclined to allow additional contained in § 238.17 of this part. passenger train to illuminate a person flexibility in using Tier II power cars Subpart F—Inspection, Testing, and than is currently required for existing with a defective headlight since Tier II Maintenance Requirements for Tier II equipment under 49 CFR 229.125(a). power cars are required to have two Passenger Equipment. See 64 FR 25642. Because a Tier II headlights. passenger train will travel distances As the requirements for headlights on Section 238.503 Inspection, Testing, more quickly than a Tier I passenger Tier II power cars are contained in 49 and Maintenance Requirements train, the train operator will have less CFR 238, the provisions regarding the time to react to obstacles ahead of the movement of non-running gear defects Paragraph (f) of this section contains train and will thereby require earlier would apply to such headlights when a reference to the requirements awareness of these obstacles through a they become defective. Thus, despite contained in § 238.17 to indicate that headlight directed farther in front of the the concern raised by Amtrak in its those provisions also apply to the train. In addition, a headlight focused petition, a power car with a defective movement of Tier II passenger farther in front of the train will provide headlight may continue to be used in equipment with a condition not in earlier awareness to persons who may passenger service until the power car’s compliance with part 238, excluding be in the path of the train. next calendar day mechanical power brake defects. As explained in Addressing Amtrak’s concern, FRA inspection. FRA’s intent when drafting the preceding discussion of headlight understands that the light emitted from the final rule was to permit a Tier II requirements for Tier II power cars, FRA the headlights on Amtrak’s high-speed power car with one of its required has amended this section to make clear trainsets is directed at such an angle headlights defective to continue to be that the provisions contained in that each headlight can simultaneously used until its next calendar day § 238.443(b) govern the movement of a illuminate a person 800 and 1,500 feet mechanical inspection if: the car is power car with a headlight not in ahead of the trainsets. FRA believes that tagged; the operation is deemed safe by compliance with that section. This these headlights are consistent with the a qualified individual; and operating amendment is necessary because FRA final rule and satisfy FRA’s safety restrictions are imposed, as appropriate. had previously excluded Tier II power concerns. For clarity, however, FRA is However, FRA did not intend to afford cars from the requirements for amending this section to replace the this broad latitude in using Tier II headlights contained in 49 CFR phrase ‘‘focused to illuminate’’ with power cars when both of the required 229.125(a) and (b) that are otherwise ‘‘arranged to illuminate,’’ as used in 49 headlights become defective. In such applicable to other locomotives. See 49 CFR 229.125(a) and (b). This instances, FRA intended that the power CFR 229.3(c); 64 FR 25659.
VerDate 11
Subpart G—Specific Safety Planning Regulatory Flexibility Act currently contained in the final rule or Requirements for Tier II Passenger The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 allow for greater flexibility in complying Equipment (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires a review with the rule. of rules to assess their impact on small FRA does note that States involved in Section 238.603 Safety Planning the State Participation Program, Requirements entities. FRA certifies that this response to petitions for reconsideration does not pursuant to 49 CFR 212, may incur minimal costs associated with the FRA has amended paragraphs (a)(3) have a significant impact on a training of their inspectors involved in and (b)(4) principally by substituting the substantial number of small entities. Because the amendments contained in the enforcement of the rule. term ‘‘MIL–STD–882’’ for ‘‘MIL–STD– Nonetheless, representatives of States 882C.’’ As explained in the discussion this document generally clarify requirements currently contained in the were consulted in the development of of § 238.5 above, the final rule cited the rule, in particular through the MIL–STD–882C as a formal safety final rule or allow for greater flexibility in complying with the rule, FRA has participation of the American methodology to guide railroads in Association of State Highway and eliminating or reducing the risk posed concluded that there are no substantial economic impacts on small units of Transportation Officials in the by each hazard identified to an Passenger Equipment Safety Standards acceptable level. MIL–STD–882 was government, businesses, or other organizations. Working Group. See 64 FR 25541. FRA updated on February 10, 2000, and also considered and addressed designated as MIL–STD–882D, Paperwork Reduction Act comments on the rulemaking from the superceding MIL–STD–882C. These This response to petitions for New York Department of amendments make clear that a railroad reconsideration of the final rule does Transportation, North Carolina may use MIL–STD–882D. The not change the information collection Department of Transportation, amendments also make clear that requirements contained in the original Washington State Department of railroads may continue to use other final rule. Transportation, and the State of formal safety methodologies to guide Vermont Agency of Transportation. them in eliminating or reducing safety Environmental Impact In any event, Federal preemption of a hazards. FRA has evaluated this response to State or local law occurs automatically petitions for reconsideration of the final as a result of the statutory provision Appendix A to Part 238—Schedule of rule in accordance with its ‘‘Procedures contained at 49 U.S.C. 20106 when FRA Civil Penalties for Considering Environmental Impacts’’ issues a regulation covering the same Appendix A to this part contains the (64 FR 28545; May 26, 1999) as required subject matter as a State or local law unless the State or local law is designed schedule of civil penalties to be used in by the National Environmental Policy to reduce an essentially local safety connection with this part. Conforming Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other hazard, is not incompatible with Federal changes are being made to the entries environmental statutes, Executive law, and does not place an unreasonable for § 238.105, ‘‘Train electronic Orders, and related regulatory requirements. FRA has determined that burden on interstate commerce. See 49 hardware and software safety,’’ and CFR 238.13. It should be noted that the § 238.427, ‘‘Suspension system,’’ based this document is not a major FRA action requiring the preparation of an potential for preemption also exists on changes to the final rule as discussed environmental impact statement or under various other statutory and above. environmental assessment because it is constitutional provisions, including the Regulatory Impact categorically excluded from detailed Locomotive Inspection Act (now environmental review pursuant to codified at 49 U.S.C. 20701–20703) and Executive Order 12866 and DOT section 4(c) of FRA’s Procedures. the Commerce Clause of the United Regulatory Policies and Procedures States Constitution. Federalism Implications Energy Impact This response to petitions for Executive Order 13132 provides in reconsideration of the final rule has part that, to the extent practicable, no Executive Order 13211 requires been evaluated in accordance with agency shall promulgate any regulation Federal agencies to prepare a Statement Executive Order 12866 and DOT that has federalism implications, that of Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant policies and procedures. Although the imposes substantial direct compliance energy action.’’ 66 FR 28355; May 22, final rule met the criteria for being costs on State and local governments, 2001. Under the Executive Order, a considered a significant rule under and that is not required by statute, ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as these policies and procedures, the unless the Federal government provides any action by an agency that amendments contained in this response the funds necessary to pay the direct promulgates or is expected to lead to the to petitions for reconsideration of the compliance costs incurred by State and promulgation of a final rule or final rule are not considered significant local governments, or the agency regulation, including notices of inquiry, in the same way because they generally consults with State and local officials advance notices of proposed clarify requirements currently contained early in the process of developing the rulemaking, and notices of proposed in the final rule or allow for greater proposed regulation. See 64 FR 43255; rulemaking: (1)(i) that is a significant flexibility in complying with the rule. Aug. 10, 1999. FRA believes that this regulatory action under Executive Order These amendments and clarifications regulatory action will not have 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is will, overall, reduce the cost of federalism implications that impose likely to have a significant adverse effect complying with the rule. However, this substantial direct compliance costs on on the supply, distribution, or use of cost reduction has not specifically been State and local governments, and that energy; or (2) that is designated by the calculated. FRA believes that these this action is in compliance with Administrator of the Office of amendments and clarifications will Executive Order 13132. The Information and Regulatory Affairs as a have a minimal net effect on FRA’s amendments contained in this response significant energy action. FRA has original analysis of the costs and to petitions for reconsideration of the evaluated this response to petitions for benefits associated with the final rule. final rule generally clarify requirements reconsideration of the final rule in
VerDate 11
accordance with Executive Order 13211, § 216.17 Appeals. PART 238—[AMENDED] and has determined that this regulatory (a) Upon receipt of a Special Notice action is not a ‘‘significant energy 4. The authority citation for part 238 prescribed in §§ 216.11, 216.13, 216.14, is revised to read as follows: action’’ within the meaning of the or 216.15, a railroad may appeal the Executive Order. decision of the Inspector to the FRA Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20133, Compliance With the Unfunded Regional Administrator for the region in 20141, 20302–20303, 20306, 20701–20702, 21301–21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; Mandates Reform Act of 1995 which the notice was given. The appeal and 49 CFR 1.49. shall be made by letter or telegram. The Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates FRA Regional Administrator assigns an Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) each Subpart A—General inspector, other than the inspector from Federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise whose decision the appeal is being 5. Section 238.1 is amended by prohibited by law, assess the effects of revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: Federal Regulatory actions on State, taken, to reinspect the railroad freight local, and tribal governments, and the car, locomotive, railroad passenger §238.1 Purpose and scope. private sector (other than to the extent equipment, or track. The reinspection * * * * * that such regulations incorporate will be made immediately. If upon (c) Railroads to which this part requirements specifically set forth in reinspection, the railroad freight car, applies shall be responsible for law).’’ Sec. 201. Section 202 of the Act locomotive, or passenger equipment is compliance with all of the requirements further requires that ‘‘before found to be in serviceable condition, or contained in §§ 238.15, 238.17, 238.19, promulgating any general notice of the track is found to comply with the 238.107, 238.109, and subpart D of this proposed rulemaking that is likely to requirements for the class at which it part effective January 1, 2002. result in promulgation of any rule that was previously operated by the railroad, (1) A railroad may request earlier includes any Federal mandate that may the FRA Regional Administrator or his application of the requirements result in the expenditure by State, local, or her agent will immediately notify the contained in §§ 238.15, 238.17, 238.19, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, railroad, whereupon the restrictions of 238.107, 238.109, and subpart D upon or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 the Special Notice cease to be effective. written notification to FRA’s Associate or more (adjusted annually for inflation) If on reinspection the decision of the Administrator for Safety. Such a request in any 1 year, and before promulgating original inspector is sustained, the FRA shall indicate the railroad’s readiness any final rule for which a general notice Regional Administrator notifies the and ability to comply with all of the of proposed rulemaking was published, railroad that the appeal has been provisions referenced in paragraph (c) the agency shall prepare a written denied. introductory text of this section. statement * * *’’ detailing the effect on (b) A railroad whose appeal to the (2) Except for paragraphs (b) and (c) State, local and tribal governments and FRA Regional Administrator has been of § 238.309, a railroad may specifically the private sector. This response to denied may, within thirty (30) days request earlier application of the petitions for reconsideration of the final from the denial, appeal to the maintenance and testing provisions rule will not result in the expenditure, Administrator. After affording an contained in §§ 238.309 and 238.311 in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or opportunity for informal oral hearing, simultaneously. In order to request more in any one year, and thus the Administrator may affirm, set aside, earlier application of these two sections, preparation of a statement was not or modify, in whole or in part, the the railroad shall indicate its readiness required. action of the FRA Regional and ability to comply with all of the Administrator. provisions contained in both of those List of Subjects sections. (c) The requirements of a Special 49 CFR Part 216 (3) Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 238.309 Notice issued under this subpart shall apply beginning September 9, 1999. Penalties, Railroad Safety, Reporting remain in effect and be observed by a 6. Section 238.5 is amended by and recordkeeping requirements, railroad pending appeal to the FRA revising the definitions of In service and Special notice for repairs. Regional Administrator or to the Tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion 49 CFR Part 238 Administrator. operations; removing the definitions MIL–STD–882C and Monocoque; and Passenger equipment, Penalties, 3. Section 216.23 is amended by revising it to read as follows: adding the definitions MIL–STD–882 Railroad Safety, Reporting and and Semi-monocoque to read as follows: recordkeeping requirements. § 216.23 Consideration of § 238.5 Definitions. The Rule recommendation. * * * * * In consideration of the foregoing, Upon receipt of a Notice of Track In service, when used in connection chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Conditions issued under § 216.21, the with passenger equipment, means: Federal Regulations is amended as FRA Regional Administrator prepares a (1) Passenger equipment subject to follows: recommendation to the Administrator this part that is in passenger or revenue concerning the issuance of an service in the United States; and PART 216—[AMENDED] Emergency order removing the affected (2) All other passenger equipment track from service. In preparing this subject to this part in the United States, 1. The authority citation for part 216 recommendation, the FRA Regional unless the passenger equipment: is revised to read as follows: Administrator considers all written or (i) Is being handled in accordance Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20104, 20107, other material bearing on the condition with §§ 238.15, 238.17, 238.305(d), or 20111, 20133, 20701–20702, 21301–21302, of the track received from the railroad 238.503(f), as applicable; 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR within three (3) calendar days of the (ii) Is in a repair shop or on a repair 1.49. issuance of the Notice of Track track; 2. Section 216.17 is amended by Conditions and also considers the report (iii) Is on a storage track and is not revising it to read as follows: of the FRA Regional Track Engineer. carrying passengers; or
VerDate 11
(iv) Has been delivered in interchange (a) The railroad shall develop and 9. Section 238.109 is amended by but has not been accepted by the maintain a written hardware and revising paragraph (b)(6) to read as receiving railroad. software safety program to guide the follows: * * * * * design, development, testing, integration, and verification of software § 238.109 Training, qualification, and MIL-STD–882 means a military designation program. standard issued by the United States and hardware that controls or monitors Department of Defense to provide equipment safety functions. * * * * * (b) The hardware and software safety (b) * * * uniform requirements for developing (6) Require all employees and and implementing a system safety plan program shall be based on a formal safety methodology that includes a contractors to pass either a written or an and program to identify and then oral examination covering the eliminate the hazards of a system or Failure Modes, Effects, Criticality Analysis (FMECA); verification and equipment and tasks for which they are reduce the associated risk to an responsible that are required by this part acceptable level. validation testing for all hardware and software components and their as well as the specific Federal regulatory * * * * * interfaces; and comprehensive hardware requirements contained in this part Semi-monocoque means a type of rail and software integration testing to related to equipment and tasks for vehicle construction where the shell or ensure that the hardware and software which they are responsible; skin acts as a single unit with the system functions as intended. * * * * * supporting frame to resist and transmit (c) The hardware and software safety 10. Section 238.113 is amended by the loads acting on the rail vehicle. program shall include a description of revising paragraphs (a)(3), (b) and (c) to * * * * * how the following will be read as follows: Tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion accomplished, achieved, carried out, or operations means railroad operations implemented to ensure safety and § 238.113 Emergency window exits. that carry passengers, often using reliability: (a) * * * antiquated equipment, with the (1) The hardware and software design (3) Each emergency window exit shall conveyance of the passengers to a process; be designed to permit rapid and easy particular destination not being the (2) The hardware and software design removal from the inside of the car principal purpose. Train movements of documentation; during an emergency situation without new passenger equipment for (3) The hardware and software hazard requiring the use of a tool or other demonstration purposes are not tourist, analysis; implement. scenic, historic, or excursion operations. (4) Hardware and software safety (b) Each emergency window exit in a * * * * * reviews; passenger car, including a sleeper car, 7. Section 238.15 is amended by (5) Hardware and software hazard ordered on or after September 8, 2000, revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as monitoring and tracking; or placed in service for the first time on (6) Hardware and software integration follows: or after September 9, 2002, shall have an safety testing; and unobstructed opening with minimum § 238.15 Movement of passenger (7) Demonstration of overall hardware dimensions of 26 inches horizontally by equipment with power brake defects. and software system safety as part of the 24 inches vertically. A seat back is not * * * * * pre-revenue service testing of the an obstruction if it can be moved away (e) * * * equipment. from the window opening without (2) If the handbrake is located outside (d) (1) Hardware and software that requiring the use of a tool or other the interior of the car or is inaccessible controls or monitors a train’s primary implement. to a qualified person: braking system shall either: (c) Emergency window exits shall be (i) The car shall be locked-out and (i) Fail safely by initiating a full marked, and instructions provided for empty; service brake application in the event of their use, as required by § 223.9(d) of (ii) The speed of the train shall be a hardware or software failure that this chapter. restricted to 20 mph or less; and could impair the ability of the engineer (iii) The car shall be removed from the to apply or release the brakes; or Subpart C—Specific Requirements for train or repositioned in the train at the (ii) Access to direct manual control of Tier I Passenger Equipment first location where it is possible to do the primary braking system (both 11. Section 238.201 is amended by so. service and emergency braking) shall be provided to the engineer. revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as * * * * * (2) Hardware and software that follows: controls or monitors the ability to shut Subpart B—Safety Planning and § 238.201 Scope/alternative compliance. General Requirements down a train’s main power and fuel intake system shall either: (a) * * * 8. Section 238.105 is amended by (i) Fail safely by shutting down the (2) The structural standards of this revising it to read as follows: main power and cutting off the intake of subpart (§ 238.203-static end strength; fuel in the event of a hardware or § 238.205-anti-climbing mechanism; § 238.105 Train electronic hardware and software failure that could impair the § 238.207-link between coupling software safety. ability of the train crew to command mechanism and car body; § 238.209- The requirements of this section that electronic function; or forward-facing end structure of apply to electronic hardware and (ii) The ability to shut down the main locomotives; § 238.211-collision posts; software used to control or monitor power and fuel intake by non-electronic § 238.213-corner posts; § 238.215- safety functions in passenger equipment means shall be provided to the train rollover strength; § 238.217-side ordered on or after September 8, 2000, crew. structure; § 238.219 -truck-to-car-body and such components implemented or (e) The railroad shall comply with the attachment; and § 238.223-locomotive materially modified in new or existing elements of its hardware and software fuel tanks) do not apply to passenger passenger equipment on or after safety program that affect the safety of equipment if used exclusively on a rail September 9, 2002. the passenger equipment. line:
VerDate 11
(i) With no public highway-rail grade § 238.219 Truck-to-car-body attachment. 18. Section 238.237 is amended by crossings; Passenger equipment shall have a revising the introductory text of (ii) On which no freight operations truck-to-car-body attachment with an paragraph (d) and revising paragraph occur at any time; ultimate strength sufficient to resist (d)(1)(i) as follows: (iii) On which only passenger without failure the following § 238.237 Automated monitoring. equipment of compatible design is individually applied loads: 2g vertically utilized; and on the mass of the truck; and 250,000 * * * * * (d) The following procedures apply if pounds in any horizontal direction on (iv) On which trains operate at speeds the alerter or deadman control fails en the truck, along with the resulting not exceeding 79 mph. route and causes the locomotive to be in vertical reaction to this load. For * * * * * non-compliance with paragraph (a): 12. Section 238.203 is amended by purposes of this section, the mass of the (1)(i) A second person qualified on revising paragraph (h)(1) to read as truck includes axles, wheels, bearings, the signal system and trained to apply follows: the truck-mounted brake system, the emergency brake shall be stationed suspension system components, and in the locomotive cab; or § 238.203 Static end strength. any other component attached to the * * * * * * * * * * truck by design. (h) Disposition of petitions. 16. Section 238.223 is amended by Subpart D—Inspection, Testing, and (1) If the Administrator finds it revising it to read as follows: Maintenance Requirements for Tier I necessary or desirable, FRA will § 238.223 Locomotive fuel tanks. Passenger Equipment conduct a hearing on a petition in 19. Section 238.315 is amended by accordance with the procedures Locomotive fuel tanks shall comply revising paragraphs (c) and (f)(3) to read provided in § 211.25 of this chapter. with either the following or an industry standard providing at least an as follows: * * * * * equivalent level of safety if approved by § 238.315 Class IA brake test. 13. Section 238.205 is amended by FRA under § 238.21: revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: (a) External fuel tanks. External * * * * * (c) A Class IA brake test may be § 238.205 Anti-climbing mechanism. locomotive fuel tanks shall comply with the requirements contained in performed at a shop or yard site and is * * * * * Appendix D to this part. not required to be repeated at the first (b) Except for a cab car or an MU (b) Internal fuel tanks. passenger terminal if the train remains locomotive, each locomotive ordered on on a source of compressed air and: (1) Internal locomotive fuel tanks or after September 8, 2000, or placed in (1) The train remains in the custody shall be positioned in a manner to service for the first time on or after of the train crew; or reduce the likelihood of accidental September 9, 2002, shall have an anti- (2) The train crew receives notice that penetration from roadway debris or climbing mechanism at its forward end the Class IA brake test has been collision. capable of resisting both an upward and performed. (2) Internal fuel tank vent systems downward vertical force of 200,000 * * * * * shall be designed so they do not become pounds without failure. (f) * * * a path of fuel loss in any tank 14. Section 238.211 is amended by (3) For MU locomotives that utilize an orientation due to a locomotive electric signal to communicate a service revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(2) to overturning. read as follows: brake application and only a pneumatic (3) Internal fuel tank bulkheads and signal to propagate an emergency brake § 238.211 Collision posts. skin shall, at a minimum, be equivalent application, the emergency brake (a) * * * to a 5/16-inch thick steel plate with a application functions as intended. yield strength of 25,000 pounds per (1) * * * * * * * * square inch. Material of a higher yield (i) Two full-height collision posts, 20. Section 238.317 is amended by strength may be used to decrease the located at approximately the one-third revising paragraph (d)(2) to read as required thickness of the material points laterally, at each end. Each follows: provided at least an equivalent level of collision post shall have an ultimate strength is maintained. Skid plates are § 238.317 Class II brake test. longitudinal shear strength of not less not required. than 300,000 pounds at a point even * * * * * 17. Section 238.235 is amended by (d) * * * with the top of the underframe member revising paragraph (a)(3) and (d) to read (2) For MU locomotives that utilize an to which it is attached. If reinforcement as follows: electric signal to communicate a service is used to provide the shear value, the brake application and only a pneumatic reinforcement shall have full value for § 238.235 Doors. signal to propagate an emergency brake a distance of 18 inches up from the (a) * * * application, the emergency brake underframe connection and then taper (3) Designed and maintained so that a application functions as intended. to a point approximately 30 inches person may readily access and operate * * * * * above the underframe connection; or the override device from inside the car * * * * * without requiring the use of a tool or Subpart E-Specific Requirements for (2) The requirements of this paragraph other implement. If the door is dual- Tier II Passenger Equipment do not apply to unoccupied passenger leafed, only one of the door leafs is equipment operating in a passenger required to respond to the manual 21. Section 238.411 is amended by train, or to the rear end of a locomotive override device. revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows: if the end is unoccupied by design. * * * * * * * * * * (d) Door exits shall be marked, and § 238.411 Rear end structures of power car 15. Section 238.219 is amended by instructions provided for their use, as cabs. revising it to read as follows: required by § 239.107(a) of this chapter. * * * * *
VerDate 11
(b) * * * horizontal to the vehicle, with no (ii) Steady-state lateral acceleration (1) A horizontal, longitudinal shear penetration or spall. An impact angle shall be computed as the mathematical load of 500,000 pounds at its joint with that is perpendicular to the window’s average of the accelerations in the body the underframe without exceeding the surface shall be considered the most of a curve, between the spiral/curve ultimate strength of the joint; and severe impact angle for purposes of this points. In a compound curve, steady- * * * * * requirement. state lateral acceleration shall be 22. Section 238.419 is amended by * * * * * measured separately for each curve revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: (3) * * * segment. (i) * * * § 238.419 Truck-to-car-body and truck (ii) Demonstrate anti-spalling (c) Truck (hunting) acceleration. component attachment. performance by the use of a 0.002-inch *** (a) The ultimate strength of the truck- thick aluminum witness plate, placed (d) Overheat sensors. Overheat to-car-body attachment for each unit in 12 inches from the window’s surface sensors for each wheelset journal a train shall be sufficient to resist during all impact tests. The witness bearing shall be provided. The sensors without failure the following plate shall contain no marks from may be placed either onboard the individually applied loads: a vertical spalled glazing particles after any equipment or at reasonable intervals force equivalent to 2g acting on the mass impact test; and along the railroad’s right-of-way. of the truck; and a force of 250,000 * * * * * 25. Section 238.429 is amended by pounds acting in any horizontal 24. Section 238.427 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(3) to read as direction on the truck, along with the removing paragraph (e), and by revising follows: resulting vertical reaction to this load. paragraph (b), revising the heading of * * * * * paragraph (c), and revising paragraph § 238.429 Safety appliances. 23. Section 238.421 is amended by (d) to read as follows: * * * * * revising the introductory text of (f) * * * paragraph (b), revising paragraphs (b)(1) § 238.427 Suspension system. and (2), revising the introductory text of * * * * * (3) If two trainsets are coupled to form paragraph (c), and revising paragraphs (b) Car body accelerations. (1) A a single train that is not semi- (c)(1) and (3)(ii) to read as follows: passenger car shall not operate under permanently coupled (i.e., that is conditions that result in a steady-state coupled by an automatic coupler), the § 238.421 Glazing. lateral acceleration greater than 0.12g as automatically coupled ends shall be * * * * * measured parallel to the car floor inside equipped with an end handhold that is (b) Particular end-facing exterior the passenger compartment. During pre- located and installed so that an glazing requirements. Each end-facing revenue service acceptance testing of individual can safely couple and exterior window in a passenger car and the equipment under § 238.111 and uncouple the trainsets. The end a power car cab shall also, in the § 213.345 of this chapter, a passenger handhold shall be not more than 16 orientation in which it is installed in the car shall demonstrate that steady-state inches from each side of the car and car: lateral acceleration does not exceed 0.1g shall extend the remaining length of the (1) Resist the impact of a 12-pound at the maximum intended cant end of the car. (If the equipment is solid steel sphere traveling (i) at the deficiency. designed with a tapered nose, the side maximum speed at which the car will (2) While traveling at the maximum of the car shall be determined based on operate (ii) at an impact angle no less operating speed over the intended route, the outer dimension of the tapered nose severe than horizontal to the car, with the train suspension system shall be where the end handhold is attached.) no penetration or spall. An impact angle designed to: The end handhold shall also meet the (i) Limit the vertical acceleration, as that is perpendicular (90 degrees) to the mechanical strength and design measured by a vertical accelerometer window’s surface shall be considered requirements contained in paragraphs mounted on the car floor, to no greater the most severe impact angle for (c), (d)(3), and (d)(6) of this section. If than 0.55g single event, peak-to-peak purposes of this requirement; and the trainsets are semi-permanently (2) Demonstrate anti-spalling over a one second period; (ii) Limit lateral acceleration, as coupled, this safety appliance is not performance by the use of a 0.001-inch required. thick aluminum witness plate, placed measured by a lateral accelerometer * * * * * 12 inches from the window’s surface mounted on the car floor, to no greater than 0.3g single event, peak-to-peak during all impact tests. The witness 26. Section 238.435 is amended by over a one second period; and revising paragraph (i) to read: plate shall contain no marks from (iii) Limit the combination of lateral spalled glazing particles after any acceleration (aL) and vertical § 238.435 Interior fittings and surfaces. impact test; and acceleration (aV) occurring over a one * * * * * * * * * * second period as expressed by the 2 2 (i) If, for purposes of showing (c) Passenger equipment ordered prior square root of (aL +aV ) to no greater to May 12, 1999. Each exterior window than 0.6g, where a may not exceed 0.3g compliance with the requirements of L this section, the strength of a seat in passenger equipment ordered prior to and aV may not exceed 0.55g. May 12, 1999, may comply with the Compliance with the requirements of attachment is to be demonstrated following glazing requirements in lieu paragraph (b)(2) shall be demonstrated through sled testing, the seat structure of the requirements specified in during the pre-revenue service and seat attachment to the sled that are paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section: acceptance testing of the equipment used in such testing must be (1) Each end-facing exterior window required under § 238.111 and § 213.345 representative of the actual seat shall, in the orientation in which it is of this chapter. structure in, and seat attachment to, the installed in the vehicle, resist the (3) For purposes of this paragraph: rail vehicle subject to the requirements impact of a 12-pound solid steel sphere (i) Car body acceleration of this section. If the attachment traveling (i) at the maximum speed at measurements shall be processed strength of any other interior fitting is to which the vehicle will operate (ii) at an through a filter having a cut-off be demonstrated through sled testing, impact angle no less severe than frequency of 10 Hz; and for purposes of showing compliance
VerDate 11
with the requirements of this section, § 238.439 Doors. paragraph (a) of this section shall be such testing shall be conducted in a * * * * * moved in accordance with the similar manner. (g) Door exits shall be marked, and following: 27. Section 238.437 is amended by instructions provided for their use, as (1) If one of the headlights is revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: required by § 239.107(a) of this chapter. defective, the defect shall be considered 29. Section 238.433 is amended by a non-running gear defect subject to the § 238.437 Emergency communication. revising it to read as follows: provisions contained in § 238.17 of this * * * * * part. § 238.443 Headlights. (2) If both headlights are defective, the (a) Except as further specified, power car shall be inspected and tagged transmission locations at each end of (a) Each power car shall be equipped with at least two headlights. Each in accordance with the requirements each passenger car, adjacent to the car’s contained in § 238.17(c) relating to non- end doors, and accessible to both headlight shall produce no less than 200,000 candela. One headlight shall be running gear defects. The power car passengers and crewmembers without may continue to be used in passenger requiring the use of a tool or other arranged to illuminate a person standing between the rails 800 feet ahead of the service only to the nearest forward implement. If the passenger car does not power car under clear weather location where the repairs necessary to exceed 45 feet in length, or if the conditions. The other headlight shall be bring the power car into compliance can passenger car was ordered prior to May arranged to illuminate a person standing be made or to the power car’s next 12, 1999, only one transmission location between the rails 1,500 feet ahead of the calendar day mechanical inspection, is required; power car under clear weather whichever occurs first. * * * * * conditions. 30. Figure 2 to subpart E is revised to 28. Section 238.439 is amended by (b) A power car with a headlight not read as follows: revising paragraph (g) to read as follows: in compliance with the requirements of BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
VerDate 11
BILLING CODE 4910–06–C en route, that train may remain in § 238.603 Safety planning requirements. Subpart F—Specific Requirements for service until its next scheduled calendar (a) * * * Tier II Passenger Equipment day Class I brake test equivalent at a speed no greater than the maximum safe (3) Eliminate or reduce the risk posed 31. Section 238.503 is amended by operating speed demonstrated through by each hazard identified to an revising paragraph (f) to read as follows: analysis and testing for braking with the acceptable level using a formal safety methodology such as MIL-STD–882; and § 238.503 Inspection, testing, and friction brake alone. The brake system maintenance requirements. shall be restored to 100 percent * * * * * * * * * * operation before the train departs that (b) * * * (f) Movement of trains with other inspection location. (4) Eliminate or reduce the risk posed defects. The movement of a train with * * * * * by each hazard identified to an a defect other than a power brake defect acceptable level using a formal safety shall be conducted in accordance with Subpart G—Specific Safety Planning methodology such as MIL–STD–882; Requirements for Tier II Passenger § 238.17, with the following exceptions: * * * * * (1) The movement of a Tier II power Equipment—[AMENDED] car with a non-complying headlight 33. Appendix A to part 238 is shall be conducted in accordance with 32. Section 238.603 is amended by amended by revising the entries for § 238.443(b) of this part; and revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(4) to sections 238.105 and 238.427 to read as (2) When a failure of a secondary read as follows: follows: brake on a Tier II passenger train occurs
VerDate 11
Appendix A to Part 238—Schedule of Civil Penalties 1 * * * * *
Willfull Section Violation violation
******* 238.105 Train electronic hardware and software safety: (a), (b), (c) Failure to develop and maintain hardware and software safety ...... 7,500 11,000 (d) Failure to include required design features ...... 5,000 7,500 (e) Failure to comply with hardware and software safety program ...... 5,000 7,500
******* 238.427 Suspension system ...... 2,500 5,000
*******
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 10, 2002. Allan Rutter, Federal Railroad Administrator. [FR Doc. 02–9419 Filed 4–22–02; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
1 A penalty may be assessed against an individual of up to $22,000 for any violation where make the railroad and any responsible individuals only for a willful violation. Generally when two or circumstances warrant. See 49 CFR par 209, liable for penalty under the particular regulatory more violations of these regulations are discovered appendix A. Failure to observe any condition for section(s) contained in part 231 of this chapter or with respect to a single unit of passenger equipment movement of defective equipment set forth in § 238.429 concerning the substantive defective that is placed or continued in service by a railroad, § 238.17 will deprive the railroad of the benefit of condition. The penalties listed for failure to perform the appropriate penalties set forth above are the movement-for-repair provision and make the aggregated up to a maximum of $10,000 per day. railroad and any responsible individuals liable for the exterior and interior mechanical inspections However, failure to perform, with respect to a penalty under the particular regulatory section(s) and tests required under § 238.303 and § 238.305 particular unit of passenger equipment, any of the concerning the substantive defect(s) present on the may be assessed for each unit of passenger inspections and tests required under subparts D and unit of passenger equipment at the time of equipment contained in a train that is not properly F of this part will be treated as a violation separate movement. Failure to observe any condition for the inspected. Whereas, the penalties listed for failure and distinct from, and in addition to, any movement of passenger equipment containing to perform the brake inspections and tests under substantive violative conditions found on that unit defective safety appliances, other than power § 238.313 through § 238.319 may be assessed for of passenger equipment. Moreover, the brakes, set forth in § 238.17(e) will deprive the each train that is not properly inspected. Administrator reserves the right to assess a penalty railroad of the movement-for-repair provision and
VerDate 11