49728 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The date and location of the hearing adopted the Secretary’s schedule for will be set forth in a forthcoming notice implementing rail passenger equipment Federal Railroad Administration that will be published in the Federal regulations and included it in the Register. Anyone who desires to make Federal Railroad Safety Authorization 49 CFR Parts 216, 223, 229, 231, 232, an oral statement at the hearing must Act of 1994 (the Act), Pub. L. No. 103– and 238 notify the Docket Clerk by telephone 440, 108 Stat. 4619, 4623–4624 [FRA Docket No. PCSS±1, Notice No. 2] (202–632–3198), and must submit three (November 2, 1994). Section 215 of the copies of the oral statement that he or Act, as now codified at 49 U.S.C. 20133, RIN 2130±AA95 she intends to make at the hearing. The requires: notification should also provide the Passenger Equipment Safety (a) MINIMUM STANDARDS.—The Docket Clerk with the participant’s Standards Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe mailing address. FRA reserves the right regulations establishing minimum standards AGENCY: Federal Railroad to limit participation in the hearings of for the safety of cars used by railroad carriers Administration (FRA), Department of persons who fail to provide such to transport passengers. Before prescribing Transportation (DOT). notification. The date by which the such regulations, the Secretary shall Docket Clerk must be notified about the consider— ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (1) The crashworthiness of the cars; (NPRM). oral statement and receive copies of it will be set forth in the notice (2) Interior features (including luggage restraints, seat belts, and exposed surfaces) SUMMARY: FRA is proposing a rule announcing the hearing. that may affect passenger safety; establishing comprehensive Federal ADDRESSES: Written comments should (3) Maintenance and inspection of the cars; safety standards for railroad passenger identify the docket number and must be (4) Emergency response procedures and equipment. The proposed rule contains submitted in triplicate to the Docket equipment; and requirements concerning equipment Clerk, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal (5) Any operating rules and conditions that design and performance criteria related Railroad Administration, 400 Seventh directly affect safety not otherwise governed to passenger and crew survivability in Street, S.W., Mail Stop 10, Washington, by regulations. the event of a passenger train accident; D.C. 20590. Persons desiring to be The Secretary may make applicable some or the inspection, testing, and maintenance notified that their comments have been all of the standards established under this received by FRA should submit a subsection to cars existing at the time the of passenger equipment; and the safe regulations are prescribed, as well as to new operation of passenger train service. The stamped, self-addressed postcard with cars, and the Secretary shall explain in the proposed rule is designed to address the their comments. The Docket Clerk will rulemaking document the basis for making safety of passenger train service in an indicate on the postcard the date on such standards applicable to existing cars. environment where technology is which the comments were received and (b) INITIAL AND FINAL advancing, and equipment is being will return the card to the addressee. REGULATIONS.—(1) The Secretary shall designed for operation at higher speeds. Written comments will be available for prescribe initial regulations under subsection The rule would amend existing examination, both before and after the (a) within 3 years after the date of enactment regulations concerning special notice for closing date for written comments, of the Federal Railroad Safety Authorization during regular business hours in Room Act of 1994. The initial regulations may repairs, safety glazing, locomotive exempt equipment used by tourist, historic, safety, safety appliances, and railroad 7051 of FRA headquarters at 1120 scenic, and excursion railroad carriers to power brakes as applied to passenger Vermont Avenue, N.W., in Washington, transport passengers. equipment. D.C. (2) The Secretary shall prescribe final The proposed rule does not apply to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: regulations under subsection (a) within 5 tourist and historic railroad operations. Edward Pritchard, Acting Staff Director, years after such date of enactment. However, after consulting with the Motive Power and Equipment Division, (c) PERSONNEL.—The Secretary may excursion railroad associations to Office of Safety Assurance and establish within the Department of determine appropriate applicability in Compliance, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, Transportation 2 additional full-time equivalent positions beyond the number light of financial, operational, or other S.W., Mail Stop 25, Washington, D.C. permitted under existing law to assist with factors unique to such operations, FRA 20590 (telephone: 202–632–3362); the drafting, prescribing, and implementation may prescribe requirements for these Daniel Alpert, Trial Attorney, Office of of regulations under this section. operations that are different from those Chief Counsel, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, (d) CONSULTATION.—In prescribing affecting other types of passenger S.W., Mail Stop 10, Washington, D.C. regulations, issuing orders, and making operations. (telephone: 202–632–3186); or Thomas amendments under this section, the Secretary may consult with Amtrak, public authorities DATES: (1) Written comments: Written Herrmann, Trial Attorney, Office of operating railroad passenger service, other comments must be received on or before Chief Counsel, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Mail Stop 10, Washington, D.C. railroad carriers transporting passengers, November 24, 1997. Comments received organizations of passengers, and after that date will be considered by 20590 (telephone: 202–632–3167). organizations of employees. A consultation is FRA and the Passenger Equipment SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: not subject to the Federal Advisory Safety Standards Working Group to the Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), but minutes extent possible without incurring Background of the consultation shall be placed in the substantial additional expense or delay. To enhance rail safety, the Secretary public docket of the regulatory proceeding. The docket will remain open until the of Transportation convened a meeting of The Secretary of Transportation has Working Group proceedings are representatives from all sectors of the delegated these rulemaking concluded. Requests for formal rail industry in September, 1994. As one responsibilities to the Federal Railroad extension of the comment period must of the initiatives arising from this Rail Administrator. 49 CFR 1.49(m). be made by November 7, 1997. Safety Summit, the Secretary Consistent with the intent of Congress (2) Public hearing: FRA intends to announced that DOT would begin that FRA consult with the railroad hold a public hearing to allow interested developing safety standards for rail industry in prescribing these parties the opportunity to comment on passenger equipment over a five-year regulations, FRA invited various specific issues addressed in the NPRM. period. In November, 1994, Congress organizations to participate in a working Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49729 group to focus on the issues related to BLE, BRC, RPI, and UTU to participate meetings. Such comments have been railroad passenger equipment safety and in this effort. considered (and identified in this assist FRA in developing Federal safety In accordance with 49 U.S.C. Notice) to the extent possible without standards. The Passenger Equipment 20133(d), the evolving positions of the incurring additional delay in preparing Safety Standards Working Group (or the Working Group members—as reflected this Notice. Moreover, the Working ‘‘Working Group’’) first met on June 7, in the minutes of the group’s meetings Group is broadly representative of 1995, 1 and continues to meet in support and associated documentation, together interests involved in the provision of of this rulemaking. This proposed rule with data provided by the members intercity and commuter rail service was developed by FRA in consultation during their deliberations— have been nationwide, and its members had the with the Working Group, and FRA will placed in the public docket of this opportunity to comment on the issues again convene the Working Group to rulemaking. raised in the ANPRM before the consider comments received in response On June 17, 1996, FRA published an document’s publication, as noted above. Advance Notice of Proposed to this Notice and develop the final rule. Need for Safety Standards Notice of any Working Group meetings Rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning the will be available through the FRA establishment of comprehensive safety Effective Federal safety standards for Docket Clerk. standards for railroad passenger freight equipment have long been in The Working Group has evolved since equipment (61 FR 30672). The ANPRM place, but equivalent Federal standards its initial meeting, and its membership provided background information on for passenger equipment do not currently includes representatives from the need for such standards, offered currently exist. The AAR sets industry the following organizations: preliminary ideas on approaching standards for the design and passenger safety issues, and presented maintenance of freight equipment that American Association of Private Railroad Car questions on various topics including: add materially to the safe operation of Owners, Inc. (AAPRCO), this equipment. Industry standards for American Association of State Highway and system safety programs and plans; Transportation Officials (AASHTO), passenger equipment crashworthiness; the safety of railroad passenger American Public Transit Association (APTA), inspection, testing, and maintenance equipment have been in place since the Association of American Railroads (AAR), requirements; training and qualification early part of this century, as noted by Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE), requirements for mechanical personnel the AAPRCO in comment on the Brotherhood Railway Carmen (BRC), and train crews; excursion, tourist, and ANPRM. However, over the years, the FRA, private equipment; commuter AAR has discontinued the development Federal Transit Administration (FTA) of equipment and operations; train make- and maintenance of passenger DOT, up and operating speed; tiered safety equipment standards. National Railroad Passenger Corporation standards; fire safety; and operating Passenger railroads do offer the (Amtrak), traveling public one of the safest forms National Association of Railroad Passengers practices and procedures. (NARP), FRA’s commitment to developing of transportation available. In the five- Railway Progress Institute (RPI), proposed regulations through the year period 1991–1995, there were 1.07 Safe Travel America (STA), Working Group necessarily influenced passenger fatalities for every billion Transportation Workers Union of America the role and purpose of the ANPRM. miles a passenger was transported by (TWU), and FRA specifically asked that members of rail. However, accidents continue to United Transportation Union (UTU). the Working Group not respond occur, often as a result of factors beyond The Working Group is chaired by formally to the ANPRM. The issues and the control of the passenger railroad. FRA, and supported by FRA program, ideas presented in the ANPRM had Further, the rail passenger environment legal, and research staff, including already been placed before the Working is rapidly changing. Worldwide, technical personnel from the Volpe Group, and the Working Group had passenger equipment operating speeds National Transportation Systems Center commented on drafts of the ANPRM. As are increasing. Several passenger (Volpe Center) of the Research and a result, FRA solicited the submission of trainsets designed to European Special Programs Administration of written comments that might be of standards have been proposed for DOT. FRA has included vendor assistance in developing a proposed rule operation at high speeds in the United representatives designated by RPI as from interested persons not involved in States. In general, these trainsets do not associate members of the Working the Working Group’s deliberations. meet the structural or operating Group. FRA has also included the FRA received 12 comments in standards that are common practice for AAPRCO as an associate Working Group response to the ANPRM, including a current North American equipment. member. The National Transportation request from a member of the Working FRA believes that adherence to such Safety Board has designated staff Group to extend the ANPRM’s comment standards by the nation’s passenger members to advise the Working Group. period. In addition, the United States railroads has in large measure In developing proposed safety Small Business Administration (SBA) contributed to the high level of safety at standards for passenger equipment commented that the length of the which rail passenger service is currently operating at speeds greater than 125 comment period was inadequate for the operated. However, these standards do mph but not exceeding 150 mph, FRA industry, especially small railways, to not have the force of regulation. In general, the North American formed a subgroup (the ‘‘Tier II prepare a thorough response to the railroad operating environment requires Equipment Subgroup’’) of Working ANPRM. FRA had closed the comment passenger equipment to operate Group members representing interests period on July 9, 1996, so that all commingled with very heavy and long associated with the provision of rail comments could be shared with the freight trains, often over track with passenger service at such high speeds. Working Group before its meeting on frequent grade crossings used by heavy FRA invited representatives from July 10, 1996. Although FRA did not formally highway equipment. European organizations including Amtrak, the extend the comment period, comments passenger operations are intermingled 1 This date was incorrectly identified as June 6, received after the closing date of the with freight equipment of lesser weight 1995, in the Advance Notice of Proposed comment period have been shared with than in North America. In many cases, Rulemaking (61 FR 30672, June 17, 1996). the Working Group at subsequent highway-rail grade crossings also pose 49730 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules lesser hazards to passenger trains in of Secaucus and Jersey City, New Jersey. used by heavy highway vehicles, has Europe due to lower highway vehicle Two crewmembers and one passenger also been demonstrated in numerous weight. European passenger equipment were fatally injured, and 35 other accidents. design standards may therefore not be people sustained injuries. The passenger • On January 16, 1996, a appropriate for the North American rail fatality and most of the nonfatal injuries Massachusetts Bay Transportation environment. to passengers occurred on train 1254, Authority (MBTA) train being operated FRA must become more active to which was operating with the cab car by Amtrak struck a loaded tractor-trailer ensure that passenger trains continue to forward, followed by four passenger which had become lodged in a grade be designed, built, and operated with a coaches and a locomotive pushing the crossing in Wakefield, Massachusetts. high level of safety. A clear set of consist. (FRA Report B–2–96.) Twenty-two passengers were taken to Federal safety and design standards for • On January 18, 1993, Northern hospitals by ambulance or air. (FRA passenger equipment tailored to the Indiana Commuter Transportation Report C–4–96.) nation’s operating environment is District (NICTD) trains 7 and 12 collided • On October 3, 1995, a Metro-North needed to provide for the safety of corner-to-corner in Gary, Indiana. The Commuter Railroad Company (Metro- future rail operations and to facilitate left front corners and adjacent car body North) train with a cab car in the lead sound planning for those operations. sidewall structures were destroyed on struck a loaded tractor-trailer which had both of the lead cars in each train. Seven become lodged in a grade crossing near Passenger Train Safety Hazards passengers died, and 95 people Milford, Connecticut. Two Passenger trains are exposed to a sustained injuries. (NTSB/Railroad crewmembers and 24 passengers were variety of safety hazards. Some of these Accident Report (RAR)–93/03.) injured. (FRA Report C–60–95.) hazards are endemic to the nation’s rail The exposure of passenger trains to • On September 21, 1995, an Amtrak passenger operating environment, as hazards associated with sharing train traveling at 81 mph struck a loaded noted above, and result from the common rights-of-way with freight tractor-trailer at a highway-rail grade operation of passenger trains trains has been demonstrated in recent crossing near Indiantown, Florida. The commingled with freight trains, often accidents, and a past disastrous assistant engineer was killed, and five over track with frequent grade crossings accident. other persons onboard the train were used by heavy highway equipment. • On February 15, 1995, an Amtrak injured. (FRA Report C–56–95.) Collisions with a wide range of train traveling at 58 mph struck a • On November 30, 1993, an Amtrak objects may occur at various speeds shifted load of steel ‘‘I’’ beams train derailed after striking an 82-ton under a number of different extending from a Union Pacific Railroad turbine being transported by a 184-foot circumstances. In addition to freight Company freight train stopped in a long vehicle which was fouling a grade trains and highway vehicles, these siding at Borah, Idaho. The Amtrak crossing near Intercession City, Florida. objects include maintenance-of-way train’s six passenger coaches were raked Fifty-eight of the train’s passengers and equipment and other passenger trains. with a steel beam which penetrated the crewmembers were injured. (NTSB Although most of these collisions occur outer layer of the car bodies at various Highway Accident Report 95/01.) only in the normal running direction of points. Although no passengers were In addition to collisions involving the train, impact into the side of the injured, the Amtrak train’s two passenger trains striking highway train can occur, especially at the locomotives were significantly vehicles, highway vehicles may also junction of rail lines and at highway-rail damaged, and two crewmembers were strike passenger trains. According to grade crossings. injured. (FRA Report C–14–95.) FRA’s Rail-Highway Grade Crossing A passenger train collision with • On May 16, 1994, an Amtrak train Accident/Incident database, 13.8% of another train concerns FRA because of derailed after striking an intermodal all highway-rail grade crossing the potential for significant harm trailer which had fallen or was falling collisions involving passenger trains demonstrated in actual accidents. from a CSXT freight train travelling from 1986 through 1995 occurred when • On February 16, 1996, a near-head- northbound on an adjacent track at the highway vehicle struck the on collision occurred between Maryland Selma, North Carolina. The lead passenger train. This accounts for 388 Rail Commuter Service (MARC) train locomotive of the Amtrak train rolled such occurrences out of 2,820 highway- 286 and Amtrak train 29 on track owned over, and the assistant engineer was rail grade crossing collisions involving by CSX Transportation, Inc., (CSXT) at killed. The engineer sustained serious passenger trains in this period. In Silver Spring, Maryland. The MARC injuries, and 120 other occupants of the commenting on the ANPRM, the train was operating with a cab car (a car Amtrak train reported injuries. (NTSB/ Washington State Department of which provides passenger seating, as RAR–95/02.) Transportation (WSDOT) had asked that well as a location from which the train • On January 4, 1987, an Amtrak train FRA clarify the statement that 25 is operated) as the lead car in the train, collided with the rear of a Consolidated percent of all highway-rail grade followed by two passenger coaches and Rail Corporation (Conrail) train near crossing accidents involve a highway a locomotive pushing the consist. The Chase, Maryland, when it unexpectedly vehicle striking the side of a train. See collision separated the left front corner entered the track ahead of the Amtrak 61 FR 30692. Though this higher figure of the cab car from the roof to its sill train, which had been travelling does include accidents involving both plate, and tore off much of the forward between 120 and 125 mph only a few freight and passenger trains, the left side of the car body. Three seconds earlier. The Amtrak train’s two potential for a highway vehicle to strike crewmembers and eight passengers were locomotives and three front passenger a passenger train is real. fatally injured, and 13 other occupants cars were destroyed in the collision. The The WSDOT also requested that FRA of the MARC train sustained injuries. engineer and 15 passengers aboard the document how many ‘‘heavy’’ highway (FRA Accident Investigation Report Amtrak train were fatally injured, and vehicles were involved in highway-rail (Report) B–3–96.) 174 other persons aboard the train were grade crossing accidents in which • On February 9, 1996, a near-head- injured. (NTSB/RAR–88/01.) highway vehicles struck passenger on collision occurred between New The exposure of passenger trains to trains. Over the same ten-year period Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc., hazards associated with operating over from 1986 through 1995, 52 of the 388 trains 1254 and 1107 on the borderline frequent highway-rail grade crossings, occurrences in which a highway vehicle Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49731 struck a passenger train involved a switch. Seventy of the train’s passengers • On June 23, 1982, a fire started heavy highway vehicle. For purposes of and crewmembers were injured. (FRA onboard an Amtrak passenger train in a this analysis, FRA considered the Report C–52–92.) sleeping car travelling en route to Los number of heavy highway vehicles Regardless of the cause of an accident, Angeles, California. As a result of the which struck passenger trains to consist the occupants of a passenger train may fire and smoke, two passengers died, of all those vehicles identified as a risk harm caused by the crushing of the two passengers were seriously injured, ‘‘Truck-Trailer’’ (12) and one-half the occupant compartment, in which the and 59 other occupants of the train were number of those vehicles identified as a occupants themselves are crushed, and treated for smoke inhalation. (NTSB/ ‘‘Truck’’ (79), as specified according to local penetration into the occupant RAR–83/03.) Form FRA F 6180.57—Rail-Highway compartment, where an object intrudes Development of Passenger Train Safety Grade Crossing Accident/Incident into the occupant compartment and Program Report. directly strikes an occupant, as Passenger trains are also vulnerable to demonstrated in the Amtrak accident in This rulemaking is part of several accidents caused by defective railroad Lugoff, South Carolina. Passenger train related and complementary efforts by track structure and vehicle interaction occupants are also vulnerable to harm FRA that will contribute to rail with the rail structure. from collisions within the train’s passenger safety. FRA has proposed • On August 3, 1994, an Amtrak train interior, including loose objects inside regulations governing emergency derailed while travelling at the train, such as baggage. For example, preparedness and emergency response approximately 79 mph on Conrail the NTSB determined that at least two procedures for rail passenger service in trackage near Batavia, New York, passengers in a lounge car were injured a separate rulemaking proceeding, because of the dynamic interaction when they were struck by displaced designated as FRA No. PTEP–1. See 62 between a material handling car and a pedestal seats as a result of the FR 8330, Feb. 24, 1997. In addition, flattened rail head. Five of the derailed Intercession City, Florida, grade FRA has formed a separate working passenger cars descended a railroad crossing collision on November 30, group (the Passenger Train Emergency embankment and came to rest on their 1993. The seat columns on four pedestal Preparedness Working Group) to assist sides. One-hundred-and-eight seats had separated from their floor FRA in the development of such passengers and ten crewmembers were attachments, allowing them to be regulations. This related proceeding is injured. (NTSB/RAR–96/02.) projected forward. also addressing some of the issues FRA • On July 31, 1991, an Amtrak train A variety of threats to passengers are identified in the ANPRM on passenger derailed while travelling at 80 mph over also posed by fire, broken glazing, equipment safety. Persons wishing to CSXT trackage in Lugoff, South electrical shock, and submergence. receive more information regarding this Carolina, when a switch point leading to These dangers may arise following a other rulemaking should contact Mr. a parallel auxiliary track unexpectedly train derailment or collision, with Edward R. English, Director, Office of opened under the Amtrak train. The potentially catastrophic results. Safety Assurance and Compliance, FRA, derailed passenger cars collided with • On September 22, 1993, an accident 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, the first of nine hopper cars stored on occurred when an Amtrak train D.C. 20590 (telephone number: 202– the auxiliary track. The collision caused travelling at approximately 72 mph 632–3349), or David H. Kasminoff, Esq., the wheel set from the first hopper car derailed after striking a girder that had Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, to penetrate the last passenger car. Eight been displaced when a towboat, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., passengers were fatally injured, and 12 pushing six barges, struck a railroad Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone: passengers sustained serious injuries. bridge near Mobile, Alabama. The 202–632–3191). (NTSB/RAR–93/02.) train’s three locomotives, the baggage Further, in response to the New Jersey Moreover, passenger trains are and dormitory cars, and two of its six Transit and MARC train accidents in vulnerable to accidents caused by passenger cars fell into the water. Forty- early 1996, FRA issued Emergency vandalism and sabotage. two passengers and five crewmembers Order No. 20 (Notice No. 1) on February • On October 9, 1995, an Amtrak were killed. All passengers died from 20, 1996, requiring prompt action to train derailed near Hyder, Arizona, asphyxia due to drowning, and the immediately enhance passenger train while operating at 50 mph on Southern train’s three locomotive engineers died operating rules and emergency egress Pacific Transportation Company from asphyxia and blunt force trauma and to develop an interim system safety trackage because the railroad track while inside the lead locomotive that plan addressing the safety of operations structure had been sabotaged. The became filled with mud. Two other that permit passengers to occupy the derailment killed an Amtrak employee employees died from smoke inhalation leading car in a train. 61 FR 6876, Feb. who occupied a passenger car which inside the dormitory coach car which 22, 1996. Both the New Jersey Transit had rolled over onto its side. Seventy- had caught on fire. (NTSB Railroad- and MARC train accidents involved eight passengers were also injured. (FRA Marine Accident Report 94/01.) operations where a cab car occupied the Report C–62–95.) Further, in the 1996 Silver Spring, lead position in a passenger train. The • On May 21, 1993, an Amtrak train Maryland, train collision between the Emergency Order explained that in traveling at approximately 45 mph MARC and Amtrak trains, fire erupted collisions involving the front of a derailed after striking two pieces of steel after the fuel tank of one of the Amtrak passenger train, operating with a cab car pipe which had been lodged between locomotives was breached. Fuel oil in the forward position or a multiple the rails of a turnout near Opa-Locka, spilled into the MARC train’s cab car unit (MU) locomotive, i.e., a self- Florida. Six of the train’s passengers and through the openings in the torn car propelled locomotive with passenger crewmembers were injured. (FRA body. The forward section of the cab car seating, presents an increased risk of Report C–34–93.) was incinerated. severe personal injury or death as • On August 12, 1992, an Amtrak Some dangers to passenger train compared with locomotive-hauled train traveling at 79 mph derailed at occupants, such as fire and smoke, may service when the locomotive occupies Newport News, VA, after being also arise independently without being the lead position in the train and unexpectedly diverted into a railroad associated with a train collision or thereby acts as a buffer for the trailing siding because of a vandalized track derailment. passenger cars. This risk is of particular 49732 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules concern where operations are conducted In the context of improving railroad including this one, to tourist, scenic, at relatively higher speeds, where there communications, RSAC has established historic, and excursion railroads. After is a mix of various types of trains, and a working group to specifically address appropriate consultation with the where there are numerous highway-rail communication facilities and excursion railroad associations takes crossings over which large motor procedures, with a strong emphasis on place, passenger equipment safety vehicles are operated. Accordingly, the passenger train emergency requirements for these operations may Emergency Order required in particular requirements. FRA expects that group be proposed by FRA that are different that ‘‘railroads operating scheduled will report recommendations to RSAC from those affecting other types of intercity or commuter rail service * ** early in 1997. FRA anticipates that those passenger train operations. Any such conduct an analysis of their operations recommendations will address the issue requirements proposed by FRA will be and file with FRA an interim safety plan of whether there should be redundant part of a separate rulemaking indicating the manner in which risk of communications capability on all proceeding. a collision involving a cab car is passenger trains. Approach addressed.’’ 61 FR 6879. The Emergency Order also noted that Scope of the Proposed Rule The proposed regulations are there is a need to ensure that emergency Through this Notice, FRA proposes to principally designed to apply to two exits are clearly marked and in operable establish a comprehensive set of groups of equipment. The first group is condition on all passenger lines, necessary safety regulations for railroad identified as Tier I equipment and regardless of the equipment or train passenger equipment. These safety consists of railroad passenger control system used. Although FRA standards will improve the safety of rail equipment operated at speeds not Safety Glazing Standards, 49 CFR Part passenger service. exceeding 125 mph. The second group 223, require that passenger cars have a In commenting on the ANPRM, the is identified as Tier II equipment and minimum of four emergency window General Railway Signal Corporation consists of railroad passenger exits ‘‘designed to permit rapid and easy (GRS) expressed concern that FRA has equipment operated at speeds greater removal during a crisis situation,’’ the focused on equipment crashworthiness than 125 mph but not exceeding 150 Silver Spring accident raised concerns without sufficiently addressing crash mph. FRA is not proposing a rule of that at least some of the occupants of the avoidance. GRS noted that the general applicability for railroad MARC train attempted unsuccessfully to underlying systems which can provide passenger equipment operated at speeds exit through the windows. The crash avoidance and the related systems exceeding 150 mph. FRA believes that Emergency Order requires ‘‘that any safety elements involving a vitally the safety of such passenger equipment emergency windows that are not already integrated crash avoidance control must be addressed in a rule of a legibly marked as such on the inside system include much more than the particular applicability for an individual and outside be so marked, and that a elements onboard a train. railroad. representative sample of all such As explained in the ANPRM (61 FR The speed break points between Tier windows be examined to ensure 30683), and as is evident in Emergency I and Tier II equipment have been operability.’’ 61 FR 6880. On February Order No. 20, FRA recognizes that rail chosen because most of the nation’s 29, 1996, FRA issued Notice No. 2 to passenger safety does involve the safety intercity passenger and commuter rail Emergency Order No. 20 to refine three of the railroad system as a whole, equipment has demonstrated an ability aspects of the original order, including including the track structure, signal and to operate safely at speeds up to 125 providing more detailed guidance on train control systems, operating mph. Nevertheless, FRA recognizes that the emergency egress sampling procedures, and station- and platform- most of this same equipment is provision. 61 FR 8703, Mar. 5, 1996. to-train interface design—in addition to currently operated only at speeds of 110 In addition, FRA submitted a report to passenger equipment safety. To that mph or less. As a result, the proposed Congress on locomotive end, FRA has active rulemaking and rule contains particular suspension crashworthiness and working research projects in a variety of contexts system safety requirements for conditions on September 18, 1996, and that address non-equipment aspects of passenger equipment operating at subsequently referred the issues raised passenger railroad safety, including speeds above 110 mph but not in the report to the Railroad Safety signal and train control systems. exceeding 125 mph, near the transition Advisory Committee (RSAC). FRA Nevertheless, this proposed rule is range from Tier I to Tier II requirements. established RSAC in March of 1996, to designed to address the specific Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 20133(a), FRA provide FRA with advice and statutory mandate that minimum safety may apply some or all of the proposed recommendations on railroad safety standards be prescribed for the safety of standards to passenger cars existing at matters. See 61 FR 9740, Mar. 11, 1996. cars used to transport railroad the time the regulations are published, RSAC consists of 48 individual passengers. Signal and train control as well as to new cars, but FRA must representatives, drawn from 27 systems are not the focus of this explain the basis for applying any such organizations representing various rail rulemaking. standards to existing cars. FRA believes industry perspectives, and two associate FRA received comments from the that passenger railroad equipment nonvoting representatives from the SBA and on behalf of the Minnesota operating in permanent service in the agencies with railroad safety regulatory Transportation Museum, Inc., about this United States has established a good responsibility in Canada and Mexico. rulemaking’s effect on tourist, scenic, safety record, proving its compatibility RSAC will make recommendations as to historic, and excursion railroads. The with the operating environment. the best way to address the findings of proposed rule does not apply to these Moreover, FRA seeks to maximize the the report to Congress, including railroads. Instead, the proposed rule benefits resulting from the passenger voluntary initiatives, and regulatory applies to railroads that provide railroad industry’s investment in any standards where appropriate. As a intercity passenger and commuter safety requirements which FRA may result, FRA may initiate a separate service. A joint FRA/industry working impose through this rule. Accordingly, rulemaking proposing equipment safety group formed under RSAC is currently to be cost effective, most of the requirements for both conventional developing recommendations regarding proposed requirements would apply freight and passenger locomotives. the applicability of FRA regulations, only to new or rebuilt equipment. Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49733

However, certain features routinely In a letter to FRA dated June 24, 1996, usually updated annually to maintain incorporated in existing designs would Mr. Donald N. Nelson, President of their utility because of technological be required at an earlier date than the Metro-North and Chairperson of APTA’s improvements and other changed more innovative features proposed by Commuter Railroad Committee, circumstances, including changes in the this rule. Further, where appropriate, announced that commuter railroads are operating environment, rules and rebuilt equipment would be required to committed to seeking additional regulations. comply with specific requirements. opportunities to ensure the safety of The proposed rule contains system FRA intends that the rules proposed their operations beyond efforts such as safety requirements to be applied to all in this NPRM lead to the issuance of those made to comply with the interim intercity passenger and commuter rail initial passenger equipment safety system safety plan requirements of equipment. Although FRA initially regulations, which are required by Emergency Order No. 20. Mr. Nelson considered addressing system safety statute to be issued by November 2, explained in particular that commuter requirements for Tier I and Tier II 1997. See 49 U.S.C. 20133(b)(1). FRA railroads will examine and ensure the equipment separately, FRA decided to will propose additional rules for safety of their operations by adopting a propose system safety requirements passenger equipment in a second NPRM comprehensive system safety plan that: which can be applied generally to all principally when the results of further (a) Defines the overall safety effort, types of passenger equipment. Each research are available. FRA intends that how it is to be implemented and the individual railroad would be required to the second NPRM lead to the issuance staff required to maintain it; develop a system safety plan and a of final regulations by November 2, (b) Establishes the safety interface system safety program tailored to its 1999, thereby completing the within the railroad, as well as with its specific operation, including train rulemaking within the five-year period key outside agencies; speed. The plan required by this part required by law. See 49 U.S.C. (c) Clearly indicates Senior would be developed as part of a 20133(b)(2). To that end, FRA convened Management support for implementing comprehensive system safety process to a meeting of the Working Group on the safety plan and the railroad’s overall which commuter railroads are already December 10–11, 1996, at the Volpe commitment to safety; committed. Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, to (d) Establishes the safety philosophy Through the system safety process, determine and set priorities for the of the organization and provides the each railroad would be required to research necessary to address means for implementation; identify, evaluate, and seek to eliminate unresolved safety issues identified in (e) Defines the authority and or reduce the hazards associated with prior Working Group meetings. responsibilities of the safety the use of passenger equipment over the Moreover, FRA hopes that the organization and delineates the safety railroad system. In particular, the establishment of final regulations in related authority and responsibilities of proposed rule would require that each 1999 will be furthered by APTA’s own other departments; and intercity passenger and commuter initiative to develop and maintain (f) Incorporates safety goals and railroad prepare a system safety plan recommended industry standards for objectives into the overall corporate addressing, at a minimum: rail passenger equipment. APTA’s effort strategic plan. • Fire protection; is being carried out through the (APTA’s Commuter Railroad Committee • Software safety; Passenger Rail Equipment Safety letter at pages 1 and 2.) Further, the • Equipment inspection, testing, and Standards (PRESS) Task Force, and system safety plan is intended to be maintenance; APTA has invited FRA, FTA, the NTSB, updated through periodic safety reviews • Employee training and equipment manufacturers, engineering of all operations. qualifications; and and consulting firms, rail labor, and In a letter to FRA dated October 21, • Pre-revenue service acceptance others with an interest in rail passenger 1996, Mr. Donald N. Nelson submitted testing of equipment. equipment to work with it in developing for FRA’s review APTA’s ‘‘Manual for However, because FRA is also proposing and effectuating the recommended the Development of a System Safety a comprehensive set of mandatory, standards. This represents a substantial Plan for Commuter Railroads’’ (APTA equipment safety standards in this rule, and continuing investment by member Manual). The APTA Manual is intended FRA is generally not proposing to commuter authorities in the safety of to assist commuter railroads in adopting enforce every element of a railroad’s rail passenger service. a comprehensive system safety plan by system safety plan. The section-by- September 1, 1997. In addition, Amtrak section analysis identifies those System Safety recently began a corporate system safety portions of the system safety plan that FRA believes that passenger railroads program initiative to make system safety will be enforced by FRA. Commenters should carefully evaluate their formally an integral part of Amtrak’s are requested to address whether FRA operations with a view toward operations. The value of the system should mandate the contents of system enhancing the safety of those safety process is rapidly being safety plans, whether the areas operations. The importance of formal recognized and accepted by the identified by FRA are appropriate, safety planning has been recognized in passenger railroad industry. whether additional areas should be Emergency Order No. 20 and the The System Safety Society (the added, and whether FRA should enforce proposed rule on passenger train ‘‘Society’’), which provided detailed other portions of the system safety plans emergency preparedness. As noted, comments in response to the ANPRM, and, if so, which portions. Should the Emergency Order No. 20, Notice No. 1, observed that the use of the systems proposed rule require that system safety required that ‘‘railroads operating approach to safety is very actively plans be comprehensive and address the scheduled intercity or commuter rail followed in many other industries. The entire railroad system in which the service . . . conduct an analysis of their Society noted that the implementation equipment operates? Should the operations and file with FRA an interim of system safety plans has been emergency preparedness planning safety plan indicating the manner in observed to improve safety by reducing requirements contained in proposed 49 which risk of a collision involving a cab accidents and incidents. Further, the CFR part 239 (See the Passenger Train car is addressed.’’ 61 FR 6879. Society explained that safety plans are Emergency Preparedness rulemaking, 49734 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules designated as FRA No. PTEP–1 (62 FR corrective action until these measures are from the passenger compartment of the 8330, Feb. 24, 1997)) be expressly incorporated into minimum passenger car rail vehicle. If emergency door-release integrated with the system safety safety standards. (Class I, Urgent Action) (R– mechanisms are located inside the planning requirements contained in this 96–7) passenger compartments of such proposed part (49 CFR part 238)? (In a letter to FRA dated June 24, 1996, vehicles, exiting the vehicles in an APTA, citing to the fact that the the NTSB announced that it has added emergency through side doors in the commuter railroads have voluntarily ‘‘Safety of Passengers in Railroad vestibules may be complicated as agreed to adopt system safety plans, has Passenger Cars’’ to its list of ‘‘Most passengers try to locate the mechanisms objected to FRA issuing any regulations Wanted’’ transportation safety and move between the vestibule and governing such plans. Commenters are improvements.) passenger compartment areas. requested to address APTA’s suggestion In the discussion accompanying the In response to the NTSB’s safety that the commuter railroads be allowed safety recommendation, the NTSB recommendation, passenger railroads to regulate themselves in this area. FRA expressed concern that emergency that operate rail equipment with end understands that APTA’s system safety quick-release mechanisms for the vestibules have agreed to relocate approach will be more comprehensive exterior side doors on MARC’s emergency door-release mechanisms so than what FRA is proposing and address Sumitomo rail cars are located in a that they are located adjacent to the each commuter railroad’s system more secured cabinet some distance from the doors which they control. However, as an integrated whole, not focused doors that they control, and the agreement could not be reached on a principally on rail equipment. FRA will emergency controls for each door are time-table for retrofitting existing carefully consider the comments not readily accessible and identifiable. equipment. APTA has proposed that the received in deciding what approach to Each cabinet door was secured by two retrofit be required on all such take in the final rule with respect to fasteners, requiring a screwdriver or passenger equipment when it is system safety plans. coin to open. The NTSB believes that overhauled in the course of each Passenger railroads should seek to the emergency quick-release railroad’s equipment overhaul cycle. employ all means necessary to reduce mechanisms for exterior doors on APTA anticipates that under this the risks associated with the use of MARC rail cars should be well marked process retrofitting the entire fleet of passenger equipment over their systems and relocated, so that they are affected equipment will be such as by improving the immediately adjacent to the door which accomplished within 10 to 15 years. crashworthiness of their equipment or they control and readily accessible for FRA believes that the retrofit must be by imposing operational limitations on emergency escape. accomplished sooner to ensure the its use. Further, because many safety of passenger train occupants. Access to Emergency Door-Release for Consequently, FRA is proposing in passenger railroads operate at least in Power-0perated Doors § 238.237 that for equipment operated at part as a tenant on the right-of-way of In response to the NTSB’s speeds not exceeding 125 mph (Tier I another railroad and may not in recommendation, FRA inspected a total equipment), within two years of the themselves be able to control some of of 1,250 pieces of equipment in use on effective date of the final rule each the major system hazards, as 16 commuter organizations. In addition powered, exterior side door in a demonstrated when an intermodal to MARC rail cars, FRA found that some vestibule that is partitioned from the trailer from a CSXT freight train struck commuter railroads operate cars with passenger compartment of a passenger an Amtrak train operating on an power doors equipped with emergency car be equipped with a manual override adjacent track in Selma, North Carolina, door-release levers located inside that is: (1) capable of opening the door all railroads are encouraged to exploit cabinets requiring special tools to enter. without power from inside the car; (2) ways to reduce the risks associated with In large part, these railroads have located adjacent to the door which it rail travel to their employees, committed to the voluntary elimination controls; and (3) designed and passengers, and the general public. of latches requiring tools or other maintained so that a person may access Emergency Egress and Access implements to access the emergency- the override device from inside the car without requiring the use of any tool or During the NTSB’s investigation of release levers on power-operated doors. FRA convened a joint meeting of the other implement. the February 16, 1996, collision between Passenger Equipment Safety Standards FRA expects that railroads will the MARC and Amtrak trains in Silver Working Group and the Passenger Train expedite this retrofit program and Spring, Maryland, that agency identified Emergency Preparedness Working believes that this retrofit can be unsafe conditions on MARC’s rail cars Group on March 26, 1996, to discuss the completed well in advance of the 2-year that had been manufactured by NTSB’s recommendations and deadline. APTA maintains that the Sumitomo. Concerned that the unsafe incorporate the Safety Board’s findings, supply industry cannot provide the conditions identified on these rail cars as appropriate, into each working necessary materials to complete the may exist on other commuter lines group’s rulemaking. In accordance with retrofit in such time without subject to FRA oversight, on March 12, the consensus of the working groups, unreasonable increases in costs, and 1996, the NTSB recommended that FRA is proposing in §§ 238.237 and believes that a 3 to 5 year time frame is FRA: 238.441 of the rule that train passengers needed. (Commenters are requested to Inspect all commuter rail equipment to and crewmembers be able to access address whether a shorter or longer time determine whether it has: (1) easily door-release mechanisms without the period should be established and, if so, accessible interior emergency quick-release use of any tool or other implement. provide the rationale for the time period mechanisms adjacent to exterior passageway that the commenter recommends. doors; (2) removable windows or kick panels Relocation of Emergency Door-Release Railroads are requested to identify the in interior and exterior passageway doors; and (3) prominently displayed retroreflective NTSB advisors to the Working Group number of cars that are not yet signage marking all interior and exterior clarified that the recommendation to retrofitted.) Further, before any emergency exits. If any commuter equipment relocate emergency door-release equipment may be introduced for lacks one or more or these features, take mechanisms refers to exterior side doors service at speeds exceeding 125 mph appropriate emergency measures to ensure located in end vestibules partitioned but not exceeding 150 mph (Tier II Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49735 equipment), FRA is proposing in information on them, when legible, enter the vehicle as a result of a § 238.441 that each powered, exterior directed emergency responders to highway-rail grade crossing accident or side door on a passenger car be another sign at the end of the car for other collision. As a result, FRA will equipped with a manual override instructions on how to open emergency further examine the concerns involving meeting the above and additional exits. the use of kick panels on Tier I requirements. Through the issuance of Emergency equipment in the second phase of this FRA believes that the cost of meeting Order No. 20, FRA has addressed on an rulemaking. the retrofit requirement will be $3.7 interim basis the inspection of required Additional emergency egress and million dollars, and recognizes that it is emergency exits, and emergency exit access topics addressed in this proposed not clear whether the occupants of the signage and marking. Further, FRA is rule are discussed below in the MARC train in the Silver Spring, proposing requirements concerning the Emergency Systems section of this Maryland, accident could have opened marking of emergency exits, as well as preamble. Emergency egress and access the vestibule exterior side doors after instructions for their use, in the related topics are also addressed in the related the collision, assuming that the rulemaking on passenger train rulemaking on passenger train emergency-release had been employed. emergency preparedness. FRA shares emergency preparedness. See 62 FR The NTSB did note that the left and the NTSB’s concern about passenger 8330, Feb. 24, 1997. right rear exterior side doors of the first egress in an emergency; however, FRA car and the front interior end door and believes that the NTSB’s suggestion to Power Brake Inspection and Testing the right front exterior door of the install kick panels is best limited to In 1992, Congress amended the second car on the MARC train were interior doors to ensure passage through Federal rail safety laws by adding jammed. However, FRA believes it must a train in an emergency—and not certain statutory mandates related to institute the retrofit requirement to applied to exterior doors. power brake safety. These amendments decrease the risk that passengers cannot To the best of FRA’s knowledge, the specifically address the revision of the rapidly exit a train in a life-threatening concept of kick panels has not been power brake regulations and state in situation. utilized in North American rail pertinent part: FRA recognizes that passenger equipment. Installing kick panels below (r) POWER BRAKE SAFETY.—(1) The railroads have located door-release the window levels in exterior doors was Secretary shall conduct a review of the mechanisms away from the doors which evaluated by FRA, with concurrence Department of Transportation’s rules with they control to discourage passengers from the joint working groups, as respect to railroad power brakes, and not from exiting trains in non-emergency unacceptable for safety reasons. Because later than December 31, 1993, shall revise situations. When no emergency is passenger railroads have encountered such rules based on such safety data as may present, passengers exiting trains along recurring situations in which passengers be presented during that review. the railroad right-of-way unnecessarily have inappropriately exited moving * * * * * risk exposure to oncoming trains, trains, leading to death or serious injury, Pub. L. No. 102–365, § 7; codified at 49 electrical hazards, and other dangerous introducing kick panels in exterior U.S.C. 20141, superseding 45 U.S.C. conditions. In consequence, the doors would create an unacceptable risk 431(r). proposed rule permits railroads to of inadvertent use, particularly by In response to the statutory mandate, protect emergency door-release children. Penetration of occupied areas various recommendations to improve mechanisms from casual or inadvertent by objects from the outside is also a power brake safety, and due to its own use with a cover or a screen. However, potential concern. determination that the power brake the cover or screen must be capable of Use of kick panels to open regulations were in need of revision, removal by a 5th-percentile female passageways through a train has merit. FRA published an ANPRM on December without the use of any tool or other If panels can be made sufficiently large 31, 1992, concerning railroad power implement. If the method of removing without decreasing the functionality of brake safety. See 57 FR 62546. The the protective cover or screen entails doors in normal operation, such a ANPRM provided background breaking or shattering it, the cover or feature may facilitate evacuation information and presented questions on screen shall be scored, perforated, or through the length of the train if exterior various subjects related to intercity otherwise weakened so that a 5th- side doors are jammed. Evacuation passenger and commuter train percentile female can penetrate the throughout the length of the train is operations, including: training of testing cover or screen with a single blow of her often the safest route of egress in and inspection personnel; electronic fist without injury to her hand. situations such as fires, derailments in braking systems; cleaning, oiling, multiple track territory, and incidents in testing, and stenciling (COT&S) Additional Egress Issues third-rail powered commuter service. requirements; performance of brake The NTSB noted that none of the car Accordingly, FRA is proposing in inspections; and high speed passenger doors on the MARC train involved in § 238.441 of the rule that Tier II train brakes. Following publication of the Silver Spring, Maryland, accident passenger car end doors be equipped the ANPRM, FRA conducted a series of had removable windows or pop-out with a kick-out panel, pop-out window public workshops. The ANPRM and the emergency escape panels (‘‘kick or other similar means of egress in the public workshops were intended as fact- panels’’) for use in an emergency. In event the doors will not open. finding tools to elicit views of those addition, the NTSB stated that several Unlike a Tier II passenger train which persons outside FRA charged with train passengers were unaware of the should operate as a fixed unit, the ensuring compliance with the power locations of emergency exits, and none interchangeable use of some cab cars brake regulations on a day-to-day basis. knew how to operate them. The NTSB and MU locomotives as leading and Furthermore, on July 26, 1993, the found that the interior emergency trailing units on a Tier I passenger train NTSB made the following window decals were not prominently will complicate analyzing the efficacy of recommendation to FRA: ‘‘Amend the displayed and that one car had no installing such panels on Tier I power brake regulations, 49 Code of interior emergency window decals. equipment. It would be unacceptable to Federal Regulations 232.12, to provide Also, the exterior emergency decals have a removable panel at the point of appropriate guidelines for inspecting were often faded or obliterated, and the a train where objects or fluids might brake equipment on modern passenger 49736 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules cars.’’ (R–93–16). The recommendation on the 1994 NPRM, emphasizing the annually. In addition, between January arose out of the NTSB’s investigation of differences between passenger and 1, 1995 and October 31, 1996, FRA the December 17, 1991, derailment of an freight operations and the brake inspected approximately 13,000 Amtrak passenger train in Palatka, equipment utilized by the two, FRA commuter and intercity passenger rail Florida. The derailed equipment struck decided to separate passenger units for compliance with 49 CFR part two homes and blocked a street north of equipment power brake standards from 232. The defect ratio for these units the Palatka station. The derailment freight equipment power brake during this period was approximately resulted in eleven passengers sustaining standards. As passenger equipment 0.8 percent. Furthermore, during this serious injuries and 41 others receiving power brake standards are a logical same period FRA inspected minor injuries. In addition, five subset of passenger equipment safety approximately 6,300 locomotives for members of the operating crew and four standards, FRA requested the Passenger compliance with 49 CFR part 229. The onboard service personnel received Equipment Safety Standards Working brake defect ratio for these units was minor injuries. By letter dated Group to assist FRA in developing approximately 4.65 percent. September 16, 1993, FRA told the NTSB appropriate power brake standards for Consequently, the defect ratio for brake that it was in the process of reviewing passenger equipment and then decided related defects on locomotives and other and rewriting the power brake that they would be included in this passenger equipment during this period regulations and would consider the NPRM. See 49 U.S.C. 20133(c). In was approximately 2.08 percent. NTSB’s recommendation during the addition, a second NPRM covering The existing regulations covering the process. freight equipment power brake inspection and testing of the braking Based on comments and information standards would be developed with the systems on passenger trains are received, FRA published an NPRM in assistance of FRA’s Railroad Safety contained in 49 CFR part 232. The 1994 regarding revision of the power Advisory Committee. See 61 FR 29164, current regulations do provide some brake regulations which contained June 7, 1996. Furthermore, in the requirements relevant to passenger train specific requirements related to intercity interest of public safety and due to operations, including: initial terminal passenger and commuter train statutory as well as internal inspection and testing, intermediate operations. These specific requirements commitments, FRA determined that it inspections, running tests, and general included: general design requirements; would separate the issues related to maintenance requirements. See 49 CFR movement of defective equipment; two-way end-of-train-telemetry devices 232.12, 232.13(a), 232.16, and 232.17. employee qualifications; inspection and from both the passenger and freight However, most of the existing testing requirements; single car testing issues. FRA convened a public regulations are written to address freight requirements and periodic maintenance; regulatory conference and published a train operations and do not sufficiently operating requirements; and final rule on the subject on January 2, address the unique operating requirements for the introduction of 1997. See 62 FR 278. environment of commuter and intercity new train brake system technology. See Beginning in December of 1995, the passenger train operations or the 59 FR 47722–47753, September, 16, Passenger Equipment Safety Standards equipment currently being used in those 1994. Working Group adopted the additional operations. Therefore, it has been Following publication of the 1994 task of attempting to develop power necessary for FRA to provide NPRM (59 FR 47676), FRA held a series brake standards applicable to intercity interpretations of some of the current of public hearings in 1994 to allow passenger and commuter train regulations in order to address these interested parties the opportunity to operations and equipment. The Working unique concerns. comment on specific issues addressed Group met on four separate occasions in Currently, all non-MU (multiple unit) in the 1994 NPRM. Public hearings were the last six months, which consisted of commuter trains that do not remain held in Chicago, Illinois, on November ten days of meetings, with a good connected to a source of compressed air 1–2; in Newark, New Jersey, on portion of these meetings being devoted overnight and all MU commuter trains November 4; in Sacramento, California, to discussion of power brake issues. equipped with RT–5 or similar brake on November 9; and in Washington, From the outset, a majority of the systems must receive an initial terminal D.C. on December 13–14, 1994. These members, as well as FRA, believed that inspection of the brake system pursuant hearings were attended by numerous any requirements developed by the to § 232.12(c)–(j) prior to the train’s first railroads; organizations representing group regarding the inspection and departure on any given calendar day. railroads; labor organizations; rail testing of the brake equipment should All non-MU commuter trains that shippers; and State governmental not vary significantly from the current remain connected to a source of agencies. Due to the strong objections requirements and should be consistent compressed air overnight are permitted raised by a large number of commenters, with current industry practice. to receive an initial terminal inspection FRA announced by notice published on FRA’s accident/incident data related of the brake system sometime during January 17, 1995, that it would defer to intercity passenger and commuter each 24-hour period in which they are action on the 1994 NPRM and permit train operations support the assumption used. Furthermore, all intercity the submission of additional comments that the current practices of these passenger trains must receive an initial prior to making a determination as to operations in the area of power brake terminal inspection of the brake system how it would proceed in this matter. inspection, testing, and maintenance are at the point where they are originally See 60 FR 3375. for the most part sufficient to ensure the made up and must receive an Based on these considerations and safety of the public. Between January 1, intermediate inspection in accordance after review of all the comments 1990 and October 31, 1996, there were with § 232.12(b) every 1,000 miles. submitted, FRA determined that in only five brake related accidents As noted previously, most of the order to limit the number of issues to be involving commuter and intercity members of the Working Group believed examined and developed in any one passenger railroad equipment. No that any requirements developed by the proceeding it would proceed with the casualties resulted from any of these group regarding the inspection and revision of the power brake regulations accidents and the total damage to testing of the brake equipment should via three separate processes. In light of railroad equipment totaled not vary significantly from the current the testimony and comments received approximately $650,000, or $96,000 requirements and should be consistent Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49737 with current industry practice. inspections at locations that are more of inspections based on the duties and However, the Working Group was conducive to permitting a full type of inspection required, such as: unable to reach consensus on power inspection of the equipment than many Class I; Class IA; and Class II. This is brake standards, despite the positing of of the outlying locations where trains similar to the approach taken by FRA in multiple alternatives, use of a facilitator, are stationed overnight and where the the 1994 NPRM. See 59 FR 47736–40. and the foundation provided by the ability to observe all the equipment may FRA believes that this type of 1994 NPRM. The Working Group be hampered. It is further contended classification system will avoid identified and discussed options with that, if trains are required to received confusion with the power brake which the agency and labor can agree, the equivalent of an initial terminal inspection and testing requirements and others with which FRA and the inspection at these outlying points, then applicable to freight operations and will railroads can agree. However, bridging many of these inspections may be avoid the connotations historically the gap between those various options performed by individuals not as fully attached to the current terminology. proved elusive. Consequently, as the qualified as a mechanical inspector. FRA also believes this approach is better Working Group could not reach any Whereas, if the railroads are allowed suited for providing operational type of consensus on the inspection and some flexibility in conducting these flexibility to commuter operations while testing requirements, it was determined type of inspections, then the equipment maintaining the safety provided by the that FRA would address these issues can be moved to a location where a fully current inspection and testing unilaterally, based on the information qualified mechanical inspector can requirements. Although FRA proposes a and discussions provided by the perform a detailed brake inspection change in the terminology used to Working Group and the information under optimum conditions, perhaps in describe the various power brake gathered from the 1994 NPRM. FRA is conjunction with a daily mechanical inspections and tests, the requirements interested in receiving comments on the inspection. of these inspections and tests will brake tests that it has developed given Several parties also pointed out that, closely track the current requirements the differences in the positions of the with proper maintenance, ‘‘tread brake with some modifications made to various parties. units’’ and other friction brake address the unique operating The Working Group discussed various components, commonly used in environment of, and equipment options regarding the types of brake commuter train operations, are highly operated in, commuter and intercity inspections that should be required as reliable and that the non-functioning of passenger train service. Members of the well as when and how these inspections any individual unit would in no way Working Group appeared receptive to should be performed. Labor compromise the overall safety of the this kind of classification system and representatives, particularly the BRC, train. Furthermore, permitting the discussed various options using some of insisted that a comprehensive power inspection of these types of brake this terminology. Consequently, FRA brake inspection (i.e., something similar components in the middle of the day, proposes four different types of brake to the initial terminal brake inspections rather than at the beginning of the day, inspections to be performed by currently required under § 232.12(c)–(j)) involves no greater safety risk to commuter and intercity passenger must be performed prior to a train’s first passengers because friction brake railroads some time during the run on a given calendar day. The BRC systems and their components degrade operation of the equipment. FRA expressed concern that, as equipment in performance based largely on use, proposes the terms ‘‘Class I,’’ ‘‘Class lays over between the evening and nothing short of a continuous brake IA,’’ ‘‘Class II,’’ and ‘‘running brake test’’ commuter cycle and the first trip of the inspection can guarantee 100-percent to identify the four types of brake morning, vandalism, weather changes, performance at all times. Railroad inspections required by this proposal. or other factors could affect the integrity representatives suggested an inspection of the air brake system. The BRC also scheme that would permit an in-depth, FRA also proposes to divide believes that it is necessary for the first comprehensive brake inspection to be passenger train operations into two inspection of the day to determine performed sometime during the day in distinct types for purposes of brake whether the brake shoes and the disc which the equipment is used with a inspections and testing. FRA recognizes pads actually apply as intended. The brake inspection being performed prior that there are major differences in the BRC further contends that in order to to the first run of the day verifying the operations of commuter or short- perform a comprehensive inspection continuity of the trainline by performing distance intercity passenger trains, and equivalent to an initial terminal a set and release on the rear car of the long-distance intercity passenger trains. inspection the train must be walked or train. In addition, one commuter Commuter and short-distance intercity otherwise inspected on a car-to-car railroad also requested relief from passenger trains tend to operate for basis. In addition, the BRC contends performing Class I inspections on trains fairly short distances between passenger that these principal inspections should operated in weekend service due to the stations and generally operate in be performed only by carmen or other shortage of mechanical inspectors relatively short turn-around service qualified mechanical personnel as they currently employed on those shifts. between two terminals several times in are the only employees sufficiently Based on consideration of the any given day. In contrast, long-distance trained to perform these inspections. discussions held in the Working Group intercity passenger trains tend to Representatives of intercity passenger meetings, outlined above, as well as operate for long distances, with trips and commuter railroads expressed the information obtained in relation to the between the beginning terminal and desire to have the flexibility to conduct 1994 NPRM, FRA proposes to abandon ending terminal taking a day or more a comprehensive in-depth inspection of the terminology related to the power and traversing multiple states with the train brake system sometime during brake inspection and testing relatively long distances between the day in which the equipment is requirements contained in the current passenger stations. Consequently, FRA utilized. These parties argued that safety regulations, which is generally based on proposes to use and define the terms would be better served by allowing the the locations where the inspections and ‘‘commuter train,’’ ‘‘short-distance railroads the flexibility to conduct these tests are performed (i.e., initial terminal, intercity passenger train,’’ and ‘‘long- inspections on a daily basis as it would intermediate locations). In its stead, distance intercity passenger train’’ in allow the railroads to conduct the FRA proposes to identify various classes order to identify the inspection and 49738 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules testing requirements associated with representatives that some sort of car-to- inspection with mechanical employees each. For the most part, commuter and car inspection must be made of the some time during the day, there is no short-distance intercity passenger trains brake equipment prior to the first run of requirement to do so. In addition, there are treated similarly, whereas, long- the day, FRA does not agree that it is is a certain percentage of equipment distance intercity passenger trains have necessary to perform a full Class I brake where the principal brake inspections slightly different proposed inspection test before the first run in order to are currently being performed strictly by and testing requirements. In addition, ensure the proper functioning of the train crews rather than by mechanical FRA proposes slightly different brake equipment. As FRA proposes that employees. Consequently, FRA believes requirements with regard to the Class I brake tests be a comprehensive that the proposed requirement movement of defective equipment in inspection of the braking system, incorporates the current best practices long-distance intercity passenger trains including the proper operation of of the industry and will, at a minimum, (see the discussion below on the supplemental braking systems, FRA ensure that the braking systems on all ‘‘Movement of Equipment with believes that commuter and short- commuter and short-distance intercity Defective Brakes’’). distance intercity passenger train equipment will be inspected at least APTA, in its comments on a draft of operations must be permitted some once each day by a fully qualified the NPRM, expressed opposition to the flexibility in conducting these mechanical inspector. proposed Class IA brake test. APTA’s inspections. Consequently, FRA FRA has not proposed any special position is that brake tests prior to a proposes to require that commuter and provisions for weekend operations as train’s first departure in any day should short-distance intercity passenger train suggested by some members of the be limited to a pre-departure set and operations perform a Class I brake test Working Group. FRA recognizes this is release followed by a running test of the sometime during the calendar day in a difficult issue. Existing operations brakes. APTA also expresses the belief which the equipment is used. FRA generally involve using particular sets of that the proposed NPRM Class I and believes that the flexibility permitted by equipment on only one day during the Class II requirements go well beyond this proposed requirement will allow weekend to avoid the need to refuel. On existing brake inspection processes and these railroads to move equipment to the one hand, there is no specific data that which is required for safety, and locations that are most conducive to the suggesting that existing weekend that these requirements will increase inspection of the brake equipment and operations involving inspections costs dramatically. would allow these railroads to combine exclusively by train crew members have created a safety hazard. Yet, the A. Commuter and Short-Distance the daily mechanical inspections with rationale for requiring daily attention by Intercity Passenger Trains Require a this brake inspection for added mechanical forces, a proposition Class I Brake Test Sometime During a efficiency. Furthermore, as FRA intends for these generally accepted by Working Group Day the Equipment Is Used Class I brake inspections to be in-depth members, would appear to apply The proposed Class I brake test inspections of the entire braking system equally to weekend periods. FRA basically requires an inspection similar which most likely will be performed believes that adjustments might be made to an initial terminal inspection as only one time in any given day in which to weekend operations that might avoid currently described at § 232.12(c)–(j), the equipment is used, FRA believes significant new expense while but is somewhat more extensive and that these inspections must be providing expert attention to inspection specifically aimed at the types of performed by individuals possessing not of the equipment. Accordingly, FRA equipment being used in commuter and only the knowledge to identify and seeks additional information on the intercity passenger train service. A Class detect a defective condition in all of the costs and benefits of requiring that Class I brake test would require an inspection brake equipment required to be I brake inspections and daily of the application and release of the inspected but also the knowledge to mechanical inspections be conducted by friction brakes on each side of each car recognize the interrelational workings of qualified mechanical inspectors, as well as well as an inspection of the brake the equipment and the ability to as any suggestions for alternative means shoes, pads, discs, rigging, angle cocks, ‘‘troubleshoot’’ and repair the of addressing this issue. piston travel, and brake indicators if the equipment. Therefore, FRA proposes B. Commuter and Short-Distance equipment is so equipped. The Class I that only qualified mechanical Intercity Passenger Trains Require at brake test would also require testing of inspectors be permitted to perform Class Least a Class IA Brake Test Prior to the the communication signal system and I brake tests. the emergency braking control devices. Currently, initial terminal air brake Train’s First Departure in Any Given In addition, all supplemental braking inspections are conducted prior to the Day systems would be required to be first run of the day on 554 commuter Although FRA agrees with the inspected and be working. In train sets by mechanical inspectors and position advanced by many labor recognition of the advanced technology on 168 commuter train sets by train representatives that some sort of car-to- and various designs used in many of crews or other personnel who could not car inspection must be made of the these operations, which make be fully qualified as mechanical brake equipment prior to the first run of observation of the piston travel virtually inspectors. Typically, commuter and the day, FRA does not agree that it is impossible, FRA proposes to permit the short-distance intercity passenger trains necessary to perform a full Class I brake inspection of the piston travel to be receive more than one initial terminal test in order to ensure the proper conducted either through direct test each day, even if this is not required functioning of the brake equipment in observation or by observation of a brake due to the equipment being left ‘‘off all situations. However, contrary to the actuator or the clearance between the air.’’ See 49 CFR 232.12(a). Often these position espoused by APTA, FRA brake shoe and the wheel. Furthermore, additional tests are conducted sometime believes that something more than just FRA proposes to require a brake pipe during the middle of the day by train a determination that the brakes on the leakage test only when leakage will crews or mechanical employees. rear car set and release is necessary. affect service performance. Although most commuter and short- Currently, the quality of initial Although FRA agrees with the distance intercity operations voluntarily terminal tests performed by train crews position advanced by many labor perform an initial terminal brake is likely adequate to determine that Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49739 brakes apply on each car. However, C. Long-distance Intercity Passenger with the comprehensive nature of the most commuter equipment utilizes Trains Require a Class I Brake Test Prior proposed Class I brake tests and ‘‘tread brake units’’ in lieu of cylinders to Departure From an Originating mechanical safety inspections both and brake rigging of the kind prevalent Terminal and Once Each Calendar Day being performed by qualified on freight and some intercity passenger the Equipment Is Used or Every 1,500 mechanical inspectors, FRA proposes to cars. It is undoubtedly the case that Miles, Whichever Occurs First permit long-distance passenger trains to train crew members do not verify As noted above, FRA recognizes the travel up to 1,500 miles between Class application of the brakes by tapping differences between commuter or short- I brake tests. Consequently, FRA brake shoes while the brakes are distance intercity operations and long- proposes to eliminate the 1,000-mile applied, the only effective means of distance intercity passenger train inspection for these trains and proposes to require that the proposed Class I determining that adequate force is being operations. Long-distance intercity passenger trains do not operate in brake test be performed once every applied. This is one reason why the calendar day that the equipment is used subject railroads typically conduct shorter turn around service over the same sections of track on a daily basis or every 1,500 miles, which every redundant initial terminal tests at other occurs first. times during the day. Further, train for the purpose of transporting crews are not asked to inspect for wheel passengers from major centers of D. The Brake Inspection and Testing defects and other unsafe conditions, nor employment. Instead, these trains tend Intervals for Long-distance Intercity should they be asked to do so, given the to operate for extended periods of time, Passenger Trains Apply to All Tier II conditions under which they are asked over long distances with greater Equipment Regardless of Whether the distances between passenger stations Equipment is Used in Short- or Long- to inspect and the training they receive. and terminals. Further, these trains may distance Intercity Trains FRA proposes that, at a minimum, a operate well over 1,000 miles in any 24 FRA also proposes to apply the brake Class IA brake test be performed prior hour period. Thus, the opportunity for inspection and testing intervals to a commuter or short-distance conducting inspections on these trains proposed for long-distance passenger intercity passenger train’s first departure is somewhat diminished. Therefore, trains to all Tier II equipment (i.e., on any given day. FRA believes that the FRA believes that a thorough inspection equipment operating at speeds greater proposed Class IA brake is sufficiently of the braking system on these types of than 125 mph but not exceeding 150 detailed to ensure the proper operations must be conducted prior to mph) regardless of whether it is used in functioning of the brake system yet not the train’s departure from an initial short- or long-distance intercity trains. so intensive that it requires individuals starting terminal. Consequently, FRA As FRA proposes to permit operators of to perform an inspection for which they will not permit the use of Class IA brake Tier II equipment to develop inspection are not qualified. tests for these trains and proposes to and testing criteria and procedures, require that a Class I brake inspection be The proposed Class IA brake test is these operations will be required to performed on long-distance intercity somewhat less comprehensive than a develop a brake test that is equivalent to passenger trains prior to departure from a Class I brake test for Tier II equipment. Class I brake test but includes a detailed an initial terminal. FRA does not believe inspection of the brake system to verify Due to the speeds at which this there would be any significant burden equipment will be allowed to operate, the continuity of the brake system and placed on these operations as the FRA believes it is a necessity that an the proper functioning of the brake current regulations require that an equivalent Class I brake test be valves on each car. A Class IA brake test initial terminal inspection be performed performed on Tier II equipment before would be similar to the intermediate at these locations. Furthermore, it departs from its initial terminal. brake inspection currently required for virtually all of the initial terminal Likewise, FRA proposes to require that freight trains prescribed at inspections currently conducted on the equivalent Class I brake test be § 232.13(d)(1). A Class IA brake test these types of trains are performed by performed every calendar day in which would generally require a walking individuals who would be considered the equipment is used or every 1,500 inspection of the set and release of the qualified mechanical employees under miles, whichever comes first. brakes on each car; however, the this proposal. E. Class II Brake Test Required Where proposal would allow brake indicators FRA also recognizes that these long- Minor Changes to a Train Consist Occur to be used to verify the set and release distance intercity passenger trains could if the railroad determines that operating conceivably travel over 3,000 miles if In addition to the proposed Class I conditions pose a safety hazard to an Class I inspections were required only and Class IA brake tests, FRA also inspector walking along the train. The once every 24 hours the equipment is in proposes a Class II brake test. The Class IA brake test would also require a service as proposed for commuter and proposed Class II brake test is an leakage test if leakage affects service short-distance intercity passenger trains. inspection intended to verify the performance, as well as an inspection Thus, FRA believes that some outside continuity of the train brake system and mileage limit must be placed on these is similar to the intermediate terminal of: angle cocks; piston travel, if trains between brake inspections. inspection currently prescribed at determinable; brake indicators; Currently, a passenger train is permitted § 232.13(a). A Class II brake test would emergency brake control devices; and to travel no further than 1,000 miles basically require a set and release of the communication of brake pipe pressure from its initial terminal, at which point brakes on the rear car. The proposed changes at the rear of train to the it must receive an intermediate Class II test would be required in those controlling locomotive. FRA believes inspection of brakes that includes circumstances where minor changes to that a qualified mechanical inspector or application of the brakes and the a train consist occur. These include the a properly trained and qualified train inspection of the brake rigging to ensure change of a control stand, the removal crew member could perform a Class IA it is properly secured. See 49 CFR of cars from the consist, the addition of brake test. 232.12(b). However, in recognition of previously tested cars, and the the improved technology used in situations in which an operator first passenger train brake systems combined takes control of the train. 49740 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules

F. Running Brake Tests trainline, the statutory requirement is in disruption of this service, when FRA also proposes to require a essence a requirement that 100 percent applying the requirements regarding the running brake test as soon as conditions of the cars in a train have operative movement of equipment with defective safely permit it to be conducted after a power brakes, unless being hauled for brakes on a day-to-day basis. In train receives a Class I, Class IA, or repairs pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 20303. addition, the representatives of Class II brake test. FRA believes that this Consequently, FRA currently requires commuter and intercity passenger train test should be conducted in accordance that equipment with defective or operations participating in this with each railroad’s operating rules. The inoperative air brakes makeup no more proceeding have requested that the ‘‘running brake test’’ requirement is than 15 percent of the train and that, if regulations be brought up to date, similar to the ‘‘running test’’ it is necessary to move the equipment recognizing that brakes will have to be requirements currently contained at from where the railroad first discovered cut out en route from time to time (e.g., it to be defective, the defective because of damage from debris placed § 232.16. equipment be moved no further than the on the track structure or because of Movement of Equipment With Defective nearest place on the railroad’s line sticking brakes) and that contemporary Brakes where the necessary repairs can be braking systems and established The current regulations do not made or, at the option of the receiving stopping distances provide a very contain requirements pertaining to the carrier, to a repair point that is no considerable margin of safety. movement of equipment with defective further than the repoint on the Furthermore, speed restrictions can power brakes. The movement of delivering line. readily be used to compensate for the equipment with these types of defects is The requirements regarding the loss of brakes on a minority of cars. FRA movement of equipment with defective currently controlled by a specific believes that affirmatively recognizing or insecure brakes noted above can and statutory provision originally enacted in appropriate movement restrictions do create safety hazards as well as 1910, which states: would actually enhance safety, since operational difficulties in the area of compliance with the existing (a) GENERAL.—A vehicle that is equipped commuter and intercity passenger restrictions is potentially unsafe. in compliance with this chapter whose railroad operations. As the provisions Representatives from APTA proposed equipment becomes defective or insecure regarding the movement of defective a method of updating the current nevertheless may be moved when necessary to make repairs, without a penalty being brake equipment were written almost a requirements regarding the movement of imposed under section 21302 of this title, century ago, they do not address the commuter passenger equipment with from the place at which the defect or realities of these types of operations in defective brakes to bring them more in insecurity was first discovered to the nearest today’s world. Strict application of the line with the realities of today’s available place at which the repairs can be requirements has the potential of operations. The Working Group made— causing major disruptions of service discussed the proposal at length, (1) On the railroad line on which the defect which result in the creation of serious making various revisions. Although the or insecurity was discovered; or safety and security problems. For Working Group did not reach consensus (2) At the option of a connecting railroad example, requiring repairs to be made at on the issue, FRA believes that the carrier, on the railroad line of the connecting the nearest location where the necessary proposed requirements are within the carrier, if not further than the place of repair described in clause (1) of this subsection. repairs can be made could result in scope of options discussed by the group. passengers being discharged between FRA believes that the proposed 49 U.S.C. 20303(a) (emphasis added). stations where adequate facilities for restrictions are very conservative and Although there is no limit contained their safety are not available or in the effectively ensure a high level of safety in 49 U.S.C. 20303 as to the number of overcrowding of station platforms and in light of the reliability of braking cars with defective equipment that may trailing trains due to discharging systems currently used in commuter be hauled in a train, FRA has a passengers from a defective train at a and intercity passenger train operations. longstanding interpretation which location other than the passenger’s FRA recognizes that some of the requires that, at a minimum, 85 percent destination. In addition, strict proposed restrictions are not in accord of the cars in a train have operative application of the statutory with the requirement contained in 49 brakes. FRA bases this interpretation on requirements could result in the moving U.S.C. 20303(a) that cars with defective another statutory requirement which of trains with defective brake equipment or insecure brakes be moved to the permits a railroad to use a train only if against the current of traffic during busy ‘‘nearest’’ location where the necessary ‘‘at least 50 percent of the vehicles in commuting hours. Irregular movements repairs can be made. However, FRA the train are equipped with power or of this type increase the risk of does have authority under 49 U.S.C. train brakes and the engineer is using collisions on the railroad. Furthermore, 20306, entitled ‘‘Exemption for the power or train brakes on those many of today’s commuter train technological improvements,’’ to vehicles and on all other vehicles operations often utilize six cars or less establish the proposed restrictions. equipped with them that are associated in trains and in many instances operate Section 20306 provides: with those vehicles in a train.’’ 49 just two-car trains. Consequently, the [T]he Secretary of Transportation may U.S.C. 20302(a)(5)(B). As originally necessity to cut out the brakes on one exempt from the requirements of this chapter enacted in 1903, section 20302 also car can easily result in noncompliance railroad equipment or equipment that will be granted the Interstate Commerce with the 85-percent requirement for operated on rails, when those requirements Commission (ICC) the authority to hauling the car for repairs, thus preclude the development or implementation increase this percentage, and in 1910 prohibiting the train’s movement and of more efficient railroad transportation the ICC issued an order increasing the resulting in the same type of safety equipment or other transportation minimum percentage to 85 percent. See problems noted above. innovations under existing law. 49 CFR 232.1, which codified the ICC FRA has attempted to recognize the This provision was originally enacted as order. nature of commuter and intercity a part of the Rock Island Railroad As virtually all freight cars are passenger operations and the Transition and Employee Assistance Act presently equipped with power brakes importance of addressing the safety of to authorize the use of RoadRailer and are operated on an associated passengers, as well as avoiding trailers as freight cars. See Pub. L. 96– Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49741

254 (May 30, 1980). Although it could • The use of a separate trainline from with railroad safety,’’ the basic test for be argued that the purpose of the the locomotive main reservoir to waiving safety requirements issued provision is too narrow to comprehend continuously charge supply reservoirs under other, general provisions of the the instant application, FRA believes independent of the brake pipe train line. code. See 49 U.S.C. 20103(d). It should that the use of the provision as • Brake ratios that are 21⁄2 times be noted that the exemption granted to contemplated in this proposal is greater than the brake ratios of loaded these operations does not include an consistent with the authority granted freight cars. exemption from 49 U.S.C. 20303(c), the Secretary of Transportation in 49 Although some of the technologies which contains the liability provisions U.S.C. 20306. As noted previously, the noted above have existed for several attendant with the movement statutory requirements regarding the decades, most of the technologies were equipment with defective or insecure movement of equipment with defective not in wide spread use until after 1980. safety appliances, including power brake equipment were written nearly a Furthermore, most of the noted brakes. Consequently, the liability century ago and, in FRA’s opinion, were technological advances just started to be provisions contained in 49 U.S.C. focused generally on the operation of integrated into one efficient and reliable 20303(c) will be applicable to a railroad freight equipment and did not braking system within the last decade. when hauling equipment with defective contemplate the types of commuter and In addition to the technological or insecure power brakes pursuant to intercity passenger train operations advances, commuter and intercity the requirements proposed by FRA in currently prevalent throughout the passenger train operations have this notice. nation. Since the original enactment in experienced considerable growth in the FRA also proposes to exempt 1910 of the provisions now codified at last 15 years necessitating the need to commuter and intercity passenger train 49 U.S.C. 20303(a), there have been provide more reliable and efficient operations from its longstanding substantial changes both in the nature of service to the riding public. Since 1980, interpretation, based on 49 U.S.C. the operations of passenger trains as the number of commuter operations 20302(a)(5)(B) and 49 CFR 232.1 noted well as in the technology used in those providing rail service has almost above, prohibiting the movement of a operations. doubled and the number of daily train if more than 15 percent of the cars Contemporary passenger equipment passengers serviced by passenger in the train have defective, insecure, or incorporates various types of advanced operations has more than doubled over inoperative brakes. As discussed braking systems; in some cases these the same time period. Furthermore, previously, such a limitation is overly commuter and intercity passenger train include electrical activation of brakes on burdensome and has the potential of operations conduct more frequent single each car (with pneumatic application creating safety hazards due to the short car tests, COT&S, and maintenance of through the train line available as a length of the trains commonly operated the braking systems than is generally the backup). Dynamic brakes are also in commuter and intercity passenger practice in the freight industry. typically employed to limit thermal service. Consequently, the technology Based on the preceding discussions, stresses on friction surfaces and to limit incorporated into the brake equipment FRA proposes various restrictions on the wear and tear on the brake used in today’s commuter and intercity the movement of vehicles with defective equipment. Furthermore, the brake passenger train operations has increased brake equipment which allow commuter valves and brake components used the reliability of the braking system and and intercity passenger train operations today are far more reliable than was the permits the safe operation of the to take advantage of the efficiencies case several decades ago. In addition to equipment for extended distances even created due to the advanced braking these technological advances, the brake though a portion of the braking system systems these operations employ as well equipment used in commuter and may be inoperative or defective. as the improvements made in brake intercity passenger train operations In the face of these technological equipment over the years, while incorporate advanced technologies not advances, FRA believes it is appropriate ensuring if not enhancing the safety of found with any regularity in freight to utilize the authority granted by 49 the traveling public. FRA proposes to operations. These include: U.S.C. 20306 and exempt commuter and • permit trains to be operated with up to The use of brake cylinder pressure intercity passenger train operations from 50 percent inoperative brakes to the indicators which provide a reliable the specific restriction contained in 49 next forward passenger station or indication of the application and release U.S.C. 20303(a) requiring the movement terminal based on the percentage of of the brakes. of equipment with defective or insecure operative brakes, which may result in • The use of disc brakes which brakes to the nearest location where the movements past locations where the provide shorter stopping distances and necessary repairs could be made and necessary repairs could be made. decrease the risk of thermal damage to proposes various restrictions on the However, to ensure the safety of these wheels. movement of this type of equipment trains with lower percentages of • The ability to effectuate a graduated which FRA believes are more conducive operative brakes, FRA also proposes release of the brakes due to a design to safe operations. various speed restrictions and other feature of the brake equipment which In utilizing the authority granted operating restrictions, based on the permits more flexibility and more pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 20306, the percentage of operative brakes. FRA forgiving train control. Secretary is required to make ‘‘findings believes that the proposed speed • The ability to cut out brakes on a based on evidence developed at a restrictions are very conservative and per-axle or per-truck basis rather than a hearing,’’ unless there is ‘‘an agreement ensure a high level of safety. In fact, test per car basis, thus permitting greater use between national railroad labor data establish that with the proposed of those brakes that are operable. representatives and the developer of the speed restrictions the stopping distances • The use of a pressure-maintaining new equipment or technology.’’ FRA is of those trains with lower percentages of feature on each car which continuously confident that, after notice and operative brakes are shorter than if the maintains the air pressure in the brake opportunity for public comment, oral trains were operating at normal speed system, thereby compensating for any and written, the record will support a and had 100 percent operative brakes. leakage in the trainline and preventing finding that the proposed provisions are Consequently, FRA believes that the a total loss of air in the brake system. ‘‘in the public interest and consistent proposed approach to the movement of 49742 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules equipment with defective brakes not Thus, FRA proposes to require the • Corner posts—to protect passenger only enhances the overall safety of train operators of these trains to designate the vehicles in corner-to-corner collisions operations but benefits both the locations where repairs will be made to and impacts with objects intruding railroads, by providing operational the equipment. upon the clearance envelope; flexibility, and the traveling public, by Some of the members of the Working • Rollover strength—to prevent permitting them to get to their Group, particularly those representing significant deformation of the normally destinations in a more expedient and labor organizations, expressed concern occupied spaces of a vehicle in the safe fashion. (The proposed restrictions that any alteration of the movement for event it rolls onto its side or roof; on the movement of equipment with repair provisions made in the context of • Side impact strength—to resist defective brakes are discussed in detail commuter and intercity passenger train penetration of a passenger vehicle’s side in the section-by-section analysis operations may have a spillover effect structure from a side collision with an below.) into the freight industry. FRA wishes to object such as a highway vehicle or a make clear that it has no intention, at freight car; and Although FRA proposes to exempt all • commuter and passenger operations this time, of exempting freight Truck to car body attachment—to from the specific statutory requirement operations from the requirements prevent separation of trucks from car contained in 49 U.S.C. 20303(a), it relating to the movement of defective bodies during collisions or derailments. equipment contained in 49 U.S.C. should be noted that in reality the Corner Posts exemption being proposed is fairly 20303. As noted above, many of the advanced brake system technologies Requirements concerning corner posts limited. In FRA’s view, many of the currently used in passenger service are on rail passenger equipment have been proposed methods for moving defective not used in the freight context. the subject of an NTSB safety equipment are consistent, if not in Furthermore, even if freight operations recommendation. Following the January accordance, with the current statutory were to make similar advances in the 18, 1993, NICTD corner-to-corner train requirement. For example, FRA braking equipment they employ, this collision in Gary, Indiana, the NTSB proposes to permit a passenger train development on the freight side may not expressed concern about the adequacy with 50–75 percent operative brakes to create the efficiencies created in the of the corner post structure in self- be moved at reduced speed to the next passenger train context since the propelled passenger cars (MU forward passenger station. Although the operating environments of freight trains locomotives) that allows significant percentage of operative brakes is lower and passenger trains differ significantly. inward car body intrusion and than currently permitted by FRA’s Finally, the special safety subsequent serious injuries and longstanding agency interpretation considerations relative to passengers are fatalities in a corner-to-corner collision. (which FRA believes is fully not present in freight operations. The NTSB noted that, while MU compensated for by the proposed speed locomotives must comply with Federal restrictions), FRA believes that the Structural Standards structural design requirements which movement of the defective equipment to To help ensure the survivability of a include providing for the protection of the next passenger station is in passenger train accident, FRA is vulnerable areas of the car body in a accordance with the statutory proposing comprehensive, minimum head-on collision, Federal regulations requirement as the safety of the safety standards for the structural design do not address structural requirements passengers must be considered in of rail passenger equipment. Under for corner posts which protect the car determining the nearest location where current regulations, MU locomotives body in a corner-to-corner collision. necessary repairs can be made. In must comply with minimum structural Based on its investigation, the NTSB addition, permitting passenger trains to design requirements, see 49 CFR recommended that FRA: continue to the next forward location 229.141; however, no comparable set of In cooperation with the Federal Transit where the necessary repairs can be Federal structural design requirements performed is also consistent with the Administration and the American Public apply to other forms of passenger Transit Association, study the feasibility of statutory requirement as such equipment. Moreover, FRA believes that providing car body corner post structures on movement is necessary to ensure the existing structural design requirements all self-propelled passenger cars and control safety of the traveling public by for MU locomotives should be revised, cab locomotives to afford occupant protecting them from the hazards particularly those concerning MU protection during corner collisions. If incident to performing movements locomotives operating in trains having a feasible, amend the locomotive safety against the current of traffic. total empty weight of less than 600,000 standards accordingly. (Class II, Priority Action) (R–93–24) Furthermore, the proposed movement pounds, see § 229.141(b), because train provisions related to long-distance operation has significantly changed The Working Group has intercity passenger trains and long- since these requirements were first recommended that minimum corner distance Tier II equipment are promulgated. post structural design requirements be consistent with the current statutory The requirements contained in the proposed for both locomotives and rail requirements as the proposal permits proposed rule for the structural design cars designed to carry passengers, the movement of defective brake of Tier I and Tier II equipment are regardless whether the rail cars are self- equipment on these trains only to the specified below in the section-by- propelled or have control next passenger station or the next repair section analysis. These requirements compartments. FRA is proposing such a location, with various speed restrictions include safety standards for the requirement in this rule and thereby depending on the percentage of following: extending the scope of the NTSB’s operative brakes. Due to the unique • Anti-climbers—to prevent vehicles safety recommendation, which is technologies used on the brake systems in a passenger train from overriding or expressly limited to self-propelled rail of these operations and the unique telescoping into one another; cars. This action recognizes passenger operating environments, the facilities • Collision posts—to protect against exposure in accidents such as the one in and personnel necessary to conduct the crushing of a passenger vehicle’s Lugoff, South Carolina, on July 31, 1991. proper repairs on this equipment are occupied areas in the event of a There, eight passengers were killed somewhat specialized and limited. collision or derailment; following incursion of a freight car into Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49743 the side of two Amtrak coaches Establish, if warranted, minimum Rim-Stamped Straight-Plate Wheels beginning at the corner of each car. performance standards for locomotive fuel tanks based on the research called for in On January 13, 1994, a Ringling Bros. For cab cars, material improvements and Barnum & Bailey Circus (Ringling in actual end structure design with recommendation R–92–10. (Class III, Longer Term Action) (R–92–11) Bros.) train operating on CSXT trackage respect to corner posts must await derailed while passing through completion of further research. Research The NTSB reiterated Safety Recommendation R–92–10 in a letter to Lakeland, Florida. Two circus completed to date indicates that employees were killed, and 15 received improvements in strength alone will not FRA dated August 28, 1997, conveying the NTSB’s final safety minor injuries. The NTSB determined prevent casualties in accidents at higher that the probable cause of the accident closing speeds such as those in the recommendations arising from the February 16, 1996, collision between a was the fatigue failure of a thermally Silver Spring, Maryland, and Secaucus, damaged straight-plate wheel due to New Jersey, accidents. MARC commuter train and an Amtrak passenger train. During the collision, the fatigue cracking that initiated at a stress Fuel Tank Standards fuel tank on the lead Amtrak locomotive raiser associated with a stamped Locomotive fuel tanks are vulnerable ruptured catastrophically. The fuel character on the wheel rim. (NTSB/ to damage from collisions, derailments, sprayed into the exposed interior of the RAR–95/01.) and debris on the roadbed due to their MARC cab control car and ignited, Noting that tread braking is a location on the underframe and between engulfing the car. (Letter at 12.) significant source of wheel overheating the trucks of locomotives. Damage to the As explained in FRA’s report to and thermal damage; straight-plate tank frequently results in spilled fuel, Congress on locomotive wheels are vulnerable to thermal creating the safety problem of an crashworthiness and working damage; and rim stamping provides a increased risk of fire and the conditions, FRA believes that fuel tank stress concentration for crack initiation, environmental problem of cleanup and design has a direct impact on safety. the NTSB recommends as a result of its restoration of the spill site. Although 49 Minimum performance standards for investigation that FRA ‘‘[p]rohibit the CFR 229.71 does require a minimum locomotive fuel tanks should be replacement of wheels on any tread- clearance of 2.5 inches between the top included in Federal safety regulations. braked passenger railroad car with rim- of the rail and the lowest point on a part Accordingly, FRA is proposing that stamped straight-plate wheels.’’ (Class or appliance of a locomotive, which AAR Recommended Practice RP–506 be II, Priority Action) (R–95–1). FRA agrees that rim stamping of includes fuel tanks, FRA regulations do incorporated into § 238.223 of the straight-plate wheels can lead to wheel not address the safety of fuel tanks in proposed rule for external fuel tanks on failure when subjected to heat from particular. Tier I passenger locomotives. FRA In 1992, the NTSB issued a report believes that RP–506 represents a good tread braking. Rim-stamping was identifying concerns regarding safety interim safety standard for Tier I banned by the AAR in 1978, and FRA problems caused by diesel fuel spills passenger locomotives. Further, FRA is does not believe that rim-stamped from ruptured or punctured locomotive proposing more demanding fuel tank straight-plate wheels are in use on fuel tanks. Entitled ‘‘Locomotive Fuel safety standards for Tier II passenger Amtrak or the nation’s commuter Tank Integrity Safety Study,’’ the NTSB equipment in § 238.423 of the proposed railroads. Nevertheless, in the event report cited in particular a collision rule. Additionally, it is anticipated that such wheels are in fact in use, FRA involving an Amtrak train and an MBTA RSAC will address the safety of proposes to prohibit the use of rim- commuter train on December 12, 1990, locomotive fuel tanks used on freight stamped straight-plate wheels on all as both trains were entering a station in equipment, thereby furthering the safety equipment, whether tread-braked or not, Boston, Massachusetts. (NTSB Safety of rail passenger trains which operate used in intercity passenger or commuter Study-92/04.) Fuel spilled from a tank commingled with freight trains. service as of January 1, 1998. In a letter which had separated from an Amtrak FRA invites comments whether the to the NTSB dated February 21, 1995, locomotive during the collision. The proposed rule should also require that Ringling Bros. itself announced that it fuel ignited. Smoke and fumes from the locomotive fuel tanks be has removed all rim-stamped straight- burning diesel fuel filled the tunnel, compartmentalized. The Working Group plate wheels on tread-braked passenger increasing the hazard level in the post- specifically discussed requiring whether cars from its circus trains. (Appendix D, crash phase of the accident, and the interior of fuel tanks be divided into NTSB/RAR–95/01.) At this time, FRA is not proposing to hindering emergency response activity. a minimum of four separate prohibit the use of rim-stamped straight- As a result of the safety study, the NTSB compartments so that a penetration in plate wheels on private passenger cars made several safety recommendations to the exterior skin of any one hauled in intercity passenger or FRA, including in particular that FRA: compartment results in loss of fuel only from that compartment. The Working commuter trains. Private passenger cars Conduct, in conjunction with the Group recommended that such a are generally not highly utilized in Association of American Railroads, General requirement be addressed in the second comparison to intercity passenger or Electric, and the Electro-Motive Division of General Motors, research to determine if the phase of the rulemaking, to allow for commuter equipment. According to a locomotive fuel tank can be improved to additional research to remedy fuel comment received from the AAPRCO, withstand forces encountered in the more feeding disruptions that may result from the average private car, qualified to severe locomotive derailment accidents or if the compartmentalization of fuel tanks. operate on Amtrak, probably operates fuel containment can be improved to reduce Commenters are therefore requested to less than 4,000 miles per year, and a few the rate of fuel leakage and fuel ignition. provide the results of specific research may exceed 50,000 miles per year. Consideration should be given to crash or and operating experience showing how Further, in a letter to the NTSB dated simulated testing and evaluation of recent compartmentalization can be practically December 2, 1994, Amtrak stated that it and proposed design modifications to the locomotive fuel tank, including increasing accomplished. Commenters are also only operates private cars that are the structural strength of end and side wall asked to explain why the issue of registered with Amtrak and are subject plates, raising the tank higher above the rail, compartmentalization should or should to a regular inspection by Amtrak- and using internal tank bladders and foam not be addressed in the final rule of this approved inspectors. Amtrak observed inserts. (Class II, Priority Action) (R–92–10) first phase of the rulemaking. that it ‘‘has not experienced any 49744 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules problems on the private cars that to fire safety are necessary to ensure that high heat fluxes, and large amounts of operate on Amtrak trains with wheels materials carefully qualified for use in toxic gases emitted by materials that are rim-stamped.’’ (Appendix E, rail passenger vehicles because of their involved in the fire. NTSB/RAR–95/01.) fire safety characteristics are not The NIST testing will help develop However, FRA is requiring that rim- replaced with either substandard performance criteria for materials using stamped straight-plate wheels not be materials or materials whose origin and the Cone Calorimeter in a context used as a replacement wheelset on a fire performance cannot be determined. similar to that provided in the FRA fire private car. As part of this rulemaking, The proposed rule addresses fire safety guidelines. In addition, unlike FRA may further address the use of rim- safety by making FRA’s fire safety data derived from the testing methods stamped straight-plate wheels on private guidelines mandatory for the referenced in the current FRA cars hauled in intercity passenger or construction of new passenger guidelines, heat release rate and other commuter trains. equipment as well as the refurbishing of measurements obtained from the Cone existing equipment. In addition, the Calorimeter can be used in a fire Fire Safety proposed rule would require that fire modeling methodology to evaluate the In 1984, FRA published guidelines safety be furthered through a fire contribution of materials to the overall recommending testing methods and protection plan and program carried out fire safety of a passenger train. Data performance criteria for the by each operating railroad. This effort gathered from the NIST testing will be flammability, smoke emission, and fire would include conducting a fire safety used in the second phase of the project endurance characteristics for categories analysis of existing passenger to perform a fire hazard analysis of and functions of materials to be used in equipment and taking appropriate selected passenger train fire scenarios. the construction of new or rebuilt rail action to reduce the risk of personal The analysis will employ computer passenger equipment. See 49 FR 33076, injuries. In the second phase of this modeling to assess the impact on Aug. 20, 1984; 49 FR 44582, Nov. 7, rulemaking, FRA anticipates improving passenger train fire safety for a range of 1984. The guidelines mirrored fire upon the safety standards contained in construction materials and system safety guidelines developed by the the existing fire safety guidelines design. In the final phase of the project, Urban Mass Transit Administration through ongoing research. selected real-scale proof testing of (UMTA) of DOT (now the Federal Currently, the National Institute of assemblies representing rail passenger Transit Administration). Standards and Technology (NIST) is equipment will be performed to verify The intent of the guidelines is to conducting research under the direction the bench-scale (small-scale) criteria prevent fire ignition and to maximize of FRA and the Volpe Center involving and hazard analysis studies in actual the time available for passenger the fire safety of rail passenger vehicles. end use configurations. This research evacuation if fire does occur. FRA later The NIST project, scheduled for effort thus follows upon FRA-sponsored reissued the guidelines in 1989 to completion in 1998, will investigate the studies by the National Bureau of update the recommended testing use of alternative fire testing methods Standards in 1984 and the NIST in 1993 methods. See 54 FR 1837, Jan. 17, 1989. and computer hazard assessment which noted among their findings that Testing methods cited in the current models to identify and evaluate the performance of individual FRA guidelines include those of the approaches to passenger train fire safety. components of a rail passenger car in a American Society of Testing and The evaluation will examine the effects real-world fire environment may be Materials (ASTM) and the Federal and tradeoffs of passenger car and different from that experienced in Aviation Administration (FAA). In system design (including materials), fire bench-scale tests due to vehicle particular, the ASTM and FAA testing detection and suppression systems, and geometry and materials interaction.2 methods provide a useful screening passenger egress time. A peer review The NFPA publishes a standard device to identify materials that are committee has been established to (NFPA 130) covering fire protection especially hazardous. provide project guidance and review requirements for fixed guideway transit FRA sought comments in the ANPRM interim results and reports. The systems and for life safety from fire in on the need for more thorough committee includes representatives transit stations, trainways, vehicles, and guidelines or Federal regulations from FRA, the Volpe Center, the NFPA, outdoor maintenance and storage areas. concerning fire safety (61 FR 30696). builders of rail passenger vehicles, (A copy of the 1995 edition of this FRA noted that fire resistance, producers of materials, Amtrak and standard has been placed in the public detection, and suppression technologies commuter railroads, and testing docket for this rulemaking.) However, have all advanced since the guidelines laboratories. this standard does not apply to were first published. In addition, FRA In the first phase of the NIST project, passenger railroad systems including explained that a trend toward a systems selected materials which satisfy the those that provide commuter service approach to fire safety is evident in testing methods referenced in FRA’s fire (NFPA 130 1–1.2). An APTA most countries with modern rail safety guidelines will be evaluated using representative on the Working Group systems. In response, the National Fire a different testing instrument, the ASTM who is also an NFPA member has Protection Association (NFPA) 1354 Cone Calorimeter. The Cone initiated an NFPA-sponsored task force commented that perhaps more thorough Calorimeter provides a measurement of to revise the scope of NFPA 130 to cover guidelines are needed, or at least should heat release rate (the amount of energy all passenger rail transportation be evaluated. A private citizen also that a material produces while burning), systems, including intercity and responded that, at a minimum, specimen mass loss, smoke production, guidelines which are more in depth and and combustion gases. For a given 2 ‘‘Fire Tests of Amtrak Passenger Rail Vehicle ‘‘well thought out’’—based on current confined space such as a rail car Interiors.’’ (NBS Technical Note 1193, May 1984); ‘‘Fire Safety of Passenger Trains: A Review of U.S. system safety procedures and available interior, the air temperature and risk of and Foreign Approaches.’’ (DOT/FRA/ORD–93/23– fire safety engineering techniques—are harm to passengers are increased as the DOT–VNTSC–FRA–93–26, December, 1993). The needed to address the fire safety heat release rate increases. As a result, 1993 report is available to the public through the concerns FRA raised in the ANPRM. even if passengers do not come in direct National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161. A copy of both reports have The commenter noted in particular that contact with a fire, they may likely be been placed in the public docket for this Federal maintenance standards related injured from the high temperatures, rulemaking. Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49745 commuter rail, and revise other and periodic inspection of emergency In fact, current research indicates that provisions as necessary. (Copies of the windows are being addressed in FRA’s the interior of a typical intercity correspondence concerning the emergency preparedness rulemaking. passenger coach without active establishment of this task force have restraints provides a level of protection Train Interior Safety Features also been placed in the public docket.) to the occupants that is at least as high FRA and the Working Group will A review of the accident/incident as that provided to automobile and evaluate the results of this effort for data, related to fatalities and injuries on transport aircraft passengers with active application to this rulemaking. passenger trains for the period of 1972 restraints. to 1973, indicates that collapse of the Some research indicates that there Safety Glazing Standards equipment structure and the loss of may be a potential for even a greater Existing regulations found in 49 CFR sufficient space for the passengers to level of passenger protection if lap belts part 223 provide minimum ride out the collision is the principal and shoulder harnesses are utilized on requirements for glazing materials in cause of fatality in train accidents, passenger trains. In fact, FRA is order to protect railroad passengers and resulting in approximately 63 percent of proposing that lap belts and shoulder employees from injury as a result of the fatalities and 27 percent of the harnesses be required in the cab of a objects striking the windows of serious injuries. Fire and post-collision Tier II train, as recommended by the locomotives, cabooses, and passenger conditions result in 30 percent of the Tier II Equipment Subgroup. Due to the cars. Noting some possible concerns fatalities and 16 percent of the serious high strength of the cab and its forward with these requirements, FRA sought injuries. Thus, collapse of the location near the expected point of comment on whether these standards equipment structure, fire, and post- impact in many different collision should be revised and requested collision conditions account for 93 scenarios, decelerations experienced by information on any glazing-related percent of the fatalities and 43 percent crewmembers in the cab of Tier II trains injuries to passenger train occupants (61 of the serious injuries. To address these may be high. Accordingly, members of FR 30696). major causes of fatalities and injuries, the subgroup believed that restraints for The Sierracin/Sylmar Corporation FRA is proposing comprehensive the crewmembers could provide a (Sierracin) commented that rail glazing requirements related to structural significant benefit. FRA requests meeting much higher impact and design, fire protection, and emergency information and comment from ballistic requirements is currently exits. As discussed above, FRA believes interested parties as to whether there is available, economically viable, and in these proposed requirements will aid in any existing research or experience fact in use by a few rail agencies (mass reducing the number of fatalities and which would justify proposing active transit and commuter rail) here in the injuries by minimizing the collapse of seat restraints in the current stage of this United States. Among its observations equipment, reducing the likelihood of rulemaking. However, FRA believes in particular, Sierracin noted that the fire, and ensuring accessible and more research is necessary in this area strength of the glazing frame could quite operable emergency exits. in order to determine the feasibility and easily be tested. Further, it explained Prior research also indicates, effectiveness of such active restraints as that from its experience as a glazing however, that passengers striking well as the impact on seat design and manufacturer it is aware of very few interior objects in trains, principally strength. Although FRA currently ballistic attacks on trains, and such during collisions and derailments, proposes a passenger protection strategy attacks have been limited to the side accounts for 57 percent of the serious based on compartmentalization, FRA windows of locomotives or coach cars injuries and 7 percent of the fatalities will be undertaking an aggressive or both—not to end-facing windows. In occurring on passenger trains. 3 research and testing program to addition, Sierracin pointed out that Therefore, as an initial measure to determine the feasibility and since the impact energy of an object is reduce these numbers, FRA proposals effectiveness of active restraints such as a function of velocity, an object’s include requiring that: lap belts and shoulder harnesses. If this destructive capability increases as the • Passenger seats and other interior research indicates that these types of speed of the surface it impacts fittings be securely attached to the car active restraints are a viable and feasible increases. means of providing additional FRA believes that existing safety body; • Interior fittings in a passenger car protection to the riding public, then glazing requirements have largely be recessed or flush-mounted; FRA will propose the use of such proven effective in passenger service at • Overhead storage racks provide restraints in the second NPRM on speeds up to 125 mph. In fact, FRA is restraint for stowed articles; and passenger equipment scheduled for concerned that less stringent • Sharp edges be padded or otherwise development in 1998. requirements would create vulnerability avoided. to objects thrown at trains as well as the Discussion Overall, FRA’s proposed requirements risk of ejection of passengers during rely on ‘‘compartmentalization’’ or The principal means of protecting train derailments. Because the safety ‘‘passive restraints’’ (i.e., requiring no occupants during accidents include glazing standards do not address the ‘‘friendly’’ (‘‘delethalized’’) interior action to be taken on the part of the performance of the frame which arrangements and occupant restraints, occupant) as a passenger protection attaches the glazing to the car body, such as lap belts, shoulder harnesses strategy. The proposed requirements are FRA is proposing frame performance and airbags. Occupant protection based on the current available research, requirements for all passenger devices which require some action on discussed in detail below, which equipment. Moreover, FRA believes that the part of the occupant, such as indicates that during a collision the more stringent glazing requirements are buckling a seatbelt, are termed ‘‘active interior environment of a passenger necessary or passenger equipment devices,’’ while protection devices coach is substantially less hostile than operating at speeds greater than 125 which require no action, such as the interiors of automobiles and aircraft. mph because of the increased automobile door-mounted shoulder destructive potential of an object 3 Rail Safety/Equipment Crashworthiness,’’ M.J. harnesses and airbags, are termed impacting equipment operating at such Reiley, R.H. Jines, & A.E. Tanner. (FRA/ORD–77/73, ‘‘passive devices.’’ Both active and speeds. Additionally, improved marking Vol. I, July 1978).’’ passive occupant protection strategies 49746 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules act to limit the decelerations and to The passenger protection devices equipment is 8 g’s for a head on distribute the loads imparted to incorporated into a vehicle must allow collision. Figure 1 shows the time occupants during an accident. Typical occupants to survive the deceleration of histories of the occupant volume passenger protection strategies in the volume within which they are decelerations for a Ford Taurus automobiles include airbags, lap belts contained. The decelerations of the colliding into a rigid barrier at 35 mph, 4 and shoulder harnesses, and friendly occupant volume of an automobile in a a transport category aircraft during a lower dashboard designs which limit collision can reach a peak of landing accident, 5 and a rail passenger thigh loads imparted during a collision. approximately 30 g’s, while the coach during a train-to-train collision at Typical passenger protection strategies decelerations of transport-category 70 mph. 6 During a collision, the interior in transport category aircraft, intended aircraft during a landing accident can of a passenger train is inherently a less to protect passengers during accidents reach 18 g’s. In order to assure a high hostile environment than those of an occurring during takeoff or landing, likelihood of survival for such high automobile or aircraft, owing to the include seatbelts and friendly design of decelerations, the use of occupant the seatback or bulkhead ahead of the restraints are required in automobiles relatively low deceleration of the occupant which limit the decelerations and transport aircraft. The peak occupant volume. of the occupant’s head. deceleration of passenger rail coach BILLING CODE 4910±06±P

4 New Car Assessment Program Test #2312. DOT/ the public through the National Technical has not yet been published, but a copy of the report NHTSA, 1996. A copy of this test has been placed Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161. A copy has been placed in the public docket for this in the public docket for this rulemaking. of the report has also been placed in the public rulemaking. 5 The Effect of Aircraft Size on Cabin Floor docket for this rulemaking. Dynamic Pulses.’’ G. Wittlin, L. Neri. (DOT/FAA/ 6 ‘‘Crashworthiness of Passenger Trains.’’ (DOT– CT–88/15, March 1990). The report is available to VNTSC–FRA–96–5, September 1996). The report Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49747

BILLING CODE 4910±06±C Injury Criteria (HIC), which relate the protection strategy in which occupant Simulation studies of occupant deceleration of the occupant’s head to motion during the collision is restricted impacts with interiors have been the potential for fatality, and the Chest by fixed equipment such as seats and conducted in support of this rulemaking Deceleration, which relates the bulkheads is termed effort, and have been placed in the deceleration of the occupant’s chest ‘‘compartmentalization.’’) Table 1 public docket for this rulemaking.7 (heart) with the potential for fatality. summarizes the results for passengers Simulation results include detailed The maximum limit prescribed by seated in the first coach of a locomotive- time-histories of occupant motions and NHSTA and the FAA for the HIC is led consist, initially traveling at 70 mph, the forces imparted to occupants during 1000, and 60 g’s for Chest Deceleration. which collides head-on with a a collision. These motions and forces Passenger rail equipment interior stationary locomotive-led consist. These have been evaluated for the potential for configurations studied include rows of data indicate that without restraints, the fatality using the criteria employed by forward-facing seats without passenger interior of a typical intercity passenger the National Highway Traffic Safety restraints, with seat belts, and with Administration (NHTSA) and the FAA seatbelts and shoulder harnesses. The coach provides a level of protection to in their regulatory requirements for seat design employed in these studies is the occupants at least as high as that passenger protection in automobiles and a typical intercity passenger coach seat, provided to automobile and transport transport-category aircraft, respectively. for which the floor attachment is aircraft passengers with restraints, while The principal criteria employed by sufficient not to fail during the lap and shoulder belts provide the NHTSA and the FAA are the Head simulated collision. (The occupant highest level of protection.

TABLE 1.ÐSELECTED RESULTS, INTERIOR SIMULATION STUDIES

No restraint Lap belt Lap and shoulder NHTSA and FAA (compartmenta- belts Max. permitted lization) values HIC Chest g's HIC Chest g's HIC Chest g's HIC Chest g's

50th percentile male, Seat ahead Upright ...... 241 20 141 23 21 9 1000 60 50th percentile male, Seat ahead Reclined .... 401 36 1428±2089 26 21 9 1000 60

The data in Table 1 indicate that lap belts alone result in a greater likelihood of fatal head injury for certain occupants if the seat ahead of the occupant is reclined. This is owing to the lap-belted occupant striking the top of the seatback ahead. Struck in this manner, the seat is stiff and the head deceleration is large, resulting in a high likelihood of head injury. The head of an unrestrained occupant will strike the rear of the seatback ahead of the occupant, along with the knees of the occupant. Struck in this manner, the seat is relatively soft, the impact forces are distributed over the occupant’s body, and the decelerations experienced by the occupant are within survivable levels. The head on an occupant restrained by a lap belt and a shoulder harness will not strike an interior surface, and the deceleration of an occupant so restrained is relatively low. The motions of an unrestrained occupant, an occupant restrained by a lap belt, and an occupant restrained by a lap belt and a shoulder harness are sketched in Figure 2.

BILLING CODE 4910±06±P

7 ‘‘Evaluation of Selected Crashwortiness Strategies in Train Collisions.’’ D. Tyrell, K. Severson. (DOT/FRA/ORD–96/08—DOT–VNTSC– Strategies for Passenger Trains.’’ D. Tyrell, K. Severson, & B. Marquis. American Society of FRA–96–11, October 1996); and ‘‘Crashworthiness Severson-Green, & B. Marquis. National Academy Mechanical Engineers, AMD–Vol. 210/BED–Vol. 30, of Passenger Trains.’’ See note 6. Press, Transportation Research Record No. 1989, pp. 539–557, 1995; ‘‘Crashworthiness Testing of July 1995; ‘‘Analysis of Occupant Protection Amtrak’s Traditional Coach Seat.’’ D. Tyrell K. 49748 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4910±06±C injury, including twisting and excessive passengers subject to falling. Leg, knee, The potential effectiveness of flexion. The two principal and thigh injuries are potentially caused occupant restraints in protecting considerations in inferring the potential by leg entrapment beneath the seat passengers has been inferred from effectiveness are the likelihood that the ahead of the occupant. Neck injuries are available information on what types of occupant is in a seat and is able to use likely the result of ‘‘whiplash’’ effects of injury occur during passenger train the restraint, and the potential that the low seat backs during accidents. The accidents and the equipment involved type of injury is prone to prevention or potential effectiveness of occupant in causing these injuries. Available reduction in severity with an occupant restraints can be inferred from the type criteria which relate these forces and restraint. of injury. For example, seat belts may motions to the range of injuries resulting Table 2 lists the types of injuries, their reduce the occurrence and severity of from rail passenger accidents are limited frequency of occurrence from 1972 to back injury owing to the longitudinal in number and reliability. For example, 1973 (see note 3), and the potential decelerations from collisions, but may there is only one accepted criterion for effectiveness of occupant restraints. The not reduce the occurrence and severity evaluating back injury (an axial load likely causes of back injury are the seats of back injury owing to the lateral criterion employed by the FAA) while becoming unlocked and swiveling accelerations associated with derailment there are many potential modes of back during an accident and standing or for a standing passenger falling.

TABLE 2.ÐINJURY TYPES, NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES, AND POTENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS OF OCCUPANT RESTRAINT

Potential/effectiveness Number No Re- Injury type of Occur- straints Lap belts rences, (Compart- Lap Belts and shoulder 1972±73 ment- harnesses alization)

Back ...... 195 Medium ...... Medium ...... High Leg/Knee/Thigh ...... 140 Low ...... Medium ...... Medium Neck ...... 126 Medium ...... Low ...... Medium Head ...... 94 Medium ...... Low ...... High Arm/Hand ...... 89 Low ...... Low ...... Low Chest ...... 64 Medium ...... Medium ...... Medium Shoulder ...... 61 Medium ...... Medium ...... Medium Hip/Pelvis ...... 40 Medium ...... High ...... High Face/Nose ...... 38 Medium ...... Low ...... High Foot/Ankle ...... 27 Low ...... Medium ...... Medium Abdomen ...... 19 Medium ...... Medium ...... Medium Side ...... 15 Medium ...... Medium ...... High

Table 3 lists the equipment involved in injury over this same period (see note 3). The likelihood that an occupant was in a seat immediately prior to the injury can be inferred from the type of equipment. For example, the potential effectiveness of occupant restraints protecting occupants from injury with food service and lavatory equipment— the most likely equipment to be involved with injury—is low because such equipment is not located near passenger coach seats. Appropriate measures to assure that such equipment is ‘‘friendly’’ during a collision may potentially reduce the severity of injuries associated with food service and lavatory equipment. In fact, since the time of the study, Amtrak has taken significant steps to secure food service equipment and provides for better retention of luggage in Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49749

TABLE 3.ÐEQUIPMENT INVOLVED IN INJURY, FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, AND POTENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS OF OCCUPANT RESTRAINT

Frequency Potential effectiveness Equipment involved in injury of occur- Lap belts rence (per- No restraints Lap belts and shoulder cent) (compartmentalization) harnesses

Food Service and Lavatory Equipment ...... 27.5 Medium ...... Low ...... Low Bulkheads, Doors, Window Frames ...... 20 Medium ...... Low ...... Low Seats ...... 16 High ...... High ...... High Floor ...... 10.2 Medium ...... Medium ...... Medium Window Glass ...... 10.2 Medium ...... Medium ...... Medium Tables Counters ...... 7.2 Low ...... Low ...... Low Hand Rail ...... 2.9 Low ...... Low ...... Low Entrance Platform ...... 2.9 Low ...... Low ...... Low Luggage ...... 1.5 Low ...... Low ...... Low Cabinets ...... 1.5 Low ...... Low ...... Low

Conclusions from the research • The manufacturing costs for a seat requiring passenger restraints in the conducted to date on passenger which can support the loads imparted second NPRM. protection in train collisions are that lap by the restraints during collisions. belts alone may potentially increase Although FRA’s research and Crash Energy Management fatalities in train collisions; development budget is somewhat FRA is proposing that Tier II compartmentalization can provide a limited, FRA is committed to equipment be designed with a crash level of protection for rail passengers at completing the following items within energy management system. Crash least as effective as that provided by approximately the next 12 months: • energy management is an equipment current regulations for automobile and Preliminary cost/benefit analysis on design technique to provide a controlled transport-category aircraft passengers; lap belts and shoulder harnesses; deformation and collapse of designated • Preliminary hazard analysis; and and that lap belts and shoulder sections of the unoccupied volumes of • Preliminary qualitative engineering restraints provide the highest level of a passenger train to absorb the energy feasibility work on new seat and belt occupant protection of those protection from a collision. This allows collision designs, including cost estimates. strategies studied. energy to dissipate before any structural Current FRA research plans include The results of this research will be damage occurs to the occupied volumes efforts for developing the means of followed by a final cost/benefit review of a passenger train and reduces the implementing seat belts and shoulder and will be available when FRA begins decelerations experienced by passengers restraints in intercity and commuter the development of the second NPRM and crewmembers in a collision, thereby passenger rail equipment and efforts for on passenger equipment standards. mitigating the force of any collisions optimizing compartmentalization for a Based on current research results, the with objects in a train’s interior, such as wide range of occupant sizes, from proposed interior passenger protection seats. infants to large adults, and a wide range requirements for Tier I and II passenger of interior configurations, including equipment rely on In a report prepared by the Volpe those of food service cars and lavatories compartmentalization as a passenger Center, the crash energy management in addition to coach car seating protection strategy. Research results approach was found to offer significant configurations. Issues to be addressed in indicate that during a collision the safety benefits.8 For example, the Volpe research on implementing seat belts and interior environment of a passenger Center report found the crash energy shoulder restraints include: coach is substantially less hostile than management approach significantly • The development of a seat structure the interiors of automobiles and aircraft. more effective in preserving occupant design with sufficient integrity to Owing to this lower hostility of the volume in a head-on collision at a sustain the loads imparted by the passenger collision environment, the relative speed above 70 mph between restraints during collisions; interior of a typical intercity passenger two trains propelled by power cars • The potential for increased injury of coach can provide a level of protection (locomotives) than when the trains did unrestrained occupants striking such to passengers without restraints at least not employ such an approach. strengthened seatbacks and the hard as effective in preventing fatality as the Moreover, for the full range of collision points necessary for lap and shoulder protection provided to automobile and speeds, the crash energy management belt securement; transport aircraft passengers with design provided a significantly gentler • The potential for increased injury to restraints. Such a strategy has the initial deceleration of the passenger occupants who misuse the seat and benefits of being passive, requiring no train occupants than when the trains shoulder belts (e.g., placement of the action to be taken on the part of the did not employ such an approach. shoulder belt behind the occupant), occupants, of being effective for a range Further, the crash energy management The development of mechanisms for of occupant sizes, and potentially being designed power car train is more adjusting the height location of the effective in a wide range of interior compatible with existing equipment. It shoulder restraint to prevent configurations. If the results of ongoing serves as a softer collision surface to a strangulation of occupants of small research indicate that lap belts and conventionally designed train owing to stature, including children; shoulder restraints can provide a greater the collision energy absorbed as the • The overall effectiveness in level of protection for passengers than reducing injury owing to occupant compartmentalization, while being cost- 8 Crashworthiness of Passenger Trains.’’ (DOT– impacts with the interior; and effective, then FRA will consider VNTSC–FRA–96–5, September 1996). See Note 6. 49750 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules unoccupied volumes of the power car established under the RSAC. Although should require additional emergency train intentionally crush. FRA anticipates that this separate effort window exits in a passenger car. will establish minimum safety Commenters are also requested to Emergency Systems requirements with respect to address what size requirements for In addition to the proposed communications equipment for all train emergency window exits FRA should requirements concerning emergency service, it should be noted that intercity impose in the final rule. FRA is egress and access discussed above, FRA passenger and commuter railroads currently proposing that Tier I is considering and proposing other already make extensive provision for equipment have a minimum, requirements to mitigate harm to ensuring communication capabilities unobstructed emergency window exit passenger train occupants in emergency during emergencies. opening of 24 inches horizontally by 18 situations. inches vertically, and that Tier II Emergency Communication: Within the Emergency Lighting equipment have a minimum, Train unobstructed emergency window exit In a passenger train emergency, FRA is proposing in § 238.437 that opening of 30 inches horizontally by 30 inadequate lighting may make it Tier II passenger trains be equipped inches vertically. The Tier II Equipment difficult or impossible to read with a means of emergency Subgroup, including Amtrak, emergency information, to locate doors communication throughout the train. recommended the latter requirement for and emergency exits, and to move about This will enable crewmembers to application to Tier II equipment. within the train’s interior. Rapid egress provide passengers with information However, the full Working Group from the passenger train may be and instructions in an emergency. advised against imposing such a inhibited, and rescue efforts hampered. requirement on Tier I equipment. Further, a private citizen commented in FRA has decided to limit this proposal to Tier II passenger trains, Although FRA would prefer that all response to the ANPRM that passengers emergency window exits afford the can be very frightened when a train’s however, because such trains are intended to operate as a fixed unit, larger opening, the Tier I equipment head-end power shuts down at night or proposal provides the minimum in a darkened station, and there is no unlike Tier I passenger trains. Whereas an emergency system to communicate opening needed for a fully-equipped onboard emergency lighting for the emergency response worker to gain passengers’ security. Accordingly, the throughout the train may be more easily provided for a train which remains as a access to the interior of a train, proposed rule requires in § 238.123 that according to the NFPA. all new or rebuilt passenger equipment fixed unit, the interchangeability of be equipped with an emergency lighting passenger cars and locomotives raises Roof Hatches or Clearly Marked system. FRA is also considering practical considerations about the Structural Weak Points requiring that auxiliary portable lighting compatibility of communications In an emergency, roof hatch exits on be available for assistance in a passenger equipment in a Tier I passenger train. railroad passenger equipment may train emergency. FRA may prescribe FRA will seek to address these facilitate the rapid egress of passengers. requirements for such lighting in either considerations and further examine However, APTA and Amtrak have the final rule of this rulemaking or in requirements concerning emergency raised concerns about requiring such the final rule of FRA’s complementary communication within a Tier I train in exits on passenger equipment. Allowing rulemaking on passenger train the second phase of the development of access to the roof of a passenger train emergency preparedness. passenger equipment safety standards. can be particularly dangerous, Emergency Window Exits especially when the train operates in Emergency Communication: To the electrified territory. As an alternative, Train Control Center As noted, under 49 CFR part 223 passenger equipment could be designed FRA is considering requirements for equipment designed to carry passengers with a clearly marked structural weak emergency communication equipment must be equipped with a minimum of point in the roof to provide quick access on passenger trains. In Working Group four emergency window exits which for emergency personnel. Access to and discussions, the UTU emphasized that permit rapid and easy removal during a egress from passenger equipment would passenger trains should be equipped crisis. FRA is proposing in §§ 238.235 be facilitated, without the risk of with both a primary and a redundant and 238.439 to strengthen this allowing passengers immediate access means to communicate with a railroad requirement by making certain, for to the roof when no emergency is control center. The UTU and BRC also example, that passenger cars be present. stressed that both means of equipped with four window exits on As recommended by the Tier II communication should be required to each main level of each car. FRA is also Equipment Subgroup, the proposed rule operate properly before a passenger proposing that each compartment in a requires in § 238.439 that Tier II train is dispatched. sleeping car be equipped with at least equipment either be equipped with roof The ability to communicate in an one emergency window exit. Above all, hatches or be designed with clearly emergency is important for all trains— the proposed rule requires that each marked structural weak points in the freight and passenger. For example, emergency window exit be easily roof to permit quick access for properly because passenger trains operate operable without requiring the use of equipped emergency personnel. The commingled with freight trains, the any tool or other implement to facilitate proposed rule does not contain such ability of a freight train crew to notify passenger egress in an emergency. requirements for Tier I equipment, a railroad control center of an FRA notes that Canadian passenger however. There was no consensus emergency involving its train may equipment typically contain more than within the full Working Group to prevent a collision with an oncoming four emergency window exits, and that recommend that such requirements be passenger train. As noted above, FRA is MARC is requiring that at least half of included. FRA will consider such currently engaged in revising the Radio all windows in each passenger car be requirements for Tier I equipment in the Standards and Procedures in 49 CFR available for use during an emergency. second phase of the rulemaking, and the part 220 through the Railroad Commenters are requested to address Working Group agreed to do so as well. Communications Working Group the issue of whether the final rule FRA does believe that the safety of Tier Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49751

I passenger trains will still be Though the Safety Board has requirements for flammability and significantly advanced by the other reiterated portions of its earlier, urgent smoke emissions characteristics. requirements for emergency egress and recommendation, FRA has not yet had FRA has specifically responded in access contained in this proposed rule. the opportunity to discuss with the § 238.105 (Fire protection program) of Passenger Equipment Safety Standards this NPRM to the Board’s recent Additional Passenger Train Safety Working Group the full array of June Issues recommendation concerning the 1997 recommendations pertaining to flammability and smoke emission As detailed below in the section-by- passenger equipment safety. However, characteristics of interior materials in section analysis, the proposed rule will for the consideration of interested existing passenger cars. also address additional passenger train parties, FRA has set forth below for safety issues including: public comment the recent NTSB APTA Comments • Equipment (non-brake) inspection, recommendations relevant to this As explained earlier in the preamble, testing, and maintenance; rulemaking. In particular, the NTSB has under the authority of 49 U.S.C. • Suspension system safety; recommended that FRA: 20133(d) FRA developed the proposed • Operating cab controls; • Require all passenger cars to have rule in consultation with a Working • Safety appliances; easily accessible interior emergency • Group that included Amtrak, individual Electrical system safety; quick-release mechanisms adjacent to commuter railroads, and APTA, which • Software and hardware safety, and • exterior passageway doors and take represents the interests of commuter Introduction of new technology. appropriate emergency action to ensure Further, in consultation with the railroads in regulatory matters. On corrective action until these measures March 19, 1997, following the last full Working Group, FRA has identified are incorporated into minimum issues to address in the second phase of meeting of the Working Group, FRA passenger car safety standards. sent a draft of the NPRM to Working this rulemaking which may lead FRA to • Require all passenger cars to have propose additional standards for Tier I Group members and advisors for their either removable windows, kick panels, review and comment as to whether the equipment in a future NPRM. Although or other suitable means for emergency certain issues have already been noted rule inaccurately reflected the Working exiting through the interior and exterior Group’s recommendations in a above, such as improvements in cab car passageway doors where the door could end structure design, other issues significant way. By letter dated April 28, impede passengers exiting in an 1997, APTA requested a meeting with include crash energy management emergency and take appropriate requirements and increased side impact FRA to address its significant concerns emergency measures to ensure about a number of substantive items in strength requirements for car bodies. corrective action until these measures FRA intends that the Working Group the NPRM, as well as the process used are incorporated into minimum to develop the NPRM. A meeting took advise FRA as to which requirements passenger car safety standards. make sense for application to Tier I • place on May 23, 1997, at which time Issue interim standards for the use APTA provided FRA with extensive equipment and which requirements of luminescent or retro-reflective already proposed in this NPRM should written comments on the draft NPRM. material or both to mark all interior and These comments have been placed in be strengthened. It is anticipated that exterior emergency exits in all passenger any operational experience gained from the public docket for this rulemaking, cars as soon as possible and incorporate along with a summary of the meeting. the use of Tier II equipment will assist the interim standards into minimum the Working Group in this effort. FRA has also included a number of passenger car safety standards. APTA’s comments in this NPRM for the • Require all passenger cars to June 1997 NTSB Safety consideration of interested parties, and contain reliable emergency lighting Recommendations FRA invites all interested parties to fixtures that are each fitted with a self- address APTA’s comments while On June 17, 1997, the NTSB contained independent power source commenting on the proposed rule. announced a series of safety and incorporate the requirements into recommendations as a result of its minimum passenger car safety Section-by-Section Analysis investigation of the collision between standards. Amendments to 49 CFR Part 216 MARC train 286 and Amtrak train 29 in • Provide promptly a prescribed Silver Spring, Maryland, on February inspection and test cycle to ensure the Part 216 currently authorizes certain 16, 1996. While its investigation was proper operation of all emergency exit FRA and participating State inspectors still ongoing, the NTSB issued an urgent windows as well as provide that the to issue Special Notices for Repair, safety recommendation (R–96–7) to FRA 180-day inspection and maintenance under specified conditions, for freight on March 12, 1996. As explained earlier test cycle is prescribed in the final rule. cars with defects under the part 215, in the preamble, FRA convened a joint • Require that all exterior emergency locomotives with defects under parts meeting of the Passenger Equipment door release mechanisms on passenger 229 or 230 or 49 U.S.C. chapter 207, and Safety Standards Working Group and cars be functional before a passenger car track with defects under part 213. The the Passenger Train Emergency is placed in revenue service, that the proposed revisions to part 216 would Preparedness Working Group on March emergency door release mechanism be create a fourth category of Special 26, 1996, to discuss this placed in a readily accessible position Notices for Repair: for passenger recommendation and incorporate the and marked for easy identification in equipment with defects under part 238. Safety Board’s initial findings into each emergencies and derailments, and that In summary, if the inspector determines working group’s rulemaking, as these requirements be incorporated into that the noncomplying passenger appropriate. This urgent minimum passenger car safety equipment is ‘‘unsafe for further recommendation has been fully standards. service’’ and issues the proposed considered and is reflected in this • Require that a comprehensive Special Notice, it would require the NPRM as well as the NPRM on inspection of all commuter passenger railroad to take the passenger equipment Passenger Train Emergency cars be performed to independently out of service, to make repairs to bring Preparedness that was published on verify that the interior materials of these the equipment into compliance with February 24, 1997 (see 62 FR 8330). cars meet the expected performance part 238, and to report the repairs to 49752 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules

FRA. The revisions would also make of accidents involving railroad their own safety requirements on the conforming changes to part 216 passenger equipment, to the extent such operation of the private cars. reflecting this new enforcement tool. accidents cannot be prevented. Accordingly, FRA intends to limit the Finally, these proposed revisions Paragraph (b) states that these application of the proposed rule only to include various technical amendments regulations provide minimum standards those requirements necessary to ensure to update part 216 to reflect the for the subjects addressed. Railroads the safe operation of the passenger train following: (1) internal organizational and other persons subject to this part that is hauling the private car. For changes within FRA; (2) the division of may adopt more stringent requirements, instance, private cars will be subject to former part 230, Locomotive Inspection so long as they are not inconsistent with brake inspection, testing, and Regulations, into parts 229 and 230 and this part. maintenance requirements. the redesignation of those portions of § 238.3 Application. As a general The proposed rule is structured to former part 230 related to non-steam matter, in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2), apply to intercity and commuter service, locomotives as part 229, Railroad FRA proposes that this rule apply to all but not to tourist, scenic, historic, and Locomotive Safety Standards; and (3) railroads that operate intercity excursion operations. The term ‘‘tourist, the repeal, reenactment without passenger train service on the general scenic, historic, or excursion substantive change, and recodification railroad system of transportation or operations’’ is defined in § 238.5 to of the Federal railroad safety laws in provide commuter or other short-haul mean ‘‘railroad operations that carry 1994. See 45 FR 21092, Mar. 31, 1980; passenger train service in a metropolitan passengers, often using antiquated Pub. L. 103–272, July 5, 1994. or suburban area; that is, the rule will equipment, with the conveyance of the apply to commuter or other short-haul passengers to a particular destination Amendments to 49 CFR Parts 223, 229, service described in paragraph (a)(2) not being the principal purpose.’’ The 231, and 232 regardless of whether that service is term refers to the particular physical FRA proposes conforming changes to connected to the general railroad operation, not to the nature of the the applicability sections of FRA’s system. A public authority that railroad company as a whole that Safety Glazing Standards, Railroad indirectly provides passenger train conducts the operation. As a result, part Locomotive Safety Standards, Railroad service by contracting out the actual 238 would exempt not only a Safety Appliance Standards, and operation to another railroad or recreational train ride by a tourist railroad power brakes and drawbars independent contractor would be railroad company that employed five regulations that were necessitated by regulated by FRA as a railroad under the people but also a recreational train ride proposed provisions of new part 238. In provisions of the proposed rule. by the Union Pacific Railroad Company, the final rule, FRA may adjust the Paragraph (a)(3), read in conjunction a Class I freight railroad. FRA has not application of provisions in parts 215, with paragraph (c)(1), means that rapid yet had the opportunity to fully consult 223, 229, 231, or 232, or possibly delete transit operations in an urban area that with tourist and historic railroad provisions in those parts, to avoid are connected to the general railroad operators and their associations to duplication of provisions in part 238. system of transportation would also be determine the appropriate applicability FRA has not proposed deletion of covered by this part. Paragraph (b) of the provisions contained in the passenger train brake test and makes explicit the liability imposed by proposed rule to such railroad maintenance requirements from part statute, 49 U.S.C. 20303, on a railroad operations. The Federal Railroad Safety 232 because proposed part 238 would that owns track over which another Authorization Act of 1994 directs FRA not cover certain operations subject to railroad hauls or uses equipment with a to examine the unique circumstances of part 232, e.g., tourist, historic, scenic, power brake or safety appliance defect. tourist railroads when establishing and excursion railroad operations on the Under paragraph (b), a railroad that safety regulations. The Act, which general system. If any provision in parts permits operations over its trackage by amended 49 U.S.C. 20103, states that: 215, 223, 229, 231, or 232 is deleted in passenger equipment subject to this part that does not comply with a power In prescribing regulations that pertain to the final rule, FRA will revise the railroad safety that affect tourist, historic, schedule of civil penalties for the brake provision of this part or a safety scenic, or excursion railroad carriers, the affected part by removing the entry for appliance provision of this part is Secretary of Transportation shall take into the provision deleted. Because such subject to the power brake and safety consideration any financial, operational, or penalty schedules are statements of appliance provisions of this part with other factors that may be unique to such policy, notice and comment are not respect to such operations that it railroad carriers. The Secretary shall submit required prior to their issuance. See 5 permits. a report to Congress not later than September 30, 1995, on actions taken under this U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). This section contains no explicit reference to private cars. Rather than subsection. 49 CFR Part 238 addressing the scope of applicability of Pub. L. No. 103–440, § 217, 108 Stat. (APTA is concerned that the proposed part 238 to private cars in this section, 4619, 4624, November 2, 1994. In its record keeping and reporting FRA has indicated in the particular 1996 report to Congress entitled requirements in subparts A–D are substantive sections of the rule whether ‘‘Regulatory Actions Affecting Tourist extensive and significantly exceed private cars are covered, according to Railroads,’’ FRA responded to the current railroad practice, without any the terms of those sections. FRA direction in the statutory provision and corresponding safety benefit. proposes to apply certain requirements also provided additional information Commenters are requested to address of the rule to private cars that operate related to tourist railroad safety for APTA’s concern.) on railroads subject to this part. FRA consideration of the Congress. has taken into account the burden Section 215 of the 1994 Act Subpart A—General imposed by requiring private car owners specifically permits FRA to exempt § 238.1 Purpose and scope. and operators to conform to the equipment used by tourist, historic, Paragraph (a) states the purpose of the requirements of this part. Further, FRA scenic, and excursion railroads to rule to be the prevention of accidents recognizes that private cars are often transport passengers from the initial involving railroad passenger equipment hauled by railroads such as Amtrak and regulations that must be prescribed by and the mitigation of the consequences commuter railroads which often impose November 2, 1997. 49 U.S.C. Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49753

20133(b)(1). FRA is addressing the testing and analysis that the dynamic proceed is given by a procuring railroad passenger equipment safety concerns for brake fits the definition of a secondary to a contractor or supplier for new these unique types of operations brake. Defective primary braking equipment. Many of the provisions of through the Tourist and Historic systems are a serious safety problem the proposed rule, particularly Railroads Working Group formed under that railroads must address structural requirements, will apply only RSAC. Any requirements proposed by immediately. Defective secondary to newly constructed equipment. When FRA for these operations will be part of braking systems, as defined in § 238.5, FRA proposes to apply requirements a separate rulemaking proceeding. are not a serious safety concern, only to passenger equipment ordered on § 238.5 Definitions. This section because, by definition, their failure does or after January 1, 1999, or placed in contains a set of definitions to introduce not result in unacceptable thermal service for the first time on or after the regulations. FRA intends these inputs into friction brake components. January 1, 2001, FRA intends to definitions to clarify the meaning of Accordingly, FRA proposes to allow grandfather any piece of equipment that important terms as they are used in the railroads more flexibility in dealing is both ordered before January 1, 1999, text of the proposed rule. Several of the with defective secondary braking and placed in service for the first time definitions involve new or fundamental systems. before January 1, 2001. FRA believes concepts which require further Three brake tests are fundamental to this approach will allow railroads to discussion. this proposed rule. A ‘‘Class I brake avoid any costs associated with changes ‘‘Brake indicator’’ means a device, test’’ means a complete passenger train to existing orders and yet limit the delay actuated by brake cylinder pressure, brake system test as further specified in in realizing the safety benefits of the which indicates whether brakes are § 238.313. The Class I test is the most requirements proposed in this rule. applied or released on a car. The use of complete test. It must be done once a FRA’s proposed definition of brake indicators in the performance of day by qualified mechanical inspectors ‘‘passenger car’’ goes beyond its brake tests is a controversial subject. as opposed to train crews. The Class I traditional meaning. ‘‘Passenger car’’ Rail labor organizations correctly test is intended to replace the current means a unit of rolling equipment to maintain that brake indicators are not initial terminal brake test. See 49 CFR provide transportation for members of fully reliable indicators of brake 232.12 (c)–(j). The proposed Class I test the general public and includes a self- application and release on each car in is much more tailored to the specific propelled car designed to carry the train. Further, railroads correctly designs of passenger equipment than the passengers, baggage, mail, or express. maintain that reliance on brake initial terminal brake test that is This term includes a cab car, an MU indicators is necessary because required now. locomotive, and a passenger coach. A inspectors cannot always safely observe A ‘‘Class IA brake test’’ means a test cab car and an MU locomotive are also brake application and release. FRA and inspection (as further specified in a ‘‘locomotive’’ under this rule. believes that brake indicators serve an § 238.315) of the air brake system on ‘‘Passenger coach’’ means a unit of important role in the performance of each car in a passenger train to ensure rolling equipment intended to provide brake tests. FRA has specified three the air brake system is 100 percent transportation for members of the different types of brake tests—Class I, effective. The Class IA test is a general public that is without propelling Class IA, and Class II (described somewhat less complete test than the motors and without a control stand; below)—that must be performed on Class I test. However, the Class IA test therefore, passenger coaches are a subset passenger equipment. Railroads should is equivalent to the current initial of passenger cars. perform Class I brake tests so that the terminal brake test. An important ‘‘Control stand’’ is defined in The inspector is able to actually observe difference between the Class I and Class Railroad Dictionary of Car and brake application and release. However, IA tests is that the Class IA test may be Locomotive Terms (Simmons-Boardman FRA believes that during the performed by train crews as long as they Publishing Corp. 1980), as ‘‘[t]he upright performance of a Class IA brake test, have been qualified by the railroad to do column upon which the throttle control, railroads may rely on brake indicators if so. The Class IA test allows commuter reverser handle, transition lever, and they determine that the inspector cannot railroads the flexibility to have trains dynamic braking control are mounted safely make a direct observation of the depart their first run of the day from an within convenient reach of the engineer brake application or release. outlying point without having to station on a locomotive. The air gauges and ‘‘Primary brake’’ and ‘‘secondary qualified mechanical inspectors at all some switches are also included on the brake’’ are complementary definitions. outlying points. If railroads take control stand.’’ ‘‘Primary brake’’ refers to ‘‘those advantage of the flexibility offered by ‘‘Passenger equipment’’ is the most components of the train brake system the Class IA test, they must follow up inclusive definition. It means all necessary to stop the train within the with a Class I test sometime during the powered and unpowered passenger cars, signal spacing distance without thermal day. locomotives used to haul a passenger damage to friction braking surfaces,’’ A ‘‘Class II train brake test’’ means a car, and any other unit of rail rolling while ‘‘secondary brake’’ refers to test (as further specified in § 238.317) of equipment hauled in a train with one or ‘‘those components of the train brake brake pipe integrity and continuity from more passenger cars and includes a (1) system which develop supplemental controlling locomotive to rear car. The Passenger coach, (2) cab car, (3) MU brake retarding force that is not needed proposed Class II brake test is a simple locomotive, (4) private car, (5) to stop the train within signal spacing set-and-release test intended to replace locomotive not intended to provide distances or to prevent thermal damage the passenger train intermediate transportation for members of the to wheels.’’ FRA provides these terminal air brake test. See 49 CFR general public that is used to power a definitions to help draw the line 232.13(b). The Class II test is also passenger train, and (6) any non-self- between safety and economics of brake tailored to the special design of the propelled vehicle hauled in a train with systems. Railroads have long held that passenger equipment. one or more passenger cars, including a the dynamic portion of a blended brake The concept of ‘‘ordered’’ or ‘‘date freight car hauled in a train with one or is not a safety system. Under the ordered’’ is vital to the correct more passenger cars. The term therefore provisions proposed in this rule, application of this proposed rule. The covers a baggage car, mail car, or railroads must demonstrate through terms mean the date on which notice to express car. 49754 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules

The terms ‘‘passenger station’’ and FRA includes a clear definition of than train crewmembers. As a result, the ‘‘terminal’’ are crucial to the ‘‘qualified person’’ to allow railroads the rule calls for a daily Class I brake test interpretation of the proposed rule for flexibility of having train crews perform and mechanical inspection performed movement of defective equipment. Class IA and Class II brake tests. A by qualified mechanical inspectors. At ‘‘Passenger station’’ means a location qualified person must be trained and the same time, FRA agrees with railroad designated in the railroad’s timetable designated as able to perform the types operators that properly trained train where passengers are regularly of brake inspections and tests that the crews are capable of performing brake scheduled to get on or off any train. By railroad assigns to him or her. However, tests and have been doing so effectively contrast, ‘‘terminal’’ means a train’s a qualified person need not have the for years. As a result, the proposed rule starting point or ending point of a single extensive knowledge of brake systems or grants flexibility to railroads to use scheduled trip, where passengers may components or be able to trouble-shoot properly trained train crewmembers to embark or disembark a train; normally, and repair them. The qualified person is perform certain brake tests. a ‘‘terminal’’ is a point where the train the ‘‘checker.’’ He or she must have the ‘‘System safety’’ is another concept would reverse direction or change knowledge and experience necessary to that forms a foundation for the proposed destinations. be able to identify brake system rule. System safety means the Under certain carefully controlled problems. application of design, operating, conditions, FRA proposes to permit a FRA provides a clear definition of technical, and management techniques passenger train with defective qualified mechanical inspector so that a and principles throughout the life cycle equipment to move to the next forward differentiation can be made between the of a system to reduce hazards and passenger station or terminal. This thorough brake test and inspection unsafe conditions to the lowest level flexibility is allowed to prevent performed by a professional mechanical possible through the most effective use railroads from discharging passengers in employee, and the less comprehensive of the available resources. FRA proposes potentially unsafe locations and to brake checks performed by train crews. that each railroad implement a system minimize schedule impacts where this Under FRA’s proposal, only qualified safety program to identify and manage can safely be done. mechanical inspectors are permitted to safety risks. The system safety program perform the required calendar day would generate data to be used to make The concepts of ‘‘qualified person’’ inspections and Class I brake tests under safety decisions. The risk identification and ‘‘qualified mechanical inspector’’ this part. This definition largely rules and analysis portion of the system safety are vital to interpreting the proposed out the possibility of train crewmembers program would help demonstrate an inspection, testing, and maintenance becoming a qualified mechanical alternate means of achieving equivalent provisions of the rule. A ‘‘qualified inspector. Part of the definition requires safety when a proposed operation does person’’ is a person determined by the the primary job of a qualified not fully comply with the Passenger railroad to have the knowledge and mechanical inspector to be inspection, Equipment Safety Standards. skills necessary to perform one or more testing, or maintenance of passenger Definitions of the various types of functions required under this part. With equipment. FRA intends the definition trains covered by the proposed the proper training, a train crewmember to allow the members of the trades standards are extremely important to could be a qualified person. associated with testing and maintenance understand how FRA proposes that the A ‘‘qualified mechanical inspector’’ is of equipment such as carmen, rule be applied. The most general a ‘‘qualified person’’ who as a part of the machinists, and electricians to become definition is that of a ‘‘passenger train.’’ training, qualification, and designation qualified mechanical inspectors. The proposed definition makes two program required under § 238.111 has However, membership in labor points very clear. First, the proposed received instruction and training that organizations or completion of rule does not apply to tourist and includes ‘‘hands-on’’ experience (under apprenticeship programs associated excursion railroads; and, second, the appropriate supervision or with these crafts is not required to be a provisions of the rule do apply to non- apprenticeship) in one or more of the qualified mechanical inspector. The two passenger carrying units included in a following functions: trouble-shooting, primary qualifications are possession of passenger train. inspection, testing, and maintenance or the knowledge required to do the job An important distinction highlighted repair of the specific train brake and and a primary work assignment in these definitions is the difference other components and systems for inspecting, testing, or maintaining the between a ‘‘long-distance intercity which the inspector is assigned equipment. passenger train’’ and a ‘‘short-distance responsibility. Further, the mechanical Discussions conducted in the intercity passenger train.’’ ‘‘Long- inspector must be a person whose Working Group meetings revealed that distance intercity passenger train’’ primary responsibility includes work railroad operators believe these means a passenger train that provides generally consistent with those definitions are too restrictive and will service between large cities more than functions and is designated to (1) require training beyond the minimum 125 miles apart and is not operated Conduct Class I brake tests under this needed for many employees to do their exclusively in the National Railroad part; (2) inspect MU locomotives or jobs. On the other hand, the Passenger Corporation’s (Amtrak) other passenger cars for compliance representatives of labor organizations Northeast Corridor. ‘‘Short-distance with this part; or (3) determine whether maintain that this approach will allow intercity passenger train’’ means a equipment not in compliance with this unqualified train crewmembers to passenger train that provides service part may be moved safely and, if so, conduct tests and inspections that exclusively on the Northeast Corridor or under what conditions. A train should be performed only by between cities that are not more than crewmember would not be a qualified mechanical employees. 125 miles apart. This distinction mechanical inspector. (APTA believes FRA believes the proposed rule attempts to recognize the special set of that the proposed definition of strikes the correct balance between operating conditions on the Northeast ‘‘qualified mechanical inspector’’ adds these conflicting points of view. FRA Corridor in light of the need to treat nothing to safety, dictates work rules, agrees with labor representatives that long-distance trains differently than and creates unnecessary restricted jobs mechanical employees generally short-distance trains. Additionally, with limited duties.) conduct a more thorough inspection APTA has advised FRA that there are Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49755 commuter rail systems that operate and the general public are no more at TGV in France. The FOX risk trains over 100 miles in distance on a risk from passenger equipment that does assessment suggested that collision single run, and thus recommended the not meet the requirements of this part, avoidance provided by a dedicated use of the 125-mile distance in these but is protected by compensating right-of-way with no grade crossings definitions. features, than when the equipment more than compensated for the The definition of the term ‘‘in meets the requirements of this part. increased speed and decreased service’’ is modeled after the definition Some of the structural requirements structural strength of the proposed of that term in the Railroad Freight Car that FRA is proposing would prohibit equipment. Safety Standards. See 49 CFR 215.5(e). the operation of most light rail vehicles FRA cites these two instances as Passenger equipment that is in service if the operation is connected to the examples of what is expected to includes passenger equipment ‘‘in general railroad system on or after demonstrate equivalent safety for passenger service,’’ meaning ‘‘carrying, January 1, 1998; however, FRA does not proposed operations where the or available to carry, fare-paying intend to completely foreclose the equipment does not meet the Passenger passengers,’’ as well as all other possibility of the operation of such Equipment Safety Standards. FRA passenger equipment unless it falls into equipment. FRA is aware of would expect an analysis showing the one of four categories; specifically, arrangements by which light rail service effectiveness of clearly compensating unless the passenger equipment— is conducted during the day, with features, such as closing grade crossings, (a) Is being handled in accordance with freight operations conducted at night. providing absolute separation of lighter §§ 238.15, 238.17, 238.305(c)(5), or FRA will entertain petitions for waiver rail equipment from heavy rail 238.503(f), as applicable; of the structural requirements from equipment, or using highly capable (b) Is in a repair shop or on a repair track; operators of such ‘‘time-separated’’ signal and train control systems that (c) Is on a storage track and is not carrying service. significantly reduce the probability of passengers; or FRA proposes that the risk assessment accidents caused by human error. FRA (d) Has been delivered in interchange but portion of the system safety program be would provide advice and guidance to has not been accepted by the receiving used to demonstrate equivalent safety. organizations wishing to demonstrate railroad. The burden would be on the petitioning equivalent safety, but the burden of The term ‘‘in service’’ is important railroad to perform a comparative risk performing a comparative risk because if the train or passenger assessment and to prove equivalent assessment and establishing that the equipment is not in service, it is not safety. FRA has experience with two operation provides equivalent safety is subject to a part 238 civil penalty. instances involving different passenger on the entity proposing to operate The last definition that warrants equipment operations where a equipment that does not comply with discussion is ‘‘vestibule.’’ FRA proposes comparative risk assessment has been this part. ‘‘vestibule’’ to mean an area of a used successfully. Amtrak § 238.9 Responsibility for passenger car that normally does not commissioned a comparative risk compliance. General compliance contain seating and that leads from the assessment between current Northeast requirements are proposed in this seating area to the side exit doors. The Corridor operations and proposed section. Paragraph (a). Paragraphs (a)(1) definition of ‘‘vestibule’’ is important to operations involving the American Flyer and (a)(2) prohibit a railroad subject to determine the requirements for the trainset at speeds up to 150 mph. The part 238 from committing a series of location of side door emergency-release risk assessment demonstrated that specified acts with respect to a train or mechanisms. proposed countermeasures such as a piece of passenger equipment while § 238.7 Waivers. This section sets enhancements to the train control the train or passenger equipment is in forth the procedures for seeking waivers system and the increased structural service if it has a condition that does not of compliance with the requirements of strength and the crash energy comply with part 238 or if it has not this rule. Requests for such waivers may management design of the American been inspected and tested as required by be filed by any interested party. In Flyer should compensate for the part 238. In particular, consistent with reviewing such requests, FRA conducts increased operating speed. The 49 U.S.C. chapter 203, under which the investigations to determine if a comparative risk assessment provision is proposed, paragraph (a)(1) deviation from the general criteria can quantitatively showed that passengers imposes a strict liability standard with be made without compromising or were no more at risk travelling on the respect to violations of the safety diminishing rail safety. American Flyer at 150 mph on the appliance and power brake provisions FRA recognizes that circumstances Northeast Corridor than if they were of part 238. In addition to the acts may arise when the operation of travelling on an existing Amtrak prohibited by paragraph (a)(2) (that is, passenger equipment that does not meet passenger train at a lesser speed on the the use, haul, offering in interchange, or the standards proposed in this rule is same corridor. accepting in interchange of defective or appropriate and in the public interest. The second instance is the proposed not properly inspected equipment), FRA would entertain petitions for Florida Overland Express (FOX) paragraph (a)(1) prohibits a railroad waiver to allow operation of equipment operation of a French TGV high speed from merely permitting the use or haul that does not fully comply with the rail system in Florida. FOX performed a on its line of such equipment if it does proposed standards, provided the comparative risk assessment of three not conform with the safety appliance petitioner can demonstrate that the operations: the American Flyer on the and power brake provisions. See equipment will operate at a level of Northeast Corridor, the TGV on high § 238.3(b). By contrast, paragraph (a)(2) safety equivalent to that afforded by the speed lines in France, and the proposed imposes a lower standard of liability for provision of this part that is sought to FOX operation in Florida. See FRA using, hauling, delivering in be waived, i.e., demonstrate ‘‘equivalent Docket: RM Pet. 97–1. The analysis interchange, or accepting in interchange safety.’’ Equivalent safety may be showed the TGV operation in France to a train or passenger equipment that is afforded by features that compensate for pose less risk to passengers than the defective or not properly inspected, in equipment that does not meet these American Flyer trainset on the violation of another provision of this standards. Equivalent safety is met Northeast Corridor and the proposed part; a railroad subject to this part is when railroad employees, passengers, FOX operation to be even safer than the liable only if it knew, had notice, or 49756 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules should have known of the existence of any person who violates any § 238.15 Movement of passenger either the defective condition of the requirement of this part or causes the equipment with defective power brakes. equipment or the failure to inspect and violation of any such requirement will This section contains the proposed test. Finally, paragraph (a)(3) establishes be subject to a civil penalty of at least requirements for movement of passenger a strict liability standard for $500 and not more than $10,000 per equipment with a power brake defect noncompliance with any other violation. Civil penalties may be without civil penalty liability under this provision of this part, for example, the assessed against individuals only for part. (Railroads remain liable, however, requirement to adopt a written system willful violations; where a grossly ‘‘in a proceeding to recover damages for safety plan under § 238.103. negligent violation or a pattern of death or injury of a railroad employee Paragraph (b). In accordance with the repeated violations creates an imminent arising from the movement of’’ the ‘‘use’’ or ‘‘haul’’ language previously hazard of death or injury to persons, or defective equipment. See 49 U.S.C. contained in the Safety Appliance Acts causes death or injury, a penalty not to 20303(c).) A ‘‘power brake defect,’’ as (49 U.S.C. chapter 203) and with FRA’s exceed $20,000 per violation may be defined in paragraph (a), ‘‘is a condition general rulemaking authority under the assessed. In addition, each day a of a power brake component, or other Federal railroad safety laws, FRA violation continues will constitute a primary brake component, that does not proposes in paragraph (b) that passenger separate offense. Finally, a person may conform with this’’ rule. The term does equipment will be considered ‘‘in use’’ be subject to criminal penalties under not include a failure to properly inspect prior to departure but after it receives or 49 U.S.C. 21311 for knowingly and such a component. should have received the necessary tests willfully falsifying reports required by The Passenger Equipment Safety and inspections required for movement. these regulations. FRA believes that the Standards Working Group did not reach FRA will no longer wait for a piece of inclusion of penalty provisions for a consensus on the requirements equipment with a power brake defect to failure to comply with the regulations is proposed in this section; however, the be hauled before issuing a violation, a important in ensuring that compliance Working Group did agree that passenger practice frequently criticized by the is achieved. operations needed some flexibility to get railroads. FRA believes that this The final rule will include a schedule passengers to their destination or, at a approach will increase FRA’s ability to of civil penalties as appendix A to this minimum, to a location where prevent the movement of defective part. Because such penalty schedules passengers can safely disembark. The equipment that creates a potential safety are statements of policy, notice and proposed requirements regarding the movement of passenger equipment with hazard to both the public and railroad comment are not required prior to their employees. FRA does not feel that this defective power brakes are based on the issuance. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). approach increases the railroads’ burden extensive discussions and information Nevertheless, commenters are invited to since equipment should not be operated presented in the Working Group submit suggestions to FRA describing if it is found in defective condition in meetings and in response to the the types of actions or omissions under the pre-departure tests and inspections, previous NPRM on power brakes. each regulatory section that would unless permitted by the regulations. As previously noted in the general Paragraph (c). This paragraph clarifies subject a person to the assessment of a discussion, FRA proposes to utilize the FRA’s position that the requirements civil penalty. Commenters are also authority granted in 49 U.S.C. 20306 to contained in the proposed rules are invited to recommend what penalties exempt passenger train operations applicable not only to any ‘‘railroad’’ may be appropriate, based upon the covered by this part from the statutory subject to this part but also to any relative seriousness of each type of requirements contained in 49 U.S.C. ‘‘person,’’ as illustrated in § 238.11, that violation. 20303(a) permitting the movement of performs any function required by the § 238.13 Preemptive effect. Proposed equipment with defective or insecure proposed rules. Although various § 238.13 informs the public as to FRA’s brakes only if various requirements are sections of the proposed rule address views regarding what will be the met, including the requirement that the the duties of a railroad, FRA intends preemptive effect of the final rule. movement for repair be only to the that any person who performs any While the presence or absence of such nearest location where the necessary action on behalf of a railroad or any a section does not in itself affect the repairs can be made. FRA believes that person who performs any action preemptive effect of a final rule, it the granting of this exemption is covered by the proposed rule is required informs the public concerning the justified based on the technological to perform that action in the same statutory provision which governs the advances made in the brake systems and manner as required of a railroad or be preemptive effect of the rule. Section equipment used in passenger subject to FRA enforcement action. For 20106 of title 49 of the United States operations, and is necessary for these example, private car owner and contract Code provides that all regulations operations to make efficient use of the shippers that perform duties covered by prescribed by the Secretary relating to technological advances and protect the these proposed regulations would be railroad safety preempt any State law, safety of the riding public. required to perform those duties in the regulation, or order covering the same FRA also proposes to exempt same manner as required of a railroad. subject matter, except a provision passenger train operations from a long- § 238.11 Civil penalties. Section necessary to eliminate or reduce an standing agency interpretation, based on 238.11 identifies the civil penalties that essentially local safety hazard that is not a 1910 Interstate Commerce FRA may impose upon any person, incompatible with a Federal law, Commission order codified at 49 CFR including a railroad or an independent regulation, or order and that does not 232.1, that prohibits the movement of a contractor providing goods or services unreasonably burden interstate train for repairs under 49 U.S.C. 20303 to a railroad, that violates any commerce. With the exception of a if less than 85 percent of the train’s requirement of this part. These penalties provision directed at an essentially local brakes are operative. As noted in the are authorized by 49 U.S.C. 21301, safety hazard, 49 U.S.C. 20106 will previous discussion, many passenger 21302, and 21304. The penalty preempt any State regulatory agency operations utilize a small number of provision parallels penalty provisions rule covering the same subject matter as cars in their trains and the necessity to included in numerous other safety the regulations proposed today when cut out the brakes on just one car can regulations issued by FRA. Essentially, issued as final rules. easily result in noncompliance. FRA Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49757 believes that speed restrictions can defective power brakes be tagged or thus, a means to more accurately reflect readily be used to compensate for the otherwise identified, although most the true braking ability of the train as a loss of brakes on a minority of cars. railroads voluntarily engage in such whole. FRA believes that the proposed Paragraph (b)(1). This paragraph activity. Furthermore, the current method of calculation is consistent with addresses the movement for repair of regulations regarding freight cars and the intent of Congress when it drafted equipment with a power brake defect locomotives contain tagging the statutory requirement and simply found during a Class I or IA brake test requirements for the movement of recognizes the technological or, for Tier II equipment, the equivalent equipment not in compliance with those advancements made in braking systems of a Class I or IA brake test. This parts. See 49 CFR 215.9 and 229.9. over the last century. Consequently, paragraph allows railroads the Consequently, FRA proposes to require FRA proposes to permit the percentage flexibility to move passenger equipment the identification of equipment with of operative brakes to be determined by with a power brake defect found during defective power brakes through either dividing the number of axles in the train such a test if the following three the traditional tags which are placed in with operative brakes by the total conditions are satisfied: (1) if the train established locations on the equipment number of axles in the train. is moved for purposes of effecting repair or by an automated tracking system Furthermore, for equipment utilizing of the defect, without passengers; (2) the developed by the railroad. FRA tread brake units (TBU), FRA proposes applicable operating restrictions set proposes certain information which that the percentage of operative brakes forth in paragraph (d) are complied must be contained whichever method is be determined by dividing the number with; and (3) the information used by a railroad. FRA believes that the of operative TBUs by the total number concerning the defect is recorded on a proposed tagging or tracking of TBUs. tag affixed to the equipment or in an requirements add reliability, Paragraphs (d)(2)–(d)(4), generally. automated defect tracking system as accountability, and enforceability for These paragraphs propose various speed specified in paragraph (c)(2). the timely and proper repair of and other operating restrictions based Paragraph (b)(2). This paragraph equipment with defective power brakes. on the percentage of operative brakes in permits railroads to move, for purposes In addition, under paragraph (c)(3), if order to permit passenger railroads the of scrapping or sale, passenger the defect causes the brakes on the flexibility to efficiently move passengers equipment with a power brake defect equipment to be cut out, then the without compromising safety. FRA found during a Class I or IA brake test railroad must first find out what believes that the proposed movement (or the Tier II equivalent) if each of the percentage of the power brakes in the restrictions actually enhance the safety following conditions is satisfied: if the train are cut out or inoperative in some of the riding public. The proposed movement is without passengers, if the other way, using the formula in requirements retain the basic principle speed of the movement is 15 mph or paragraph (d)(1). Next, the railroad must that a train carrying passengers shall not less, and if the railroad’s air brake or notify the dispatcher of the percentage depart a location where a major brake power brake instructions are followed of operative brakes and the movement inspections or tests are performed on when making the movement. This restrictions imposed by paragraph (d), that train unless the train has 100 provision allows railroads to move inform the railroad’s mechanical desk or percent operational brakes. surplus equipment without having to department about the brake defect, and FRA recognizes that there are major request permission for one-time moves walk the train to confirm the percentage differences in the operations of from FRA, as is currently required. FRA of operative brakes at the next point commuter or short-distance intercity has not had any serious safety concerns where it is safe to do so. passenger trains, and long-distance with the methods currently used by Paragraph (d)(1). This paragraph intercity passenger trains. Commuter railroads to move this equipment and explains the term ‘‘inoperative power and short-distance intercity passenger does not believe its limited resources brakes’’ and proposes a new method for trains tend to operate fairly short should be tied up in approving these calculating the percentage of operative distances between passenger stations types of moves. power brakes (operative primary brakes) and generally operate in relatively short Paragraph (c), generally. This in a train. Regarding the term itself, a turn-around service between two paragraph addresses the use of cut-out power brake is an inoperative terminals several times in any given passenger equipment with a power power brake, but the failure or cutting day. On the other hand, long-distance brake defect that develops en route from out of a secondary brake system (as intercity passenger trains tend to a location where a Class I or IA brake defined in § 238.5) does not result in operate for long distances, with trips test (or the Tier II equivalent) was inoperative power brakes. For example, between the beginning terminal and performed on the equipment. The two failure of dynamic brakes does not ending terminal taking a day or more basic requirements are that at the render a power brake inoperative unless and traversing multiple States with location where the railroad first finds the dynamic brakes are in fact primary relatively long distances between the defect, specified information (such brakes. Although the statute discusses passenger stations. Consequently, FRA as the nature of the defect and the the percentage of operative brakes in proposes slightly different requirements destination where the defect will be terms of a percentage of vehicles, the with regard to the movement of repaired) must be placed on tags statute was written nearly a century ago defective brake equipment in long- attached to the equipment or in a and at that time the only way to cut out distance intercity passenger trains. computer tracking system and that the the brakes on a car or locomotive was FRA believes that passenger railroads railroad must observe the applicable to cut out the entire unit. See 49 U.S.C. can safely and efficiently operate trains operating restrictions in paragraph (d). 20302(a)(5)(B). Today, virtually every with en route brake failures under the A third requirement, found in paragraph piece of equipment used in passenger strict set of conditions proposed. FRA (c)(3) is a special, applying only if the service can have the brakes cut out on has long held that the industry can defect causes any brakes to be cut out. a per-truck or per-axle basis. safely operate trains at normal track Paragraph (c)(2) requires that Consequently, FRA merely proposes a speeds with as low as 85 percent equipment being hauled for repairs be method of calculating the percentage of effective brakes as long as the adequately identified. Currently, there is operative brakes based on the design of inoperative brakes were due to failures no requirement that equipment with passenger equipment used today, and which occurred en route or due to 49758 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules defective cars being picked up en route location were repairs can be made. proposed requirements for the and being moved for repairs. The only During Working Group meetings, APTA movement of passenger equipment with change being proposed to current presented engineering evidence and test a condition not in compliance with part practice is the additional flexibility for data that demonstrated that stopping 238, excluding a power brake defect and certain passenger operations to move distances remained well within signal including a safety appliance defect, the equipment past a location capable of spacing distances with a large margin of without civil penalty liability under this performing the repairs. safety even for trains with as low as 85 part. (Railroads remain liable, however, Paragraph (d)(2). This paragraph percent effective brakes. under 49 U.S.C. 20303(c), as described proposes operating requirements for the Paragraph (d)(4). As noted above, in the discussion of the previous movement of any passenger train that most long-distance intercity passenger section.) develops en route brake failures trains, both in Tier I and Tier II, have The Working Group was unable to resulting in 74 to 50 percent operative considerable distances between their reach full consensus on the brakes. In these circumstances, FRA starting terminal and their ending requirements contained in this section. proposes to allow the trains to proceed terminal, thus FRA does not intend to There are currently no statutory or only to the next passenger station at a provide these operations the latitude to regulatory restrictions on the movement reduced speed, not to exceed 20 mph, move those large distance with defective of passenger cars with defective to discharge passengers before equipment entrained. This paragraph conditions that are not power brake or proceeding, without passengers, to the permits the movement of defective safety appliance defects. The proposed nearest location where the necessary brake equipment in these trains only to provisions contained in this section are repairs can be made. This provision the nearest forward location designated similar to the provisions for moving recognizes the dangers of unloading as a repair location for this equipment defective locomotives and freight cars passenger at locations other than by the operating railroad in the list currently contained in 49 CFR 229.9 and passenger stations by allowing railroads required by § 238.19(d). FRA also 215.9, respectively. As these provisions to move the equipment to a location proposes to permit long-distance have generally worked well with regard with the facilities to handle the intercity passenger trains to continue in to the movement of defective discharge of passengers. Furthermore, service past a designated repair location locomotives and freight cars and in engineering evidence and test data to the next forward passenger station order to maintain consistency, FRA has demonstrate that the reduced speed only if the designated repair location modeled the proposed movement more than compensates for the reduced does not have the facilities to safely requirements on those existing braking force. At the reduced speed, unload passengers. Although FRA requirements. FRA proposes to allow even with only 50 percent effective proposes to permit the continued passenger railroads the flexibility to brakes, a train is able to stop in a much operation of long-distance intercity continue to use equipment with non- shorter distance than the same train passenger trains that develop en route safety-critical defects until the next traveling at the maximum operating brake failures resulting in 99 to 85 scheduled calendar day exterior speed with 100 percent operative percent operative brakes at normal mechanical inspection. However, FRA brakes. speeds, FRA proposes a speed intends the calendar day mechanical Paragraph (d)(3)(i). FRA also proposes restriction of no greater than 40 mph inspection to be the tool used by to permit commuter, short-distance when the en route brake failures result railroads to repair all reported defects intercity, and short-distance Tier II in 84 to 75 percent operative brakes. and to prevent continued use of passenger trains experiencing en route Therefore, although long-distance defective equipment to carry passengers. brake failures resulting in 84 to 75 intercity passenger trains do not have (Compare § 238.17(b) with § 238.17(c).) percent operative brakes to continue in the flexibility to continue in service to FRA intends for 49 CFR 229.9 to service to the next terminal prior to the next terminal, these trains do gain continue to govern the movement of being moved without passengers to the flexibility in being permitted to move a locomotives used in passenger service nearest location were repairs can be greater percentage of defective which develop defective conditions, not made. However, in these circumstances, equipment than currently allowed and covered by part 238, that are not in FRA proposes that the speed of the train are able to move that equipment to the compliance with part 229. In the final must be reduced to 50 percent of the next forward repair location rather than rule, FRA will make any necessary train’s maximum operating speed or 40 the ‘‘nearest’’ repair location as conforming amendments to part 229 in mph, whichever is less. Engineering currently required. 49 U.S.C. 20303(a). order to remove provisions that will evidence and test data demonstrate that As noted previously, FRA believes that now be covered in this part or to make the reduced speed more than the safety of the traveling public inapplicable to locomotives subject to compensates for the reduced braking mandates the flexibility of permitting part 238 provisions of part 229 that will force. At the reduced speed, even with passenger trains to continue to the next now be covered in part 238. Part 229 only 75 percent effective brakes, a train forward repair location or passenger will continue to cover (non-steam) is able to stop in a much shorter station because requiring trains to locomotives that are used by the tourist distance than the same train traveling at reverse directions and perform back railroads until such railroads are the maximum operating speed with 100 hauls to the nearest repair location covered by part 238. percent operative brakes. increases the risk of collision on the FRA also does not intend to alter the Paragraph (d)(3)(ii). FRA proposes to railroad. current statutory requirements permit commuter and short-distance APTA, in its comments on a draft of contained in 49 U.S.C. 20303 regarding intercity passenger trains that develop the NPRM, agreed that many of the the movement of passenger equipment defective brake equipment en route defects need to be repaired but do not with defective or insecure safety resulting in 99 to 85 percent operative require stopping the car or immediately appliances. See proposed §§ 238.229, brakes, the flexibility to move the taking it out of service. Commenters are 238.429, 238.431. Consequently, in defective equipment to the next requested to address APTA’s concern. paragraph (d), FRA proposes to require terminal where passengers can be § 238.17 Movement of passenger that passenger equipment that develops unloaded, prior to the defective equipment with other than power brake a defective or insecure safety appliance equipment being moved to the nearest defects. This section contains the continue to be subject to all the Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49759 statutory restrictions on its movement. that piece of equipment may remain in type of defect, when the defect Under the current statutory language— passenger service until its next calendar occurred, the determination made by a A vehicle that is equipped in compliance day mechanical inspection. However, qualified mechanical inspector on how with this chapter whose equipment becomes under paragraph (b), equipment to handle the defect, and finally how defective or insecure nevertheless may be containing noncomplying conditions at and when the defect was corrected. FRA moved when necessary to make repairs the time of the calendar day mechanical has not proposed any specific method or ** * from the place at which the defect or inspection may be moved from that means by which a railroad should insecurity was first discovered to the nearest location only if the noncomplying gather and maintain the required available place at which the repairs can be conditions are repaired or if all of the information. FRA believes that each made- following conditions are satisfied: (1) if railroad is in the best position to (1) on the railroad line on which the defect the equipment is moved out of determine the method of obtaining the or insecurity was discovered; or (2) at the option of a connecting railroad passenger service and in a non-revenue required information which is most carrier, on the railroad line of the connecting train for the purpose of effectuating the efficient and effective based on its carrier, if not farther than the place of repair repairs; (2) if the requirements of specific operation. Thus, railroads could described in clause (1) of this subsection. paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) (regarding maintain this information electronically tagging and notification) are satisfied; in conjunction with their automated 49 U.S.C. 20303(a). It should be noted and (3), in the case of a safety appliance tracking system, if so desired. that the proposed requirement defect, if the special conditions of FRA believes that reporting and applicable to Tier I equipment merely paragraph (d) are met. As discussed tracking of defective equipment are references the Railroad Safety previously, FRA has intentionally essential features of any effective system Appliance Standards (49 CFR part 231); provided railroads wide flexibility in safety program. Railroad managers are however, FRA has proposed separate where and when it will perform the able to utilize such systems to ensure safety appliance requirements for Tier II calendar day mechanical inspection in that the railroad complies with safety passenger equipment. See proposed order to permit railroads to get the regulations, does not use unsafe §§ 238.429 and 238.431. equipment to locations most conducive equipment, makes needed repairs, and FRA proposes that passenger to conducting the inspections. Thus, has failure data to make reliability-based equipment that is found with conditions FRA intends for calendar day decisions on maintenance intervals. not in compliance with this part, other mechanical inspections of passenger Furthermore, most passenger railroads than power brake defects, be moved equipment to be conducted at locations currently have some sort of reporting only after a qualified mechanical where qualified mechanical inspectors and tracking system in place. FRA inspector has determined that the are available and where virtually any recognizes that some railroads may have equipment is safe to move and necessary repair can be made. to incur additional initial costs to determined any restrictions necessary Consequently, FRA does not believe that develop or improve defect reporting and for the equipment’s safe movement. the proposed restrictions on the tracking systems; however, FRA FRA also proposes to allow railroads to movement of noncomplying equipment believes these costs can be recouped move equipment based on an will be overly burdensome to the through the increased operating assessment made by a qualified industry. efficiency that an effective recording mechanical inspector in communication Paragraph (d) states the special and tracking system provides. with on-site personnel. FRA proposes statutory restrictions on the movement Paragraph (b) requires that railroads this allowance based on the reality that of passenger equipment with a safety maintain the required information for a mechanical personnel are not readily appliance defect. period equal to one periodic available at every location on a APTA, in its comments on a draft of maintenance interval for each specific railroad’s line of road. However, FRA the NPRM, agreed that many of the type of equipment as described in the further proposes that if a qualified defects need to be repaired but do not railroad’s system safety plan. FRA mechanical inspector does not actually require shopping the car or immediately believes that this minimum retention inspect the equipment to determine that taking it out of service. APTA further period will ensure that the records it is safe to move, then, at the first noted that this section does not take into remain available when they are most forward location where a qualified account the fact-based maintenance needed, but will not place a mechanical inspector is on duty, an cycles for equipment, subsystems, and burdensome record storage requirement inspector will perform a physical components as the introduction of on railroads. However, FRA strongly inspection of the equipment to confirm technology outpaces the regulatory encourages railroads to keep these the initial assessment made while in process. Commenters are requested to records for longer periods of time communication with on-site personnel address APTA’s concerns. because they form the basis for future previously. Paragraph (c)(3) requires § 238.19 Reporting and tracking reliability-driven decisions concerning tracking of the defect in either of two defective equipment. This section test and maintenance intervals. ways. One option is to tag the contains the reporting and tracking Paragraph (d) requires railroads equipment in a manner similar to what requirements that passenger railroads operating long-distance passenger trains is currently required under § 215.9 for must maintain regarding defective to list the locations where repairs can be freight cars. The second option is to passenger equipment. The Working made to the equipment. FRA believes record the specified information in an Group did not reach consensus on the that the operators are in the best automated tracking system. The latter requirements proposed in this section. position to determine which locations alternative is offered to provide FRA proposes to require that each have the necessary expertise to handle railroads some flexibility and in railroad develop and maintain a system the repairs of the somewhat advanced recognition of advances made in for reporting and tracking equipment braking systems utilized in passenger electronic recordkeeping. defects. FRA proposes that for each trains. FRA also proposes a broad Under paragraph (c), FRA proposes equipment defect discovered by the performance-based requirement that that after a mechanical inspector verifies railroad on equipment used by the railroads operating this equipment that a noncomplying piece of equipment railroad the system record: the number designate a sufficient number of repair is safe to remain in passenger service, by which the equipment is identified, locations to ensure the safe and timely 49760 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules repair of the equipment. FRA intends to compensate by providing safety each railroad operating equipment fine a railroad for violating this equivalency to that provided by meeting subject to this part to adopt and proposed requirement or take other the full set of equipment safety annually update a system safety plan enforcement action if, based on its standards. For example, a rail passenger and implement a system safety program expertise and experience, FRA believes operator would be allowed to seek relief using MIL–STD–882(C) as a guide. MIL– the railroad is failing to designate an from some of the structural standards STD–882(C) is a military standard adequate number repair locations. based on a dedicated right-of-way or an issued by the Department of Defense § 238.21 Special approval advanced signaling system. However, that describes system safety planning procedure. This section states the the burden of demonstrating safety and system safety programs used by the procedures to be followed when seeking equivalency based on a comprehensive Unites States military for procuring and to obtain FRA approval of a pre-revenue risk assessment falls squarely on the operating weapon systems. See also the service acceptance testing plan under organization proposing the rail discussion under § 238.5 of this section- §§ 238.113 or 238.603 or an alternative passenger operation that does not meet by-section analysis. FRA does not standard under §§ 238.115 (‘‘Fire all the equipment standards. attempt to dictate to railroads how to safety’’), 238.223 (‘‘Fuel tanks’’), The system safety plan must be a apply this guidance. Railroads should 238.309 (‘‘Periodic brake equipment living document that evolves with the tailor their application of the guidance maintenance’’), 238.311 (‘‘Single car passenger rail system, and the system to their unique safety needs and test’’), 238.405 (‘‘Longitudinal static safety program detailed in the plan operating scenarios. compressive strength’’), or 238.427 should be enforced until the system is Paragraphs (b)–(d) describe the (‘‘Suspension system’’). Procedures for decommissioned. Ideally, the system various elements required to be obtaining FRA approval of inspection, safety program would be in place at the included in the plan. In particular, testing, and maintenance programs for inception of the system. This allows the paragraph (e) requires the operating Tier II equipment under § 238.503 are maximum benefit of the program to be railroad to document how the design found at § 238.505. achieved. Tier II equipment and major meets safety requirements and to track new purchases of Tier I equipment will how safety issues were raised and Subpart B—System Safety and General allow system safety planning to be used resolved. This is a necessary step to Requirements in the design and development phase of demonstrate that risks were identified § 238.101 Scope. This subpart the new equipment. However, for the and eliminated or mitigated. contains the system safety program most part, Tier I system safety programs Paragraph (f) requires the system requirements to be applied to all must be tailored to existing operations safety plan to describe how operational passenger equipment subject to this and equipment. limitations are to be imposed if the part. Although FRA initially considered The system safety approach can be design cannot meet certain safety addressing system safety requirements instituted at any point in the life cycle requirements. Operational limits are the for Tier I and Tier II equipment of a passenger rail system. APTA least desirable and thus the last means separately, FRA is proposing broad, currently publishes a voluntary system considered to reduce a safety risk. minimum requirements which can be safety program guide. Several APTA Paragraph (g) establishes the dates by applied to all types of passenger railroad members, which operate existing Tier I which the operating railroad must adopt systems. Therefore, separate equipment, instituted this system safety a system safety plan for each of the three requirements are not needed. program on their existing rail systems. categories of passenger equipment. The Working Group did not reach APTA periodically audits these Paragraph (h) obliges the railroad to consensus on the system safety programs and provides the operating allow FRA to inspect and copy its requirements as they apply to Tier I authority with feedback on how well the system safety plan and the equipment, but strong support exists system safety program has been documentation required by paragraph among Working Group members to implemented. As previously noted, (e). apply formal system safety planning to APTA has suggested that commuter § 238.105 Fire protection program. Tier I equipment. The Tier II Subgroup railroads be allowed to regulate Paragraph (a) requires that the operating did reach full consensus on the system themselves in this area, and that FRA railroad’s system safety program address safety program requirements as they not issue any regulations governing the fire safety of new equipment during apply to Tier II equipment. such plans. See preamble discussion; in the design stage so as to reduce the risk Tier I and Tier II passenger equipment the preamble FRA asked a variety of of harm due to fire on such equipment is used in a heavy rail environment that questions that commenters should to an acceptable level as defined in includes a mixture of freight and rail address regarding the need for system MIL–STD–882(C). Paragraph (b) requires passenger traffic and highway-rail grade safety plans, and if such plans should be that railroads make a written analysis of crossings used by heavy highway required what their contents should the fire protection problem. These vehicles. Such an environment makes contain and whether FRA should paragraphs require the operating reliance on collision avoidance risky. As enforce the various elements of the railroad to ensure that good fire a result, crashworthiness must be plans. protection practice is used during the designed into the equipment. In addition, Amtrak recently started a design and operation of the equipment. However, situations may arise where corporate system safety program Using this good practice will allow the requiring strict adherence to either the initiative to make a formal system safety FRA fire safety regulations to be kept to Tier I standards or the Tier II standards program an integral part of the way a minimum. Four elements of this may prevent rail passenger Amtrak conducts business. The value of analysis correspond to required action transportation that is in the public the formal system safety process is under § 238.115, ‘‘Fire safety’: the interest. As a result, FRA intends that rapidly being recognized by the installation of overheat detectors, a fire the system safety planning process passenger railroad industry and is or smoke detection system, and a fixed, allow railroads to develop approaches to becoming an accepted way of doing automatic, fire-suppression system providing rail passenger transportation business. where the railroad’s written analysis that do not meet all the Passenger § 238.103 General system safety determines they are required and Equipment Safety Standards but requirements. Paragraph (a) requires compliance with the railroad’s written Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49761 procedures for the inspection, testing, refurbishing and repair of the car. The used by highway vehicles that transport and maintenance of fire safety systems Board did find as follows: loads of flammable material. The level and equipment that such procedures 19. Because other commuter passenger cars of risk on each railroad corresponds to designate as mandatory. See may also have interior materials that may not the number of highway-rail grade § 238.115(c)–(f). meet specified performance criteria for crossings, density of rail traffic, and Paragraph (c) requires the operating flammability and smoke emission opportunities for collisions. railroad to exercise reasonable care to characteristics, the safety of passengers in FRA requests comments on the costs assure that the system developer follows those cars could be at risk. and benefits associated with the the design criteria and performs the 20. The federal guidelines on the approach contained in paragraph (d) tests required by the railroad’s fire flammability and smoke emission should railroads be successful in characteristics and the testing of interior safety program during the design of new establishing the categorical framework materials do not provide for the integrated assumed for the analysis. Is the period equipment. To fulfill this obligation in use of passenger car interior materials and, as part, the operating railroad must include a result, are not useful in predicting the of time allowed adequate to complete a fire safety requirements in each of its safety of the interior environment of a review of the existing fleet and differing contracts for the purchase of new passenger car in a fire. operating environments? To what extent does available fire safety literature equipment. FRA believes that existing fire safety adequately support this undertaking? Paragraph (d) requires that existing guidelines have continuing value for What difficulties will be faced in passenger equipment and operations be their specific purpose. Those guidelines identifying the source and current subjected to a fire safety analysis similar are proposed for codification in characteristics of interior materials, to that proposed for new equipment in § 238.115 as the best currently available particularly in older cars and cars that paragraphs (a)–(c). A preliminary fire criteria for analysis of individual have been transferred from the initial safety analysis would be required materials, and NTSB representatives on purchaser? In cars that have been within the first year. This effort would the working group have not suggested refurbished by the railroad’s own shop constitute an overview of the fleet and alternative proposals. However, as or a contract shop? service environments, together with explained in the preamble, FRA is known elements of risk (e.g., tunnels). § 238.107 Software safety program. conducting research through the This section provides requirements for For any category of equipment and National Institute of Standards and service identified as possibly presenting the software portion of the system safety Technology to address the interaction of program and ties the system safety unacceptable risk, a full analysis and materials and other aspects of fire safety any necessary remedial action would be program to § 238.121, which describes from a broader, systems approach. This the requirements for software that required within the following year. A philosophy is embodied in proposed full fire safety analysis, including controls safety features of Tier I or Tier § 238.105(a)–(c) with respect to new II equipment. review of the extent to which interior equipment. Based on this ongoing materials in all existing cars comply § 238.109 Inspection, testing, and research, FRA may propose new fire maintenance program. This section with the test performance criteria for safety performance criteria in the flammability and smoke emission contains the general requirements for second phase of this rulemaking. the railroad’s program for inspecting, characteristics contained in Appendix B FRA agrees with the Board that steps to this part or alternative standards testing, and maintaining Tier I must be taken to minimize fire safety equipment. (The inspection, testing, and approved by FRA under this part, would vulnerabilities in the existing rail be required within 4 years. This overall maintenance program for Tier II passenger equipment fleet. Present fire equipment is covered under § 238.503.) review would closely parallel and safety guidelines are advisory and were reinforce the passenger train emergency FRA’s goal is a set of standards to not introduced by FRA until 1984. Even ensure that the equipment remains safe preparedness planning effort that will in recent years, passenger railroads have be mandated under a separate docket as it wears and ages, to protect the been free to utilize non-compliant workers who perform the inspection, (see 62 FR 8330; February 24, 1997). materials (particularly during interior This paragraph responds to NTSB testing, and maintenance tasks, and to refurbishment funded locally without provide flexibility enough to allow concerns announced on June 17, 1997, FTA support). It is appropriate for each in adopting its report on the collision of individual railroads to adapt the commuter authority and Amtrak to maintenance standards to their own the MARC commuter train with evaluate the mix of materials, possible Amtrak’s Capitol Limited at Silver unique operating environment. FRA sources of ignition, and potential fire based the proposed requirements on the Spring, Maryland, and approving environments—including tunnels, cuts related recommendations. Among 13 extensive discussions and information and elevated structures where presented in the Working Group recommendations to be addressed to evacuation to the outside of the vehicle FRA was the following: meetings. may be difficult or ineffectual in Paragraph (a) requires a railroad that Require that a comprehensive inspection of reducing the risk of injury—relevant to operates Tier I passenger equipment all commuter passenger cars be performed to the risk of injury due to fire or smoke subject to this part to provide to FRA, independently verify that the interior exposure. materials in these cars meet the expected if requested, particulars about its FRA is concerned in particular with inspection, testing, and maintenance performance requirements for flammability the risk arising from the operation of cab and smoke emissions characteristics. program for that equipment, including cars forward and MU locomotives. Due the following: The Abstract of Final Report did not to their position in the lead of a • Safety inspection procedures, include any express finding that passenger train, these vehicles are more intervals and criteria;Washington, DC materials in the MARC cab car did not greatly exposed to the risk of fire from • Testing procedures and intervals; meet FTA/FRA criteria for flammability collisions with other rail vehicles as • Scheduled preventive maintenance and smoke emission characteristics. well as highway vehicles at grade intervals; However, FRA understands that the full crossings. In a collision, fire may erupt • Maintenance procedures; and report may point to the introduction of from the fuel tanks of both the rail and • Training of workers who perform some non-standard materials during highway vehicles, and also from tanks the tasks. 49762 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Since FRA does not dictate the develop procedures that are safe under qualification, and designation program contents of the program, individual its individual set of working conditions. for employees and contractors who railroads retain much flexibility to tailor Standard operating procedures can be a perform safety-related inspection, the program to their individual needs key component of a training program to testing, or maintenance tasks under this and experience. At the same time, FRA ensure new employees know how to do part. ‘‘Contractor,’’ in this context, believes this requirement is an their jobs safely. means ‘‘a person under contract with important component of the overall § 238.111 Training, qualification, the railroad or an employee of a person system safety program and the approach and designation program. This section under contract with the railroad.’’ will cause railroads to re-examine their contains the proposed training, Paragraph (b) lists the steps that must be inspection, testing, and maintenance qualification, and designation followed in developing a training, procedures to determine that they are requirements for workers (that is, both qualification, and designation program. adequate to ensure that the safety- railroad employees and contractors as FRA believes that the list of general related components of their equipment defined in the section) who perform requirements enumerated in this section are not deteriorating over time. This inspection, testing, and maintenance informs railroads what their training, approach represents good business tasks. FRA believes that worker training, qualification, and designation program practice and in most cases merely qualification, and designation are must do reasonably to ensure that formalizes what passenger railroads are central to a safe operation. employees know how to keep the already doing. However, FRA believes Labor organizations representing equipment running safely. Most this section will provide valuable mechanical employees believe that only passenger railroads have training guidance to regional governments or employees who receive a long-term programs in place that meet or come coalitions attempting to establish new apprenticeship and on-the-job close to meeting these proposed commuter rail service. training—typical of their membership— requirements. The list of actions that Paragraph (b) defines broadly the are qualified to perform inspection, FRA proposes would compel railroads types of conditions that can endanger testing, and maintenance tasks. Labor to evaluate their operation and focus the safety of the crew, passengers, or organizations representing operating their training resources where the need equipment that the inspection, testing, employees (train crews) believe the is greatest. and maintenance program should be work of inspecting and testing is largely FRA recognizes that some passenger designed to prevent or to detect and outside the scope of work that should be railroads will be forced to place a correct. Beyond promulgating and performed by their members, and that greater emphasis on training and enforcing an extensive set of Federal railroads do not provide adequate qualifications than they have in the safety regulations on this subject, FRA training to their members for them to past, and this requirement will result in is not proposing to specify how a effectively inspect and test equipment. additional costs for those railroads. railroad should prevent or detect these Operating railroads believe a different However, the proposed rule allows the conditions. Instead, the proposed level of skills is needed for simple railroads the flexibility that they need to standards leave these details to be inspections and tests (‘‘checkers’’) than provide only that training which an developed by each individual railroad. is required for trouble-shooting and employee needs for a specific job. The Paragraph (c) establishes a link correction of problems (‘‘maintainers’’). proposed rule does not require the between scheduled maintenance As a practical reality, operating ‘‘checkers’’ to receive the intensive intervals and the system safety program. railroads make the point that they training needed for the ‘‘maintainers.’’ Scheduled maintenance intervals cannot afford to train their entire The training can be tailored to the need. should be set so that worn parts are inspection, testing, and maintenance Across the industry as a whole, this replaced before they fail. Initial work force to be highly-skilled proposal will not require extensive intervals should be based on maintainers. Operating railroads claim changes in the way passenger railroads manufacturer’s recommendations. As that operating employees can be easily currently operate. But it will prevent operating experience is gained, FRA trained to perform the less complex railroads from using minimally trained believes that accumulated reliability inspection and testing tasks and in fact and unqualified people to perform data should be used as the basis for have been performing these tasks crucial safety tasks. changing preventive maintenance effectively for years. Benefits can be gained from this intervals on safety-critical components. Mechanical employee labor increased investment in training. Better This standard will encourage railroads organizations counter this point with a inspections will be performed, resulting to keep reliability records on safety- strong belief that operating employees— in the running of less defective critical components that will provide lacking the experience and trained eye equipment, which translates to a better confidence that any safety or economic of a mechanical employee—perform a safety record. Equipment conditions trade-offs have a firm basis. cursory inspection that misses defects or requiring maintenance attention are Paragraph (d) requires operating problems that would be caught by a more likely to be found while the railroads to adopt standard operating mechanical employee. equipment is at a maintenance or yard procedures, in writing, on how to safely As a result of these widely different site where repairs can be more easily perform all safety-critical inspection, points of view, the Working Group done. Trouble-shooting will take less testing, and maintenance tasks. This failed to reach overall consensus on the time. More maintenance will be done provision is intended to provide requirements contained in this section. right the first time, resulting in cost protection to the workers who perform FRA based the proposed requirements savings due to less rework. these tasks. Inspecting, testing and on the extensive discussions and APTA, in commenting on a draft of maintaining rail passenger equipment information presented in the Working the NPRM, believes that this section’s involves many inherently dangerous Group meetings as the merits and requirements are overly detailed in tasks. FRA does not intend to prescribe drawbacks of various approaches to scope, content, and record keeping. to how to perform these tasks. The setting the safety standards covered in APTA maintains that broad proposed standard requires each this section were debated. interpretation of the regulation could individual railroad to think through Paragraph (a) requires railroads to lead to arbitrary enforcement resulting how to safely perform these tasks and to establish and comply with a training, in misdirection of training resources. In Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49763 addition, APTA contends that the General Requirements required by § 238.105(d), to take action proposal adds costs without a to reduce the risk of personal injuries § 238.115 Fire Safety corresponding safety benefit—the cost due to fire and smoke exposure as to develop and implement the training Paragraph (a) contains the fire safety provided in § 238.105(d). programs and the cost to hire additional requirements for materials used in § 238.117 Protection Against Personal work force to perform the duties of constructing the interiors of passenger Injury those employees attending the required cars and cabs of locomotive ordered on training classes. Commenters are invited or after January 1, 1999, or placed in As recommended by the Working to address APTA’s concerns. service for the first time on or after Group, this section contains a general § 238.113 Pre-revenue service January 1, 2001. Further, as of the requirement to protect passengers and acceptance testing plan. This section effective date of the final rule, fire safety crewmembers from moving parts, provides requirements for pre-revenue requirements also apply to materials electrical shock and hot pipes. This service testing of passenger equipment used in refurbishing the interiors of section extends to passenger equipment and ties the system safety program to passenger cars and locomotive cabs. not classified as locomotives the subpart G, which describes the Currently, the rail industry follows protection against personal injury which requirements for the introduction of FRA’s fire safety guidelines as revised applies to locomotives under 49 CFR new technology that could affect safety on January 17, 1989. See 54 FR 1837. 229.41. The proposed requirements systems of Tier II passenger equipment. Several Working Group members represent common-sense safety practice; These tests are extremely important in believe that current fire safety practice reflect current industry practice; and that they are the culmination of all the has worked well in addressing the should result in no additional cost safety analysis and component tests of flammability of passenger car and burden to the industry. These the system safety program. The pre- locomotive cab interiors. However, requirements apply to all passenger revenue service tests are intended to since FRA’s guidelines were first equipment on or after January 1, 1998. demonstrate the effectiveness of the established, considerable fire safety and § 238.119 Rim-Stamped Straight-Plate system safety program and prove that fire resistance testing technology has Wheels the equipment can be operated safely in developed and some Working Group its intended environment. members believe that new information This section addresses the NTSB’s For equipment that has not previously is available to improve fire safety. safety recommendation concerning the been used in revenue service in the As discussed earlier in the preamble, use of rim-stamped straight-plate wheels United States, paragraph (a) requires the FRA is proposing that the existing fire on tread-braked rail passenger operating railroad to develop a pre- safety guidelines be made mandatory for equipment, as discussed earlier in the revenue service acceptance testing plan the construction of new equipment as preamble. Because a wheel having a and obtain FRA approval of the plan well as the refurbishing of existing rim-stamped straight-plate character is a under the procedures stated in § 238.21 equipment, and they are contained in sufficient safety concern in itself, FRA before beginning testing. Previous Appendix B. However, railroads can is extending the NTSB’s safety testing of the equipment at the request, under § 238.21, FRA approval recommendation to apply to all such Transportation Test Center, on another to utilize alternative standards issued or wheels used on passenger equipment railroad, or elsewhere will be recognized by an expert consensus regardless whether the equipment is considered by FRA in approving the test organization. As part of the second tread-braked or not. plan. Paragraph (b) requires the railroad phase of the rulemaking, the Working § 238.121 Train System Software and to fully execute the tests required by the Group will consider how to apply new Hardware plan, to correct any safety deficiencies fire safety information to improve the identified by FRA, and to obtain FRA’s fire safety standards, including This section contains the proposed approval to place the equipment in information being gathered by the NIST requirements for the hardware and revenue service prior to introducing the and the NFPA. software that controls train safety equipment in revenue service. Paragraph (b) requires railroads to functions that is ordered on or after Paragraph (c) requires the railroad to obtain certification that combustible January 1, 1999, and such systems comply with any operational limitations materials to be used in constructing and implemented or materially modified for imposed by FRA. Paragraph (d) requires refurbishing passenger car and new or existing equipment on or after the railroad to make the plan available locomotive cab interiors have been January 1, 2001. This section reflects the to FRA for inspection and copying. tested and comply with the fire safety growing role of automated systems to Paragraph (e) enumerates the elements standards as specified in paragraph (a) control passenger train safety functions. that must be included in the plan. FRA and Appendix B to this part. FRA had presented for consideration a believes this set of steps and the Paragraphs (c) through (e) contain rather complex set of software safety documentation required by this section requirements for installing various requirements in the ANPRM, but the are necessary to ensure that all safety detection and suppression equipment Working Group recommended risks have been reduced to a level that when shown to be necessary by analyses simplifying these requirements and permits the equipment to be used in conducted as part of the fire protection combining them with the requirements revenue service. program in § 238.105. for the hardware components of control In lieu of the requirements of Paragraph (f) requires the railroad to systems. paragraphs (a) through (e), paragraph (f) comply with those elements of its Paragraph (a) proposes a requirement provides for an abbreviated testing written procedures, under § 238.105(12), for a formal safety methodology that procedure for equipment that has for the inspection, testing, and includes a Failure Modes, Effects, previously been used in revenue service maintenance of all fire safety systems Criticality Analysis (FMECA) and full in the United States. The railroad need and equipment that is has designated as verification tests for all components of not submit a test plan to FRA; however, mandatory as part of its fire protection safety system controls. A formal safety a description of the testing shall be kept program. analysis that includes full verification is by the railroad and made available to Paragraph (g) requires the railroad, now standard practice for safety systems FRA for inspection and copying. after completing each fire safety analysis that contain software components. 49764 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules

In paragraph (b), FRA proposes to the exit path, and higher intensity exceeding 125 mph. Unless otherwise require a comprehensive hardware and lighting at the vehicle’s exits. specified in the discussion of this software integration testing program to FRA is considering requiring that subpart and with the following ensure that the hardware and the emergency lighting meeting the qualifications, the proposed software installed in the hardware requirements of this section be requirements represent the consensus function together as intended. Again, implemented in existing passenger recommendations of the Working this is a practice that has become equipment sooner than when the Group. FRA has proposed the specific common for critical control systems that equipment is rebuilt. Existing passenger implementation dates for these include both software and hardware. equipment may not be rebuilt for 20 requirements. Additionally, in Paragraph (c) contains a provision for years or more. FRA therefore invites structuring the rule FRA has specified safety-related control systems driven by comments whether the proposed the type of equipment subject to each computer software to have design requirements should be implemented in requirement more finely than in the features that result in a safe condition in existing passenger equipment within a Working Group’s recommendations, the event of a computer hardware or specified time such as 5 years. while at the same time reflecting those software failure. This is a design feature The two-hour time duration for recommendations as closely as possible. that is used in aircraft and in weapon availability of back-up power is based Further, FRA has made other changes to control systems. on experience gained during rescue the recommendations to make the These requirements are not complex operations for passenger train accidents proposed requirements more clear, and will not limit the flexibility of in remote locations. In such accidents, enforceable, and compatible with other equipment designers. Yet, they reflect fully-equipped emergency response rail safety laws. good design practices that have led to forces can take an hour or more to arrive Structural standards for new reliable, safe computer hardware and at the site, and additional time is equipment. Unless otherwise specified, software control systems in other required to deploy and reach people the requirements of this subpart apply industries. Computer hardware and trapped or injured in the train. In only to passenger equipment ordered on software systems designed to these addition, the back-up power system or after January 1, 1999, or placed in requirements may require a larger initial must be able to operate in all service for the first time on or after investment to develop, but experience orientations within 45 degrees of January 1, 2001. in other industries has shown that this vertical and after experiencing a shock The proposed rule also provides that investment is quickly recovered by due to a longitudinal acceleration of 8g passenger equipment placed in service significantly reducing hardware and and vertical and lateral accelerations of for the first time on or after January 1, software integration problems and 4g. The shock requirement will ensure 1998, unless otherwise provided in the minimizing trouble-shooting and that the back-up power system has a cited sections, must meet the minimum debugging of equipment. reasonable chance of operating after the structural requirements specified in: §§ 238.203 (static end strength); § 238.123 Emergency Lighting initial shock caused by a collision or derailment. FRA originally considered 238.205(a) (anti-climbing mechanism); Experience gained during rescues 238.207 (link between coupling conducted after recent passenger train that the back-up power system be capable of operation within a vehicle in mechanism and car body); and accidents indicates that emergency 238.211(a) (collision posts). Together, lighting systems either did not work or any orientation. However, members of the Working Group advised that some these four proposed requirements are failed after a short time, greatly virtually identical to existing Federal hindering rescue operations. This battery technologies utilize a liquid electrolyte which can leak when the requirements, found in 49 CFR section requires that passengers cars and 229.141(a)(1)–(4), that apply to MU battery is tilted. FRA is further locomotives ordered or rebuilt on or locomotives built new after April 1, considering whether the back-up power after January 1, 1999, or placed in 1956, and operated in trains having a system should be made capable of service for the first time on or after total empty weight of 600,000 pounds or operation within a vehicle in any January 1, 2001, be equipped with more. These proposed requirements orientation, including allowing railroads emergency lighting providing a reflect the current construction practice to continue using any existing batteries minimum average illumination level of for North American passenger through their permanent life before 5 foot-candles at floor level for all equipment, and FRA believes they are implementing such a requirement on potential evacuation routes and a back- minimum safety requirements for new replacement batteries. Commenters are up power feature capable of operation equipment. for a minimum of two hours after loss requested to address this issue. In addition to the structural of normal power. Although members of FRA is further investigating requirements identified above, the the Working Group advised that the emergency lighting requirements as part proposed rule also requires that lighting intensity requirement be 0.05 of a systems approach to effective passenger equipment ordered on or after foot-candle, FRA does not believe that passenger train evacuation through a January 1, 1999, or placed in service for 0.05 foot-candle provides enough research study to be performed by the the first time on or after January 1, 2001, illumination for passengers to locate Volpe Center. FRA welcomes input from unless otherwise provided in the cited emergency exits, read instructions for knowledgeable persons as to what sections, comply with other structural their operation, and operate the exits, as emergency lighting requirements would requirements specified in: §§ 238.205(b) demonstrated by Volpe Center staff at a be appropriate for passenger trains to (anti-climbing mechanism for Working Group meeting in December, assist in passenger evacuation. locomotives); 238.209 (forward-facing 1996. FRA requests comments whether Subpart C—Specific Requirements for end structure of locomotives); the lighting intensity requirement need Tier I Passenger Equipment 238.211(b) (collision posts for be 5 foot-candles at floor level for all locomotives); 238.213 (corner posts); potential evacuation routes if the rail § 238.201 Scope 238.215 (rollover strength); 238.217 vehicle has a combination of lower This subpart contains specific (side impact strength); 238.219 (truck- intensity floor proximity lighting, requirements for railroad passenger to-car-body attachment); and 238.223 similar to that used on aircraft to mark equipment operating at speeds not (fuel tanks). Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49765

Structural standards for existing of such equipment either may not meet § 238.205 Anti-Climbing Mechanism equipment. The proposed rule would the structural requirements in This section contains the vertical require that passenger equipment (other §§ 238.203, 238.205(a), 238.207, and strength requirements for anti-climbing than private cars, or vehicles of a special 238.211(a), or the equipment must mechanisms on rail passenger design operating at the rear of a undergo potentially costly testing to equipment. The purpose of the anti- passenger train and used solely to determine whether the requirements are climbing mechanism is to prevent transport freight) in use on or after met. FRA will discuss with the Working override or telescoping of one passenger January 1, 1998, have a minimum static Group alternatives that would avoid train unit into another in the event of end strength of 800,000 pounds unnecessary expense to document high compressive forces caused by a (§ 238.203). Static end strength is design features of older equipment. derailment or collision. critical in protecting passenger FRA is proposing that all passenger equipment from crushing in a head-on No new safety appliance equipment placed in service for the first or rear-end collision, especially in the requirements. FRA is not proposing new time on or after January 1, 1998, shall North American railroad operating safety appliance requirements for have an anti-climbing mechanism at environment that includes frequent passenger equipment subject to this each end capable of resisting an upward highway-rail grade crossings and the subpart. The safety appliance mixed operation of freight and requirements referenced in § 238.229 or downward vertical force of 100,000 passenger trains. continue to apply to such passenger pounds without permanent FRA is confident that existing North equipment and are noted in this rule for deformation. When coupled together in American passenger cars have been clarity, on the advice of the Working any combination to join two vehicles, built to basic compressive strength Group. AAR Type H and Type F tight-lock requirements. Beginning in 1939, the couplers satisfy this requirement. This AAR recommended that new passenger § 238.203 Static End Strength requirement incorporates a long- cars operated in trains of over 600,000 standing industry practice into the This section contains the proposed rule. pounds empty weight have a minimum requirements for the overall static end strength of 800,000 pounds, The proposed rule further requires compressive strength of rail passenger that the forward end of a locomotive and since 1956, Federal Regulations (49 equipment. The proposed requirements CFR 229.141) require that new MU ordered on or after January 1, 1999, or make mandatory the long-standing, locomotives operated in such trains placed in service for the first time on or North American design practice of must meet this standard. after January 1, 2001, be equipped with FRA is considering requiring that one specifying a minimum static end an anti-climbing mechanism capable of or more of the other structural strength of 800,000 pounds, and a resisting an upward or downward requirements for new passenger minimum static end strength of 800,000 vertical force of 200,000 pounds without equipment, discussed above, be made pounds in the line of draft at the ends failure. This requirement applies to applicable to existing equipment as of occupied volumes, without locomotives or power cars of soon as one of the following events permanent deformation of the car body permanently coupled trains. AAR occurs: the equipment is sold to another structure. This requirement has proven Standard S–580, which addresses the railroad; the equipment is rebuilt; the effective in the North American railroad crashworthiness of locomotives, has equipment reaches 40 years of age; or 10 operating environment that includes included this requirement for all years after the effective date of the rule. frequent highway-rail grade crossings, locomotives built since August 1990. FRA invites comments on: (1) what mixed operation of freight and FRA believes this industry practice equipment would be affected by each of passenger trains, and less than fully- represents sound equipment design. these structural requirements; (2) the capable signal and train control systems. § 238.207 Link Between Coupling feasibility and costs of retrofitting such The requirement is effective on or after Mechanism and Car Body equipment, with costs broken out for January 1, 1998. Although FRA would each of the different structural prefer that every vehicle in a passenger This section contains the vertical requirements, in the event such train have a minimum static end strength requirements for the structure triggering events were adopted in the strength as specified in this section, that links the coupling mechanism to final rule; (3) whether these triggering FRA recognizes that imposing this the car body on passenger equipment. events are reasonable, or whether some requirement universally may effectively The purpose of this requirement is to other fixed deadline should be prohibit the use of some private cars avoid a premature failure of the draft established for making one or more of and all auto-carriers and RoadRailer system so that the anti-climbing these structural requirements applicable equipment. mechanism will have an opportunity to to existing passenger equipment; and (4) engage. the safety benefits that could accrue by To prevent sudden, brittle-type failure FRA is proposing that all passenger making these requirements applicable to of the main structure of passenger equipment placed in service for the first existing equipment. equipment, the proposed rule requires time on or after January 1, 1998, be FRA notes that older passenger that the body structure be designed, to provided with a coupler carrier or other equipment may not meet the collision the maximum extent possible, to fail by coupler-to-car-body linking structure post requirements in § 238.211(a) buckling or crushing, or both, of that is designed to resist a vertical because of a change in collision post structural members rather than by downward thrust from the coupler design following a collision between fracture of structural members or failure shank of 100,000 pounds, without two Illinois Central Gulf Railroad of structural connections. To allow a permanent deformation for any normal commuter trains in Chicago, Illinois, on crash energy management design horizontal position of the coupler. October 30, 1972. Moreover, APTA is approach to be employed, this opposed to making structural requirement applies only to the § 238.209 Forward-Facing End requirements applicable to existing occupied volume of the equipment. Structure of Locomotives equipment. In particular, APTA has Unoccupied volumes may have a lesser This section contains the requirement advised FRA that a significant number static end yield strength. for the covering or skin of the forward- 49766 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules facing end structure of each passenger than posts attached only at the may be located at positions other than locomotive ordered on or after January underframe. Little, if any, additional the extreme outside corner of a vehicle. 1, 1999, or placed in service for the first cost is imposed on builders by requiring For example, on cars equipped with end time on or after January 1, 2001. The full height posts. The spacing at vestibules, the corner posts may be purpose of this requirement is to protect approximately the one-third points located in the side structure inboard of the occupied area of a locomotive cab, laterally will allow both collision posts the side door opening. which is especially vulnerable in a to be engaged in many collision The structural parameters proposed highway-rail grade crossing collision if scenarios. An equivalent single rear end for corner post strength represent the a fuel tank that is part of or being structure may be used in place of the current design practice for passenger transported by a highway vehicle two collision posts provided it can cars built for North American service. ruptures. withstand the sum of the forces that They are being proposed as an interim FRA is proposing that the skin each collision post is required to measure to prevent the introduction of covering the forward-facing end of each withstand. equipment not meeting such passenger locomotive, e.g., a cab car and Paragraph (b) requires that each requirements. FRA recognizes that an MU locomotive, be equivalent to a locomotive ordered on or after January current design practice has proven 1 ⁄2-inch steel plate with a 25,000 1, 1999, or placed in service for the first inadequate to protect the occupied pounds-per-square-inch yield strength time on or after January 1, 2001, have volume in several recent side-swipe and be designed to inhibit the entry of two forward collision posts, located at collisions involving passenger trains fluids into the occupied area of the approximately the one-third points with cab cars leading. Crash modeling equipment. Higher yield strength laterally, each capable of withstanding a suggests that it is not feasible to protect material may be used to decrease the 500,000-pound longitudinal force against collisions of the magnitude that required thickness of the material without exceeding the ultimate strength occurred at Secaucus, New Jersey, and provided an equivalent strength is of the joint. In addition, each post must Silver Spring, Maryland, in February of maintained. AAR Standard S–580 has be capable of withstanding a 200,000- 1996. Nevertheless, stronger corner included this requirement for all pound longitudinal force exerted 30 posts are necessary to address collisions locomotives built since August 1990. inches above the joint of the post to the involving lower closing speeds, and From observations of the improved underframe, without exceeding its determining what may be feasible in performance of locomotives during ultimate strength. AAR Standard S–580 terms of cost and weight will be a collisions, FRA believes that this has included this requirement for all priority in the second phase of the industry standard should become part of locomotives built since August 1990. rulemaking. the proposed safety standards. From observation of the improved performance of these locomotives § 238.215 Rollover Strength § 238.211 Collision Posts during collisions, FRA believes this This section contains the structural This section contains the structural industry practice should become part of requirements intended to prevent strength requirements for collision the proposed safety standards. significant deformation of the normally posts. Collision posts provide protection As an option, an equivalent end occupied spaces of a passenger car in against the crushing of occupied areas of structure may be used in place of the the event it rolls onto its side or roof. passenger equipment in the event of a two forward collision posts. The single The proposal essentially requires the collision or derailment. This section end structure shall withstand the sum of vehicle structure to be able to support does not apply to a vehicle of special the forces that each collision post is twice the dead weight of the vehicle design that operates at the rear of a required to withstand. This option is while the vehicle is resting on its side passenger train and is used solely to proposed to allow for the design of or roof. Deformation of sheathing and transport freight, such as an auto-carrier unitized or aircraft-type structures. or RoadRailer. FRA is proposing that collision posts framing is allowed to the extent Paragraph (a) requires that all be required at the ends of passenger necessary for the vehicle to be passenger equipment placed in service equipment where coupling and supported directly by more substantial for the first time on or after January 1, uncoupling are expected or where structural members of the frame, 1998, shall have either two full-height separation is likely in the event of a including the top chords and side collision posts at each end where violent derailment. Paragraph (c) frames. Analysis has shown that current coupling and uncoupling are expected, provides that if a train is made up of passenger car design practice meets this each collision post having an ultimate vehicles with articulated units, collision requirement. This requirement has longitudinal strength of not less than posts are required only at the ends of proven effective in preventing massive 300,000 pounds; or an equivalent end the permanently joined assembly of structural deformation of cars that have structure. units, not at the ends of each unit of the rolled during collisions or derailments. The proposed 300,000-pound strength assembly. Articulated units are not For this reason, FRA believes this requirement makes mandatory the long- likely to experience impacts on other requirement should be incorporated into standing North American passenger than the outside ends of the assembly. the proposed safety standards. equipment design practice for collision FRA invites comment on whether this posts. This requirement has proven § 238.213 Corner Posts requirement should also apply to effective in the North American railroad This section contains the locomotives. Representatives from RPI operating environment. This requirements for corner posts on advised that locomotives do not roll requirement is similar to that contained passenger cars, e.g., passenger coaches, over frequently enough to justify such in 49 CFR 229.141(a)(4), which applies cab cars and MU locomotives. requirements for locomotives. to MU locomotives operated in trains A corner post is the vertical structural Nevertheless, even if a locomotive does having a total empty weight of 600,000 member normally located at the not roll over, this requirement should pounds or more, but also requires the intersection of the end of a rail vehicle help protect its roof from crushing if it collision posts to be full-height. Full- with a side of that vehicle. However, is forced to support the weight of height collision posts provide additional FRA intends for the proposed rule to another vehicle thrown onto its roof in protection because they extend higher allow flexibility so that the corner post an accident. Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49767

§ 238.217 Side Impact Strength The requirement for the attachment to standard by changing the industry resist a vertical force is intended to keep standard. FRA agrees and is proposing This section contains the car body the truck attached if the car body is that the rule incorporate the industry strength requirements intended to resist raised or rolls over. If the truck remains standard as adopted on July 1, 1995. penetration of the side structure of a attached to the car body, the truck is § 238.225 Electrical System passenger car by a highway or rail less likely to be struck by other units of vehicle. the train. The attachment must resist, This section contains the proposed FRA believes that a side impact without failure, a force equal to twice requirements for the design of electrical strength requirement is necessary the weight of the truck and all the systems on passenger equipment. The because approximately 14% of the grade components attached to the truck. Many Working Group advised that no single, crossing accidents involving a passenger types of keepers are used to keep trucks well-recognized electrical code or set of train result from a highway vehicle attached to car bodies. FRA believes that standards applied directly to the design striking the side of the passenger train. the majority of them are capable of of railroad passenger equipment. As a In addition, during a derailment or meeting this requirement. result, the Working Group train-to-train collision, trains frequently recommended broad performance § 238.221 Glazing buckle, exposing the sides of cars to requirements which reflect common potential impacts during the collision. FRA is proposing additional electrical safety practice and are widely The proposed requirement was an AAR requirements concerning the safety recognized as good electrical design recommended design practice for glazing of passenger equipment subject practice. FRA had offered for comment passenger cars, as last revised in 1984, to the requirements of 49 CFR part 223. more detailed electrical system design and represents current North American Existing safety glazing requirements for requirements in the ANPRM, but as design practice. windows have largely proven effective advocated by the Working group the in passenger service at speeds up to 125 In designing a side impact strength proposed rule is more performance- mph. However, part 223 does not requirement for a passenger car, the oriented and provides wide latitude in address the performance of the frame objective is to cause the side of the equipment design. FRA believes that which attaches the glazing to the car passenger car to be strong enough so this approach helps to ensure good body. This section requires the glazing that the car derails rather than collapses electrical design practice without frame to be capable of holding the when struck in the side by another rail imposing unnecessary costs on the glazing in place against all forces which vehicle or a heavy highway vehicle. industry. the glazing is required to resist under FRA believes that current design The electrical system requirements part 223. In addition, the glazing frame include provisions for: practice may not be adequate to meet must hold the glazing in place against • this goal. FRA also believes that cars Electrical conductor sizes and the forces created by air pressure properties to provide a margin of safety with low floors, such as bi-level differences caused when two trains pass equipment, are particularly vulnerable for the intended application; at their maximum authorized speeds in • Battery system design to prevent the to penetration when struck in the side. opposite directions at the minimum risk of overcharging or accumulation of A more meaningful side impact strength track separation for two adjacent tracks. dangerous gases that can cause an requirement is necessary and will be a This requirement is intended to prevent explosion; priority in the second phase of the the glazing from being forced from the • Design of resistor grids that rulemaking, as research determines window opening and potentially dissipate energy produced by dynamic what may be feasible in terms of cost injuring passengers and crewmembers. braking with sufficient electrical and weight. The proposed requirement FRA that believes most existing isolation and ventilation to minimize is therefore an interim measure to passenger equipment subject to part 223 the risk of fires; and prevent the introduction or use of meets these requirements. However, • Electromagnetic compatibility equipment not meeting this basic they should not be left to chance and within the intended operating strength requirement. need to be required in the equipment environment to prevent electromagnetic § 238.219 Truck-to-Car-Body design. interference with safety-critical equipment systems and to prevent Attachment § 238.223 Fuel Tanks interference of the rolling stock with This section contains the truck-to-car- This section contains the structural other systems along the rail right-of- body attachment strength requirement requirements for external and integral way. for passenger equipment. The fuel tanks on locomotives ordered on or attachment is required to resist without after January 1, 1999, or placed in § 238.227 Suspension System failure a 2g vertical force on the mass of service for the first time after January 1, This section contains the proposed the truck and a force of 250,000 pounds 2001. A discussion of fuel tank safety requirements for suspension system in any horizontal direction. The issues is provided above. performance of all Tier I passenger requirement for the attachment to resist External fuel tanks must comply with equipment on or after January 1, 1998, a horizontal force is intended to allow AAR Recommended Practice-506, and represents the minimum the truck to act as an anti-climbing Performance Requirements for Diesel requirements for a safe operation. In the device during a collision. With the truck Electric Locomotive Fuel tanks. FRA ANPRM, FRA presented for comment a attached to the car body, the truck of an believes that RP–506 represents an large set of fairly detailed suspension overriding rail vehicle is likely to be improvement in fuel tank system performance requirements very caught by the underframe of the crashworthiness and should be similar to those now being proposed for overridden rail vehicle, thus arresting incorporated into the proposed Tier II passenger equipment. The the override. The parameter selected standards. Labor representatives on the Working Group advised that such an represents the current design practice Working Group object to a direct extensive set of requirements was not that has proven effective in preventing incorporation of industry standards that needed for Tier I passenger equipment. horizontal shear of trucks from car effectively allow an industry Overall, FRA is proposing that all bodies. organization to change a Federal safety passenger equipment shall exhibit 49768 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules freedom from hunting oscillations at all maximum authorized operating speed or cause the brakes to apply. These speeds. Further, FRA is proposing within the signal spacing existing on the proposed provisions are fundamental particular suspension system safety track. FRA believes that this proposed requirements necessary for effective requirements for passenger equipment requirement is the most fundamental brake system performance, and a operating at speeds above 110 mph but performance standard for any train codification of current industry practice. not exceeding 125 mph, near the brake system. This section merely FRA intends the requirement to apply to transition speed range from Tier I to codifies a requirement which is current all types of brake control signals, Tier II requirements. Although FRA industry practice and is the basis for including pneumatic, electric, and radio believes that for speeds not exceeding safe train operation in the United States. signals. 110 mph existing equipment has not Paragraph (b) requires that passenger Paragraph (e) proposes to prohibit the demonstrated serious suspension equipment ordered on or after January 1, introduction of alcohol or other system stability problems, most of this 1999, or placed in service for the first chemicals into the brake line. During same equipment is only operated at time on or after January 1, 2001, be periods of extreme cold weather, speeds that do not exceed 110 mph. designed not to require an inspector to railroad employees at times resort to Accordingly, when new or existing place himself or herself on, under, or adding alcohol or other freezing point passenger equipment is intended for between components of the equipment depressants to the brake line in an operation above 110 mph, this to observe brake actuation or release. attempt to prevent accumulated equipment must demonstrate stable The proposal allows railroads the moisture in the line from freezing. operation during pre-revenue service flexibility of using a reliable indicator in Virtually every railroad has a policy qualification tests at all speeds up to 5 place of requiring direct observation of against this practice because alcohol mph in excess of its maximum intended the brake application or piston travel and other chemicals attack the o-rings operating speed under worst-case because the current designs of many and gaskets that seal the brake system, conditions—including component passenger car brake systems make direct causing them to age or fail prematurely. wear—as determined by the operating observation extremely difficult without This practice can lead to dangerous air railroad. The Working Group advised the inspector placing himself or herself leaks and it increases maintenance FRA that a single definition of worst- underneath the equipment. Brake costs. FRA proposed a similar case conditions could not be applied system piston travel or piston cylinder requirement in the 1994 NPRM on generally to all railroads; and, as a pressure indicators have been used with power brakes and received numerous result, the definition of worst-case satisfactory results for many years. comments supporting this provision. conditions shall be determined by each Although indicators do not provide 100 See 59 FR 47728. railroad based upon its particular percent certainty that the brakes are Paragraph (f) proposes to require that operating environment. effective, FRA believes that they have the brake system be designed and proven themselves effective enough to operated to prevent dangerous cracks in § 239.229 Safety Appliances be preferable to requiring an inspector wheels. Passenger equipment wheels are This section references current safety to assume a dangerous position. normally heat treated so that the wheel appliance requirements contained in 49 Paragraph (c) proposes to require that rim is in compression. This condition U.S.C. chapter 203 and 49 CFR part 231. an emergency brake application feature forces small cracks that form in the rim These existing requirements continue to be available at any time and that it to be closed. Heavy tread braking can apply independently to all Tier I produce an irretrievable stop. This heat wheels to the point that a stress passenger equipment, and FRA is section merely codifies current industry reversal occurs and the wheel rim is in referencing them here for clarity on the practice and ensures that passenger tension to a certain depth. Rim tension recommendation of the Working Group. equipment will continue to be designed is a dangerous condition because it with an emergency brake application promotes surface crack growth. In the § 238.231 Brake System feature. In the 1994 NPRM on power 1994 NPRM on power brakes, FRA This section contains general brake brakes, FRA proposed a requirement proposed a wheel surface temperature system performance requirements that that all trains be equipped with an limit to prevent this condition. See 59 apply on or after January 1, 1998, to Tier emergency application feature capable FR 47729. Several brake manufacturers I passenger equipment except as of increasing the train’s deceleration and railroads objected to this approach, otherwise provided. Although the rate a minimum of 15 percent. See 59 claiming that the temperature limit was Working Group did not reach consensus FR 47729. Comments received in too conservative and did not allow for on these proposed requirements due to response to that proposal indicated that the development of new materials that the inability of the group to resolve the passenger brake equipment should can withstand higher temperatures. brake inspection, testing, and provide a deceleration rate with a full Based on these comments and concerns, maintenance issues, the proposed service application that is close to the FRA is proposing a more flexible provisions had widespread support emergency brake rate and that the performance requirement rather than a among many of the members of the proposed requirement would require the wheel tread surface temperature limit. Working Group. Several of the proposed lowering of full service brake rates, This is an extremely important safety requirements contained in this section thereby compromising safety and requirement because a cracked wheel were included in written positions lowering train speeds. Based on these that fails at high speed can have provided by both rail labor and comments, FRA proposes the current catastrophic consequences. In addition, management members of the Working requirement which is in accordance the proposed requirement will lead to Group. Virtually all of the proposed with suggestions made by several longer wheel life, and thus should provisions were discussed in the 1994 passenger operations. provide maintenance savings to the NPRM on power brakes. See 59 FR Paragraph (d) proposes to require that railroads. 47676. the train brake system respond as Paragraph (g) proposes to require that Paragraph (a) contains a requirement intended to brake control signals and brake discs be designed and operated so that the primary braking system be that the brake control system be that the disc surface temperature does capable of stopping the train with a designed so that a loss of control signal not exceed manufacturer service application of the brakes from its causes a redundant control to take over recommendations. In the 1994 NPRM, Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49769

FRA proposed a disc surface brake would most likely become a direction, and 3g in the lateral direction. temperature limit. See 59 FR 47729. As safety-critical item and railroads would Due to the injuries caused by broken noted above, several brake not be permitted to dispatch trains seats and other loose fixtures, FRA manufacturers and railroads objected to unless the dynamic brake were fully believes that the current design practice this approach, claiming that the operational. is inadequate. temperature limit was too conservative Paragraph (k) proposes to require that Accordingly, paragraph (a) proposes and did not allow for the development either computer modeling or that each seat in a passenger car remain of new materials that can withstand dynamometer tests be performed to firmly attached to the car body when higher temperatures. Based on these confirm that new brake designs not subjected to individually applied comments and concerns, FRA proposes result in thermal damage to wheels or accelerations of 4g in the vertical a more flexible requirement rather than discs. Further, if the operating direction and 4g in the lateral direction a single disc surface temperature limit. parameters of the new braking system acting on the deadweight of the seat or FRA believes this requirement will lead change significantly, a new simulation seats, if a tandem unit. In addition, the to longer disc life, and thus will must be performed. This proposal attachment must resist a longitudinal produce maintenance savings to provides a means to ensure that the inertial force of 8g acting on the mass railroads. requirements proposed in paragraphs (f) of the seat plus the impact force of the Paragraph (h) proposes to require that, and (g) are being complied with by new mass of a 95th-percentile male except for a locomotive that is ordered brake designs. occupant(s) being decelerated from a before January 1, 1999, and placed in Paragraph (l) proposes to require that relative speed of 25 mph and striking service for the first time before January all locomotives ordered on or after the seat from behind. By resisting the 1, 2001, and except for a private car, all January 1, 1999, or placed in service for force of an occupant striking the seat passenger equipment shall be equipped the first time on or after January 1, 2001, from behind, a potential domino effect with a hand or parking brake that can be equipped with effective air coolers or of seats breaking away from their be set and released manually and can air dryers on those locomotives that are attachments is avoided. hold the equipment on the maximum equipped with air compressors. The Paragraph (b) proposes that overhead grade anticipated by the operating coolers or dryers must be capable of storage racks provide longitudinal and railroad. A hand or parking brake is an providing air to the main reservoir with lateral restraint for stowed articles to important safety feature that prevents a dew point suppression at least 10 minimize the potential for these objects the rolling or runaway of parked degrees F. below ambient temperature. to come loose and injure train equipment. The proposed requirement FRA and most members in the industry occupants. Further, to prevent overhead represents current industry practice. In agree that moisture is a major cause of storage racks from breaking away from the 1994 NPRM on power brakes, FRA brake line contamination. Consequently, their attachment points to the car body, proposed requiring that a hand brake be reducing moisture leads to longer these racks shall have an ultimate equipped on cars and locomotives. See component life and better brake system strength capable of resisting 59 FR 47729. FRA received several performance. Currently, virtually all individually applied accelerations of 8g comments to that proposal suggesting passenger railroads purchase only longitudinally, 4g vertically, and 4g that the term ‘‘parking brake’’ be added locomotives equipped with air dryers or laterally acting on the mass of the to the requirement since that is what is coolers. Therefore, FRA proposes to luggage stowed. This mass shall be used in many passenger operations. require the continuation of what it specified by each railroad. Paragraph (c) Based on those suggestions, FRA has believes is good industry practice. requires that all other interior fittings in a passenger car be attached to the car added the term in this proposal. § 238.233 Interior Fittings and Paragraph (i) proposes to require that body with sufficient strength to Surfaces passenger cars be equipped with a withstand individually applied means for the emergency brake to be This section contains proposed accelerations of 8g longitudinally, 4g applied that is clearly identified and requirements concerning interior fittings vertically, and 4g laterally acting on the accessible to passengers. This is a and surfaces that apply, as specified in mass of the fitting. FRA believes the longstanding industry practice and an this section, to passenger cars and proposed attachment strength important safety feature because crucial locomotives ordered on or after January requirements for seats, overhead storage time may be lost requiring passengers 1, 1999, or placed in service for the first racks, and other interior fittings will sensing danger to find a member of the time on or after January 1, 2001. This help reduce the number of injuries to train crew to stop the train. section should be read in connection occupants in passenger cars. Paragraph (j) contains proposed with an earlier discussion of train Passenger car occupants may also be provisions to ensure that the dynamic interior safety features in the preamble. injured by protruding objects, especially brake does not become a safety-critical FRA and NTSB investigations of if the occupants fall or are thrown device. Railroads have consistently held passenger train accidents have revealed against such objects during a train that dynamic brakes are not safety that luggage, seats, and other interior collision or derailment. As a result, FRA devices because the friction brake alone objects breaking or coming loose is a is proposing in paragraph (d) that, to the is capable of safely stopping a train if frequent cause of injury to passengers extent possible, all interior fittings in a the dynamic brake is not available. The and crewmembers. During a collision, passenger car, except seats, shall be proposed provisions include requiring the greatest decelerations and thus the recessed or flush-mounted. Such fittings that the blending of the friction and greatest forces to cause potential failure do not protrude above interior surfaces dynamic brakes be automatic, that the of interior fitting attachment points are and thereby help to minimize occupant friction brakes alone be able to stop the experienced in the longitudinal injuries. train in the allowable stopping distance, direction, i.e., in the direction parallel to Paragraph (e) is a general, common and that a failure of the dynamic brake the normal direction of train travel. sense prohibition against sharp edges does not cause thermal damage to Current practice is to design seats and and corners in a locomotive cab and a wheels or discs due to the greater other interior fittings to withstand the passenger car. Just as FRA is concerned friction braking load. FRA believes that forces due to accelerations of 6g in the about protruding objects, these surfaces without these requirements the dynamic longitudinal direction, 3g in the vertical could also injure passenger train 49770 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules occupants. If sharp edges and corners emergency window exits. Commenters a consensus recommendation of the cannot be avoided, they should be are also requested to address this issue. Working Group. padded to mitigate the consequences of FRA is proposing that each passenger FRA invites comment on whether the occupant impacts. car of special design, such as a sleeper location of the manual override device Paragraph (f) contains the car, have at least one emergency should be specified in terms of distance requirements for floor-mounted cab window exit in each compartment. from the door it controls or some other seats provided solely for the Occupants of a sleeper car may have measure. FRA is proposing that the crewmembers in locomotive cabs. FRA difficulty reaching the car doors quickly manual override device be ‘‘adjacent’’ to proposes to require the seat attachment in an emergency from their the door, as stated in the NTSB safety to have an ultimate strength capable of compartments, for example, if an recommendation. Railroad resisting the loads due to individually emergency window exit is not provided representatives on the Working Group applied accelerations of 8g in their individual sleeping have suggested a time performance longitudinally, 4g vertically, and 4g compartments. An emergency window requirement that includes the time laterally acting on the combined mass of exit is necessary in each compartment to necessary for locating and opening the the seat and its occupant. This enable occupants to quickly exit the car door. requirement is more stringent than the when time is of the essence, especially Currently, there is no Federal requirement for seats in passenger cars if the car is submerged. requirement that passenger cars be in paragraph (a) because the mass of the Each emergency window exit must be equipped with side doors. Accordingly, seat occupant is included in easily operable by a 5th-percentile in paragraph (b) FRA is proposing that determining the load that must be female without requiring the use of a passenger cars ordered on or after resisted. Cab seats designed to this tool or other implement. FRA has added January 1, 1999, or placed in service for requirement will allow the use of seat to the Working Group’s the first time on or after January 1, 2001, belts and shoulder harnesses to restrain recommendation by specifying that a shall have a minimum of four side crewmembers in a collision. Further, 5th-percentile female must be able to doors, or the functional equivalent, each when turned backwards during a easily operate the emergency exit, permitting at least one 95th-percentile collision, seats designed to this thereby making clear the degree to male to pass through at a single time. requirement can effectively restrain which the exit need be easily operable Although the Working Group did not crewmembers. by members of the general public. FRA discuss this proposal, FRA believes that believes this is consistent with the such a requirement is necessary, at least § 238.235 Emergency Window Exits desire of the Working Group to promote as an interim measure, so that each This section should be read with the the safety of the travelling public. passenger car have sufficient doorway earlier discussion of emergency window Paragraph (f) is reserved for openings to allow passengers to quickly exits in the preamble. With the emergency window exit marking and exit in a life-threatening situation. exception of paragraph (b), the operating instruction requirements. Exiting a passenger car through a requirements in this section are These requirements are currently being window exit is slower. applicable to passenger cars on or after addressed in the proposed rule on FRA recognizes that existing designs January 1, 1998, thereby including passenger train emergency of passenger cars do not always provide existing passenger cars. However, the preparedness. See 62 FR 8330, Feb. 24, for four side doors, and the proposed emergency window exit size 1997. requirement does not specifically requirements in paragraph (b) are only require that passenger cars have four applicable to passenger cars placed in § 238.237 Doors side doors. For instance, the service for the first time on or after This section contains the requirement would be met if a passenger January 1, 1998. APTA has advised FRA requirements for exterior side doors on car had two double-wide doors that that not all emergency window exits on passenger cars. These doors are the permit two 95th-percentile males to existing passenger cars meet the size primary means of egress from a pass through each door at the same requirements of paragraph (b), and FRA passenger train. This section should be time—the functional equivalent of four invites comment on this point. read in connection with the preamble side doors having openings of the This section requires that a single- discussion of NTSB safety specified size. FRA is interested in level passenger car, other than a recommendation (R–96–7) arising from comments concerning the extent to passenger car of special design, have a the 1996 Silver Spring, Maryland which existing designs of passenger cars minimum of four emergency window accident. cannot comply with the proposed exits, either in a staggered configuration Paragraph (a) requires that within two requirement, and FRA may modify the or with one located at each end of each years of the effective date of the final proposal based on the information side of the car. A bi-level car shall have rule, each powered, exterior side door in supplied. As a longer term approach, a minimum of four emergency window a vestibule that is partitioned from the FRA is investigating an emergency exits on each main level, configured as passenger compartment of a passenger evacuation performance requirement above, so that the car has a minimum car shall be equipped with a manual similar to that used in commercial total of eight emergency window exits. override that is: capable of opening the aviation where a sufficient number of Safety may be advanced by staggering door without power from inside the car; emergency exits must be provided to the configuration of emergency window located adjacent to the door which it evacuate the maximum passenger load exits so that the window exits are controls; and designed and maintained in a specified time for various types of located diagonally across from each so that a person may access the override emergency situations. other on opposite sides of a car, instead device from inside the car without Paragraph (b) also provides that each of placing them directly across from requiring the use of a tool or other powered, exterior side door be equipped each other. Commenters are invited to implement. Passenger cars subject to with a manual override feature the same address this issue. In addition, concern this requirement that are not already as that required in paragraph (a) for has been raised that the seat equipped with such manual override existing equipment, except that the arrangement of passenger cars may devices must be retrofitted accordingly. manual override must also be capable of block access to and the removal of As noted above, FRA’s proposal is not opening the door from outside the car. Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49771

This requirement is intended to provide locomotives be equipped with a § 238.303 Exterior Calendar Day quick access to a passenger car by working alerter, and FRA is proposing Mechanical Inspection of Passenger Cars emergency response personnel, and that existing locomotives also be and Unpowered Vehicles Used in represents the consensus equipped with either a working alerter Passenger Trains recommendation of the Working Group. or a deadman control as provided in This section contains the proposed FRA is also considering, but has not paragraph (a). requirements for an exterior calendar proposed in this rule, that for passenger An alerter will initiate a penalty brake day mechanical inspection on passenger cars ordered on or after January 1, 1999, application if it does not receive the cars and unpowered vehicles used in or placed in service for the first time on proper response from the engineer. passenger trains that is patterned after a or after January 1, 2001, the status of Likewise, a deadman control will combination of the current calendar day each powered, exterior side door shall initiate a penalty brake application if inspection required for locomotives be displayed to the crew in the the engineer fails to maintain proper under the Railroad Locomotive Safety operating cab of the train. Such a contact with the device. The Working Standards and the pre-departure proposal had support from Working Group discussed establishing specific inspection for freight cars under the Group members and would enable a setting requirements for alerters or Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards. crewmember in the operating cab to deadman controls based on maximum See 49 CFR 229.21 and 215.13, determine whether train doors are train speed and the capabilities of the closed before departure, for example. respectively. FRA proposes that the signal system. This discussion led to the calendar day mechanical inspection However, FRA is concerned that conclusion that settings should be left to railroads operating Tier I passenger apply to all passenger cars and all the discretion of individual railroads as unpowered vehicles used in passenger equipment would be unable to meet this long as they document the basis for the requirement. Because Tier I passenger trains (which includes, e.g., not only settings that they select. If the device coaches, MU locomotives, and cab cars trains are not intended to operate as a fails en route, the proposed rule requires fixed unit and instead passenger cars are but also any other unit of rail rolling a second person qualified on the signal equipment used in a passenger train). A freely switched into and out of such system and brake application trains, practical concerns exist about the mechanical safety inspection of freight procedures to be stationed in the cab or cars has been a longstanding Federal compatibility of door sensor equipment the engineer must be in constant radio in a Tier I passenger train. Commenters safety requirement, and FRA believes communication with a second that the lack of a similar requirement for are invited to address this issue. crewmember until the train reaches the To make sure that manual override passenger equipment creates a serious next terminal. This is intended to allow void in the current Federal railroad devices are easily accessible by the train to complete its trip with the passengers, FRA is proposing safety standards. device’s function of keeping the Paragraphs (a) and (b). Rail labor requirements in paragraph (c) operator alert taken over by another addressing covers and screens used to representatives advocate a daily member of the crew. inspection of all safety-related protect such devices from casual or Alerters are safety devices intended to inadvertent use. FRA desires to balance mechanical components with pass/fail verify that the engineer remains capable criteria or limits written into the Federal the concern that passengers may and vigilant to accomplish the tasks that unnecessarily exit cars when no safety standards much like the he or she must perform. Equipping requirements contained in 49 CFR part emergency is present with the need for passenger locomotives with an alerter is passengers to easily access a door- 215, whereas, APTA and other current industry practice. These devices passenger railroad representatives release mechanism in an emergency. have proven themselves in service, and Although this proposal reflects general strongly maintain that specific the requirement will not impose an inspection criteria or limits are not discussions within the Working Group, additional cost on the industry. it is not specifically a Working Group necessary. During the ongoing meeting recommendation. Subpart D—Inspection, Testing, and of the Working Group, FRA repeatedly Paragraph (d) is reserved for door Maintenance Requirements of Tier I requested that railroad representatives marking and operating instruction Passenger Equipment provide a recommended list of requirements. These requirements are mechanical components and criteria for § 238.301 Scope currently being addressed in the their inspection. These representatives proposed rule on passenger train This subpart contains the proposed consistently responded with very broad emergency preparedness. See 62 FR requirements regarding the inspection, requirements basically limited to 8330, Feb. 24, 1997. testing, and maintenance of all types of inspections for obvious and visible passenger equipment operating at defects. Although passenger railroad § 238.239 Automated Monitoring speeds of 125 mph or less. FRA representatives do not object to the This section requires on or after originally considered developing one set safety principle of a mechanical January 1, 1998, an operational alerter of requirements for MU locomotives and inspection, they do not want their or a deadman control in the controlling one set for push-pull equipment. operations to be bound by a rigid list of locomotive of each passenger train However, the Working Group components and criteria for the operating in other than cab signal, determined that this approach would be inspection. automatic train control, or automatic redundant because nearly identical FRA agrees with labor representatives train stop territory. This section further requirements could be applied to both that a specific list of components to be requires that such locomotives ordered types of equipment. Consequently, this inspected with enforceable inspection on or after January 1, 1999, or placed in subpart includes the proposed or pass/fail criteria needs to be included service for the first time on or after requirements for the inspection, testing, as part of the proposed Passenger January 1, 2001, must be equipped with and maintenance of Tier I passenger Equipment Safety Standards. For several a working alerter. As a result, the use of equipment brake systems as well as the years, Amtrak has been conducting a deadman control alone on these new other mechanical and electrical safety voluntary mechanical safety inspections locomotives would be prohibited. The components of Tier I passenger of passenger train components. Amtrak, Working Group recommended that new equipment. working in conjunction with FRA, has 49772 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules developed a list of components to be necessary and on possible methods for of the defect reporting and tracking inspected and ‘‘go’’ ‘‘no go’’ inspection providing such flexibility. system proposed in § 238.19 is to have criteria for the various components. Paragraph (c) identifies the the mechanical forces make all Amtrak has trained mechanical components that FRA proposes to be necessary safety repairs to the employees to conduct these inspections inspected as part of the exterior daily equipment before it is cleared for and has issued pocket guides containing mechanical safety inspection and another day of operation. In other the inspection criteria to all mechanical provides measurable inspection criteria words, FRA intends for the flexibility to employees. FRA commends Amtrak for for the components. The railroad is operate defective equipment in its progressive and voluntary efforts. required to ascertain that each passenger passenger service to end at the calendar Furthermore, based upon investigations car, and each unpowered vehicle used day mechanical inspection. conducted by FRA field inspectors, it in a passenger train conforms with the The narrow exception in paragraph appears that virtually every passenger conditions enumerated in paragraph (c). (d) allows long-distance intercity railroad currently performs some type of Deviation from any listed condition passenger trains that miss a scheduled makes the passenger car or unpowered exterior calendar day mechanical daily mechanical inspection on its vehicle defective if it is in service. The inspection due to a delay en route to passenger equipment. Consequently, Working Group members generally continue in passenger service to the FRA proposes to codify various agreed that the components contained location where the inspection was requirements and minimum standards in this section represent valid safety- scheduled to be performed. At that for conducting a calendar day related components that should be point, a calendar day mechanical mechanical inspection. frequently inspected by railroads. inspection must be performed prior to Paragraph (a) requires that each However, members of the Working returning the equipment to service of passenger car and each unpowered Group had widely different opinions any kind. This flexibility applies only to vehicle used in a passenger train receive regarding the criteria to be used to the mechanical safety inspections of an exterior mechanical safety inspection inspect these components. Therefore, as coaches. FRA does not intend to relieve at least once each calendar day that the FRA was not provided any clear the railroad of the responsibility to equipment is placed in service except guidance from the Working Group, FRA perform a locomotive calendar day under the circumstances described in selected inspection criteria based on the inspection as required by 49 CFR part paragraph (d). Paragraph (b) requires locomotive calendar day inspection and 229. that this inspection be performed by a the freight car safety pre-departure Paragraph (e) specifies an additional qualified mechanical inspector. FRA inspection required by 49 CFR parts 229 contingent component of the calendar believes the combination of a daily and 215, respectively. FRA believes day exterior mechanical inspection. If a Class I brake test and a mechanical that, at a minimum, passenger cars car requiring a single car test is moved safety inspection performed by fully should receive an inspection which is at in a train carrying passengers or qualified mechanical employees is a key least equivalent to that received by available to carry such passengers to a to safer passenger railroad operations. locomotives and freight cars. FRA place where the test can be performed, Such a practice will most likely detect solicits comments from interested then the single car test must be and correct equipment problems before parties concerning other sets of performed before or during the exterior they become the source of an accident mechanical safety inspection criteria. calendar day mechanical inspection. or incident resulting in personal injuries For example, a concern has been raised §§ 238.305 and 238.307 Interior or damage to property. FRA recognizes by some parties regarding the Calendar Day Mechanical Inspection that this requirement may create a securement of doors on baggage cars. and Periodic Mechanical Inspection of problem for some commuter railroads Consequently, FRA seeks comments Passenger Cars that operate trains on weekends or other from interested parties on the necessity to inspect these doors as part of any Section 238.305 requires the days when qualified mechanical required daily mechanical inspection. performance of an interior inspection of inspectors are not scheduled to work. APTA believes that this section passenger cars (which includes, e.g., Some railroads may be forced to contains exterior inspection passenger coaches, MU locomotives, schedule qualified mechanical requirements that cannot be safely or and cab cars) each calendar day that the inspectors to work on these days at practically performed in the field. In equipment is used in service except additional expense. However, based on particular, APTA maintains that the under the circumstances described in independent investigations performed inspections concerning the draft gear, paragraph (d). Unlike the exterior by FRA, it is believed that the impact of truck attachment, suspension system, calendar day mechanical inspection, this proposal will be much less than and coupler knuckle can only be FRA proposes in § 238.305(b) to permit several railroad representatives have properly performed by placing each car the interior inspections of passenger indicated. Nevertheless, FRA is willing individually over a repair pit. cars to be performed by ‘‘qualified to consider whether to allow railroads FRA intends for the daily mechanical persons,’’ individuals qualified by the that have demonstrated an ability to inspection to serve as the time when the railroad to do so. Thus, these operate passenger trains safely over railroad repairs defects that occurred en individuals need not meet the definition weekends without a mechanical safety route. Thus, this section proposes to of a ‘‘qualified mechanical inspector.’’ inspection being performed by qualified require that safety components not in FRA’s original position was to require mechanical inspectors to continue that compliance with this part be repaired the interior inspections to be performed practice. The problem, from FRA’s before the equipment is permitted to by qualified mechanical inspectors. position, is that it is difficult to allow remain in or return to passenger service. However, after several discussions with this flexibility without creating a (See § 238.9 for a discussion of the members of the Working Group and loophole that could be abused in certain prohibitions against using passenger several other representatives of circumstances. Consequently, FRA equipment containing defects; and passenger railroads, FRA determined solicits detailed comments from §§ 238.15 and 238.17 for a discussion of that the training and experience typical interested parties on whether the movement of defective equipment for of qualified mechanical inspectors is not granting of such flexibility is even purposes of repair or sale). The purpose necessary and often does not apply to Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49773 inspecting interior safety components of attachments; floor and stair surfaces; valves can safely operate for three years passenger equipment. In addition, the and hand-operated electrical switches. between periodic maintenance. FRA flexibility created by permitting Virtually all passenger railroads believes this extension of the periodic someone less qualified than a currently have defined periodic maintenance interval will result in a mechanical inspector can reduce the maintenance intervals for all of the cost savings to those railroads that cost of performing the mechanical safety equipment they operate. These intervals operate MU locomotives equipped with inspection since the most economical vary depending on the type of air dryers. way to accomplish the mechanical equipment and the service in which it Paragraph (c) extends the periodic inspection is to combine the exterior is used, but typically range from 60 to maintenance interval on conventional inspection with the Class I brake test 180 days. Although FRA does not locomotives equipped with 26–L or and then have a crewmember or train intend to limit the railroad’s flexibility equivalent types of brakes from the coach cleaner combine the interior to set periodic maintenance intervals, current standard of 736 days to 1,104 coach inspection with coach cleaning. FRA believes that an outside limit must days. The required periodic Section 238.305(c) lists various be placed on the performance of the maintenance interval remains at 736 components that FRA proposes to be periodic mechanical inspection. Thus, days for locomotives equipped with inspected as part of the interior daily FRA proposes that the periodic other types of brake systems. The mechanical safety inspection. As a mechanical inspection be performed at proposed requirement merely makes minimum, FRA proposes that the least every 180 days, as that appears to universal a practice that has been following components be inspected: be the outside limit of currently approved by waiver for several years. trap doors; end and side doors; manual established maintenance cycles. As with See H–80–7. FRA believes that door releases; safety covers, doors and the daily inspection, any known defects locomotives equipped with 26–L brakes plates; vestibule step lighting; and or conditions not in compliance with have demonstrated an ability to operate safety-related signs and instructions. this section which are uncovered by the safely for three years between periodic Consistent with the proposed exterior periodic inspection must be repaired in maintenance. Paragraph (d) extends the periodic inspection requirements, FRA proposes order for the equipment to remain in or maintenance interval on passenger that all en route defects and all return to passenger service. APTA has advised FRA that most of coaches and other unpowered vehicles noncomplying conditions must be the daily interior inspection equipped with 26–C or equivalent brake repaired at the time of the daily interior requirements proposed in this section systems from 1,104 days to 1,476 days. inspection in order for the equipment to are currently performed as part of a This extension is based on tests be placed or remain in passenger service railroad’s own periodic inspection. performed by Amtrak. Based on these with the exception of a defect under Moreover, APTA maintains that the tests, FRA granted Amtrak a waiver for § 238.305(c)(5). (See § 238.9 for a daily interior inspection requirements this extension on July 26, 1995. See FRA discussion of the prohibitions against do not add to safety and will create Docket No. PB 94–3. Amtrak has using passenger equipment containing delays impacting on-time performance. operated under the terms of this waiver defects, and § 238.17 for a discussion of APTA believes that many cars with for several years with no problems. the movement of defective equipment defects found during both the daily Consequently, based on Amtrak’s for purposes of repair.) Furthermore, interior and exterior inspections can be experience, FRA believes all passenger § 238.305(d) allows long-distance operated safely with appropriate cars with 26–C equipment can safely be intercity passenger trains that miss a restrictions without first shopping the operated for four years between periodic scheduled calendar day mechanical cars. Commenters are asked to address maintenance. inspection due to a delay en route to the various concerns raised by APTA. Paragraph (e) proposes that the same continue in passenger service to the extensions applicable to locomotives location where the inspection was § 238.309 Periodic Brake Equipment and passenger coaches should be scheduled. Maintenance applied to control cab cars that use Initially, FRA considered requiring a This section contains the proposed brake valves that are identical to the 26– more extensive list of components to be requirements for the performance of C valves used in passenger cars or the checked at each daily interior periodic brake maintenance for various 26–L valves used on locomotives. inspection. However, based on types of passenger equipment, referred Consequently, based on the information discussions conducted with the to in the industry as clean, oil, test, and and tests conducted on those valves as Working Group, FRA determined that stencil (COT&S). well as waivers currently existing, FRA the daily inspection and repair of some Paragraph (b) extends the periodic proposes to extend the periodic interior items could be burdensome to maintenance interval for MU locomotive maintenance interval for cab cars to the railroads without producing an fleets that are 100 percent equipped 1,476 days or 1,104 days for those cab offsetting safety benefit. As a result, with air dryers and modern brake cars that use brake systems identical to FRA in § 238.307 proposes a periodic systems from 736 days to 1,104 days. the 26–C and 26–L, respectively. This mechanical inspection for passenger The requirement remains 736 days for proposed extension is consistent with cars (which include, e.g., passenger fleets that are not 100 percent equipped recent requests for waivers received by coaches, MU locomotives, and cab cars) with air dryers or that are equipped FRA. in order to reduce the frequency with with older brake systems. FRA bases A railroad may petition FRA, under which certain components require this proposed extension on tests § 238.21, to approve alternative inspection and repair. FRA proposes to conducted by Metro-North and maintenance procedures providing require that the following components monitored by FRA field inspectors. equivalent safety. Railroads could be inspected for proper operation and These tests revealed that after three propose using periodically scheduled repaired, if necessary, as part of the years, brake valves on MU locomotives single car tests to extend the time periodic maintenance of the equipment: equipped with air dryers were very between required periodic maintenance emergency lights; emergency exit clean and showed little or no signs of on passenger coaches. FRA believes that windows; seats and seat attachments; deterioration. Based on the results of the single car test provides a good overhead luggage racks and these tests, FRA is confident that these alternative to more frequent periodic 49774 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules maintenance. In fact, in the previous proposes that the special approval mechanical inspectors. A single car test NPRM on power brakes, FRA proposed process detailed in § 238.21 would be is a comprehensive brake test that the elimination of time-based COT&S employed to evaluate any proposed requires the skills and knowledge of a and in its stead proposed time intervals changes in this highly technical professional mechanical employee. for conducting single car tests, ranging procedure. Railroads currently use the ‘‘qualified from three to six months, depending on The single car test proposed in this mechanical inspector’’ as defined by the utilization rate of the passenger section has proven effective in this part to perform single car tests, and equipment. See 59 FR 47690–47691, uncovering brake system problems that FRA believes that this practice should 47710–47711, and 47740–47741. are the root cause of certain wheel continue. However, comments received and defects or that have been caused by Paragraph (e) provides that if a single discussions with members of the repairs made to the brake system. FRA car test cannot be made at the point Working Group revealed that many believes that this test has contributed to where repairs are made, the car may be passenger railroads would rather the current trend of greater brake system moved in service to the next forward perform periodic maintenance than reliability and fewer brake-related location where the test can be made. more frequent single car tests. One accidents/incidents of passenger The single car test shall be completed reason for this is that some operators equipment. Currently, the regulations prior to, or as a part of, the car’s next would rather take equipment out of require that a single car test be calendar day mechanical inspection. service every few years and perform the performed on passenger cars whenever APTA has advised FRA that the overhaul of the brake system rather than they are on a shop or repair track. In the proposed section on single car tests having equipment out of service for previous NPRM on power brakes, FRA contains an outdated standard and shorter periods every few months. discussed the potential loophole that requires a large number of tests which Therefore, FRA proposes to retain the current regulations permit. See 59 do not serve to enhance safety. APTA periodic maintenance intervals but FR 47710. Basically, it has the potential believes that actual operating provide the alternative to railroads to of allowing railroads to avoid the experience does not support a propose single car testing intervals in performance of the tests by calling requirement for this level of testing, and order to reduce the frequency with repair tracks something other than a the proposal will increase maintenance which the periodic maintenance is repair track. Although this is an issue costs and require additional spare performed. Consequently, railroads are that has arisen in the freight context, it vehicles to maintain service. afforded some flexibility to determine does appear prudent to base the Additionally, APTA maintains that the the type of maintenance approach that requirement to perform a single car test proposed regulation provides a best suits their operations. on the type of defect involved rather disincentive to updating single car test than the location where the defect is procedures as needed. § 238.311 Single Car Test repaired. § 238.313 Class I Brake Test This section contains the proposed Paragraph (b) lists the wheel defects requirements for single car tests of that would trigger the requirement to This section contains the proposed passenger equipment. Although the perform a single car test. FRA believes requirements related to Class I brake Working Group failed to reach that the proposed wheel defects indicate tests. FRA proposes that the consensus on the requirements some type of braking equipment requirements in this section apply to all contained in this section, the group did problem. FRA believes that merely passenger coaches, control cab cars, MU agree that single car tests are a valuable changing a wheel to correct a wheel locomotives, and all nonself-propelled tool to demonstrate that a car’s brake defect that is actually caused by a brake vehicles that are part of a passenger system performs correctly after repairs system problem will only lead to a train. The Working Group was unable to have been made that could affect the continuation of the problem on the new reach consensus on the requirements brakes. A major issue raised both in wheel and will increase repair costs to proposed in this section. comments to the previous NPRM on the railroad. A test that checks for the This section proposes to require that power brakes and by various members root cause of the defect is not only a a Class I brake test be performed at least of the Working Group was the method good safety practice, but is a good once each calendar day that a piece of for specifying how the test is to be business practice that will lead to equipment is placed in service. As performed. Labor representatives reduced operating costs. discussed previously, the Working objected to specifying the method of Paragraph (c) requires a railroad to Group discussed and debated when and testing by reference to an industry conduct a single car test if one or more how a Class I brake test should be standard that could be changed of the identified brake system performed. Labor representatives unilaterally by the organization that components is removed, repaired, or stressed the need for a thorough brake maintains the standard. These replaced. This paragraph also proposes test performed by qualified mechanical representatives insisted that the that a single car test be performed if a inspectors on every passenger train. requirements specifying how to conduct passenger car or vehicle is placed in These representatives strongly the test must be contained in the rule service after having been out of service contended that this brake test must be text so that the only way that changes for 30 or more days. FRA believes that performed prior to the first daily can be made is through the these requirements will ensure that departure of each passenger train. On administrative procedures required by brake system repairs have been the other hand, representatives of the formal rulemaking process. FRA performed correctly and that the car’s passenger railroads expressed the desire agrees and proposes in paragraph (a) to brake system will operate as intended to have flexibility in conducting a require that passenger railroads perform after repairs are made or after the car comprehensive brake inspection, the single car test of the brake system in has been in storage for extended arguing that safety would be better accordance with AAR Standard S–044 periods. The proposed requirements are served if railroads were permitted to contained in AAR’s ‘‘Instruction consistent with the current practices of conduct these inspections on a daily Pamphlet 5039–4, Supp. 3 (April most passenger railroads. basis. 1991),’’ which is the most recent version Paragraph (d) requires that all single Although FRA agrees with the of the test description. FRA also car tests be performed by qualified position advanced by many labor Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49775 representatives that some sort of car-to- trains. Thus, FRA believes that some this flexibility without creating a car inspection must be made of the outside mileage limit must be placed on loophole that could be abused in certain brake equipment prior to the first run of these trains between brake inspections. circumstances. Consequently, FRA the day, FRA does not agree that it is Currently, a passenger train can lawfully solicits detailed comments from necessary to perform a full Class I brake travel no further than 1,000 miles from interested parties on whether the test in order to ensure the proper its initial terminal, at which point it granting of such flexibility is even functioning of the brake equipment. As must receive an intermediate inspection necessary and on possible methods of FRA proposes that a Class I brake test of brakes, which includes application of providing such flexibility. consist of a comprehensive inspection the brakes to ensure brake pipe Paragraph (d) provides railroads with of the braking system, including the continuity and the inspection of the the option to perform the Class I brake proper operation of supplemental brake rigging to ensure it is properly test either separately or in conjunction braking systems, FRA believes that secured. See 49 CFR 232.12(b). with the calendar day mechanical commuter and short-distance intercity However, in recognition of the inspections. FRA proposes this passenger train operations must be improved technology used in passenger provision simply to clarify that the two permitted some flexibility in conducting train brake systems, combined with the inspections need not be done at the these inspections. Consequently, FRA comprehensive nature of the proposed same time or location as long as they are proposes in paragraph (a) to require that Class I brake tests and mechanical safety both performed sometime during the commuter and short-distance intercity inspections both being performed by day. passenger train operations perform a qualified mechanical inspectors, FRA Paragraph (e) prohibits a railroad from Class I brake test sometime during the proposes to require that the proposed using or hauling a passenger train in calendar day in which the equipment is Class I brake test be performed once passenger service from a location where used. every calendar day that the equipment a Class I brake test has been performed, However, FRA also recognizes the is used or every 1,500 miles, whichever or was required to have been performed, differences between commuter or short- occurs first. with less than 100 percent operating distance intercity operations and long- Paragraph (c) requires that the Class I brakes. (See § 238.15 for a discussion of distance intercity passenger train brake tests be performed by qualified movement of defective equipment for operations. Long-distance intercity mechanical inspectors. As FRA intends purposes of repair or sale). passenger trains do not operate in for these Class I brake inspections to be Paragraph (f) contains a proposed list shorter turnaround service over the in-depth inspections of the entire of the safety-related items that must be same sections of track on a daily basis braking system, which most likely will inspected, tested, or demonstrated as for the purpose of transporting be performed only one time in any given part of a Class I brake test. This list was passengers from major centers of day in which the equipment is used, developed based on the experience and employment. Instead, these trains tend FRA believes that these inspections knowledge of FRA’s motive power and to operate for extended periods of time, must be performed by individuals over long distances with greater possessing the knowledge to not only equipment field inspectors familiar with distances between passenger stations identify and detect a defective condition the operations and inspection practices and terminals. Further, these trains may in all of the brake equipment required of passenger operations. The Working operate well over 1,000 miles in any 24- to be inspected but also the knowledge Group extensively discussed the items hour period, somewhat diminishing the to recognize the interrelational workings contained in this proposal. Paragraph opportunity for conducting inspections of the equipment and the ability to (f)(1) requires that an inspection be on these trains. Therefore, FRA believes trouble-shoot and repair the equipment. conducted on each side of each car to that a thorough inspection of the Furthermore, most passenger railroads verify the application and release of braking system on these types of currently have a daily brake test each brake. This requirement is operations must be conducted prior to performed by mechanical employees so consistent with FRA’s longstanding the trains’ departure from an initial this requirement is not really a interpretation of what the current starting terminal. Consequently, FRA departure from current industry regulations require when conducting proposes in paragraph (b) that a Class I practice. initial terminal and 1,000 brake brake inspection be performed on long- FRA recognizes that these inspections pursuant to § 232.12. For distance intercity passenger trains prior requirements may create a problem for clarity and consistency, FRA has to departure from an initial terminal. some commuter railroads that operate explicitly incorporated the requirement FRA does not believe there would be trains on weekends or other days when into this proposal. any significant burden placed on these qualified mechanical inspectors are not The requirements included in operations as the current regulations scheduled to work. Some railroads may paragraph (f) which FRA proposes to be require that an initial terminal be forced to schedule qualified included in a Class I brake test contain inspection be performed at these mechanical inspectors to work on these two items that would bar the use of a locations. Furthermore, virtually all of days at additional expense. However, train that current regulations allow to be the initial terminal inspections based on independent investigations placed in service. These include the currently conducted on these types of performed by FRA, it is believed that requirement that the secondary brake trains are performed by individuals who the impact of this proposal will be much systems must be fully operational and would be considered qualified less than several railroad representatives the requirement that brake indicators mechanical employees under this have indicated. However, FRA is willing must function as intended. These proposal. to consider whether to allow railroads requirements will require railroads to FRA also recognizes that these long- that have demonstrated an ability to make more frequent repairs than are distance intercity passenger trains could operate passenger trains safely over currently required. However, FRA conceivably travel over 3,000 miles if weekends without a mechanical safety believes these added costs are Class I inspections were required only inspection being performed by qualified necessitated by and offset by the added once every 24 hours that the equipment mechanical inspectors to continue that flexibility to move defective equipment is in service, as proposed for commuter practice. The problem, from FRA’s as well as the ability to use brake and short-distance intercity passenger position, is that it is difficult to allow indicators during the performance of 49776 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules certain brake tests in lieu of direct determining that adequate force is being prior to the development of new observation of the brakes. applied. This is one reason why the equipment that has greatly reduced Paragraph (g) proposes to require the subject railroads typically conduct leakage problems. However, contrary to qualified mechanical inspector that redundant initial terminal tests at other the contentions of some commenters, performs a Class I brake test to record times during the day. Further, train FRA does not believe that cars should the date, time and location of the test as crews are not asked to inspect for wheel be allowed to be ‘‘off air’’ for extended well as the number of the controlling defects and other unsafe conditions, nor periods without being retested. The locomotive of the train. This minimal should they be asked to do so, given the longer cars sit without a supply of information would be required to be conditions under which they are asked compressed air attached, the greater the available in the cab of the controlling to inspect and the training they receive. chances are that the integrity of the locomotive to demonstrate to the train Consequently, paragraph (a) requires system will be compromised, either by crew and future inspectors that the train that, at a minimum, a Class I or Class weather conditions or vandalism. is operating under a current Class I IA brake test be performed prior to a Paragraph (b) allows a commuter or brake test. Furthermore, the use of such commuter or short-distance intercity short-distance intercity passenger train records or ‘‘brake slips’’ as they are passenger train’s first departure on any that provides continuing late night known in the industry is the current given day. FRA believes that the service that began prior to midnight to practice of virtually all passenger proposed Class IA brake test is complete its daily operating cycle after railroads. FRA believes that this sufficiently detailed to ensure the midnight without performing another recordkeeping requirement adds proper functioning of the brake system, Class I or Class IA brake test. necessary reliability, accountability, and yet not so intensive that it requires Paragraph (c) allows a Class IA brake enforceability to the inspection individuals to perform an inspection for test to be performed at a shop or yard requirements proposed in this section. which they are not qualified. FRA site without needing the test repeated at Paragraph (h) also proposes to allow proposes in paragraph (a) that a the first passenger terminal if the train long distance, intercity passenger trains qualified mechanical inspector or a remains on air and in the custody of the that miss a scheduled Class I brake test properly trained and qualified train crew. This provision is an incentive for due to a delay en route to proceed to the crewmember perform a Class IA brake railroads to conduct the tests at point where the scheduled brake test test. locations where they can be performed was to be performed. This flexibility As noted in the discussion of Class I more safely and easily. FRA believes prevents Amtrak or other operators of brake tests, FRA recognizes the that a shop or yard location is more long distance trains from having to differences between commuter or short- conducive for conducting a proper brake dispatch qualified mechanical distance intercity operations and long- test. Raised platforms and other inspectors to the location of a delayed distance intercity passenger train conditions frequently found at terminals train merely to meet the calendar day operations. FRA believes that a can make the performance of a brake Class I brake test requirement. This is a thorough inspection of the braking test difficult, if not hazardous. common sense exception that will not system on these types of operations Paragraph (d) permits the Class IA test compromise safety. must be conducted prior to each train’s to be performed by either a qualified departure from an initial starting person or a qualified mechanical § 238.315 Class IA Brake Test terminal. Consequently, FRA will not inspector. Paragraph (e) prohibits a This section contains the proposed permit the use of Class IA brake tests for railroad from using or hauling a requirements regarding Class IA brake these trains, and requires that a Class I passenger train from a location where a tests. As mentioned previously, brake inspection be performed on long- Class IA brake test has been performed, although FRA agrees with the position distance intercity passenger trains prior or was required to have been performed, advanced by many labor representatives to departure from an initial terminal. with less than 100 percent operative that some sort of car-to-car inspection Paragraph (a) also requires that a Class brakes. (See §§ 238.15–238.17 for a must be made of the brake equipment IA brake test be performed prior to discussion of movement of defective prior to the first run of the day, FRA placing a train in service if that train has equipment for purposes of repair or does not agree that it is necessary to been off a source of compressed air for sale). Paragraph (f) establishes the perform a full Class I brake test in order more than four hours. This requirement requirements for conducting a proper to ensure the proper functioning of the formalizes a long-standing agency Class IA brake test. It is proposed that brake equipment in all situations. interpretation of the existing power a Class IA brake test include: a check However, contrary to the position brake regulations but increases the time that each brake sets and releases, a test espoused by several railroad limit from two hours to four hours. of the emergency brake application representatives, FRA believes that Labor representatives maintain that any feature, a check of the deadman or other something more than just a number of brake system problems can emergency control device, a check that determination that the brakes on the develop with equipment off air for only piston travel is in the nominal range for rear car set and release is necessary. a short time, while management the type of brake equipment, and an Currently, the quality of initial representatives contend that equipment observation that angle cocks and cutout terminal tests performed by train crews can be left off air for extended periods cocks are properly set and that brake is likely adequate to determine that of time with no problems. FRA believes pipe pressure changes are brakes apply on each car. However, the proposed requirement is a fair communicated to the rear of the train. most commuter equipment utilizes compromise that allows railroads some Paragraph (g) requires that the ‘‘tread brake units’’ in lieu of cylinders operating flexibility, but does not allow inspection of the set and release of the and brake rigging of the kind prevalent equipment to be off air without a new brakes be performed by walking the on freight and some intercity passenger brake test for extended periods of time. train so the inspector actually observes cars. It is undoubtedly the case that As stated in the previous NPRM on the set and release of each brake. Labor train crewmembers do not verify power brakes, FRA agrees that its representatives strongly contended that application of the brakes by tapping longstanding administrative this is the only way to do a proper brake brake shoes while the brakes are interpretation of allowing cars to be ‘‘off test. They believe that observation of applied, the only effective means of air’’ for only two hours was established brake indicators does not give a reliable Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49777 indication of effective brakes because signals, a test of the emergency brake builders, labor organizations, the NTSB the indicators sense brake cylinder application, a test of the deadman pedal and FRA was formed to consider Tier II pressure rather than the force of the or other emergency control device, and equipment safety standards. brake shoe against the wheel or the pad a check that brake pipe pressure The Tier II Equipment Subgroup came against the disc. However, this section changes are properly communicated at very close to reaching full consensus proposes to allow an exception when the rear of the train. FRA believes that recommendations on the proposed Tier railroads determine that direct if the equipment receives a full Class I II safety standards. Only two exceptions observation of the set and release can brake test and a calendar day to a full consensus on recommendations place the inspector in danger. FRA mechanical inspection at some time resulted from the process. The first acknowledges the contention of rail during each operating day, then these exception involves a disagreement management representatives that simple checks are adequate to confirm between Amtrak and labor organizations conditions at certain locations where brake system performance at over the proper use of brake indicator Class IA tests may be performed could intermediate terminals or turning technology. place the inspector in danger if he or points. This requirement basically The second exception results from a she is required to place himself or codifies current industry practice. joint meeting between the Tier II herself in a position to actually observe § 238.319 Running Brake Tests equipment subgroup and the RSAC the set and release of each brake. Where High Speed Track Standards Working railroads determine this to be the case, This section contains the proposed Group. The purpose of this joint FRA will permit the use of brake requirements for conducting running meeting was to ensure that the two sets indicators for the set and release step of brake tests on the brakes of passenger of proposed standards not conflict at the the Class IA brake test as long as the trains. A running brake test is merely a wheel-rail interface where the two sets inspector takes a position where an brake application at the first safe of standards overlap. accurate observation of the indicators opportunity to confirm that the brake These two exceptions to full can be made. system works as expected by the consensus will be more fully discussed engineer. FRA proposes that a running § 238.317 Class II Brake Test under the appropriate section of this brake test be performed in accordance section-by-section analysis. In all other This section proposes the with the railroad’s established operating cases, the section-by-section analysis requirements regarding how a Class II rules after the train has received a Class assumes the full consensus of the brake test is to be performed and I, Class IA, or Class II brake test as safety Subgroup without actually repeating it contains the proposed conditions for permits. FRA believes that railroads are as part of each of the discussions. when a railroad is required to perform in the best position to determine when the brake test. The Class II brake test and where running tests can be safely Subpart E—Specific Requirements for provides passenger railroads the performed. As most passenger railroads Tier II Passenger Equipment flexibility to continue to use train crew routinely conduct running brake tests, § 238.401 Scope personnel to perform the limited brake FRA believes that the proposal tests required when minor changes to requirement captures an important This subpart contains the design and the train occur. Both labor and safety check without changing current performance requirements for Tier II management representatives to the operating practice to any great extent. passenger equipment operating at Working Group recognized that train speeds exceeding 125 mph but not Tier II Passenger Equipment crews are capable of performing the exceeding 150 mph. Unless otherwise Requirements relatively simple checks required by a specified, the proposed requirements Class II brake test and that the Most of the requirements proposed for represent the consensus operations of most commuter and Tier II equipment are based on lengthy recommendations of the Tier II passenger railroads require the discussions between Amtrak and FRA Equipment Subgroup with refinements flexibility of having operating personnel over safety requirements for operation of by FRA for clarity, enforceability, and perform these tests. passenger train sets at speeds up to 150 compatibility with other rail safety laws. Paragraph (c) requires that passenger mph in the Northeast Corridor (NEC). For the most part, compliance with the trains not depart from Class II brake Amtrak voluntarily included many of requirements of this section will be tests which are performed at a terminal the provisions proposed for Tier II demonstrated by one-time analysis or or a yard with any brakes known to be equipment in their procurement initial acceptance tests. cut-out, inoperative, or defective. This specification for American Flyer The requirements contained in this requirement was agreed to by members trainsets—the first Tier II equipment subpart have their basis in discussions of the Working Group and is consistent which should be placed in regular between Amtrak and FRA involving with the movement for repair provisions revenue service in the United States. safety requirements for the operation of contained in this proposal. See § 238.15. The process used by the Working passenger trainsets at speeds up to 150 Terminals and yards are generally the Group to discuss proposed Tier II mph on the Northeast Corridor (NEC). best locations available to a railroad for equipment standards differed from that Aware that FRA was considering the either conducting repairs or removing a used for the Tier I standards. Many development of safety standards for vehicle from a train. This requirement members of the full Working Group high-speed passenger rail equipment, only applies to brake equipment which stated that they will never be involved Amtrak asked FRA for assistance in is known to be cut-out, inoperative, or in the operation of such high-speed developing a set of safety specifications otherwise defective by the railroad prior equipment and participation in Tier II for the procurement of high-speed to the train’s departure from the yard or standards was outside their area of trainsets which would address FRA’s terminal where the Class II brake test is interest and expertise. As a result, the safety concerns. As a result, Amtrak’s performed. full Working Group recommended the American Flyer trainsets, scheduled to Paragraph (d) requires that a Class II formation of a smaller subgroup to begin regular passenger service in 1999, brake test consist of: a check that the consider Tier II standards. will very likely comply with all of the brakes on rear unit of the train apply Consequently, a subgroup consisting of proposed safety standards in this and release in response to brake control representatives from Amtrak, equipment subpart. 49778 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Amtrak’s discussions with FRA led it art for passenger equipment design, and the strength of the power car’s two end to sponsor a risk assessment of high that an extensive and costly research frames. Alternate design approaches speed rail passenger systems on the and testing program would be required. that provide equivalent protection are north end of the NEC—from New York As an alternative, Amtrak proposed a allowed, but the equivalent protection to Boston. The discussions also crash energy management design based must be demonstrated through analysis prompted FRA to sponsor computer on the demonstrated, commercially and testing and approved by the FRA modeling to predict the performance of viable design developed by France and Associate Administrator for Safety various equipment structural designs incorporated in the most recent design under the provisions of § 238.21. and configurations in collisions. A copy of the TGV trainset. FRA believes that Paragraph (b) contains the of the risk assessment performed by Federal safety standards must be requirements for the static compressive Arthur D. Little, Inc., for Amtrak is capable of implementation in the design strength of the occupied volumes of included in the docket of this of passenger equipment without driving trailer cars. This proposal adopts the rulemaking. The risk assessment was the cost of implementation to the point traditional North American design based on existing and predicted future that high speed rail systems are no practice of a static strength of 800,000 right-of-way configurations and traffic longer financially viable. pounds, without deformation of the density patterns. The risk assessment As a result, paragraph (c) proposes a underframe. Paragraph (c) makes clear concluded that a significant risk of crash energy management system that unoccupied or lightly occupied collisions at speeds below 20 mph and capable of absorbing a minimum of 13 volumes of power cars or trailer cars a risk of collisions at speeds exceeding megajoules (MJ) of energy at each end of may have a static end strength of less 100 mph exist over the 20-year the trainset. The ability to absorb this than 800,000 pounds to accommodate projected operational life of the energy must be partitioned as follows: a crash energy management designs. American Flyer trainsets—due to heavy minimum of 5 MJ by the front end of the The crash energy management design and increasing conventional commuter power car ahead of the operator’s requirement ensures that the stronger rail traffic, freight rail traffic on the control compartment; a minimum of 3 end structures and the stronger static NEC, highway-rail grade crossings, MJ by the power car structure behind compressive strength of the cab of a moveable bridges, and a history of low the operator’s control compartment; and power car will not make Tier II speed collisions in or near stations and a minimum of 5 MJ by the unoccupied passenger equipment incompatible with rail yards. end of the first trailer car adjacent to the existing passenger equipment should a Based on the risk assessment and the power car. This requirement can be met collision between the two different results of the computer modeling, using existing technology. However, it types of equipment occur. The crash Amtrak and FRA determined that will effectively prevent a conventional energy management design makes a Tier reliance on collision avoidance cab car from operating as the lead II passenger train appear as a softer measures rather than crashworthiness, vehicle in a Tier II passenger train collision surface to a conventionally though the hallmark of safe high-speed because such equipment cannot absorb designed train owing to the collision rail operations in several parts of the 5 MJ of collision energy ahead of the energy absorbed by the Tier II train as world, could not be implemented in train operator’s position. Recent its unoccupied volumes intentionally corridors like the north end of the NEC. accidents involving trains operating crush. Existing traffic and right-of-way with a cab car forward have § 238.407 Anti-Climbing Mechanism configurations do not permit demonstrated the vulnerability of this implementation of the same collision type of equipment in collisions. FRA This section contains the proposed avoidance measures that have proven believes such equipment should not be requirements for anti-climbing successful in Europe and Japan. To used in the forward position of a train mechanisms on power and trailer cars. compensate for the increased risk of a that travels at speeds greater than 125 Paragraph (a) requires a power car to collision, a more crashworthy trainset mph. Further, FRA is specifically have a forward anti-climbing design is needed. As a result, the set of proposing in paragraph (f) that mechanism capable of resisting an structural design requirements proposed passenger seating be prohibited in the upward or downward static vertical for Tier II passenger equipment is more leading unit of a Tier II train, though not force of 200,000 pounds. This proposal stringent than current design practice a specific recommendation of the is identical to that required of for North American passenger Subgroup. locomotives by AAR S-580. However, equipment or for high-speed rail Paragraph (e) proposes the analysis designs are permitted that require the equipment in other parts of the world. process to demonstrate that equipment crash energy management controlled meets the crash energy management crushing to occur prior to the anti- § 238.403 Crash Energy Management design performance requirements. The climber fully engaging. Requirements process allows simplifying assumptions Paragraph (b) requires that interior This section requires that each power to be made so computer modeling train coupling points between units, car and trailer car be designed with a techniques can be used to confirm including between units of articulated crash energy management system to compliance. cars or other permanently joined units dissipate kinetic energy during a of cars, have an anti-climbing device collision. This section should be read § 238.405 Longitudinal Static capable of resisting an upward or with the discussion of crash energy Compressive Strength downward vertical force of 100,000 management in the preamble. This section contains the proposed pounds. This is consistent with current During discussions with Amtrak over requirements for longitudinal design practice. Paragraph (c) requires the safety provisions for the American compressive strength of power cars and the forward coupler of a power car to Flyer trainsets, FRA proposed very trailer cars. Paragraph (a) requires the resist a vertical downward force of challenging crash energy management ultimate compressive strength of the 100,000 pounds for any horizontal requirements based on predictions using underframe of the power car cab to be position of the coupler without yielding, computer modeling. Amtrak believed a minimum of 2,100,000 pounds. To and is virtually identical to that that meeting these requirements would form an effective crash refuge, this provided in 49 CFR 229.141(a) for MU be well beyond the current state of the strength is needed to take advantage of locomotives built new after April 1, Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49779

1956, and operated in trains having a structures proposed in this rule for a its side or roof. Minor deformations of total empty weight of 600,000 pounds or power car cab make the cab a highly the side and roof sheathing and smaller more. survivable crash refuge. structural members are allowed to the extent necessary for the vehicle to be § 238.409 Forward End Structures oF § 238.413 End Structures of Trailer supported directly by more substantial Power Car Cabs Cars structural members of the frame. This section contains the proposed The proposed requirements in Passenger equipment constructed to requirements for forward end structures paragraph (a) are based on a specific end North American design practice of power car cabs. The forward end structure design that consists of two performs well in rollover situations. structure of a power car cab plays a vital full-height corner posts and two full- FRA believes this proposal captures this role in a collision with another object. height collision posts. The proposal design practice. This structure must resist override, includes loading requirements that each prevent the entry of fluids into occupied of these structural members must § 238.417 Side Loads spaces of the cab, and allow the crash withstand. The proposal also allows This section contains the proposed energy management system to function. flexibility for other designs that provide requirements intended to resist The proposed requirements in protection structurally equivalent to the penetration of the side structure of a paragraphs (a)-(c) are based on a specific proposed design. passenger car by a highway or rail end structure design that consists of a Paragraph (b) makes clear how the vehicle. The objective is to make the full-height center collision post, two requirements proposed in paragraph (a) side of the passenger car strong enough side collision posts located at apply to a trailer car that consists of so that the car derails rather than approximately the one-third points multiple articulated units not designed collapses when struck in the side by a laterally, and two full-height corner for uncoupling in other than at a highway or rail vehicle. If the passenger posts. The proposal includes loading maintenance shop. The end structure car moves sideways (derails), less requirements that each of these requirements apply only to the two ends structural damage and potential to structural members must withstand. In of the entire articulated assembly of injure train occupants will result. addition, the proposal permits units. Paragraph (b) explains that the flexibility for using other equipment interior ends of the individual units of § 238.419 Truck-to-Car-Body and designs that provide equivalent the articulated assembly need not be Truck Component Attachment structural protection. End structures equipped with an end structure that Paragraph (a) requires the truck-to- meeting these requirements will provide meets the requirements proposed in car-body attachment on Tier II considerably greater protection to the paragraph (a). Articulated assemblies passenger equipment to resist without train operator than provided by existing have a history of remaining in line failure a vertical force equivalent to 2g passenger equipment designs. For during derailments and collisions and if acting on the mass of the truck and a example, much stronger corner posts are not designed to be uncoupled, only the force of 250,000 pounds acting in any proposed here than for Tier I passenger exposed ends of the entire assembly will horizontal direction. The earlier equipment. FRA believes these end be exposed to the risks of override. discussion of the proposed truck-to-car- structures help provide a degree of However, interior units that are merely body attachment strength requirement crashworthiness to compensate for the semi-permanently coupled, but not in § 238.219 for Tier I passenger increased risk associated with operating articulated, are subject to the proposed equipment is also applicable here. at higher speeds. end structure requirements in paragraph Paragraph (b) requires that each The front end structure design also (a). component of the truck must remain includes in paragraph (d) a skin Paragraph (c) contains an additional attached to the truck when a force requirement equivalent to that required requirement for trailer cars designed equivalent to 2g acting on the mass of by AAR S–580 and proposed in with an end vestibule. Such designs the component is exerted in any § 238.209 for Tier I locomotives. provide an opportunity for additional direction on that component. Whereas corner post structures inboard of the § 238.411 Rear End Structures of paragraph (a) is intended to keep the vestibule side doors. These corner posts Power Car Cabs truck attached to the car body, can be supported by the side sill and paragraph (b) is intended to keep truck The rear end structure of a power car therefore be structurally more components attached to the truck. cab provides protection to crewmembers substantial than the corner posts from intrusion of locomotive machinery outboard of the side doors. The proposal § 238.421 Glazing or trailing cars into the occupied includes loading requirements that This section contains the proposed volume as a result of a collision or these additional full-height corner posts glazing requirements for Tier II derailment. The proposed requirements must withstand. Overall, the double passenger equipment. FRA believes that are based on a specific end structure corner post design provides the higher speed of Tier II passenger design that consists of two full-height significantly increased protection to equipment requires more stringent corner posts (paragraph (a)) and two passengers in such trailer cars. glazing standards than currently full-height collision posts (paragraph required by 49 CFR part 223. (b)). The proposal includes loading § 238.415 Rollover Strength Paragraph (a) requires each power car requirements that each of these This section contains the proposed and trailer car to be equipped with structural members must withstand. requirements for the rollover strength of glazing meeting the following Further, the proposal permits flexibility power cars and trailer cars. If the requirements. First, under paragraph for using other equipment designs that occupied volumes of these vehicles (a)(1), end-facing glazing shall resist the provide equivalent structural protection. remain intact when they roll onto their impact of a 12-pound solid steel sphere The proposed rear end structure will side or roof structures, occupant injury traveling at the maximum speed of the provide considerably greater protection from vehicle collapse will be avoided. vehicle in which the glazing will be to the train operator than that provided The proposal essentially requires the installed. The test must be conducted so by existing passenger equipment vehicle structure to support twice the that the sphere strikes the glazing at the designs. Together, the front and rear end deadweight of the vehicle as it rests on same angle as an object would strike the 49780 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules glazing when installed in a train. To qualify current glazing are too thick and Paragraph (a) requires the following of successfully pass the test, the glazing have allowed glazing that actually external fuel tanks: must neither spall nor be penetrated by spalled to pass the test. The witness • A minimum height above the rail; the sphere. This test is similar to the plate specified in this paragraph is • A minimum penetration resistance requirements imposed under European much thinner and therefore more for end bulkheads; glazing standards for high-speed trains, sensitive to detecting spall. • A minimum exterior skin strength; and should be much more repeatable Paragraph (b) requires glazing • A temperature range to which than the cinder block test specified in material to be marked to indicate that it material properties must not degrade; 49 CFR part 223. has passed the testing requirements • A vent system that prevents spills Second, under paragraph (a)(2)(i), proposed in paragraph. This marking in any tank orientation; side-facing glazing shall resist the requirement is similar to that provided • Skid surfaces on the bottom of the impact of a 12-pound solid steel sphere in 49 CFR part 223. tank; and traveling at 15 mph and impacting at an Paragraph (c) requires glazing frames • An overall structural strength angle of 90 degrees to the surface of the to hold the glazing in place against all adequate to support 11⁄2 times the dead the forces which the glazing is required glazing, with no penetration or spall. weight of the locomotive without to resist in paragraph (a). This proposal This is a highly repeatable test that deformation of the tank. is intended to prevent the glazing from demonstrates whether side-facing This set of proposed requirements is being knocked out of its frame by the glazing can protect occupants from a based on investigations of accidents force of an object striking the glazing, relatively heavy object thrown against involving fuel tank rupture; analysis the side of the train. This test is more even though no penetration of the and testing of improved fuel tank stringent than the large object impact glazing itself occurs. Since FRA is designs; reports by railroads of test required for side facing glazing proposing more stringent impact testing reductions in fuel spills on locomotives under 49 CFR part 223. requirements for glazing in Tier II Third, under paragraph (a)(2)(ii), side- passenger equipment than for Tier I built with more crashworthy fuel tanks; facing exterior glazing shall resist the passenger equipment, stronger glazing and an analysis of the common methods impact of a granite ballast stone frames will be required to keep the of damaging fuel tanks. FRA believes weighing a minimum of 0.5 pounds, glazing in place and achieve the the proposed requirements will result in traveling at 75 mph, and impacting at a additional safety benefit provided by the significantly fewer fuel spills and fewer 90-degree angle to the glazing surface, stronger glazing. post-collision fires. Although the with no penetration or spall. This is a Paragraph (d) requires the glazing proposed requirements reduce the range highly repeatable test to demonstrate securement components to resist the of a train by adding weight and reducing whether the glazing can protect forces due to air pressure differences fuel carrying capacity, FRA does not occupants against impact from a caused by trains passing with the believe that this reduced range will common stone found along the railroad minimum separation for two adjacent impact passenger train service because thrown at a speed slightly faster than a tracks while traveling in opposite food and other supplies will likely need human could throw such an object. directions, each traveling at maximum replenishing first before a train needs Fourth, under paragraph (a)(3)(i), all speed. The higher speed of Tier II refueling. exterior glazing shall resist the single passenger equipment makes this a more Paragraph (b) requires that internal impact of a 9-mm, 147-grain bullet stringent requirement than proposed for fuel tanks be a minimum height above traveling at an impact velocity of 900 Tier I passenger equipment. the rail, be equipped with a vent system feet per second, with no bullet Paragraph (e) requires interior glazing that prevents spills in any tank penetration or spall. This bullet is a to meet the minimum requirements of orientation, and have a minimum much more common handgun round AS1 type laminated glass as defined in penetration resistance of the bulkheads than the 22-caliber bullet specified in 49 American National Standard ‘‘Safety and skin. Amtrak has included internal CFR part 223. The proposed Code for Glazing Materials for Glazing fuel tanks in the design of many new requirement does represent a balance Motor Vehicles Operating on Land locomotives. Experience with these between the degree of bullet impact Highways,’’ ASA Standard Z26.1–1966. tanks has shown them to be much less protection and window weight, This requirement alleviates the need for vulnerable than external fuel tanks due however. Ballistic tests revealed that a interior glazing to meet the stringent to protection provided by the structure requirement to resist a round fired at impact resistance requirements placed of the car body. This reduced velocities typical of high-powered rifles on exterior glazing, while ensuring that vulnerability lessens the need for many requires a glazing thickness that creates the glazing will shatter in a safe manner of the requirements proposed for a window weight that is impractical for like automotive glazing. external fuel tanks. use as an emergency exit. Paragraph (f) requires that each § 238.425 Electrical Systems Fifth, under paragraph (a)(3)(ii), all vehicle be stencilled on an interior wall exterior glazing shall demonstrate anti- to indicate that it meets the glazing This section contains the proposed spalling performance by the use of a requirements contained in this section. requirements for electrical system 0.001 aluminum witness plate, placed This requirement is already provided for design. These requirements reflect 12 inches from the glazing surface existing equipment in 49 CFR 223.17. common electrical safety practice and during all impact tests. The witness are widely recognized as good electrical plate must not contain any marks from § 238.423 Fuel Tanks design practice. They include spalled glazing particles after any This section contains the proposed provisions for: impact test. When impacted on the requirements for fuel tanks for fossil- • Circuit protection against surges, exterior surface, glazing currently used fueled Tier II passenger equipment. FRA overload and ground faults; in railroad equipment tends to spall is proposing separate requirements for • Electrical conductor sizes and from the inside surface. Several eye external fuel tanks, which are properties to provide a margin of safety injuries to crewmembers have resulted. traditional, under the car body fuel for the intended application; FRA believes that the witness plates tanks, and for internal tanks, which are • Battery system design to prevent the used in conducting the spalling tests to built into the structure of the car body. risk of overcharging or accumulation of Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49781 dangerous gases that can cause an track speeds and track conditions and the means to measure them explosion; consistent with the Track Safety represent the consensus • Design of resistor grids that Standards (49 CFR part 213), up to the recommendations of both working dissipate energy produced by dynamic maximum operating speed and groups and have proven effective during braking with sufficient electrical maximum cant deficiency of the the demonstrations of the X–2000 and isolation and ventilation to minimize equipment. These broad suspension ICE trainsets. the risk of fires; and system performance requirements Paragraph (e) provides that • Electromagnetic compatibility address the operation of equipment at compliance with the ride quality within the intended operating both high speed over well maintained requirements contained in paragraph (d) environment to prevent electromagnetic track and at low speed over lower be demonstrated during the equipment interference with safety-critical classes of track. Suspension system pre-revenue service qualification tests equipment systems and to prevent performance requirements are needed at required under § 238.113 and § 213.345 interference of the rolling stock with both high and low speeds as of the proposed federal track safety other systems along the right-of-way. exemplified by recent incidents where standards. One of the most important § 238.427 Suspension System stiff, high-speed suspension systems objectives of pre-revenue service caused passenger equipment to derail qualification testing is to demonstrate Suspension system performance while negotiating curves in yards at low that suspension system performance parameters are crucial to the safe speeds. requirements have been met. operation of high-speed rail passenger Compliance with paragraph (a) must Paragraph (f) requires bearing equipment. The suspension system be demonstrated during pre-revenue overheat sensors to be provided either requirements that FRA is proposing service acceptance testing of the on board the equipment or at reasonable served as safety limits for the successful equipment and by complying with the wayside intervals. FRA prefers sensors demonstrations of the X–2000 and the safety performance standards for to be on board the equipment to ICE trainsets on the NEC at speeds up suspension systems contained in eliminate the risk of a hotbox that to 135 mph. These proposed Appendix C to this part. Because better develops between wayside locations. requirements are also part of the ways to demonstrate suspension system However, FRA does recognize that suspension system performance safety performance may be developed in onboard sensors have a history of falsely requirements for Amtrak’s American the future, the rule allows the use of detecting overheat conditions that have Flyer trainsets. alternative standards to those contained caused significant operating difficulties Safety requirements concerning the in Appendix C if they provide for some passenger railroads. wheel-rail interface have traditionally equivalent safety and are approved by § 238.429 Safety Appliances been addressed as part of the track the FRA Associate Administrator for safety standards. In parallel with the Safety under the provisions of § 238.21. This section contains the proposed Tier II Equipment Subgroup’s effort to Paragraph (b) requires the steady-state requirements for safety appliances for develop high-speed equipment safety lateral acceleration of passenger cars to Tier II passenger equipment. FRA has standards, the RSAC Track Working be less than 0.1g, as measured parallel attempted to simplify and clarify how Group developed an NPRM on track to the car floor inside the passenger the Safety Appliance Standards safety standards which includes compartment, under all operating contained in 49 CFR part 231 and 49 proposed high-speed track standards. conditions. Passenger cars shall not U.S.C. 20302(a) will be applied to Tier See 62 FR 36138, Jul. 3, 1997. FRA operate when the steady-state lateral II passenger equipment. The proposed sponsored a joint meeting of the Tier II acceleration is 0.1g or greater. FRA requirements are basically a restatement Equipment Subgroup and members of originally considered limiting the cant of existing requirements but tailored the Track Working Group focusing on deficiency, but Track Working Group specifically for application to this new the development of high-speed track members recommended that the steady- and somewhat unconventional standards to ensure that the two sets of state lateral acceleration requirement equipment. They represent the standards not conflict at the wheel-rail alone is sufficient to ensure safe consensus recommendation of the Tier interface, where they overlap. Overall, operation. The Tier II Equipment II Equipment Subgroup. the two groups proposed very similar Subgroup concurred, and FRA is Paragraph (b) deserves special standards, but members of the Track proceeding according to these mention; it proposes to require that Tier Working Group recommended some recommendations. II passenger trains be provided with a modifications to Tier II passenger Paragraph (c) requires each truck to be parking or hand brake that can be set equipment standards so that these equipped with a permanently installed and released manually and can hold the standards would dovetail with the high- lateral accelerometer mounted on the equipment on a 3-percent grade. A hand speed track standards. FRA has revised truck frame. If hunting oscillations are brake is an important safety feature that the proposed Tier II passenger detected, the train must be slowed. The prevents the rolling or runaway of equipment standards accordingly, as proposal contained in the paragraph did parked equipment. noted in discussions below of the not have the full support of the Tier II specific requirements of this section. Equipment Subgroup and the Track § 238.431 Brake System To ensure safe, stable performance Working Group members because of This section contains proposed brake and ride quality, paragraph (a) requires disagreement over where the system design and performance suspension systems to be designed to accelerometer should be located. requirements for Tier II passenger reasonably prevent wheel climb, wheel Paragraph (d) provides ride vibration equipment, and, except for one lift, rail rollover, rail shift, and a vehicle (quality) limits for vertical accelerations, provision, represents the consensus from overturning. These requirements lateral accelerations, and the recommendation of the Tier II must be met in all operating combination of lateral and vertical Equipment Subgroup. The main issue of environments, and under all track and accelerations. These limits must be met concern among Subgroup members loading conditions as determined by the while the equipment is traveling at the involved the capability of sensor operating railroad. In addition, these maximum operating speed over its technology used to monitor the requirements must be met under all intended route. The limiting parameters application and release of brakes. Labor 49782 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules representatives maintained that a available at any time and produce an automatically adjust the braking force technology that actually measures the irretrievable stop. This paragraph on each wheel to prevent sliding during force of brake shoes and pads against proposes an additional requirement that braking. FRA also proposes to require wheels and brake discs is required for a means to actuate the emergency brake that the train operator be alerted in the a reliable indication of brake application be provided at two locations in each event of a failure of this system with a and release. Railroad operators unit of the train. This additional wheel slide alarm that is visual or contended that this technology is not requirement ensures the availability of audible, or both. This proposed feature commercially available and that the emergency brake feature and is in ties the adhesion control system to the monitoring pressure in brake cylinders accordance with the current available automated monitoring system and does provide a reliable indication of design of high-speed passenger prevents dangerous wheel slide flat brake application and release, equipment. conditions that can be caused when particularly when those cylinders are Paragraph (d) requires the brake wheels lock during braking. directly adjacent to the point where system to be designed to prevent brake friction surfaces are forced thermal damage to wheels and brake § 238.433 Draft System together. discs. FRA is proposing that leading and Aside from this issue, the rest of the Paragraph (e) proposes requirements trailing automatic couplers of Tier II proposed brake system design and related to blended braking systems. trains be compatible with standard AAR performance requirements received These requirements are similar to those couplers with no special adapters used. widespread support. In fact, several of proposed in § 238.231(j). The only FRA believes that compatibility with the proposed requirements were additional requirement is that the standard couplers is necessary in order contained in written positions provided operational status of the electric portion that a conventional locomotive could by both rail labor and management of the blended brake be displayed in the assist in the rescue of disabled Tier II members of the Subgroup, and virtually operator’s cab. Operators use different passenger equipment. In addition, all of the proposed requirements were train handling procedures when the couplers must include an automatic discussed in the high-speed passenger electric portion of blended brake is not coupling feature as well as an equipment section of the 1994 NPRM on available. A very dangerous situation uncoupling device that complies with power brakes. See 59 FR 47693–47694, can arise when an operator expects the 49 U.S.C. chapter 203, 49 CFR part 231, 47699–47700, and 47730. Many of the electric portion of the blended brake to and 49 CFR 232.2. FRA believes that requirements proposed in this section be available and it is not. FRA believes automatic uncoupling devices are are similar to the requirements proposed that when operations exceed 125 mph necessary in order to comply with the for Tier I passenger equipment in either the train must not be used if the intent of the statute so that employees § 238.231, thus the discussion related to electric portion of the blended brake is will not have to place themselves not available, or the train operator must that section should be read in between equipment in order to perform know that the electric portion of the conjunction with the following coupling or uncoupling operations. discussion. blended brake is not available so he or The proposal contained in paragraph she can be prepared to use § 238.435 Interior Fittings and (a) is virtually identical to the proposal compensating train handling Surfaces related to the braking systems of Tier I procedures. Further, FRA believes that This section contains proposed passenger equipment in § 238.231(a). if the additional heat input to wheels or requirements for interior fittings and Paragraph (b) proposes a requirement discs caused by lack of the electric surfaces. Once survivable space is similar to that proposed in § 238.231(b) portion of the blended brake causes ensured by basic vehicle structural and is intended to protect railroad thermal damage to these braking employees. FRA believes that inspectors surfaces, then the electric portion of the strength and crash energy management of equipment must be able to ascertain blended brake should be considered a requirements, the design of interior if brakes are applied or released without required safety feature and, unless it is features becomes an important factor in placing themselves in a vulnerable available, the equipment should not be preventing or mitigating injuries position. The proposed rule allows used. resulting from collisions or derailments. railroads the flexibility of using a Paragraph (f) requires the brake Loose seats, equipment, and luggage are reliable indicator in place of requiring system to allow a disabled train’s a significant cause of injuries in direct observation of the brake pneumatic brakes to be controlled by a passenger train collisions and application or piston travel because the conventional locomotive during rescue derailments. designs of many of the brake systems operations. Paragraphs (a) through (c) contain used on passenger equipment make Paragraph (g) requires that Tier II requirements for the design of passenger direct observation of the brakes passenger trains be equipped with an car seats and the strength of their extremely difficult. Brake system piston independent brake failure detection attachment to the car body. These travel or piston cylinder pressure system that compares brake commands requirements are based on sled tests of indicators have been used with to brake system outputs to determine if passenger coach seats, seat tests satisfactory results for many years. a failure has occurred. This paragraph conducted for other modes of Although indicators do not provide 100 also proposes that the brake failure transportation, and computer modeling percent certainty that the brakes are detection system report failures to the to predict the results of passenger train effective, they have proven effective automated monitoring system, which is collisions. These provisions include a enough to be preferable to requiring an proposed in § 238.445, thus alerting the requirement for shock absorbent inspector to assume a dangerous train operator to potential brake system material on the backs of seats to cushion position. degradation so that the operator can take the impact of passengers with the seats Paragraph (c) is virtually identical to corrective action such as slowing the ahead of them. the requirement proposed in train. Paragraph (d) contains the § 238.231(c), and is a fundamental brake Paragraph (h) requires that all Tier II requirements for strength of attachment system performance requirement that an passenger equipment be provided with of interior fittings and is similar to that emergency brake application feature be an adhesion control system designed to proposed in § 238.233(c). Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49783

Paragraph (e) contains a special also provided earlier in the preamble. § 238.445 Automated Monitoring requirement for the ultimate strength of Such features should aid in removing This section contains the proposed seats and other fittings in the cab of a passengers and crewmembers from a requirements for automated monitoring power car. Due to the extra strength of vehicle that is either on its side or of the status or performance of various the cab, its structure is capable of upright in water. safety-related systems. Investigations of Paragraph (c) is reserved for marking resisting forces caused by accelerations past passenger train accidents reveal and operating instruction requirements. that exceed 10g. As a result, benefit can that many of them were either fully or be gained from a greater longitudinal § 238.441 Doors partly caused by human error. The faster strength requirement for seat and other operating speeds of Tier II passenger interior fitting attachments. FRA is This section contains the proposed equipment means that the train operator therefore proposing that seats and requirements for exterior doors on Tier will have less time to evaluate and react equipment in the cab be attached to the II passenger cars. This section should be to potentially dangerous situations. The car body with sufficient strength to read with the discussion of emergency potential for accidents is increased. resist longitudinal forces caused by an egress and access earlier in the Automated monitoring systems can acceleration of 12g. The lateral and preamble. The requirements in decrease the risk of accidents by alerting vertical requirements remain 4g. This paragraph (a) are virtually identical to the operator to abnormal conditions and requirement does not apply to those proposed in § 238.237(b), except advising the operator as to necessary equipment located outside the cab. that paragraph (a)(2) requires that the Paragraphs (f) and (g) contain status of powered, exterior side doors be corrective action. Such systems can requirements representing good safety displayed to the crew in the operating even be designed to take corrective design practice for any type of vehicle. cab and, if door interlocks are used, the action automatically in certain FRA believes the luggage restraint sensors to detect train motion must situations. As a result, FRA is proposing requirement proposed in paragraph (h) nominally be set at 3 mph. Such that a Tier II passenger train be will prevent many of the injuries caused equipment is well within current equipped with an automated system to by flying luggage that are typical of technology. Paragraph (b) requires that monitor various train systems and passenger train collisions and powered, exterior side doors be components. derailments. connected to an emergency back-up Paragraph (a) requires the train to be power system. Paragraph (c) is identical equipped to monitor the performance of § 238.437 Emergency Communication to that proposed for Tier I passenger a minimum set of safety-related systems This section requires an emergency equipment in § 238.237(c). Paragraph (d) and components. The monitoring communication system within the train requires passenger compartment end system can also be used to provide with back-up power, and is discussed doors to be equipped with a kick-out information for trouble-shooting and earlier in the preamble. This safety panel, pop-out window, or other means maintenance and to accumulate feature will allow the train crew to of egress in the event the door will not reliability data to form the basis for provide evacuation and other open. As discussed above, FRA setting required periodic maintenance instructions to passengers. Such a considered this requirement for both intervals. system can help prevent panic that can Tier I and Tier II equipment, but Paragraph (b) requires the operator to occur during emergency situations. FRA believes such a feature may be be alerted when any of the monitored is proposing that transmission locations dangerous on side doors because parameters are out of predetermined be located at both ends of each unit, that passengers could use the feature limits. FRA does not intend to remove the locations be marked with inappropriately and possibly exit from a the decision from the operating railroad luminescent material, and that clear moving train. However, this feature has for when automatic intervention is instructions be provided for the use of a strong safety benefit for end doors that necessary. However, the operating the emergency communication system. allow movement from car to car. These railroad should have a valid basis for doors are not used to exit the train, and either leaving response in the hands of § 238.439 Emergency Window Exits using end doors to exit to the next car the train operator or making corrective and Roof Hatches is the preferred mode of evacuating a action automatic. Paragraph (a) contains proposed car. Paragraph (c) requires the monitoring requirements that apply to emergency Paragraph (e) is reserved for door system to be designed with an automatic window exits on passenger cars. This marking and operating instruction self-test feature that notifies the operator paragraph is virtually identical to that requirements. These requirements are that the monitoring capability is proposed for Tier I passenger equipment currently being addressed in the functioning correctly and alerts the in § 238.235, except for the required size proposed rule on passenger train operator that a system failure has of the emergency window exits. A emergency preparedness. See 62 FR occurred. Because operators can become discussion of emergency window exits 8330, Feb. 24, 1997. dependent on automated monitoring and the distinction between proposed systems, they need to know when their requirements for Tier I and Tier II § 238.443 Headlights vigilance must be heightened to passenger equipment is provided earlier Because of the high speeds at which compensate for a malfunction in this in the preamble. Tier II passenger equipment operates, automated safety tool. Paragraph (b) requires either a roof FRA is proposing that a headlight be hatch or a clearly marked structural directed farther in front of the train to § 238.447 Operator’s Controls and Cab weak point in the roof to provide quick illuminate a person than is currently Layout access for properly equipped emergency required for existing equipment under In the ANPRM, FRA offered for personnel. One roof hatch or structural 49 CFR 229.125(a). A Tier II passenger comment a detailed set of requirements weak point is required for each power train will travel distances more quickly concerning cab control systems and car cab and two roof hatches or than a Tier I passenger train, and the interior safety features for consideration structural weak points for each train operator will have less time to by the industry. However, several passenger car. A discussion of roof react thereby necessitating earlier members of the Working Group believed hatches and structural weak points is awareness of objects on the track. that a number of these requirements 49784 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules involved ergonomic issues which do not program proposed by the operating Paragraph (c) requires that the directly affect safety. Nonetheless, FRA railroad; rail labor organizations will be operating railroad develop an is proposing in this section extensive given an opportunity to discuss their inspection, testing, and maintenance requirements for Tier II cab interior concerns with FRA during the approval program to ensure that all systems and features. The speeds at which Tier II process set forth in § 238.505. Tier II components of Tier II passenger equipment will operate will press equipment must not be used prior to equipment are free of general conditions human reaction time, and such features FRA approval of an inspection, testing, that endanger the safety of the crew, will contribute to the ability of the crew and maintenance program. Further, FRA passengers, or equipment. FRA has to operate the train as safely as possible. proposes to enforce the safety-critical identified the various conditions Paragraph (g)(1) deserves special inspection, testing, and maintenance enumerated in paragraph (c) that would mention; it requires that each seat procedures, criteria, and maintenance need to be addressed in the railroad’s provided for a crewmember be equipped intervals that result from the approval program. Consequently, FRA has with a single-acting, quick-release lap process. attempted to define what the inspection, belt and shoulder harness as defined in testing, and maintenance program must § 571.209 of this title. This proposed § 238.501 Scope accomplish, but not how to accomplish requirement is mentioned earlier in the This subpart contains inspection, it. preamble discussion of train interior testing, and maintenance requirements Paragraph (d) contains the more safety features. for passenger equipment that operates at specific requirements that any inspection, testing, and maintenance Subpart F—Inspection, Testing, and speeds exceeding 125 mph but not program must incorporate. In paragraph Maintenance Requirements for Tier II exceeding 150 mph. (d)(1), FRA proposes that Tier II Passenger Equipment § 238.503 Inspection, Testing, and equipment receive the equivalent of a Currently, there is no operating Maintenance Requirements Class I brake test, as described in history with regard to Tier II equipment, This section requires the § 238.313, before its departure from an and thus there are no regulations or establishment by the railroad of an FRA- originating terminal and every 1,500 industry standards establishing detailed miles after that or once each calendar testing, inspection, or maintenance approved inspection, testing, and maintenance program based on a daily day the equipment remains in service. procedures, criteria, and intervals for The test must be performed by a the equipment. The railroads and the complete brake system test and mechanical safety inspection of the qualified mechanical inspector. For rail labor organizations differ on the example, a Tier II train must receive the approach that should be taken in equipment performed by qualified mechanical inspectors, coupled with a equivalent of a Class I brake test at its establishing inspection, testing, and originating terminal and must receive a periodic maintenance program based on maintenance requirements. Railroads second Class I equivalent brake test after a system safety analysis. Although have long appealed to FRA to move traveling 1,500 miles from the time of paragraph (a) proposes some basic away from detailed ‘‘command and the original Class 1 brake test, whether requirements to be included in a control’’ regulations and instead to or not it is the same calendar day. program, FRA does not intend to provide broad safety performance Furthermore, a Tier II train must receive prescribe every detail of what a program requirements that afford railroads wide the equivalent of a Class I brake test must contain. FRA proposes to require latitude to develop the operational each calendar day it is used in service the operating railroad to develop and details. Rail labor organizations, on the even if it has not traveled 1,500 miles justify the details of any program it other hand, believe that specific since the last Class I equivalent brake inspection, testing, and maintenance adopts based on the specific safety test. Due to the speeds at which this criteria that cannot be unilaterally needs and operating environment of the equipment is permitted to operate, FRA changed by railroads are the only way high speed rail system being developed. believes that a comprehensive brake test that safe railroad operation can be Paragraph (b) would make must be performed prior to the assured. enforceable, subject to civil penalties equipment being placed in service. FRA believes that the introduction of and other enforcement action, the Paragraph (d)(2) proposes that a a new type of passenger train equipment safety-critical inspection, testing, and complete exterior and interior offers the opportunity for a fresh start, maintenance requirements that are mechanical inspection be conducted by where perhaps both of these seemingly identified in the railroad’s program and qualified mechanical inspectors at least conflicting concerns can be resolved. approved by FRA. ‘‘Safety-critical’’ once each calendar day that the FRA proposes general guidelines on the requirements are those that, if not equipment is used. In order to perform process to be used by the operating fulfilled, increase ‘‘the risk of damage to a quality mechanical inspection, railroad, together with the system equipment or personal injury to a railroads must be provided some developer, to develop an inspection, passenger, crewmember, or other flexibility in determining the locations testing, and maintenance program. The person.’’ See § 238.5. Under paragraph where these inspections can best be operating railroad and the system (k), the railroad must identify which performed. FRA believes that permitting developer together have the best items in its inspection, testing, and railroads to conduct these mechanical information, expertise, and resources maintenance program are safety-critical. inspections at any time during the necessary to develop the details of an The railroad must submit the program to calendar day provides adequate effective inspection, testing, and FRA under the procedures of § 238.505. flexibility to move equipment to maintenance program. The operating Once these programs are approved by appropriate locations. Trains that miss a railroad is thereby granted some latitude FRA, this section proposes to make scheduled Class I brake test or to develop the operational details of the those items identified as safety-critical mechanical inspection due to a delay en program, using the system safety enforceable by FRA. FRA agrees with route may proceed to the location where process to justify the safety decisions labor representatives to the Working the Class I brake test or mechanical that are made. However, FRA proposes Group that safety standards are stronger inspection was scheduled to be to exercise final approval of the when they contain specific provisions performed. FRA recognizes that, due to inspection, testing, and maintenance that can be enforced. the specialized nature of this Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49785 equipment, proper inspections can only exercise their judgment on when and used. The proposed rule is designed to be conducted at a limited number of how equipment is safe to move. have the detailed procedures developed locations. FRA also recognizes that Paragraph (g) would require that by those with most knowledge of how trains become delayed en route due to scheduled maintenance intervals be to safely perform the tasks: the operators problems which are not readily based on the analysis conducted as part and employees. foreseeable. Thus, FRA proposes to of the system safety program and Paragraph (j) proposes to require that permit the continued use of such approved by FRA under the procedures the operating railroad establish an equipment to the location where the of § 238.505. FRA proposes to allow the inspection, testing, and maintenance required inspection was scheduled to be maintenance intervals for safety-critical quality control program enforced by performed. components to be changed only when railroad or contractor supervisors. In Paragraph (e) restates § 238.15 and justified by accumulated acceptable essence, this creates the need for the provides a cross-reference to that operating data. Changes in maintenance operating railroad to perform spot section. The paragraph provides that cycles of safety-critical components checks of the work performed by its trains developing en route defective, must be based on verifiable data made employee and contract equipment inoperative, or insecure primary brake available to all interested parties and maintainers to ensure that the work is equipment be moved in accordance shall be reviewed by FRA. This proposal performed in accordance with with the requirements of that section. is another attempt to balance the needs established procedures and Federal Paragraph (f) restates § 238.17 and of the operating railroad to run requirements. FRA believes this is an efficiently and the concern of rail labor important management function that adds a narrow exception to that section. organizations that railroads have the has a history of being neglected in the The paragraph proposes that Tier II ability to unilaterally make safety railroad industry. equipment that develops a defective decisions. For a new system with no Paragraph (k) requires the operating condition not related to the primary operating history, a formal system safety railroad to identify each inspection and brake be moved and handled in analysis is the only justifiable way to set testing procedure and criterion and each accordance with the requirements initial maintenance intervals. The maintenance interval that the railroad contained in § 238.17, with one proposal recognizes that as time passes considers safety-critical. exception. The exception to these and an operating history is developed, requirements applies to a failure of the § 238.505 Program Approval a basis for changing maintenance Procedure secondary portion of the brake that intervals can be established. However, occurs en route. In those circumstances, the decision to make these changes must This section contains the procedures FRA proposes that the train may have the participation of all the affected a railroad shall follow in securing FRA proceed to the next scheduled parties. approval of its program. equivalent Class I brake test at a speed Paragraph (h) would require that the Subpart G—Introduction of New no greater than the maximum safe operating railroad establish a training, operating speed demonstrated through Technology to Tier II Passenger qualification, and designation program Equipment analysis and testing for braking with the as defined in the training program plan friction brake alone. At that location the under § 238.111 to qualify individuals § 238.601 Scope brake system shall be restored to 100 to perform safety inspections, tests, and This subpart contains proposed percent operation before the train maintenance on the equipment. If the general requirements for introducing continues in service. This proposal railroad deems it safety-critical, then new technology that affects safety allows extensive flexibility for the only qualified individuals may perform systems of ‘‘existing Tier II passenger movement of equipment with defective the safety inspection, test, or equipment,’’ which is defined as Tier II brakes, but also contains a hard maintenance of the equipment. FRA passenger equipment that has been requirement that all brake components does not prescribe a detailed training approved for revenue service by FRA be repaired and the brake system, program or qualification and under § 238.21. As part of the including secondary brakes, be restored designation process. Those details are development of the ANPRM in this at the location of the train’s next major left to the operating railroad, but FRA docket, FRA discussed extensive brake test. FRA believes that this must approve the program proposed by requirements for the introduction of proposal recognizes the secondary role the operating railroad under procedures new technology. During Working Group played by the electric portion of of § 238.505. meetings, various group members blended brakes. If the railroad has Under paragraph (i), the operating pointed out that the requirements demonstrated that the friction brake railroad would be obliged to establish presented by FRA were very similar to alone can stop the train within signal standard procedures for performing all the requirements of the system safety spacing without thermal damage to safety-critical inspections, tests, program. These members suggested that braking surfaces, then the train may be maintenance, or repair. This paragraph the proposed rule could be simplified used at normal maximum speed in the proposes various broad requirements and made more concise if the system event of an electric brake failure. This relating to the content and safety process were used to introduce proposal essentially limits the use of enforceability of the standard operating new technology to existing Tier II trains without available secondary procedures. FRA has drawn on the equipment. FRA agrees with this braking systems to no more than 48 experiences of other heavy industries suggestion. FRA may determine that it hours. FRA believes that § 238.17 strikes and in the military, where inherently is best to integrate subpart G with the correct balance between the need of dangerous tasks are common, which § 238.113. FRA invites comments from railroads to transport passengers to their have proven that standard operating interested parties on this possible destination and the need to have procedures are an effective tool in change. equipment with defects that could lead reducing work-related injuries. Further, to more serious safety problems quickly standard operating procedures can form § 238.603 Process to Introduce New repaired. This proposed requirement the basis for periodic safety refresher Technology places a heavy responsibility on training. FRA does not propose to Paragraph (a) requires a major qualified mechanical inspectors to prescribe the detailed procedures to be upgrade or introduction of new 49786 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules technology that affects the performance Appendix A—Schedule of Civil consequences of the proposed rule as of an existing Tier II passenger Penalties well as its anticipated economic and equipment safety system to be designed This appendix is being reserved until safety benefits. It may be inspected and and implemented using the system the final rule. At that time it will photocopied during normal business safety process prescribed in § 238.101. include a schedule of civil penalties to hours by visiting the FRA Docket Clerk This proposed requirement implements be used in connection with this part. at the Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, the suggestions of Working Group Because such penalty schedules are Seventh Floor, 1120 Vermont Avenue, members. statements of policy, notice and N.W., in Washington, D.C. Photocopies may also be obtained by submitting a Paragraph (b) requires railroads to comment are not required prior to their issuance. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). written request by mail to the FRA follow the procedures set forth in Docket Clerk at the Office of Chief § 238.21 and obtain FRA’s special Nevertheless, commenters are invited to submit suggestions to FRA describing Counsel, Federal Railroad approval of a pre-revenue service the types of actions or omissions under Administration, 400 Seventh Street, acceptance testing plan for the existing each regulatory section that would S.W., Mail Stop 10, Washington, D.C. Tier II passenger equipment with the subject a person to the assessment of a 20590. upgrade or new technology containing civil penalty. Commenters are also FRA expects that overall the proposed all the elements prescribed in § 238.113 invited to recommend what penalties rule will save the passenger rail prior to executing the plan. may be appropriate, based upon the industry a Net Present Value (NPV) of Paragraph (c) requires railroads to relative seriousness of each type of approximately $41 million over the next complete a pre-revenue service violation. 20 years. The estimated NPV of the total demonstration of the existing equipment Regulatory Impact 20-year costs associated with the with the upgrade or new technology in proposed rule is $41,064,095. The accordance with the FRA approved Executive Order 12866 and DOT estimated NPV of the total 20-year plan, to fulfill all other requirements of Regulatory Policies and Procedures savings (economic benefits) expected to § 238.113, and obtain special approval This proposed rule has been accrue to the industry from the from FRA pursuant to § 238.21 prior to evaluated in accordance with existing proposed rule is $81,612,874. For some using the Tier II equipment with the policies and procedures and is passenger rail operators, the total costs upgrade or new technology in revenue considered to be significant under both incurred will exceed the total cost service. FRA considers these Executive Order 12866 and DOT savings. For others, the cost savings will outweigh the costs. requirements extremely important to policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; prevent unknown safety problems from Feb. 26, 1979). FRA has prepared and The following table contains being introduced along with the new placed in the docket a regulatory estimated 20-year costs and savings technology. evaluation of the proposed rule. This associated with the proposed evaluation estimates the costs and requirements.

Requirement category Cost

System Safety Program/Plan: Initial Filing ...... $ 359,575 Modifications ...... 101,974 Auditability/Tracking ...... 159,611 Fire Protection: New equipment ...... 497,509 Existing equipment (see discussion below) ...... 622,486 Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance Program ...... 525,247 Training Course Development ...... 163,844 Training ...... 3,778,176 Pre-Revenue Service Testing ...... 496,281

TotalÐSystem Safety ...... 6,704,703 General Design RequirementsÐTier I: Anti-Climbing Mechanism & Link ...... 65,948 Forward Facing End Structure/Collision Posts ...... 1,745,407 Rollover Strength ...... 60,927 Glazing ...... 244,769 BrakesÐease of inspection ...... 229,390 Interior Fittings ...... 466,449 Emergency Lighting ...... 1,483,162 Side Doors ...... 3,400,297

TotalÐDesign Requirements ...... 7,696,349 Mechanical Inspections: Daily Exterior Mechanical Inspections ...... 12,526,320 Daily Interior Mechanical Inspections ...... 1,567,829

TotalÐInspections ...... 22,666,895 Brake Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance: Periodic MU Brake Maintenance ...... (20,052,750) Periodic Coach Brake Maintenance ...... (5,468,750) Periodic Cab Car Brake Maintenance ...... (6,158,448) 1,500-Mile Inspection ...... (36,019,648) Class IA Brake Tests ...... (3,997,281) Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49787

Requirement category Cost

Class II Brake Tests ...... 3,996,147

TotalÐBrakes ...... (67,700,730) Movement of Defective Equipment ...... (9,915,997)

Total Net Impact ...... (40,548,780)

The costs of performing fire safety may affect the benefits or costs of the under RSAC is currently developing analyses of existing equipment are proposal, including alternatives that recommendations regarding the included in the calculations above. were not explored by the Working applicability of FRA regulations, However, the costs of modifying Group and any costs or benefits including this one, to tourist, scenic, equipment to reduce the risk of personal associated with such alternatives. historic, and excursion railroads. After injuries as required by the proposed rule appropriate consultation with the Regulatory Flexibility Act are not included in the above figures. excursion railroad associations takes These costs could total between $8.75 to The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 place, passenger equipment safety $14 million. The costs depend on the (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an requirements for these operations may results of the proposed analyses, which assessment of the impacts of proposed be proposed by FRA that are different cannot be accurately predicted. rules on small entities. FRA has from those affecting other types of Consequently, the total net impact of the conducted a regulatory flexibility passenger train operations. proposed rule could be a savings of assessment of this rule’s impact on A few provisions of the proposed rule $26,548,780. small entities, and the assessment has apply to private rail cars. These consist In the last six years there have been been placed in the public docket for this of requirements concerning protection at least six passenger train accidents rulemaking. This proposed rule affects against personal injury; rim-stamped which resulted in more than one train intercity passenger and commuter straight-plate wheels; suspension occupant fatality. FRA does not know railroads, and the proposed provisions system safety; safety appliances; brake the severity or number of commuter or applicable to private cars may affect system safety; mechanical inspections; intercity passenger train accidents that other entities as well. and brake inspection, testing, and will occur in the future. Although Entities impacted by the proposed maintenance. FRA has sought to passenger railroads offer the travelling rule are principally governmental minimize the burden of the proposed public one of the safest forms of jurisdictions or transit authorities, rule on private cars as much as possible, transportation available—in the five- which are not small for purposes of the while considering the safety concerns year period 1991–1995 there were 1.07 United States Small Business associated with the use of private rail passenger fatalities per billion passenger Administration (i.e., no entity operates cars in passenger trains operated by miles—the potential for injuries and in a locality with a population of under railroads subject to the proposed rule. loss of life in certain situations is very 50,000 people). Commuter railroads are FRA solicits comments or data, or both, high. FRA believes that the proposed part of larger transit organizations that to identify the impacts of these rule represents a cost-effective approach receive Federal funds. FRA does not provisions to the extent that those to providing a reasonable level of expect that smaller commuter railroads affected by such provisions are small protection against known threats to will be affected disproportionately. The entities. human life. Accordingly, FRA believes level of costs incurred by each that it is reasonable to expect that the organization should vary in proportion Paperwork Reduction Act measures called for in this proposal to the organization’s size. For instance, The proposed rule contains would prevent or mitigate the severity railroads with fewer employees and information collection requirements. of casualties greater in value than the passenger equipment will have lower FRA has submitted these information costs of complying with the proposed costs associated with employee training collection requirements to the Office of requirements. and the inspection, testing, and Management and Budget (OMB) for FRA is allowing 60 days for maintenance of passenger equipment. review and approval in accordance with comments and invites public comment Tourist, scenic, historic, and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 on the issue of regulatory impact, and in excursion railroad operations are (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The sections particular any impact the proposed rule excepted from the proposed rule. that contain the new information may have on small entities. FRA seeks Entities devoted principally to such collection requirements and the comments or data, or both, to help operations are smaller railroads. A joint estimated time to fulfill each identify or quantify other factors that FRA/industry working group formed requirement are as follows:

Average time Total annual Total annual CFR section Respondent universe Total annual responses per response burden hours burden cost

216.14ÐSpecial notice for repairsÐ 17 railroads ...... 12 letters ...... 1 hour ...... 12 hours ...... $408 passenger equipment. 238.7ÐWaivers ...... 17 railroads ...... 12 waivers ...... 2 hours ...... 24 hours ...... 816 238.15ÐMovement of passenger 17 railroads ...... 408 cards/tags ...... 5 minutes ...... 34 hours ...... 1,020 equipment with power brake de- fects, and 238.17ÐMovement of passenger equipment with other than power brake defects. Conditional requirement ...... 17 railroads ...... 200 events ...... 3 minutes ...... 10 hours ...... 300 49788 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Average time Total annual Total annual CFR section Respondent universe Total annual responses per response burden hours burden cost

238.19ÐReporting and tracking de- 17 railroads ...... N/A ...... Usual and cus- N/A ...... N/A fective passenger equipment. tomary proce- dure. List of power brake repair points ...... 1 railroad ...... 1 list ...... 2 hours ...... 2 hours ...... 68 Amendments to list ...... 1 railroad ...... 1update ...... 1 hour ...... 1 hour ...... 34 238.21/238.115/238.223(a)/ 238.309(2)/238.3 11(a)/238.427(2) Petitions for special approval of 17 railroads ...... 1 petition ...... 16 hours ...... 16 hours ...... 544 alternative standard. Petitions for special approval of 17 railroads ...... 1 petition ...... 24 hours ...... 24 hours ...... 816 pre-revenue service accept- ance testing plan. Statement of interest in review- Unknown ...... 2 statements ...... 1 hour ...... 2 hours ...... 68 ing special approvals. Comments on the petitions ...... Unknown ...... 2 comments ...... 1 hour ...... 2 hours ...... 122 238.103ÐGeneral system safety re- 17 railroads ...... 17 plans ...... 433 hours ...... 7,361 hours ...... 355,351 quirements. Amendments to System Safety 17 railroads ...... 17 amendments ...... 11 hours ...... 187 hours ...... 97,801 Plan. Traceabillity and Auditability ...... 17 railroads ...... 17 documents ...... 150 hours ...... 2,550 hours ...... 86,700 238.105ÐFire protection program 238.115ÐFire safety Plan ...... 6 equipment manu- 4.8 (5 yr. average) ...... 224 hours ...... 1,075 hours ...... 75,725 facturers. Subsequent equipment orders ... 6 equipment manu- 4.8 (5 yr. average) ...... 60 hours ...... 288 hours ...... 28,800 facturers. Preliminary fire safety analysis ... 17 railroads ...... 17 documents ...... 128 hours ...... 2,184 hours ...... 451,344 Final fire safety analysis ...... 16 railroads ...... 5.3 documents (3 yr. aver- 68 hours ...... 795 hours ...... 79,467 age). Fire safety analysis on equip- 17 railroads ...... 1 document ...... 8 hours ...... 8 hours ...... 800 ment transfer. Certification ...... 6 equipment manu- 6 certifications ...... 120 hours ...... 720 hours ...... 72,000 facturers. 238.107ÐSoftware safety plan ...... 17 railroads ...... N/A ...... Usual and cus- N/A ...... N/A tomary proce- dure. 238.109ÐInspection, testing, and maintenance program Program ...... 17 railroads ...... N/A ...... Usual and cus- N/A ...... N/A tomary proce- dure. Maintenance intervals ...... 17 railroads ...... 1 change ...... 88 hours ...... 88 hours ...... 3,208 Standard procedures for safely 17 railroads ...... 17 procedures ...... 96 hours ...... 1,632 ...... 62,832 performing inspection, testing, and maintenance or repairs. Subsequent yearsÐnew rail- 1 railroad ...... 1 procedure ...... 96 hours ...... 96 hours ...... 3,696 roads. Subsequent yearsÐrailroad an- 17 railroads ...... 17 amendments ...... 19 hours ...... 323 hours ...... 12,359 nual review and necessary modifications. New equipment purchases ...... 6 equipment manu- 4.8 designs (5 yr. average) 120 hours ...... 576 hours ...... 57,600 facturers. 238.111 Training, qualification, and designation program Training employees to perform 17 railroads ...... N/A ...... Usual and cus- N/A ...... N/A brake-related inspections, tomary proce- tests, or maintenance. dure. Training employees to perform 17 railroads ...... 5,950 employees/235 in- 2 hours ...... 12,376 hours .... 368,900 daily mechanical inspections. structors. Development of Training Pro- 17 railroads ...... 17 programs ...... 520 hours ...... 8,840 hours ...... 282,880 gram. Record keeping ...... 17 railroads ...... 5,950 records ...... 3 minutes ...... 298 hours ...... 10,132 238.113ÐPre-revenue service ac- 6 equipment manu- 4.8 plans (5 yr. average) .... 200 hours ...... 960 hours ...... 83,328 ceptance testing plan. facturers. Subsequent equipment orders ... 6 equipment manu- 4.8 plans (5 yr. average) .... 60 hours ...... 288 hours ...... 22,464 facturers. Previously used equipment ...... 6 equipment manu- 4.8 plans (5 yr. average) .... 60 hours ...... 288 hours ...... 22,464 facturers. 238.231ÐBrake System Identify and mark emergency N/A ...... N/A ...... Usual and cus- N/A ...... N/A brake. tomary proce- dure. 238.239ÐAutomated monitoring ...... 17 railroads ...... 17 documents ...... 2 hours ...... 34 hours ...... 1,156 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49789

Average time Total annual Total annual CFR section Respondent universe Total annual responses per response burden hours burden cost

238.303ÐExterior calendar day me- N/A ...... N/A ...... Usual and cus- N/A ...... N/A chanical inspection of passenger tomary proce- cars and unpowered vehicles used dure. in passenger trains. 238.305ÐInterior calendar day me- chanical inspection of passenger cars Stenciling or marking emergency N/A ...... N/A ...... Usual and cus- N/A ...... N/A brake valve. tomary proce- dure. Stenciling or marking high volt- N/A ...... N/A ...... Usual and cus- N/A ...... N/A age equipment. tomary proce- dure. Tagging of defective doors ...... 9 railroads ...... 540 tags ...... 1 minute ...... 9 hours ...... 306 238.307ÐPeriodic mechanical in- N/A ...... N/A ...... Usual and cus- N/A ...... N/A spection of passenger cars. tomary proce- dure. 238.309ÐRecords of periodic main- N/A ...... N/A ...... Usual and cus- N/A ...... N/A tenance. tomary proce- dure. 238.313ÐClass I Brake Test ...... N/A ...... N/A ...... Usual and cus- N/A ...... N/A tomary proce- dure. 238.403ÐCrash energy management 1 railroad ...... 1 analysis ...... 120 hours ...... 120 hours ...... 12,000 requirements. 238.405ÐLongitudinal static com- 17 railroads ...... 1 design ...... 20 hours ...... 20 hours ...... 680 pressive strength. 238.421ÐGazing Marking of glazing material ...... N/A ...... N/A ...... Usual and cus- N/A ...... N/A tomary proce- dure. Stenciling requirement ...... N/A ...... N/A ...... Usual and cus- N/A ...... N/A tomary proce- dure. 238.431ÐBrake System ...... 1 railroad ...... 1 analysis ...... 40 hours ...... 40 hours ...... 1,360 238.437ÐEmergency communication 3 car manufacturers .. 3 instructions ...... 1 hour ...... 3 hours ...... 90 238.439ÐEmergency window exits 3 car manufacturers .. 16 cars marked ...... 15 minutes ...... 4 hours ...... 120 and roof hatchesÐMarking. 238.503ÐInspection, testing, and maintenance requirements 238.505ÐProgram approval proce- dures Submission of program ...... 1 railroad ...... 1 program ...... 80 hours ...... 80 hours ...... 2,720 Amendments to program ...... 1 railroad ...... 1 amendment ...... 8 hours ...... 8 hours ...... 272 Comments ...... 4 unions/individuals ... 4 comments ...... 1 hour ...... 4 hours ...... 244 Approval ...... N/A ...... N/A ...... No disapprovals N/A ...... N/A expected at this time. 238.603ÐProcess to introduce new 1 railroad ...... 1 plan ...... 100 hours ...... 100 hours ...... 3,400 technology. Appendix B to Part 238ÐLabeling re- 5±6 seat manufactur- N/A ...... Usual and cus- N/A ...... N/A quirement. ers. tomary proce- dure.

All estimates include the time for collected; and whether the burden of Desk Officer for the Federal Railroad reviewing instructions; searching collection of information on those who Administration, Office of Information existing data sources; gathering or are to respond, including through the and Regulatory Affairs, New Executive maintaining the needed data; and use of automated collection techniques Office Building, 726 Jackson Place, reviewing the information. Pursuant to or other forms of information N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, and 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits technology, may be minimized. For should also send a copy of their comments concerning: whether these information or a copy of the paperwork comments to Ms. Gloria Swanson information collection requirements are package submitted to OMB contact Ms. Eutsler, Federal Railroad necessary for the proper performance of Gloria Swanson Eutsler at 202–632– Administration, 400 Seventh Street, the functions of FRA, including whether 3318. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. the information has practical utility; the Organizations and individuals OMB is required to make a decision accuracy of FRA’s estimates of the desiring to submit comments on the concerning the collection of information burden of the information collection collection of information requirements requirements contained in this NPRM requirements; the quality, utility, and should direct them to the Office of between 30 and 60 days after clarity of the information to be Management and Budget, Attention: publication of this document in the 49790 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Federal Register. Therefore, a comment 49 CFR Part 223 § 216.14 Special notice for repairsÐ passenger equipment. to OMB is best assured of having its full Railroad safety, Glazing standards. effect if OMB receives it within 30 days (a) When an FRA Motive Power and of publication. The final rule will 49 CFR Part 229 Equipment Inspector or a State Equipment Inspector determines that respond to any OMB or public Railroad safety, Railroad locomotive railroad passenger equipment is not in comments on the information collection safety. requirements contained in this proposal. conformity with one or more of the FRA is not authorized to impose a 49 CFR Part 231 requirements of the FRA Passenger Equipment Safety Standards set forth in penalty on persons for violating Railroad safety, Railroad safety part 238 of this chapter and that it is information collection requirements appliances. which do not display a current OMB unsafe for further service, he or she control number, if required. FRA 49 CFR Part 232 notifies the railroad in writing that the intends to obtain current OMB control Railroad safety, Railroad power equipment is not in serviceable numbers for any new information brakes. condition. The Special Notice sets out collection requirements resulting from and describes the defect or defects that this rulemaking action prior to the 49 CFR Part 238 cause the equipment to be in effective date of a final rule. The OMB Railroad safety, Railroad passenger unserviceable condition. After receipt of control number, when assigned, will be equipment. the Special Notice, the railroad shall announced by separate notice in the remove the equipment from service Federal Register. The Proposed Rule until it is restored to serviceable condition. The equipment may not be Environmental Impact In consideration of the foregoing, FRA proposes to amend chapter II, subtitle B deemed in serviceable condition until it FRA has evaluated these proposed of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations complies with all applicable regulations in accordance with its as follows: requirements of part 238 of this chapter. procedures for ensuring full (b) The railroad shall notify in writing consideration of the environmental PART 216Ð[AMENDED] the FRA Regional Administrator for the impact of FRA actions, as required by FRA region in which the Special Notice the National Environmental Policy Act 1. The authority citation for part 216 was issued when the equipment is (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and related is revised to read as follows: returned to service, specifying the directives. This notice meets the criteria Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20104, 20133, repairs completed. 20137–20138, 20141, 20143, 20301–20302, (c) Railroad passenger equipment that establish this as a non-major action subject to a Special Notice may be for environmental purposes. 20701–20702, 21301–21302, 21304; 49 CFR 1.49(c), (m). moved from the place where it was Federalism Implications found to be unsafe for further service to 2. Section 216.1(a) is revised to read the nearest available point where the This proposed rule has been analyzed as follows: in accordance with the principles and equipment can be repaired, if such movement is necessary to make the criteria contained in Executive Order § 216.1 Application. repairs. However, the movement is 12612, and it has been determined that (a) This part applies, according to its subject to the further restrictions of the proposed rule does not have terms, to each railroad that uses or §§ 238.15 and 238.17 of this chapter. sufficient federalism implications to operates— warrant the preparation of a Federalism (1) A railroad freight car subject to § 216.1 [Amended] Assessment. The fundamental policy part 215 of this chapter; 7. Section 216.17(a) is amended as decision providing that Federal (2) A locomotive subject to 49 U.S.C. follows: regulations should govern aspects of chapter 207 (49 U.S.C. 20701–20703); or a. By adding, after ‘‘216.13’’, service provided by municipal and (3) Railroad passenger equipment ‘‘216.14,’; public benefit corporations (or agencies) subject to part 238 of this chapter. b. By adding, after the word ‘‘locomotive,’’ in the third sentence, the of State governments is embodied in the * * * * * phrase ‘‘railroad passenger equipment,’; statute quoted above (49 U.S.C. 20133). 3. Section 216.3(b) is amended by Further, FRA has consulted with and removing the phrase ‘‘section 206 of the c. By revising the fifth sentence to commuter authorities in developing this Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (45 read as follows: proposed rule. U.S.C. 435)’’ and adding in its place the ‘‘If upon reinspection, the railroad Request for Public Comments phrase ‘‘49 U.S.C. 20105’’. freight car, locomotive, or passenger 4. Section 216.5(c) is amended by equipment is found to be in serviceable FRA proposes to adopt a new part 238 adding after ‘‘216.13,’’: ‘‘216.14,’’. condition, or the track is found to and to amend parts 216, 223, 229, 231, 5. The first sentence of § 216.13(a) is comply with the requirements for the and 232 of title 49, Code of Federal amended by removing the phrase ‘‘the class at which it was previously Regulations, as set forth below. FRA FRA Locomotive Inspection Regulations operated by the railroad, the FRA solicits comments on all aspects of the set forth in part 230’’ and by adding in Regional Administrator or his or her proposed rule whether through written its place the phrase ‘‘the FRA Railroad agent immediately notifies the railroad, submissions, participation in the public Locomotive Safety Standards set forth in whereupon the restrictions of the hearing, or both. FRA may make part 229 of this chapter or the FRA Special Notice cease to be effective.’’ changes in the final rule based on Railroad Locomotive Inspection 8. In subpart B of part 216, the comments received in response to this Regulations set forth in part 230 of this phrases ‘‘the FRA Regional Director for proposed rule. chapter’’. The third sentence of Railroad Safety’’, ‘‘the FRA Regional List of Subjects § 216.13(a) is amended by removing the Director of Railroad Safety’’, ‘‘a Regional phrase ‘‘part 230’’ and adding in its Director’’ and ‘‘the Regional Director’’ 49 CFR Part 216 place the phrase ‘‘parts 229 and 230’’. are removed, and the phrase ‘‘the FRA Railroad safety, Special notice for 6. Section 216.14 is added to read as Regional Administrator’’ is added in repairs. follows: their place. Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49791

PART 223Ð[AMENDED] § 231.0 Applicability and penalties. 238.107 Software safety program. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs 238.109 Inspection, testing, and 9. The authority citation for part 223 (b) and (c) of this section, this part maintenance program. is revised to read as follows: 238.111 Training, qualification, and applies to all standard gage railroads. designation program. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20103, 20133, (b) * * * 238.113 Pre-revenue service acceptance 20701–20702, 21301–21302, 21304; 49 CFR (c) Except for the provisions testing plan. 1.49(c), (m). governing uncoupling devices, this part 10. Section 223.3 is amended by does not apply to Tier II passenger General Requirements adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: equipment as defined in § 238.5 of this 238.115 Fire safety. chapter (i.e., passenger equipment 238.117 Protection against personal injury. § 223.3 Application. operating at speeds exceeding 125 mph 238.119 Rim-stamped straight-plate wheels. * * * * * but not exceeding 150 mph). 238.121 Train system software and hardware. (c) Except for § 223.9(d), this part does * * * * * not apply to Tier II passenger equipment 238.123 Emergency lighting. as defined in § 238.5 of this chapter (i.e., PART 232Ð[AMENDED] passenger equipment operating at Subpart CÐSpecific Requirements for Tier speeds exceeding 125 mph but not 15. The authority citation for part 232 I Passenger Equipment exceeding 150 mph). is revised to read as follows: 238.201 Scope. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20103, 20133, 238.203 Static end strength. PART 229Ð[AMENDED] 20141, 20301–20303, 20306, 21301–21302, 238.205 Anti-climbing mechanism. 21304; 49 CFR 1.49 (c), (m). 238.207 Link between coupling mechanism 11. The authority citation for part 229 and car body. is revised to read as follows: 16. Section 232.0 is amended by 238.209 Forward-facing end structure of Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20103, 20133, redesignating paragraphs (c) through (e) locomotives. 20137–20138, 20143, 20701–20703, 21301– as paragraphs (d) through (f), 238.211 Collision posts. 21302, 21304; 49 CFR 1.49(c), (m). respectively; by revising paragraph (a); 238.213 Corner posts. and by adding a new paragraph (c) to 238.215 Rollover strength. 12 . Section 229.3 is amended by read as follows: 238.217 Side impact strength. revising paragraph (a) and adding new 238.219 Truck-to-car-body attachment. paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) to read as § 232.0 Applicability and penalties. 238.221 Glazing. follows: (a) Except as provided in paragraphs 238.223 Fuel tanks. 238.225 Electrical system. § 229.3 Applicability. (b) and (c) of this section, this part applies to all standard gage railroads. 238.227 Suspension system. 238.229 Safety appliances. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) * * * (b) through (e) of this section, this part 238.231 Brake system. (c) Except for §§ 232.2 and 232.21 238.233 Interior fittings and surfaces. applies to all standard gage railroads. through 232.25, this part does not apply (b) * * * 238.235 Emergency window exits. to a ‘‘passenger train’’ or ‘‘passenger (c) Paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) through 238.237 Doors. equipment’’ as defined in § 238.5 of this 238.239 Automated monitoring. (h) of § 229.125 do not apply to Tier II chapter that is subject to part 238 of this passenger equipment as defined in Subpart DÐInspection, Testing, and chapter. § 238.5 of this chapter (i.e., passenger Maintenance Requirements for Tier I equipment operating at speeds * * * * * Passenger Equipment exceeding 125 mph but not exceeding 17. Part 238 is added to read as 238.301 Scope. 150 mph). follows: 238.303 Exterior calendar day mechanical (d) On or after January 1, 1998, inspection of passenger cars and PART 238ÐPASSENGER EQUIPMENT paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1) of § 229.141 unpowered vehicles used in passenger SAFETY STANDARDS trains. do not apply to ‘‘passenger equipment’’ 238.305 Interior calendar day mechanical as defined in § 238.5 of this chapter that Subpart AÐGeneral inspection of passenger cars. is subject to part 238 of this chapter. Sec. 238.307 Periodic mechanical inspection of (e) Paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(4), 238.1 Purpose and scope. passenger cars. and (b)(2) through (b)(4) of § 229.141 do 238.3 Application. 238.309 Periodic brake equipment not apply to ‘‘passenger equipment’’ as 238.5 Definitions. maintenance. defined in § 238.5 of this chapter that is 238.7 Waivers. 238.311 Single car test. subject to part 238 of this chapter and 238.9 Responsibility for compliance. 238.313 Class I brake test. placed in service for the first time on or 238.11 Civil penalties. 238.315 Class IA brake test. after January 1, 1998. 238.13 Preemptive effect. 238.317 Class II brake test. 238.15 Movement of passenger equipment 238.319 Running brake test. PART 231Ð[AMENDED] with power brake defects. Subpart EÐSpecific Requirements for Tier 238.17 Movement of passenger equipment II Passenger Equipment 13. The authority citation for part 231 with other than power brake defects. is revised to read as follows: 238.19 Reporting and tracking defective 238.401 Scope. passenger equipment. 238.403 Crash energy management Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20103, 20131, 238.21 Special approval procedure. requirements. 20301–20303, 21301–21302, 21304; 49 CFR 238.405 Longitudinal static compressive 1.49 (c), (m). Subpart BÐSystem Safety and General strength. Requirements 14. Section 231.0 is amended by 238.407 Anti-climbing mechanism. 238.101 Scope. 238.409 Forward end structures of power redesignating paragraphs (c) through (e) car cabs. as paragraphs (d) through (f), System Safety 238.411 Rear end structures of power car respectively; by revising paragraph (a); 238.103 General system safety cabs. and by adding a new paragraph (c) to requirements. 238.413 End structures of trailer cars. read as follows: 238.105 Fire protection program. 238.415 Rollover strength. 49792 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules

238.417 Side loads. general railroad system of pneumatically, by means of which the 238.419 Truck-to-car-body and truck transportation; motion of a car or locomotive is retarded component attachment. (2) Railroads that provide commuter or arrested. 238.421 Glazing. or other short-haul rail passenger train Brake control system means the 238.423 Fuel tanks. 238.425 Electrical system. service in a metropolitan or suburban components, including software, that 238.427 Suspension system. area as described by 49 U.S.C. 20102(1), either automatically or under the 238.429 Safety appliances. including public authorities operating control of the engineer control the 238.431 Brake system. passenger train service; and retarding force applied to the train by 238.433 Draft system. (3) Rapid transit operations in an the brake system. 238.435 Interior fittings and surfaces. urban area. Brake, disc means a retardation 238.437 Emergency communication. (b) Railroads that permit to be used or system used on some rail vehicles, 238.439 Emergency window exits and roof hauled on their lines passenger primarily passenger equipment, that hatches. equipment subject to this part, in utilizes flat metal discs as the braking 238.441 Doors. 238.443 Headlights. violation of a power brake provision of surface instead of the wheel tread. 238.445 Automated monitoring. this part or a safety appliance provision Brake, dynamic means a train braking 238.447 Operator’s controls and cab layout. of this part, are subject to the power system whereby the kinetic energy of a brake and safety appliance provisions of moving train is used to generate electric Subpart FÐInspection, Testing, and this part with respect to such current at the locomotive traction Maintenance Requirements for Tier II Passenger Equipment operations. motors, which is then dissipated (c) This part does not apply to: through banks of resistor grids or back 238.501 Scope. (1) Rapid transit operations in an into the catenary or third rail system. 238.503 Inspection, testing, and urban area that are not connected with Brake, effective means a brake that is maintenance requirements. 238.505 Program approval procedure. the general railroad system of capable of producing its required design transportation; retarding force on the train. Subpart GÐIntroduction of New (2) Circus trains; or Brake indicator means a device, Technology to Tier II Passenger Equipment (3) Tourist, scenic, historic, or actuated by brake cylinder pressure, 238.601 Scope. excursion operations, whether on or off which indicates whether brakes are 238.603 Process to introduce new the general railroad system of applied or released. technology. transportation. Brake, inoperative means a primary Appendix A to Part 238—Schedule of Civil brake that, for any reason, no longer Penalties [Reserved] § 238.5 Definitions. applies or releases as intended or is Appendix B to Part 238—Test Performance As used in this part— otherwise ineffective. Criteria for the Flammability and Smoke AAR means the Association of Emission Characteristics of Materials Brake, on-tread friction means a Used in Constructing or Refurbishing American Railroads. braking system that uses a brake shoe Locomotive Cab and Passenger Car Alerter means a device or system that acts on the tread of the wheel to Interiors installed in the operator cab to promote retard the vehicle. Appendix C to Part 238—Suspension System continuous, active operator Brake, parking or hand brake means Safety Performance Standards attentiveness by monitoring select a brake that can be applied and released Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20103, 20133, operator-induced control activities. If by hand to prevent movement of a 20141, 20301–20303, 20306, 20701–20702, fluctuation of a monitored operator stationary car or locomotive. 21301–21302, 21304; 49 CFR 1.49(c), (m). control is not detected within a Brake pipe means the system of predetermined time, a sequence of piping (including branch pipes, angle Subpart AÐGeneral audible and visual alarms is activated so cocks, cutout cocks, dirt collectors, § 238.1 Purpose and scope. as to progressively prompt a response by hose, and hose couplings) used for (a) The purpose of this part is to: the operator. Failure by the operator to connecting locomotives and all cars for (1) Prevent accidents involving institute a change of state in a the passage of air to control the railroad passenger equipment that cause monitored control, or acknowledge the locomotive and car brakes. damage to property, or injury or death alerter alarm activity through a manual Brake, power means ‘‘air brake’’ as to railroad employees, railroad reset provision, results in a penalty that term is defined in this section. passengers, or the general public; and brake application, bringing the Brake, primary means those (2) Mitigate the consequences of locomotive or train to a stop. components of the train brake system accidents involving railroad passenger Anti-climbing mechanism means a necessary to stop the train within the equipment, to the extent such accidents device at the ends of adjoining vehicles signal spacing distance without thermal cannot be prevented. in a train that is designed to engage damage to friction braking surfaces. (b) This part prescribes minimum when subjected to large buff loads to Brake, secondary means those Federal safety standards for railroad prevent the override of the vehicles. components of the train brake system passenger equipment. This part does not Bind means restrict the intended which develop supplemental brake restrict a railroad from adopting and movement of one or more brake system retarding force that is not needed to stop enforcing additional or more stringent components by reduced clearance, by the train within signal spacing distances requirements not inconsistent with this obstruction, or by increased friction. or to prevent thermal damage to wheels. part. Block of cars means one car or Brake shoes or pads aligned with multiple cars in a solid unit coupled tread or disc means that the surface of § 238.3 Application. together for the purpose of being added the brake shoe or pad, respectively, (a) Except as provided in paragraph to, or removed from, a train as a solid engages the surface of the wheel tread (c) of this section, this part applies to unit. or disc, respectively, with no more than all: Brake, air or power brake means a a 1⁄4 inch overhang. (1) Railroads that operate intercity or combination of devices operated by Braking system, blended means a commuter passenger train service on compressed air, arranged in a system, braking system where the primary brake standard gage track which is part of the and controlled manually, electrically, or and one or more secondary brakes are Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49793 automatically combined to stop the management approach. Crash energy Glazing, exterior means a glazing train. If the secondary brakes are management can be used to help panel that is an integral part of the unavailable, the blended brake uses the provide anti-climbing resistance and to exterior skin of a rail vehicle with a primary brake alone to stop the train. reduce the risk of train buckling during surface exposed to the outside Calendar day means a time period a collision. environment. starting at 12:01 am and ending at Crash refuge means a volume with Glazing frame means the arrangement midnight on a given date. extreme structural strength designed to used to install the glazing into the Class I brake test means a complete maximize the survivability of structure of a rail vehicle. passenger train brake system test (as crewmembers stationed in the Glazing, interior means a glazing further specified in § 238.313) locomotive cab during a collision. panel with no surface exposed to the performed by a qualified mechanical Crewmember means a railroad outside environment and which is inspector to ensure that the air brake employee called to perform service protected from projectiles by the system is 100 percent effective. covered by 49 U.S.C. 21103 and subject structure of a rail vehicle. Class IA brake test means a test and to the railroad’s operating rules and Glazing, side-facing means a glazing inspection (as further specified in program of operational tests and panel located where a line § 238.315) of the air brake system on inspections required in §§ 217.9 and perpendicular to the exterior surface of each car in a passenger train to ensure 217.11 of this chapter. the panel makes an angle of more than the air brake system is 100 percent Critical buckling stress means 50 degrees with the longitudinal center effective. minimum stress necessary to initiate line of the rail vehicle in which the Class II brake test means a test (as buckling of a structural member. panel is installed. further specified in § 238.317) of brake Emergency application means an Handrails means safety appliances pipe integrity and continuity from the irretrievable brake application resulting installed on either side of a rail vehicle’s controlling locomotive to the rear unit in the maximum retarding force exterior doors to assist passengers and of a passenger train. crew to safely board and depart the Collision posts means members of the available from the train brake system. End structure means the main support vehicle. end structures of a vehicle that project Head end power means power upward vertically from the underframe structure projecting upward from the floor or underframe of a locomotive, generated on board the locomotive of a to which they are securely attached, and passenger train used for purposes other that provide protection of occupied passenger car, or other rail vehicle. The end structure is securely attached to the than propelling the train, such as compartments from an object cooking, heating, illumination, penetrating the vehicle during a underframe at each end of a rail vehicle. Foul means restrict the intended ventilation and air conditioning. collision. Hunting oscillations means, for movement of one or more brake system Control valves means that part of the purposes of Tier I equipment, lateral components because the component is air brake equipment on each car or oscillations of trucks that could lead to snagged, entangled, or twisted. locomotive that controls the charging, a dangerous instability and, for Fuel tank, integral means a fuel application, and release of the air purposes of Tier II equipment, truck containment volume that is integral brakes, in response to train line frame lateral oscillations exceeding 0.8g with some other structural element of commands. peak-to-peak for six or more consecutive the locomotive not designed solely as a Corner posts means structural oscillations. fuel container. members located at the intersection of In passenger service, when used in the front or rear surface with the side Full-height collision post, corner post, connection with passenger equipment, surface of a vehicle and which extend or side frame post means any vertical means passenger equipment subject to vertically from the floor support framing member in the car body this part that is carrying, or available to structure to the roof support structure. structure that spans the distance carry, fare-paying passengers. Corner posts may be combined with between the underframe and the roof at In service, when used in connection collision posts to become part of the end the car body section where the post is with passenger equipment, means: structure. located. For collision posts located at (1) Passenger equipment subject to Crack means a fracture without the approximate third points of an end this part that is in passenger service; complete separation into parts, except frame, the term ‘‘full-height’’ applies to and that, in a casting, a shrinkage crack or posts that extend and connect to (2) All other passenger equipment hot tear that does not significantly supporting structural members in the subject to this part, unless the passenger diminish the strength of the member is roof at the location of the posts, or to a equipment: not a crack. beam connected to the tops of the end- (i) Is being handled in accordance Crash energy management means an frame and supported by the roof rails (or with §§ 238.15, 238.17, 238.305(c)(5), or approach to the design of rail passenger anti-telescoping plate), or to both. 238.503(f), as applicable; equipment which controls the Full service application means a brake (ii) Is in a repair shop or on a repair dissipation of energy during a collision application which results in a brake track; to protect the occupied volumes from cylinder pressure at the service limiting (iii) Is on a storage track and is not crushing and to limit the decelerations valve setting or equivalent. carrying passengers; or on passengers and crewmembers in Glazing, end-facing means a glazing (iv) Has been delivered in interchange those volumes. This may be panel located where a line but has not been accepted by the accomplished by designing energy- perpendicular to the exterior surface of receiving railroad. absorbing structures of low strength in the panel makes an angle of 50 degrees Interior fitting means any auxiliary the unoccupied volumes of a rail or less with the longitudinal center line component in the passenger vehicle or passenger train to collapse in of the rail vehicle in which the panel is compartment which is mounted to the a controlled fashion, while providing installed. A glazing panel that curves so floor, ceiling, sidewalls, or end walls higher structural strength in the as to meet the definition for both side- and projects into the passenger occupied volumes. Energy deflection facing and end-facing glazing is end- compartment from the surface or can also be part of a crash energy facing glazing. surfaces to which it is mounted. Interior 49794 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules fittings do not include side and end occupied, except when in use as a standards and the railroad’s own safety walls, floors, door pockets, or ceiling control cab. design requirements. lining materials, for example. Ordered or date ordered means the Private car means historical or Lateral means the horizontal direction date on which notice to proceed is given antiquated rail rolling equipment that is perpendicular to the direction of travel by a procuring railroad to a contractor used only for excursion, recreational, or of a rail vehicle. or supplier for new equipment. private transportation businesses. A Locomotive means a piece of on-track Override means to climb over the private car is not a passenger car. equipment, other than hi-rail, normal coupling or side buffers and Qualified mechanical inspector specialized maintenance, or other linking mechanism and impact the end means a qualified person who has similar equipment, which may consist of the adjoining rail vehicle or unit received, as a part of the training, of one or more units operated from a above the underframe. qualification, and designation program single control stand with one or more Passenger car means a unit of rail required under § 238.111, instruction propelling motors designed for moving rolling equipment intended to provide and training that includes ‘‘hands-on’’ other equipment; with one or more transportation for members of the experience (under appropriate propelling motors designed to transport general public and includes a self- supervision or apprenticeship) in one or freight or passenger traffic or both; or propelled car designed to carry more of the following functions: without propelling motors but with one passengers, baggage, mail, or express. troubleshooting, inspection, testing, and or more control stands. This term does This term includes a passenger coach, maintenance or repair of the specific not include a locomotive propelled by cab car, and an MU locomotive. This train brake and other components and steam power unless it is used to haul an term does not include a private car. systems for which the inspector is intercity or commuter passenger train. Passenger coach means a unit of rail assigned responsibility. Further, the Locomotive cab means a compartment rolling equipment intended to provide mechanical inspector shall be a person or space on board a locomotive where transportation for members of the whose primary responsibility includes the control stand is located and which general public that is without propelling work generally consistent with the is normally occupied by the engineer motors and without a control stand. above-referenced functions and is when the locomotive is being operated. Passenger equipment means all designated to— Locomotive, cab car means a unit of powered and unpowered passenger cars, (1) Conduct Class I brake tests under rolling equipment intended to provide locomotives used to haul a passenger this part; transportation for members of the car, and any other unit of rail rolling (2) Inspect MU locomotives or other general public that is without propelling equipment hauled in a train with one or passenger cars for compliance with this motors but with one or more control more passenger cars. Passenger part; or stands. equipment includes a— (3) Determine whether equipment not Locomotive, controlling means the (1) Passenger coach, in compliance with this part may be locomotive from which the engineer (2) Cab car, moved safely and, if so, under what exercises control over the train. (3) MU locomotive, Locomotive, MU means a unit of (4) Private car, conditions. rolling equipment self-propelled by any (5) Locomotive not intended to Qualified person means a person power source, other than steam, and provide transportation for a member of determined by a railroad to have the intended to provide transportation for the general public that is used to power knowledge and skills necessary to members of the general public. a passenger train, and perform one or more functions required Longitudinal means in a direction (6) Any non-self-propelled vehicle under this part. The railroad determines parallel to the normal direction of travel hauled in a passenger train, including a the qualifications and competencies for of a rail vehicle. freight car. employees designated to perform Luminescent material means a Passenger station means a location various functions in the manner set material that absorbs light energy when designated in a railroad’s timetable forth in this part. ambient levels of light are high and where passengers are regularly Railroad means any form of non- emits this stored energy when ambient scheduled to get on or off any train. highway ground transportation that runs levels of light are low, making the Permanent deformation means the on rails or electromagnetic guideways, material appear to glow in the dark. undergoing of a permanent change in including: L/V ratio means the lateral force that shape of a structural member of a rail (1) Commuter or short-haul rail the flange of a vehicle’s wheel exerts on vehicle. passenger service in a metropolitan or the rail, divided by the vertical force Piston travel means the amount of suburban area and commuter railroad that the tread of the same wheel exerts linear movement of the air brake hollow service that was operated by the on the rail. rod (or equivalent) or piston rod when Consolidated Rail Corporation on MIL–STD–882C means a military forced outward by movement of the January 1, 1979; and standard issued by the United States piston in the brake cylinder or actuator (2) High speed ground transportation Department of Defense to provide and limited by the brake shoes being systems that connect metropolitan areas, uniform requirements for developing forced against the wheel or disc. without regard to whether those systems and implementing a system safety Power car means a rail vehicle that use new technologies not associated program to identify and then eliminate propels a Tier II passenger train or is the with traditional railroads. The term the hazards of a system or reduce the lead vehicle in a Tier II passenger train, ‘‘railroad’’ is also intended to mean a associated risk to an acceptable level. or both. person that provides railroad Occupied volume means the spaces of Pre-revenue service acceptance testing transportation, whether directly or by a rail vehicle or passenger train where plan means a document, as further contracting out operation of the railroad passengers or crewmembers are specified in § 238.113, prepared by a to another person. The term does not normally located during service railroad that explains in detail how pre- include rapid transit operations in an operation, such as the operating cab and revenue service tests of certain urban area that are not connected to the passenger seating and sleeping areas. passenger equipment demonstrate that general railroad system of Vestibules are typically not considered the equipment meets Federal safety transportation. Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49795

Rebuilt means equipment undergoing Coupling and uncoupling of each such reduce hazards and unsafe conditions to overhaul identified by the railroad as a unit in a train can be performed safely the lowest level possible through the capital expense under the Surface only while at a maintenance or shop most effective use of the available Transportation Board’s accounting location where personnel can safely get resources. standards. under a unit or between units. System safety plan means a document Refresher training means periodic Shear strength means the ability of a that states in detail the techniques, retraining required by a railroad for structural member to resist forces or procedures, and tests to follow to reduce employees or contractors to remain components of forces acting hazards and unsafe conditions to the qualified to perform specific equipment perpendicular to compression or tension lowest level possible through the most inspection, testing, or maintenance forces, or both, in the member. effective use of available resources. The functions. Shock absorbent material means system safety plan is used as part of the Repair point means a location material designed to prevent or mitigate design process for new equipment to designated by a railroad where repairs injuries due to impact by yielding and ensure that the equipment meets all of the type necessary occur on a regular absorbing much of the energy of impact. Federal safety standards and the basis. A repair point has, or should Side posts means main vertical railroad’s own safety requirements. have, the facilities, tools, and qualified structural elements in the sides of a rail System safety program means the mechanical employees required to make vehicle. activities described in the system safety the necessary repairs. A repair point Side sills means that portion of the plan to be performed to ensure that the need not be staffed continuously. underframe or side at the bottom of the railroad’s passenger equipment meets Respond as intended means to rail vehicle side wall. all Federal safety standards and the produce the result that a device or Single car test means a railroad’s own safety design system is designed to produce. comprehensive test (as further specified requirements. Rollover strength means strength in § 238.311) of the functioning of all Telescope means override an needed to protect the structural integrity critical brake system components adjoining rail vehicle or unit and of a rail vehicle in the event the vehicle installed on an individual passenger car penetrate into the interior of that leaves the track and impacts the ground or unpowered vehicle, other than a adjoining vehicle or unit because of on its side or roof. passenger car, hauled in a passenger compressive forces. Roof rail means the longitudinal train. Terminal means a starting point or structural member at the intersection of Single car test device means a device ending point of a single scheduled train the side wall and the roof sheathing. capable of controlling the application trip, where passengers may get on or off Running brake test means a test (as and release of the brakes on an a train. Normally the location is a point further specified in § 238.319) of a train individual passenger car or an where the train would reverse direction system or component while the train is unpowered vehicle, other than a or change destinations. in motion to verify that the system or passenger car, hauled in a passenger Tier I means operating at speeds not component functions as intended. train through pneumatic or electrical exceeding 125 mph. Safety appliance means an appliance means. Tier II means operating at speeds required under 49 U.S.C. chapter 203, Skin means the outer covering on a exceeding 125 mph but not exceeding excluding power brakes. The term fuel tank or the front of a locomotive, 150 mph. includes automatic couplers, hand including a cab car and an MU Tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion brakes, sill steps, handholds, handrails, locomotive, excluding the windows and operations are railroad operations that or ladder treads made of steel or a forward-facing doors. The skin may be carry passengers, often using antiquated material of equal or greater mechanical covered with another coating of a equipment, with the conveyance of the strength used by the traveling public or material such as fiberglass. passengers to a particular destination railroad employees that provides a Spall, glazing means small pieces of not being the principal purpose. means for safely coupling, uncoupling, glazing that fly off the back surface of Trailer car means a unit of rail rolling or ascending or descending passenger glazing when an object strikes the front equipment that neither propels a Tier II equipment. surface. passenger train nor is the leading unit Safety-critical component or system Spot checks means random checks of in a Tier II passenger train. A trailer car means a component or system that, if train inspections, tests, or maintenance is normally without a control stand and not available, increases the risk of operations conducted by qualified is normally occupied by passengers. damage to equipment or injury to a supervisors. Train means a locomotive unit or passenger, crewmember, or other Standard procedures means a locomotive units coupled, with or person. description of the step-by-step process without cars. For the purposes of the Safety-critical task means a task that, to be used to safely accomplish a safety- provisions of this part related to power if not performed correctly, increases the critical or potentially hazardous task. brakes, the term ‘‘train’’ does not risk of damage to equipment or injury to System means a composite of include such equipment when being a passenger, crewmember, or other equipment, computer programs, people, used in switching movements (as person. facilities, procedures, and defined in § 231.30(b) of this chapter) of Safety inspection criteria means a documentation which are integrated to less than one mile. measurement limit or observation perform a specific operational function Train brake communication line threshold used to trigger the duty under in a specific environment. means the communication link between this part to take corrective action to System developer means the entity the locomotive and cars in a train by prevent a serious safety problem from responsible for developing equipment or which the brake commands are developing. Measurements may be taken a system so that it may be approved for transmitted. This may be a pneumatic manually or by reliable sensors. use in service. pipe, electrical line, or radio signal. Semi-permanently coupled means System safety means the application Train, commuter means a passenger coupled by means of a drawbar or other of design, operating, technical, and train providing commuter service coupling mechanism that requires tools management techniques and principles within an urban, suburban, or to perform the uncoupling operation. throughout the system’s life cycle to metropolitan area. The term includes a 49796 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules passenger train provided by an Witness plate means a thin foil placed facts giving rise to the violation, or a instrumentality of a State or a political behind a piece of glazing undergoing an reasonable person acting in the subdivision of a State. impact test. Any material spalled or circumstances and exercising reasonable Train, long-distance intercity broken from the back side of the glazing care would have that knowledge; or passenger means a passenger train that will dent or mark the witness plate. (3) Violate any other provision of this provides service between large cities Yard means a system of tracks within part. more than 125 miles apart and is not defined limits provided for the making (b) For purposes of this part, operated exclusively in the National up of trains, storing of cars, and other passenger equipment will be considered Railroad Passenger Corporation’s purposes. in use prior to departure but after it has Northeast Corridor. Yard air test means a train brake received, or should have received, the Train, passenger means a train that system test conducted using a source of inspection required under this part for transports or is available to transport compressed air other than a locomotive. movement and is deemed ready for members of the general public. If a train Yield strength means the ability of a service. is composed of a mixture of passenger structural member to resist a change in (c) Although many of the and freight equipment, that train is a length caused by a heavy load. requirements of this part are stated in passenger train for purposes of this part. Exceeding the yield strength may cause terms of the duties of a railroad, when Train, short-distance intercity permanent deformation of the member. any person (including, but not limited passenger means a passenger train that to, a contractor performing safety- provides service exclusively on the § 238.7 Waivers. related tasks under contract to a railroad National Railroad Passenger (a) Any person may petition the subject to this part) performs any Corporation’s Northeast Corridor or Federal Railroad Administration for a function required by this part, that between cities that are not more than waiver of compliance with any person (whether or not a railroad) is 125 miles apart. requirement prescribed in this part. required to perform that function in Train, Tier II passenger means a short- (b) Each petition for a waiver under accordance with this part. distance or long-distance intercity this section shall: passenger train providing service at (1) Be filed in the manner required by § 238.11 Civil penalties. speeds that include exceeding 125 mph part 211 of this chapter; Any person (including but not limited but do not exceed 150 mph. (2) Contain the information required to a railroad; any manager, supervisor, Trainset, passenger means a by part 211 of this chapter; and official, or other employee or agent of a passenger train including the (3) Provide appropriate data or railroad; any owner, manufacturer, locomotive(s) or power car(s) and analysis, or both, establishing that a lessor, or lessee of railroad equipment, passenger cars that are semi- waiver is warranted under applicable track, or facilities; any employee of such permanently coupled to operate as a statutory criteria as well as a description owner, manufacturer, lessor, lessee, or single unit. The individual components of the measures proposed to be taken to independent contractor) who violates are uncoupled only for emergencies or provide a level of safety equivalent to any requirement of this part or causes maintenance. that afforded by the provision of this the violation of any such requirement is Transverse means in a direction part that is sought to be waived. subject to a civil penalty of at least $500, perpendicular to the normal direction of § 238.9 Responsibility for compliance. but not more than $10,000 per violation, travel of a railroad vehicle. except that: Penalties may be assessed Ultimate strength means the load at (a) A railroad subject to this part shall against individuals only for willful which a structural member fractures or not— violations, and, where a grossly ceases to resist any load. (1) Use, haul, permit to be used or negligent violation or a pattern of Uncoupling mechanism means the hauled on its line, offer in interchange, repeated violations has created an arrangement for operating the coupler or accept in interchange any train or imminent hazard of death or injury to by any means. passenger equipment, while in service, persons, or has caused death or injury, Underframe means the lower (i) That has one or more conditions a penalty not to exceed $20,000 per horizontal support structure of a car not in compliance with a safety violation may be assessed. Each day a body. appliance or power brake provision of violation continues shall constitute a Unit means rail rolling equipment of this part; or separate offense. Appendix A to this (ii) That has not been inspected and any type or, in the context of articulated part contains a schedule of civil penalty tested as required by a safety appliance equipment, ‘‘unit’’ means a piece of amounts used in connection with this or power brake provision of this part; or equipment located between two trucks. part. Unit body (monocoque) design or (2) Use, haul, offer in interchange, or unistructure means a type of vehicle accept in interchange any train or § 238.13 Preemptive effect. construction where the shell or skin acts passenger equipment, while in service, Under 49 U.S.C. 20106, issuance of as a single unit with the supporting (i) That has one or more conditions the regulations in this part preempts any frame to resist and transmit the loads not in compliance with a provision of State law, rule, regulation, order, or acting on the vehicle. this part, other than the safety appliance standard covering the same subject Unoccupied volume means the spaces and power brake provisions of this part, matter, except for a provision directed at of a rail vehicle or passenger train if the railroad has actual knowledge of an essentially local safety hazard if that which do not contain seating and are the facts giving rise to the violation, or provision is consistent with this part not normally occupied by passengers or a reasonable person acting in the and does not impose an undue burden crewmembers. circumstances and exercising reasonable on interstate commerce. Vehicle, rail means a car, locomotive, care would have that knowledge; or tender, or similar vehicle. (ii) That has not been inspected and § 238.15 Movement of passenger Vestibule means an area of a tested as required by a provision of this equipment with power brake defects. passenger car that normally does not part, other than the safety appliance and (a) General. This section contains the contain seating, that leads from the power brake provisions of this part, if requirements for moving passenger seating area to the side exit doors. the railroad has actual knowledge of the equipment with a power brake defect Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49797 without liability for a civil penalty properly equipped with power brakes friction braking effort over all other under this part. Railroads remain liable that comply with this part. The power axles shall be considered uniform. for the movement of passenger brakes on the passenger equipment (iv) The following brake conditions equipment under 49 U.S.C. 20303(c). become defective while it is en route to not in compliance with this part are not For purposes of this section, § 238.17, another location. considered inoperative power brakes for and § 238.503, a ‘‘power brake defect’’ is (2) Record. At the place where the purposes of this section: a condition of a power brake railroad first discovers the defect, a tag (A) Failure or cutting out of secondary component, or other primary brake or card is placed on both sides of the brake systems; component, that does not conform with defective passenger equipment, or an (B) Inoperative or otherwise defective this part. (Passenger cars and other automated tracking system is provided, handbrakes or parking brakes; passenger equipment classified as with the following information about (C) Excessive piston travel that does locomotives under part 229 of this the defective passenger equipment: not render the power brakes ineffective; chapter are also covered by the (i) The reporting mark and car or and movement restrictions contained in locomotive number; (D) Power brakes overdue for § 229.9 of this chapter for those (ii) The name of the inspecting inspection, testing, maintenance, or defective conditions covered by part 229 railroad; stencilling under this part. of this chapter.) (iii) The name of the inspector; (2) All passenger trains developing (b) Limitations on movement of (iv) The inspection location and date; 50–74 percent operative power brakes. passenger equipment containing a (v) The nature of each defect; A passenger train that develops power brake defect found during a Class (vi) The destination of the equipment inoperative power brake equipment I or IA brake test. Except as provided in where it will be repaired; and resulting in at least 50 percent but less paragraph (c) of this section (dealing (vii) The signature, if possible, and job than 75 percent operative power brakes with brakes that become defective en title of the person reporting the may be used only as follows: route after a Class I or IA brake test was defective condition. (i) The train may be moved in performed), a commuter or passenger (3) Conditional requirement. In passenger service only to the next train that has in its consist passenger addition, if an en route failure causes forward passenger station; equipment containing a power brake power brakes to be cut out on passenger (ii) The speed of the train shall be defect found during a Class I or IA brake equipment, the railroad shall: restricted to 20 mph or less; test (or, for Tier II trains, the equivalent) (i) Determine the percentage of (iii) After all passengers are may only be moved, without civil operative power brakes in the train discharged, the defective equipment penalty liability under this part— based on the number of brakes known shall be moved directly to the nearest (1) If all of the following conditions to be cut out or otherwise inoperative, location where the necessary repairs can are met: using the formula specified in paragraph be made; and (i) The train is moved for purposes of (d)(1) of this section; (iv) If the power brakes on the front repair, without passengers; (ii) Notify the dispatcher of the or rear unit in the train are inoperative, (ii) The applicable operating percent of operative brakes and a qualified person shall be stationed at restrictions in paragraph (d) of this movement restrictions on the train the handbrake on this unit. section are observed; and imposed by paragraph (d) of this (3) Commuter, short-distance (iii) The passenger equipment is section; intercity, and short-distance Tier II tagged, or information is recorded, as (iii) Notify the mechanical department passenger trains developing 75–99 prescribed in paragraph (c)(2) of this or desk of the failure; and percent operative power brakes. section; or (iv) Confirm the percentage of (i) 75–84 percent operative brakes. (2) If the train is moved for purposes operative brakes by a walking Commuter, short-distance intercity, and of scrapping or sale of the passenger inspection at the next location where short-distance Tier II passenger trains equipment that has the power brake the railroad reasonably judges that it is which develop inoperative power brake defect, and without passengers; if the safe to do so. equipment resulting in at least 75 movement is at a speed of 15 mph or (d) Operating restrictions based on percent but less than 85 percent less; and if the movement conforms percent operative power brakes in train. operative brakes may be used only as with the railroad’s air brake or power (1) Computation of percent operative follows: brake instructions. power brakes.—(i) Except as specified in (A) The train may be moved in (c) Limitations on movement of paragraphs (d)(1) (ii) and (iii) of this passenger service only to the next passenger equipment in passenger section, the percentage of operative forward terminal; service that becomes defective en route power brakes in a train shall be (B) The speed of the train shall be after a Class I or IA brake test. Passenger determined by dividing the number of restricted to 50 percent of the train’s equipment hauled or used in service in axles in the train with operative power maximum allowable speed or 40 mph, a commuter or passenger train that brakes by the total number of axles in whichever is less; develops a power brake defect while en the train. (C) After discharging passengers, the route to another location after receiving (ii) For equipment with tread brake defective equipment shall be moved a Class I or IA brake test (or, for Tier II units (TBUs), the percentage of directly to the nearest location where trains, the equivalent) may be hauled or operative power brakes shall be the necessary repairs can be made; and used by a railroad for repair, without determined by dividing the number of (D) If the brakes on the front or rear civil penalty liability under this part, if operative TBUs by the total number of unit in a train are inoperative, a the applicable operating restrictions set TBUs. qualified person shall be stationed at the forth in paragraph (d) of this section are (iii) Each cut-out axle on a locomotive handbrake on this unit. complied with and all of the following that weighs more than 200,000 pounds (ii) 85–99 percent operative brakes. requisites are satisfied: shall be counted as two cut-out axles for Commuter, short-distance intercity, and (1) En route defect. At the time of the the purposes of calculating the short-distance Tier II passenger trains train’s Class I or IA brake test, the percentage of operative brakes. Unless which develop inoperative power brake passenger equipment in the train was otherwise specified by the railroad, the equipment resulting in at least 85 49798 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules percent but less than 100 percent have the facilities to handle the safe applicable, the special requirements in operative brakes may only be used as unloading of passengers, the train may paragraph (d) of this section: follows: be moved past the designated repair (1) Prior to movement of the defective (A) The train may be moved in location in service only to the next equipment, a qualified mechanical passenger service only to the next forward passenger station in order to inspector shall determine if it is safe forward terminal; facilitate the unloading of passengers; to move the equipment in passenger (B) After all passengers are (B) After passengers are discharged, service and, if so, the maximum speed discharged, the defective cars shall be the defective cars shall be moved and other restrictions necessary for moved directly to the nearest location directly to the nearest location where safely conducting the movement. If where the necessary repairs can be the necessary repairs can be made; and appropriate, these determinations may made; and (C) If the brakes on the front or rear be made based upon a description of the (C) If the brakes on the front or rear unit in a train are inoperative, a defective condition provided by a unit in a train are inoperative, a qualified person shall be stationed at the crewmember. qualified person shall be stationed at the handbrake on this unit. (2) Prior to movement of the defective handbrake on this unit. (e) Special Notice for Repair. Nothing equipment, the qualified mechanical (4) Long-distance intercity and long- in this section authorizes the movement inspector shall notify the crewmember distance Tier II passenger trains of passenger equipment subject to a in charge of the movement of the developing 75–99 operative power Special Notice for Repair under part 216 defective equipment, who in turn shall brakes. of this chapter unless the movement is inform all other crewmembers of the (i) 75–84 percent operative brakes. made in accordance with the presence of the defective condition(s) Long-distance intercity and long- restrictions contained in the Special and the maximum speed and other distance Tier II passenger trains which Notice. restrictions determined under paragraph develop inoperative power brake (c)(1) of this section. The movement equipment resulting in at least 75 § 238.17 Movement of passenger shall be made in conformance with such percent but less than 85 percent equipment with other than power brake defects. restrictions. operative brakes may be used only if all (3) The railroad shall maintain a of the following restrictions are (a) General. This section contains the record of all defects reported and their observed: requirements for moving passenger subsequent repair in the defect tracking (A) The train may be moved in equipment with other than a power system required in § 238.19. In addition, passenger service only to the next brake defect. (Passenger cars and other prior to movement of the defective forward repair location identified for passenger equipment classified as equipment, a tag or card placed on both repair of that equipment by the railroad locomotives under part 229 of this sides of the defective equipment, or an operating the equipment in the list chapter are also covered by the automated tracking system, shall record required by § 238.19(d); however, if the movement restrictions contained in the following information about the next forward repair location does not § 229.9 of this chapter for those defective equipment: have the facilities to handle the safe defective conditions covered by part 229 (i) The reporting mark and car or unloading of passengers, the train may of this chapter.) locomotive number; be moved past the designated repair (b) Limitations on movement of (ii) The name of the inspecting location in service only to the next passenger equipment containing defects railroad; forward passenger station in order to found at time of calendar day (iii) The name of the inspector, facilitate the unloading of passengers; inspection. Except as provided in inspection location, and date; (B) The speed of the train shall be § 238.305(c)(5), passenger equipment (iv) The nature of each defect; restricted to 50 percent of the train’s containing a condition not in (v) Movement restrictions and safety maximum allowable speed or 40 mph, conformance with this part at the time restrictions, if any; whichever is less; of its calendar day mechanical (vi) The destination of the equipment (C) After discharging passengers, the inspection may be moved from that where it will be repaired; and defective equipment shall be moved location for repair if all of the following (vii) The signature, if possible, as well directly to the nearest location where conditions are satisfied: as the job title and location of the the necessary repairs can be made; and (1) When the defective equipment is person making the determinations (D) If the brakes on the front or rear moved, it is not in passenger service and required by this section. unit in a train are inoperative, a is in a non-revenue train; (4) At the first location possible, a qualified person shall be stationed at the (2) The requirements of paragraphs qualified mechanical inspector shall handbrake on this unit. (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this section are met; perform a physical inspection of the (ii) 85–99 percent operative brakes. (3) The special requirements of defective equipment to verify the Long-distance intercity and long- paragraph (d) of this section, if description of the defect provided by distance Tier II passenger trains which applicable, are met. the crew. After a qualified mechanical develop inoperative power brake (c) Usual limitations on movement of inspector verifies that the defective equipment resulting in at least 85 passenger equipment that develops equipment is safe to remain in service, percent but less than 100 percent defects en route. Except as provided in the defective equipment that develops a operative brakes may be used only if all § 238.503(f), passenger equipment that condition not in compliance with this of the following restrictions are develops en route to its destination, part while en route may continue in observed: after its calendar day inspection was passenger service not later than the next (A) The train may be moved in performed and before its next calendar calendar day mechanical inspection, if passenger service only to the next day mechanical inspection was the requirements of this paragraph are forward repair location identified for performed, any defect not in compliance otherwise fully met. repair of that equipment by the railroad with this part, other than a power brake (d) Special requisites for movement of operating the equipment in the list defect, may be moved only if the passenger equipment with safety required by § 238.19(d); however, if the railroad complies with all of the appliance defects. Consistent with 49 next forward repair location does not following requirements and, if U.S.C. 20303, passenger equipment with Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49799 a safety appliance not in compliance intercity and long-distance Tier II Administration, 400 7th Street, S.W., with this part or with part 231 of this passenger equipment shall designate Washington, D.C. 20590. chapter, if applicable, may be moved— locations, in writing, where repairs to (2)(i) Service of each petition for (1) If necessary to effect repair of the passenger equipment with a power special approval of an alternative safety appliance; brake defect will be made and shall standard under paragraph (b) of this (2) From the point where the safety provide the list to FRA’s Associate section shall be made on the following: appliance defect was first discovered by Administrator for Safety and make it (A) Designated employee the railroad to the nearest available available to FRA for inspection and representatives responsible for the location on the railroad where the copying upon request. Railroads equipment’s operation, inspection, necessary repairs required to bring the operating these trains shall designate a testing, and maintenance under this passenger equipment into compliance sufficient number of repair locations to part; can be made or, at the option of the ensure the safe and timely repair of (B) Any organizations or bodies that receiving railroad, the equipment may passenger equipment. These either issued the standard incorporated be received and hauled for repair to a designations shall not be changed in the section(s) of this part to which the point on the receiving railroad’s line no without at least 30 days’ written notice special approval pertains or issued the farther than the point on the delivering to FRA’s Associate Administrator for alternative standard that is proposed in railroad’s line where the repair of the Safety. the petition; and defect could have been made; and (C) Any other person who has filed (3) If a tag placed on both sides of the § 238.21 Special approval procedure. with FRA a current statement of interest passenger equipment or an automated (a) General. The following procedures in reviewing special approvals under tracking system contains the govern consideration and action upon the particular requirement of this part at information required under paragraph requests for special approval of least 30 days but not more than 5 years (c)(3) of this section. alternative standards under §§ 238.115, prior to the filing of the petition. (e) Special Notice for Repair. Nothing 238.223, 238.309, 238.311, 238.405, or (ii) If filed, a statement of interest in this section authorizes the movement 238.427 and for special approval of pre- shall be filed with FRA’s Associate of equipment subject to a Special Notice revenue service acceptance testing plans Administrator for Safety and shall for Repair under part 216 of this chapter under § 238.113 or § 238.603. (Requests reference the specific section(s) of this unless the movement is made in for approval of programs for the part in which the person has an interest. accordance with the restrictions inspection, testing, and maintenance of (e) Federal Register notice. FRA will contained in the Special Notice. Tier II passenger equipment are publish a notice in the Federal Register governed by § 238.505.) concerning each petition under § 238.19 Reporting and tracking defective paragraph (b) of this section. passenger equipment. (b) Petitions for special approval of alternative standard. Each petition for (f) Comment. Not later than 30 days (a) General. Each railroad shall have special approval of an alternative from the date of publication of the in place a reporting and tracking system standard shall contain— notice in the Federal Register for passenger equipment with a defect (1) The name, title, address, and concerning a petition under paragraph not in conformance with this part that: telephone number of the primary person (b) of this section, any person may (1) Records the identification number to be contacted with regard to review of comment on the petition. (1) Each comment shall set forth of the defective equipment; the petition; (2) Records the date the defect specifically the basis upon which it is (2) The alternative proposed, in detail, occurred; made, and contain a concise statement to be substituted for the particular (3) Records the nature of the defect; of the interest of the commenter in the requirements of this part; (4) Records the determination made proceeding. by a qualified mechanical inspector on (3) Appropriate data or analysis, or (2) Three copies of each comment whether the equipment is safe to run; both, establishing that the alternative shall be submitted to the Associate (5) Records the name of the qualified will provide an equivalent level of Administrator for Safety, Federal mechanical inspector making such a safety; and Railroad Administration, 400 7th Street, determination; (4) A statement affirming that the S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. (6) Records any operating restrictions railroad has served a copy of the (3) The commenter shall certify that a placed on the equipment; and petition on designated representatives of copy of the comment was served on (7) Records repairs made and the date railroad employees, together with a list each petitioner. that they were made. of the names and addresses of the (g) Disposition of petitions. (1) If FRA (b) Retention of records. At a persons served. finds that the petition complies with the minimum, each railroad shall keep the (c) Petitions for special approval of requirements of this section and that the records described in paragraph (a) of pre-revenue service acceptance testing proposed plan is acceptable or changes this section for one periodic plan. Each petition for special approval are justified, the petition will be maintenance interval for each specific of a pre-revenue service acceptance granted, normally within 90 days of its type of equipment as described in the testing plan shall contain— receipt. If the petition is neither granted railroad’s system safety plan. FRA (1) The name, title, address, and nor denied within 90 days, the petition strongly encourages railroads to keep telephone number of the primary person remains pending for decision. FRA may these records for longer periods of time to be contacted with regard to review of attach special conditions to the approval because they form the basis for future the petition; and of the petition. Following the approval reliability-driven decisions concerning (2) The elements prescribed in of a petition, FRA may reopen test and maintenance intervals. § 238.113. consideration of the petition for cause (c) Availability of records. Railroads (d) Service. (1) Each petition for stated. shall make defect reporting and tracking special approval under paragraph (b) or (2) If FRA finds that the petition does records available to FRA upon request. (c) of this section shall be submitted in not comply with the requirements of (d) List of power brake repair points. triplicate to the Associate Administrator this section and that the proposed plan Railroads operating long-distance for Safety, Federal Railroad is not acceptable or that the proposed 49800 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules changes are not justified, the petition (d) The system safety plan shall (b) As part of the system safety will be denied, normally within 90 days describe the approaches and processes program, each railroad operating of its receipt. to be used to: passenger equipment subject to this part (3) When FRA grants or denies a (1) Identify all safety requirements, shall complete a thorough written petition, or reopens consideration of the including Federal requirements analysis of the fire protection problem. petition, written notice is sent to the governing the design of passenger In conducting this analysis, the railroad petitioner and other interested parties. equipment and its supporting systems; shall— (2) Evaluate the total system, (1) Ensure that good fire protection Subpart BÐSystem Safety and General including hardware, software, testing, practice is used as part of the equipment Requirements and support activities, to identify design process. known or potential safety hazards over § 238.101 Scope. (2) Take effective steps to design the life cycle of the equipment; equipment to be sufficiently fire This subpart contains system safety (3) Identify safety issues during resistant to detect a fire and allow the requirements for each railroad that design reviews; evacuation of equipment before fire, (4) Eliminate or reduce the risk posed operates passenger equipment and smoke, or toxic fumes cause injury to a general requirements for the safety of all by the hazards identified; (5) Monitor and track the progress passenger or crewmember. railroad passenger equipment subject to (3) Identify, analyze, and prioritize this part. made toward resolving safety issues, reducing hazards, and meeting safety the fire hazards inherent in the design System Safety requirements; and of equipment. (6) Develop a program of testing or (4) Document and explain how safety § 238.103 General system safety issues were resolved in relation to cost requirements. analysis, or both, to demonstrate that safety requirements have been met. and performance issues in the design of (a) By the dates specified in paragraph (e) As part of the system safety equipment to minimize the risk of each (g) of this section, each railroad program, adequate documentation shall fire hazard. operating passenger equipment subject be maintained to audit how the design (5) Describe the analysis and tests to this part shall adopt a written system and operation of new equipment meets necessary to demonstrate how the fire safety plan that describes the railroad’s safety requirements and to track how protection approach taken in the design system safety program, using MIL–STD– safety issues are raised and resolved. of equipment will enable a train to meet 882(C) as a guide. The system safety (f) The system safety plan shall the fire protection standards of this part plan shall be updated annually. address how operational limitations and of the railroad’s system safety plan. (b) For the procurement of new may be imposed on the use of (6) Describe the analysis and tests passenger equipment, the system safety equipment if the equipment design necessary to select materials which plan shall describe the system safety cannot meet certain safety requirements. provide sufficient fire resistance to program to be conducted as part of the (g) Dates. (1) The portion of the reasonably ensure adequate time to equipment design and development system safety plan applicable to existing detect a fire and safely evacuate a train. process to ensure that all safety issues passenger equipment shall be adopted (7) Reasonably ensure that a and Federal safety requirements are no later than [one year after the effective ventilation system does not contribute identified, addressed, and documented. date of the final rule]. to the lethality of a fire. The documentation shall include (2) The portion of the system safety (8) Identify in writing which train certification in writing by the plan applicable to passenger equipment components are at risk of being a source manufacturer that the passenger to be procured by the railroad that is of fire and which require overheat equipment meets the design already in the design and development protection. As prescribed in requirements of this part. The system process before the effective date of the § 238.115(c), overheat detectors shall be safety plan shall also describe the final rule shall be adopted no later than installed in all components where the system safety program to be conducted [one year after the effective date of the analysis determines that such as part of the maintenance, overhaul, final rule]. equipment is necessary. If overheat and operation of all passenger (3) The portion of the system safety protection is not provided for a equipment by that railroad. The system plan applicable to passenger equipment component at risk of being a source of safety program should ensure that safety to be procured by the railroad that is not fire, the written rationale and issues are considered as important as yet in the design and development justification for the decision shall be process on [the effective date of the final cost and performance issues in the included as part of the system safety rule] shall be adopted before design, development, maintenance, program documentation. commencing the design and overhaul, and operation of the (9) Identify in writing all unoccupied equipment. development of new equipment. (h) The railroad’s system safety plan train compartments that contain (c) The system safety plan shall be the equipment or material posing a fire principal safety document. It shall be and documentation required by paragraph (e) of this section shall be hazard, and analyze the benefit used as guidance or, as applicable, provided by including a fire or smoke requirements for the development and available for inspection and copying by FRA. detection system in each compartment operation of equipment and subsystems. identified. As prescribed in At a minimum, the system safety plan § 238.105 Fire protection program. § 238.115(d), fire or smoke detectors shall address: (a) The operating railroad shall shall be installed in unoccupied (1) Fire protection; include in its system safety program fire compartments where the analysis (2) Software safety; safety considerations and features in the determines that such equipment is (3) Inspection, testing, and design of new passenger equipment that necessary to ensure sufficient time for maintenance; reduce the risk of equipment damage the safe evacuation of a train. The (4) Training and qualifications; and and personal injuries due to fires to an written analysis shall explain why a fire (5) Pre-revenue service acceptance acceptable level as defined in MIL– or smoke detector is not necessary, if the testing. STD–882(C). decision is made not to install one in Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49801 any of the unoccupied compartments standards approved by FRA under this (iii) A software hazard analysis; identified as a potential source of fire. part; and (iv) Software safety reviews; (10) Perform an analysis of the (ii) Take remedial action to reduce the (v) Software hazard monitoring and occupied and unoccupied spaces which risk of personal injuries to an acceptable tracking; require portable fire extinguishers. The level in any such category. (vi) Hardware and software analysis shall include the proper type (3) Within 1460 days following the integration safety tests; and and size of fire extinguisher for each effective date of the final rule, the (vii) Demonstration of overall location. railroad shall complete a fire safety software safety as part of the pre- (11) Identify in writing all unoccupied analysis for all categories of equipment revenue service tests of equipment. train compartments that contain and service. In completing this analysis, (c) The operating railroad shall ensure equipment or material which poses a the railroad shall, to the extent that the system developer follows the fire hazard. On a case-by-case basis, the practicable, determine the extent to design criteria and performs the tests benefit provided by including a fixed, which remaining interior materials required by the software safety part of automatic fire-suppression system in comply with the test performance the system safety program. To fulfill this each compartment identified shall be criteria for flammability and smoke obligation in part, the operating railroad analyzed. The type and size of the emission characteristics contained in shall include software safety automatic fire-suppression system for Appendix B to this part or alternative requirements in each of its contracts for each necessary application shall be standards approved by FRA under this the purchase of new equipment or new determined. As prescribed in part and, based on the fire safety components of existing equipment that § 238.115(e), a fixed, automatic fire analysis, take remedial action to reduce contain safety-critical software. suppression system shall be installed in the risk of personal injuries to an (d) The operating railroad shall follow unoccupied compartments where the acceptable level in any such category. the software safety procedures required analysis determines it is necessary and (4) Where possible prior to by the software safety part of the system practical to ensure sufficient time for transferring existing equipment to a new safety program. category of service, but in no case more the safe evacuation of the train. The § 238.109 Inspection, testing, and analysis shall provide the reasoning than 90 days following such a transfer, maintenance program. why a fixed, automatic fire-suppression the passenger railroad shall complete a new fire safety analysis taking into With respect to Tier II passenger system is not necessary or practical if equipment operated by a railroad, the decision is made not to install one consideration the change in railroad operations and shall effect prompt fulfillment of the requirements of in any of the unoccupied compartments § 238.503 to file an inspection, testing, identified in the plan. action to reduce any identified risk to an acceptable level. and maintenance program with FRA (12) Develop and adopt written satisfies the requirement of procedures for the inspection, testing, (5) As used in this paragraph, ‘‘category of rail equipment and current § 238.103(c)(3) to address the railroad’s and maintenance of all fire safety inspection, testing, and maintenance systems and equipment. As prescribed rail service’’ shall be determined by the railroad based on relevant fire safety program for such equipment in the in § 238.115(f), the railroad shall comply railroad’s system safety plan. with those procedures that it designates risks, including available ignition sources, presence or absence of heat/ The following provisions of this as mandatory. section apply only to Tier I equipment (c) The operating railroad shall smoke detection systems, known variations from required interior operated by the railroad. reasonably ensure in its contracts for the (a) General. Each railroad shall purchase of new equipment that the material test performance criteria or alternative standards approved by FRA, provide to FRA, upon request, detailed system developer follows the design information, consistent with the criteria and performs the tests required and availability of rapid and safe egress to the exterior of the vehicle under requirements of this part, on the by the fire protection part of the inspection, testing, and maintenance railroad’s system safety plan and conditions secure from fire, smoke, and other hazards. procedures necessary for the railroad to program. safely operate Tier I equipment. This (d)(1) Not later than 365 days § 238.107 Software safety program. information shall include a detailed following [the effective date of the final (a) The operating railroad shall description of: rule] each passenger railroad shall develop and maintain a software safety (1) Safety inspection procedures, complete a preliminary fire safety program to guide the design, intervals, and criteria; analysis for each category of existing rail development, testing, integration, and (2) Test procedures and intervals; equipment and current rail service. verification of computer programs used (3) Scheduled preventive (2) Not later than 730 days following to control or monitor equipment safety maintenance intervals; [the effective date of the final] rule each functions. (4) Maintenance procedures; and such railroad shall— (b) The software safety program shall: (5) Special testing equipment or (i) Complete a final fire safety analysis (1) Treat system software that controls measuring devices required to perform (equivalent to that required for new or monitors safety functions as safety- safety inspections and tests. equipment in this section) for any critical unless a completely redundant, (b) General inspection, testing, and category of existing equipment and failsafe, non-software means to provide maintenance procedures. The service evaluated during the the same function is provided; and inspection, testing, and maintenance preliminary fire safety analysis as likely (2) Include a description of how the program shall contain procedures presenting an unacceptable risk of following tasks will be accomplished, or reasonably to ensure that all systems personal injury, including consideration objectives achieved, to ensure safe, and components of the equipment are of the extent to which interior materials reliable system software used to monitor free of all general conditions that comply with the test performance or perform safety functions: endanger the safety of the crew, criteria for flammability and smoke (i) The software design process used; passengers, or equipment, including emission characteristics contained in (ii) The software design procedures to ensure that all systems Appendix B to this part or alternative documentation to be produced; and components of the equipment are 49802 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules free of the following conditions that (1) Identify the safety-related tasks (b) After receiving FRA approval of endanger the safety of the crew, that must be performed on each type of the pre-revenue service testing plan and passengers, or equipment: equipment that the railroad operates; before introducing the passenger (1) A continuous accumulation of oil (2) Develop written procedures for the equipment into revenue service, the or grease; performance of the tasks identified; operating railroad shall: (2) Improper functioning of a (3) Identify the skills and knowledge (1) Adopt and comply with such FRA- component; necessary to perform each task; approved plan, including fully (3) A crack, break, excessive wear, (4) Develop a training course that executing the tests required by the plan; structural defect, or weakness of a includes classroom and ‘‘hands-on’’ (2) Report to the FRA Associate component; lessons designed to impart the skills and Administrator for Safety the results of (4) A leak; knowledge identified as necessary to the pre-revenue service acceptance tests; perform each task; (3) Correct any safety deficiencies (5) Use of a component or system (5) Require all employees and identified by FRA in the design of the under a condition that exceeds that for contractors to successfully complete the equipment or in the inspection, testing, which the component or system is training course that covers the and maintenance procedures or, if safety designed to operate; and equipment and tasks for which they are deficiencies cannot be corrected by (6) Insecure attachment of a responsible; design changes, agree to comply with component. (6) Require all employees and any operational limitations that may be (c) Maintenance intervals. Initial contractors to pass a written imposed by the Associate Administrator scheduled maintenance intervals should examination covering the equipment for Safety on the revenue service be based on analysis completed as part and tasks for which they are operation of the equipment; and of the system safety program. The responsible; (4) Obtain FRA approval to place the intervals should be changed only when (7) Require all employees and equipment in revenue service. justified by accumulated, verifiable contractors to demonstrate ‘‘hands-on’’ (c) The operating railroad shall operating data. capability to perform their assigned comply with any such operational (d) Standard procedures for safely tasks on the type equipment to which limitations imposed by the Associate performing inspection, testing, and they are assigned; Administrator for Safety. maintenance, or repairs. Each railroad (8) Require supervisors to complete (d) The plan shall be made available shall establish written standard the program that covers the employees to FRA for inspection and copying upon procedures for performing all safety- that they supervise; request. critical or potentially hazardous (9) Require supervisors to exercise (e) The plan shall include all of the equipment inspection, test, oversight to ensure that all the following elements: maintenance, or repair tasks. These identified tasks are performed in (1) An identification of any waivers of standard procedures shall be available accordance with the railroad’s written FRA or other Federal safety regulations to FRA upon request and shall: procedures; required for the tests or for revenue (1) Describe in detail each step (10) Designate in writing that each service operation of the equipment. required to safely perform the task; employee and contractor has the (2) A clear statement of the test (2) Describe the knowledge necessary knowledge and skills necessary to objectives. One of the principal test to safely perform the task; perform the safety-related tasks that are objectives shall be to demonstrate that (3) Describe any precautions that shall part of his or her job; the equipment meets the safety design be taken to safely perform the task; (11) Require periodic refresher and performance requirements specified training at an interval not to exceed (4) Describe the use of any safety in this part when operated in the three years that includes classroom and equipment necessary to perform the environment in which it is to be used. ‘‘hands-on’’ training, as well as testing; (3) A planned schedule for task; (12) Add new equipment to the (5) Be approved by the railroad’s chief conducting the tests. qualification and designation program (4) A description of the railroad mechanical officer; prior to its introduction to revenue property or facilities to be used to (6) Be approved by the railroad’s service; and conduct the tests. official responsible for safety; (13) Maintain records adequate to (5) A detailed description of how the (7) Be enforced by supervisors with demonstrate that each employee and tests are to be conducted. This responsibility for accomplishing the contractor performing safety-related description shall include: tasks; and tasks on passenger equipment is (i) An identification of the equipment (8) Be reviewed annually by the currently qualified to do so. These to be tested; railroad. records shall be adequate to distinguish (ii) The method by which the § 238.111 Training, qualification, and the qualifications of the employee or equipment is to be tested; designation program. contractor as a qualified person or as a (iii) The criteria to be used to evaluate qualified mechanical inspector. the equipment’s performance; and (a) Each railroad shall adopt and (iv) The means by which the test comply with a training, qualification, § 238.113 Pre-revenue service acceptance results are to be reported to FRA. and designation program for employees testing plan. (6) A description of any special and contractors that perform safety- (a) Except as provided in paragraph instrumentation to be used during the related inspections, tests, or (f), before using passenger equipment tests. maintenance of passenger equipment. for the first time on its system the (7) A description of the information or For purposes of this section, a operating railroad shall submit a pre- data to be obtained. ‘‘contractor’’ is defined as a person revenue service acceptance testing plan (8) A description of how the under contract with the railroad or an containing the information required by information or data obtained is to be employee of a person under contract paragraph (e) of this section and obtain analyzed or used. with the railroad. the approval of the FRA Associate (9) A clear description of any criteria (b) As part of this program, the Administrator for Safety, under the to be used as safety limits during the railroad shall, at a minimum: procedures specified in § 238.21. testing. Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49803

(10) A description of the criteria to be locomotive cab includes walls, floors, § 238.121 Train system software and used to measure or determine the ceilings, seats, doors, windows, hardware. success or failure of the tests. If electrical conduits, air ducts, and any Electrical and electronic systems, acceptance is to be based on other internal equipment. including software components, used to extrapolation of less than full level (b) A railroad shall require control safety functions of passenger testing results, the analysis to be done certification that combustible materials equipment shall be treated as safety- to justify the validity of the to be used in constructing or critical by the operating railroad. Safety- extrapolation shall be described. refurbishing passenger car and critical systems utilized in equipment (11) A description of any special locomotive cab interiors have been ordered on or after January 1, 1999, and safety precautions to be observed during tested by a recognized independent such systems implemented or materially the testing. testing laboratory and that the results modified for new or existing equipment (12) A written set of standard comply with the requirements of on or after January 1, 2001, shall operating procedures to be used to paragraph (a) of this section. conform with the following ensure that the testing is done safely. requirements: (c) Overheat detectors shall be (13) Quality control procedures to (a) A formal safety methodology shall ensure that the inspection, testing, and installed in all components of passenger equipment where the written analysis be used to develop electrical and maintenance procedures are followed. electronic control systems that control (14) Criteria to be used for the revenue required by § 238.105(b)(8) determines that such equipment is necessary. safety functions for computer hardware service operation of the equipment. and software. The safety methodology (15) A description of any testing of the (d) Fire or smoke detectors shall be shall include a Failure Modes, Effects, equipment that has previously been installed in unoccupied compartments Criticality Analysis (FMECA) and performed. of a train if the analysis required by verification tests for all components of (f) For passenger equipment that has § 238.105(b)(9) determines that such the control system and its interfaces for previously been used in revenue service equipment is necessary to ensure computer hardware and software. in the United States, the railroad shall sufficient time for the safe evacuation of (b) A comprehensive hardware and test the equipment on its system, prior the train. software integration program for safety- to placing it in revenue service, to (e) A fixed, automatic fire suppression critical systems shall be adopted and ensure the compatibility of the system shall be installed in unoccupied complied with to ensure that the equipment with the operating system compartments of a train if the analysis software functions as intended when (track, signals, etc.) of the railroad. A required by § 238.105(b)(11) determines installed in a hardware system identical description of such testing shall be that such a system is necessary and to that to be used in service. retained by the railroad and made practical to ensure sufficient time for (c) Safety-related control systems available to FRA for inspection and the safe evacuation of the train. driven by computer software shall copying upon request. (f) The railroad shall comply with include hardware and software design General Requirements those elements of its written procedures, features that result in a safe condition in under § 238.105(b)(12), for the the event of a computer hardware or § 238.115 Fire safety. inspection, testing, and maintenance of software failure. (a)(1) All materials used in all fire safety systems and equipment § 238.123 Emergency lighting. constructing the interior of both a that it has designated as mandatory. passenger car and a cab of a locomotive (a) This section applies to each ordered on or after January 1, 1999, or (g) After completing each fire safety locomotive and passenger car ordered or placed in service for the first time on or analysis required by § 238.105(d), the rebuilt on or after January 1, 1999, or after January 1, 2001, shall meet the test railroad shall take action to reduce the placed in service for the first time on or performance criteria for flammability risk of personal injuries as provided in after January 1, 2001. This section and smoke emission characteristics that paragraph. applies to each level of a bi-level unit. contained in Appendix B to this part or § 238.117 Protection against personal (b) Emergency lighting shall be alternative standards issued or injury. provided and shall include the recognized by an expert consensus following: On or after January 1, 1998, all organization after special approval of (1) An illumination level of a FRA’s Associate Administrator for moving parts, high voltage equipment, electrical conductors and switches, and minimum of 5 foot-candles at floor level Safety under § 238.21. for all potential passenger and crew (2) On or after [the effective date of pipes carrying hot fluids or gases on all passenger equipment shall be evacuation routes from the equipment; the final rule], all materials used in and refurbishing the interior of a passenger appropriately equipped with interlocks or guards to minimize the chance of (2) A back-up power system capable car and a locomotive cab shall meet the of: test performance criteria for personal injury. (i) Operating in all equipment flammability and smoke emission § 238.119 Rim-stamped straight-plate orientations within 45 degrees of characteristics contained in Appendix B wheels. vertical; to this part or alternative standards issued or recognized by an expert (a) On or after January 1, 1998, no (ii) Operating after the initial shock of consensus organization after special railroad shall place or continue in a collision or derailment resulting in the approval of FRA’s Associate service any vehicle equipped with a following individually applied Administrator for Safety under § 238.21. rim-stamped straight-plate wheel, accelerations: Refurbishing includes replacing an except for a private car. (A) Longitudinal: 8g; individual component such as a seat (b) A rim-stamped straight-plate (B) Lateral: 4g; and cushion. wheel shall not be used as a (C) Vertical: 4g; and (3) For purposes of this section the replacement wheel on a private car (iii) Operating all emergency lighting interior of a passenger car and a operated in a passenger train. for a period of at least two hours. 49804 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Subpart CÐSpecific Requirements for January 1, 2001, shall have an anti- (2) This paragraph does not apply to Tier I Passenger Equipment climbing mechanism at its forward end a vehicle of special design that operates capable of resisting an upward or at the rear of a passenger train and is § 238.201 Scope. downward vertical force of 200,000 used solely to transport freight, such as This subpart contains requirements pounds without failure, in lieu of the an auto-carrier or a RoadRailer. for railroad passenger equipment forward end anti-climbing mechanism (b) Each locomotive, including a cab operating at speeds not exceeding 125 requirements described in paragraph (a) car and an MU locomotive, ordered on miles per hour. As stated in § 238.229, of this section. or after January 1, 1999, or placed in all such passenger equipment remains service for the first time on or after subject to the safety appliance § 238.207 Link between coupling mechanism and car body. January 1, 2001, shall have at its requirements contained in Federal forward end, in lieu of the structural statute at 49 U.S.C. chapter 203 and in All passenger equipment placed in protection described in paragraph (a) of FRA regulations at part 231 and § 232.2 service for the first time on or after this section, either: of this chapter. Unless otherwise January 1, 1998, shall have a coupler (1) Two forward collision posts, specified, these requirements only apply carrier designed to resist a vertical located at approximately the one-third to passenger equipment ordered on or downward thrust from the coupler points laterally, each capable of after January 1, 1999, or placed in shank of 100,000 pounds for any normal withstanding: service for the first time on or after horizontal position of the coupler, (i) A 500,000-pound longitudinal January 1, 2001. without permanent deformation. force at the point even with the top of § 238.209 Forward-facing end structure of the underframe, without exceeding the § 238.203 Static end strength. locomotives. ultimate strength of the joint; and (a) Except as further specified in this The skin covering the forward-facing (ii) A 200,000-pound longitudinal paragraph and paragraph (b) of this end of each locomotive shall be: force exerted 30 inches above the joint section, on or after January 1, 1998, all (a) Equivalent to a 1⁄2-inch steel plate of the post to the underframe, without passenger equipment shall have a with a 25,000 pounds-per-square-inch exceeding the ultimate strength; or minimum static end strength of 800,000 yield strength—material of a higher (2) An equivalent end structure that pounds without permanent deformation yield strength may be used to decrease can withstand the sum of the forces that of the car body structure. This the required thickness of the material each collision post is required to requirement does not apply to either— provided an equivalent level of strength withstand. (1) A private car or is maintained; (c) If a vehicle consists of articulated (2) A vehicle of special design that (b) Designed to inhibit the entry of units, the end structural protection operates at the rear of a passenger train fluids into the occupied cab area of the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) and is used solely to transport freight, equipment; and of this section apply only to the ends of such as an auto-carrier or a RoadRailer. (c) Be affixed to the collision posts or the permanently joined assembly of (b) On or after January 1, 1998, each other main vertical structural members units, not to each end of each unit so locomotive and passenger car shall have of the forward-facing end structure so as joined. a minimum static end strength of to add to the strength of the end 800,000 pounds on the line of draft at structure. § 238.213 Corner posts. the ends of occupied volumes without (a) Each passenger car shall have at permanent deformation of the car body § 238.211 Collision posts. each end of the vehicle two full-height structure. The static end strength of (a) Except as further specified in this corner posts capable of resisting without unoccupied volumes may be less than paragraph and paragraphs (b) and (c) of failure a horizontal load of 150,000 800,000 pounds if a crash energy this section— pounds at the point of attachment to the management design is used. (1) All passenger equipment placed in underframe and a load of 20,000 pounds (c) When overloaded in compression, service for the first time on or after at the point of attachment to the roof the car body structure of passenger January 1, 1998, shall have either: structure. The orientation of the applied equipment shall be designed, to the (i) Two full-height collision posts, horizontal loads shall range from maximum extent possible, to fail by located at approximately the one-third longitudinal inward to transverse buckling or crushing, or both, of points laterally, at each end where inward. The corner posts may be structural members rather than by coupling and uncoupling are expected. positioned near the occupied volume of fracture of structural members or failure Each collision post shall have an the rail vehicle to provide protection or of structural connections. ultimate longitudinal shear strength of structural strength to the occupied not less than 300,000 pounds at a point volume. § 238.205 Anti-climbing mechanism. even with the top of the underframe (b) Each corner post shall resist a (a) Except as provided in paragraph member to which it is attached. If horizontal load of 30,000 pounds (b) of this section, all passenger reinforcement is used to provide the applied 18 inches above the top of the equipment placed in service for the first shear value, the reinforcement shall floor without permanent deformation. time on or after January 1, 1998, shall have full value for a distance of 18 The orientation of the applied have at both the forward and rear ends inches up from the underframe horizontal loads shall range from an anti-climbing mechanism capable of connection and then taper to a point longitudinal inward to transverse resisting an upward or downward approximately 30 inches above the inward. vertical force of 100,000 pounds without underframe connection; or failure. When coupled together in any (ii) An equivalent end structure that § 238.215 Rollover strength. combination to join two vehicles, AAR can withstand the sum of forces that (a) Each passenger car shall be Type H and Type F tight-lock couplers each collision post is required to designed to rest on its side and be satisfy this requirement. withstand. For analysis purposes, the uniformly supported at the top (‘‘roof (b) Each locomotive ordered on or required forces may be assumed to be rail’’), the bottom (‘‘side sill’’) chords of after January 1, 1999, or placed in evenly distributed at the end structure the side frame, and, if bi-level, the service for the first time on or after at the underframe joint. intermediate floor rail. The allowable Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49805 stress for occupied volumes for this percent of that specified in paragraph § 238.225 Electrical system. condition shall be one-half yield or one- (b)(1) of this section. All passenger equipment shall comply half the critical buckling stress, § 238.219 Truck-to-car-body attachment. with the following: whichever is less. (a) Conductors. Conductor sizes shall (b) Each passenger car shall also be Passenger equipment shall have a be selected on the basis of current- designed to rest on its roof so that any truck-to-car-body attachment with an carrying capacity, mechanical strength, damage in occupied areas is limited to ultimate strength sufficient to resist temperature, flexibility requirements, roof sheathing and framing. Deformation without failure a force of 2g vertical on and maximum allowable voltage drop. to the roof sheathing and framing is the mass of the truck and a force of Current-carrying capacity shall be allowed to the extent necessary to 250,000 pounds in any horizontal derated for grouping and for operating permit the vehicle to be supported direction. For purposes of this section, temperature. the mass of the truck includes axles, directly on the top chords of the side (b) Main battery system. (1) The main wheels, bearings, the truck-mounted frames and end frames. Other than roof battery compartment shall be isolated brake system, suspension system sheathing and framing, the allowable from the cab and passenger seating areas components, and any other components stress for occupied volumes for this by a non-combustible barrier. attached to the truck by design. condition shall be one-half yield or one- (2) Battery chargers shall be designed half the critical buckling stress, § 238.221 Glazing. to protect against overcharging. whichever is less. (a) Passenger equipment shall comply (3) If batteries are of the type to § 238.217 Side impact strength. with the applicable Safety Glazing potentially vent explosive gases, the Each passenger car shall comply with Standards contained in part 223 of this battery compartment shall be adequately the following: chapter, if required by that part. ventilated to prevent the accumulation (a) Side posts and corner braces. (1) (b) Glazing securement components of explosive concentrations of these For ‘‘modified girder,’’ ‘‘semi- shall hold the glazing in place against gases. monocoque,’’ or truss construction, the all forces described in part 223 of this (c) Power dissipation resistors. (1) sum of the section moduli—about a chapter. Securement components shall Power dissipating resistors shall be longitudinal axis, taken at the weakest remain held to the car body structure adequately ventilated to prevent horizontal section between the side sill against these same forces. overheating under worst-case operating and side plate—of all posts and braces (c) Glazing securement components conditions as determined by each on each side of the car located between shall be designed to resist the forces due railroad. the body corner posts shall be not less to air pressure differences caused when (2) Power dissipation grids shall be than 0.30 multiplied by the distance in two trains pass at the minimum designed and installed with sufficient feet between the centers of end panels. separation for two adjacent tracks, while isolation to prevent combustion. (2) For ‘‘modified girder’’ or ‘‘semi- traveling in opposite directions, each (3) Resistor elements shall be monocoque’’ construction only, the sum train traveling at the maximum electrically insulated from resistor of the section moduli—about a authorized speed. frames, and the frames shall be transverse axis, taken at the weakest electrically insulated from the supports horizontal section between side sill and § 238.223 Fuel tanks. that hold them. side plate—of all posts, braces and pier (a) External fuel tanks. External (d) Electromagnetic interference and panels, to the extent available, on each locomotive fuel tanks shall comply with compatibility. (1) The operating railroad side of the car located between body AAR Recommended Practice-506, shall ensure electromagnetic corner posts shall be not less than 0.20 Performance Requirements for Diesel compatibility of the safety-critical multiplied by the distance in feet Electric Locomotive Fuel Tanks (as equipment systems with their between the centers of end panels. adopted July 1, 1995), or an industry environment. Electromagnetic (3) The center of an end panel is the standard providing at least equivalent compatibility may be achieved through point midway between the center of the safety if approved by FRA’s Associate equipment design or changes to the body corner post and the center of the Administrator for Safety under § 238.21. operating environment. adjacent side post. (b) Integral fuel tanks. Integral fuel (2) The electronic equipment shall not (b) Sheathing. (1) Outside sheathing tanks shall be positioned in a manner to produce electrical noise that affects the of mild, open-hearth steel when used reduce the likelihood of accidental safe performance of train line control flat, without reinforcement (other than penetration from roadway debris or and communications or wayside side posts) in a side frame of ‘‘modified collision. signaling systems. girder’’ or ‘‘semi-monocoque’’ shall not (1) The vent system spill protection (3) To contain electromagnetic be less than 1⁄8 inch nominal thickness. systems of integral fuel tanks shall be interference emissions, suppression of Other metals may be used of a thickness designed to prevent them from transients shall be at the source in inverse proportion to their yield becoming a path of fuel loss for any tank wherever possible. strengths. orientation due to a locomotive (4) All electronic equipment shall be (2) Outside metal sheathing of less overturning. self-protected from damage or improper than 1⁄8 inch thickness may be used only (2) The bulkheads and skin of integral operation, or both, due to high voltage if it is reinforced so as to produce at fuel tanks shall at a minimum be made transients and long-term over-voltage or least an equivalent sectional area at a of steel plate 3/8 of an inch thick with under-voltage conditions. This includes right angle to reinforcements as that of a 25,000-lb yield strength, or made of protection from both power frequency the flat sheathing specified in paragraph material with an equivalent strength. and harmonic effects as well as (b)(1) of this section. Skid plates are not required. Higher protection from radio frequency signals (3) When the sheathing used for truss yield strength material may be used to into the microwave frequency range. construction serves no load-carrying decrease the thickness of the material as function, the minimum thickness of that long as an equivalent strength is § 238.227 Suspension system. sheathing shall be not less than 40 maintained. On or after January 1, 1998— 49806 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(a) All passenger equipment shall the disc manufacturer and verified by the impact force of the mass of a 95th- exhibit freedom from hunting testing or previous service. percentile male occupant(s) being oscillations at all speeds. (h) Except for a locomotive that is decelerated from a relative speed of 25 (b) All passenger equipment intended ordered before January 1, 1999, and mph and striking the seat from behind. for service above 110 mph shall placed in service for the first time before (b) Overhead storage racks in a demonstrate stable operation during January 1, 2001, and except for a private passenger car shall provide longitudinal pre-revenue service qualification tests at car, all passenger equipment shall be and lateral restraint for stowed articles. all speeds up to 5 mph in excess of the equipped with a hand or parking brake Overhead storage racks shall be attached maximum intended operating speed that shall be: to the car body with sufficient strength under worst-case conditions—including (1) Capable of application or to resist loads due to the following component wear—as determined by the activation by hand; individually applied accelerations operating railroad. (2) Capable of release by hand; and acting on the mass of the luggage stowed (3) Capable of holding the loaded unit as determined by the railroad: § 238.229 Safety appliances. on the maximum grade anticipated by (1) Longitudinal: 8g; All passenger equipment continues to the operating railroad. (2) Vertical: 4g; and be subject to the safety appliance (i) Passenger cars shall be equipped (3) Lateral: 4g. requirements contained in Federal with a means to apply the emergency (c) Other interior fittings within a statute at 49 U.S.C. chapter 203 and in brake that is accessible to passengers passenger car shall be attached to the FRA regulations at part 231 and § 232.2 and located in the vestibule or car body with sufficient strength to of this chapter. passenger compartment. The emergency withstand the following individually brake shall be clearly identified and applied accelerations acting on the mass § 238.231 Brake system. marked. of the fitting: Except as otherwise provided in this (j) Locomotives equipped with (1) Longitudinal: 8g; section, on or after January 1, 1998, the blended brakes shall be designed so (2) Vertical: 4g; and following requirements apply to all (3) Lateral: 4g. that: (d) To the extent possible, all interior passenger equipment and passenger (1) The blending of friction and fittings in a passenger car, except seats, trains. dynamic brake to obtain the correct (a) A passenger train’s primary brake shall be recessed or flush-mounted. retarding force is automatic; (e) Sharp edges and corners in a system shall be capable of stopping the (2) Loss of power or failure of the locomotive cab and a passenger car shall train with a service application from its dynamic brake does not result in be either avoided or padded to mitigate maximum authorized operating speed exceeding the allowable stop distance; the consequences of an impact with within the signal spacing existing on the (3) The friction brake alone is such surfaces. track over which the train is operating. adequate to safely stop the train under (b) The brake system design of (f) Each floor-mounted seat provided all operating conditions; and exclusively for a crewmember assigned passenger equipment ordered on or after (4) Operation of the friction brake to occupy the cab of a locomotive shall January 1, 1999, or placed in service for alone does not result in thermal damage be secured to the car body with an the first time on or after January 1, 2001, to wheels or disc rotor surface attachment having an ultimate strength shall not require an inspector to place temperatures exceeding the capable of withstanding the loads due to himself or herself on, under, or between manufacturer’s recommendation. the following individually applied components of the equipment to observe (k) For new designs of braking accelerations acting on the mass of the brake actuation or release. systems, the design process shall seat and the crewmember (ranging from (c) Passenger equipment shall be include computer modeling or a 5th-percentile female to a 95th- provided with an emergency application dynamometer simulation of train feature that produces an irretrievable percentile male) occupying it: braking that shows compliance with (1) Longitudinal: 8g; stop, using a brake rate consistent with paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section (2) Lateral: 4g; and prevailing adhesion, passenger safety, over the range of equipment operating (3) Vertical: 4g. and brake system thermal capacity. An speeds. Changes in operating parameters emergency application shall be available shall require a new simulation prior to § 238.235 Emergency window exits. at any time, and shall be initiated by an implementing the changes. Except as provided in paragraph (b), unintentional parting of the train. (l) Locomotives ordered on or after the following requirements apply to all (d) A passenger train brake system January 1, 1999, or placed in service for passenger cars on or after January 1, shall respond as intended to signals the first time on or after January 1, 2001, 1998— from train brake control line or lines. shall be equipped with effective air (a) Except as provided in paragraphs Control lines shall be designed so that coolers or dryers that provide air to the (d) and (e) of this section, each failure or breakage of a control line will main reservoir with a dew point at least passenger car shall have a minimum of cause the brakes to apply or will result 10 degrees F. below ambient four emergency window exits, either in in a default to control lines that meet temperature. a staggered configuration or with one this requirement. located at each end of each side of the (e) Introduction of alcohol or other § 238.233 Interior fittings and surfaces. car. chemicals into the air brake system of (a) Each seat in a passenger car shall (b) Each emergency window exit in a passenger equipment is prohibited. be securely fastened to the car body so passenger car placed in service for the (f) The operating railroad shall require as to withstand an individually applied first time on or after January 1, 1998, that the design and operation of the acceleration of 4g acting in the vertical shall have a minimum unobstructed brake system results in wheels that are and in the lateral direction on the opening with dimensions of 24 inches free of condemnable cracks. deadweight of the seat or seats, if a horizontally by 18 inches vertically. (g) Disc brakes shall be designed and tandem unit. A seat attachment shall (c) Each emergency window exit shall operated to produce a surface have an ultimate strength capable of be easily operable by a 5th-percentile temperature no greater than the safe resisting the longitudinal inertial force female without requiring the use of a operating temperature recommended by of 8g acting on the mass of the seat plus tool or other implement. Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49807

(d) If the car is bi-level, each main (d) Marking and instructions. car classified as a locomotive under part level shall have a minimum of four [Reserved] 229 of this chapter shall be in emergency window exits, either in a accordance with this part as well as part staggered configuration or with one § 238.239 Automated monitoring. 229 of this chapter.) located at each end of each side of the (a) Except as further specified in this (b) The exterior calendar day car. paragraph, on or after January 1, 1998, mechanical safety inspection shall be (e) Each passenger car of special a working alerter or deadman control performed by a qualified mechanical design, such as a sleeping car, shall shall be provided in the controlling inspector as defined in § 238.5. have at least one emergency window locomotive of each passenger train (c) As part of the exterior inspection, exit in each compartment. operating in other than cab signal, the railroad shall verify conformity with (f) Marking and instructions. automatic train control, or automatic the following conditions, and [Reserved] train stop territory. If the controlling nonconformity with any such condition locomotive is ordered on or after renders the passenger car or unpowered § 238.237 Doors. January 1, 1999, or placed into service vehicle used in a passenger train (a) Within 2 years of the effective date for the first time on or after January 1, defective whenever discovered in of the final rule, each powered, exterior 2001, a working alerter shall be service: side door in a vestibule that is provided. (1) Products of combustion are partitioned from the passenger (b) Alerter or deadman control timing released entirely outside the cab and compartment of a passenger car shall be shall be set by the operating railroad other compartments. equipped with a manual override that taking into consideration maximum (2) All battery containers are vented is: train speed and capabilities of the signal and all batteries are kept from gassing (1) Capable of opening the door system. The railroad shall document the excessively. without power from inside the car; basis for setting alerter or deadman (3) Each coupler is in the following (2) Located adjacent to the door which control timing and make this condition: it controls; and documentation available to FRA upon (i) The distance between the guard (3) Designed and maintained so that a request. arm and the knuckle nose is not more person may access the override device (c) If the train operator does not than 51⁄8 inches on standard type from inside the car without requiring respond to the alerter or maintain couplers (MCB contour 1904) or more the use of a tool or other implement. proper contact with the deadman than 55⁄16 inches on D&E couplers; (b) Each passenger car ordered on or control, it shall initiate a penalty brake (ii) Sidewall or pin bearing bosses and after January 1, 1999, or placed in application. the pulling face of the knuckles are not service for the first time on or after (d) The following procedures apply if broken or cracked; January 1, 2001, shall have a minimum the alerter or deadman control fails en (iii) The coupler assembly is equipped of four side doors, or the functional route: with anti-creep protection; equivalent of four side doors, each (1) A second person qualified on the (iv) The free slack in the coupler or permitting at least one 95th-percentile signal system and brake application drawbar not absorbed by friction male to pass through at a single time.1 procedures shall be stationed in the cab; devices or draft gears is not more than Each powered, exterior side door shall or 1⁄2 inch; be equipped with a manual override (2) The engineer shall be in constant (v) The coupler carrier is not broken that is: communication with a second or cracked; (1) Capable of opening the door crewmember until the train reaches the (vi) The yoke is not broken or cracked; without power from both inside and next terminal. and outside the car; (vii) The draft gear is not broken. (2) Located adjacent to the door which Subpart DÐInspection, Testing, and (4) A device is provided under the it controls; and Maintenance Requirements for Tier I lower end of all drawbar pins and (3) Designed and maintained so that a Passenger Equipment articulated connection pins to prevent person may access the override device § 238.301 Scope. the pin from falling out of place in case from both inside and outside the car This subpart contains requirements of breakage. without requiring the use of a tool or (5) The suspension system, including other implement. pertaining to the inspection, testing, and maintenance of passenger equipment the spring rigging, is in the following (c) A railroad may protect a manual condition: override device used to open a powered, operating at speeds not exceeding 125 miles per hour. The requirements in this (i) Protective construction or safety exterior door with a cover or a screen hangers are provided to prevent spring capable of removal by a 5th-percentile subpart address the inspection, testing, and maintenance of the brake system as planks, spring seats, or bolsters from female without requiring the use of a dropping to the track structure in event tool or other implement. If the method well as other mechanical and electrical components covered by this part. of a hanger or spring failure; of removing the protective cover or (ii) The top (long) leaf or any of the screen entails breaking or shattering it, § 238.303 Exterior calendar day other three leaves of the elliptical spring the cover or screen shall be scored, mechanical inspection of passenger cars is not broken, except when a spring is perforated, or otherwise weakened so and unpowered vehicles used in passenger part of a nest of three or more springs that a 5th-percentile female can trains. and none of the other springs in the nest penetrate the cover or screen with a (a) Except as provided in paragraph has its top leaf or any of the other three single blow of her fist without injury to (d) of this section, each passenger car leaves broken; her hand. and each unpowered vehicle used in a (iii) The outer coil spring or saddle is passenger train shall receive an exterior not broken; 1 The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mechanical safety inspection at least (iv) The equalizers, hangers, bolts, Accessibility Specifications for Transportation Vehicles also contain requirements for doorway once each calendar day that the gibs, or pins are not cracked or broken; clearance (See Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations equipment is placed in service. (Note: (v) The coil spring is not fully Part 38). The exterior inspection of a passenger compressed when the car is at rest; 49808 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(vi) The shock absorber is not broken charged are grounded or thoroughly nonconformity with any such condition or leaking clearly formed droplets of oil insulated. renders the car defective whenever or other fluid; and (11) All jumpers and cable discovered in service, except as (vii) Air bags or other pneumatic connections are in the following provided in paragraph (c)(5) of this suspension system components inflate condition: section: or deflate, as applicable, correctly and (i) All jumpers and cable connections (1) All fan openings, exposed gears otherwise operate as intended. between coaches, between locomotives, and pinions, exposed moving parts of (6) All trucks are in the following or between a locomotive and a coach are mechanisms, pipes carrying hot gases condition: located and guarded in a manner that and high-voltage equipment, switches, (i) Equipped with a device or securing provides sufficient vertical clearance. circuit breakers, contactors, relays, grid arrangement to prevent the truck and Jumpers and cable connections may not resistors, and fuses are in non- car body from separating in case of hang with one end free; hazardous locations or equipped with derailment; (ii) The insulation is not broken or guards to prevent personal injury. (ii) All tie bars are not loose; badly chafed; (2) The words ‘‘Emergency Brake (iii) All center castings, motor (iii) No plug, receptacle, or terminal is Valve’’ are legibly stenciled or marked suspension lugs, equalizers, hangers, broken; and near each brake pipe valve or shown on gibs, or pins are not cracked or broken; (iv) No strand of wire is broken or an adjacent badge plate. and protruding. (3) All doors and cover plates (iv) The truck frame is not broken and (12) All doors and cover plates guarding high voltage equipment are is not cracked in a stress area that may guarding high voltage equipment are marked ‘‘Danger—High Voltage’’ or with affect its structural integrity. marked ‘‘Danger—High Voltage’’ or with the word ‘‘Danger’’ and the normal (7) All side bearings are in the the word ‘‘Danger’’ and the normal voltage carried by the parts so protected. following condition: voltage carried by the parts so protected. (4) All trap doors safely operate and (i) All friction side bearings with (13) All buffer plates are in place. securely latch in place in both the up springs designed to carry weight do not (14) If so equipped, all diaphragms are and down position. have more than 25 percent of the in place and properly aligned. (5) All end doors and side doors springs in any one nest broken; (15) All secondary braking systems operate safely and as intended. If all of (ii) All friction side bearings do not are working. the following conditions are satisfied, run in contact unless designed to carry (d) A long-distance intercity the car may remain in passenger service weight; and passenger train that misses a scheduled (iii) The maximum clearance of all until the next interior calendar day exterior calendar day mechanical mechanical inspection is due at which side bearings does not exceed the inspection due to a delay en route may manufacturer’s recommendation. time the appropriate repairs shall be continue in service to the location made: (8) All wheels do not have any of the where the inspection was scheduled to following conditions: (i) A qualified person or a qualified be performed. At that point, an exterior mechanical inspector determines that (i) A single flat spot that is 21⁄2 inches calendar day mechanical inspection or more in length, or two adjoining the repairs necessary to bring a door shall be performed prior to returning the spots that are each two or more inches into compliance cannot be performed at equipment to service. This flexibility in length; the time the interior mechanical (ii) A gouge or chip in the flange that applies only to the exterior mechanical inspection is conducted; 1 safety inspections required by this (ii) A qualified person or a qualified is more than 1 ⁄2 inches in length and 1 section, and does not relieve the mechanical inspector determines that it ⁄2 inch in width; (iii) A broken rim, if the tread, railroad of the responsibility to perform is safe to move the equipment in a calendar day inspection on a unit measured from the flange at a point 5⁄8 passenger service; and of an inch above the tread, is less than classified as a ‘‘locomotive’’ under part (iii) A tag is prominently displayed on 229 of this chapter as required by 33⁄4 inches in width. the door indicating that the door is (iv) A shelled-out spot 21⁄2 inches or § 229.21 of this chapter. defective. more in length, or two adjoining spots (e) Cars requiring a single car test in (6) All safety-related signage is in that are each two or more inches in accordance with § 238.311 that are being place and legible. length; moved in service to a location where the (7) All vestibule steps are illuminated. (v) A seam running lengthwise that is single car test can be performed shall (8) All manual door releases are in within 33⁄4 inches of the flange; have the single car test completed prior place based on a visual inspection. (vi) A flange worn to a 7⁄8 inch to, or as a part of, the calendar day (d) A long-distance intercity thickness or less, gauged at a point 3⁄8 mechanical inspection. passenger train that misses a scheduled calendar day interior mechanical of an inch above the tread; § 238.305 Interior calendar day mechanical 5 inspection due to a delay en route may (vii) A tread worn hollow ⁄16 inch or inspection of passenger cars. more; continue in service to the location (a) Except as provided in paragraph (viii) A flange height of 11⁄2 inches or where the inspection was scheduled to more measured from the tread to the top (d) of this section, each passenger car be performed. At that point, an interior of the flange; shall receive an interior mechanical calendar day mechanical inspection (ix) A rim less than 1 inch thick; safety inspection at least once each shall be performed prior to returning the (x) A crack or break in the flange, calendar day that it is placed in service. equipment to service. tread, rim, plate, or hub; (b) The interior daily mechanical (xi) A loose wheel; or inspection shall be performed by a § 238.307 Periodic mechanical inspection (xii) A weld. qualified person or a qualified of passenger cars. (9) No part or appliance of a passenger mechanical inspector. (a) Railroads shall conduct periodic coach, except the wheels, is less than (c) As part of the daily interior inspections of passenger cars as 21⁄2 inches above the top of the rail. mechanical inspection, the railroad required by this section and as (10) All unguarded, noncurrent- shall verify conformity with the warranted by data developed under carrying metal parts subject to becoming following conditions, and §§ 238.103 and 238.109. A periodic Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49809 inspection conducted under part 229 of approve alternative maintenance by the railroad containing the same this chapter satisfies the requirement of procedures providing equivalent safety, information, and the person performing this section with respect to the features in lieu of the requirements of this the work and that person’s supervisor inspected. section. The petition shall be filed as shall sign the form. Alternatively, the (b) The periodic inspection program provided in § 238.21. railroad may stencil the vehicle with the shall specifically include the following (b) MU locomotives. The brake date and place of the cleaning, interior features, which shall be equipment of each MU locomotive shall repairing, and testing and maintain an inspected not less frequently than each be cleaned, repaired, and tested at electronic record of the person 180 days. At a minimum, this intervals in accordance with the performing the work and that person’s inspection shall determine that: following schedule: supervisor. A record of the parts of the (1) Floors of passageways and (1) Every 736 days if the MU air brake system that are cleaned, compartments are free from oil, water, locomotive is part of a fleet that is not repaired, and tested shall be kept in the waste, or any obstruction that creates a 100 percent equipped with air dryers. railroad’s files, the cab of the slipping, tripping, or fire hazard, and (2) Every 1,104 days if the MU locomotive, or a designated location in floors are properly treated to provide locomotive is part of a fleet that is 100 the passenger car until the next such secure footing. percent equipped with air dryers and is periodic test is performed. (2) Emergency lighting systems are equipped with PS–68, 26–C, 26–L, PS– operational. 90, CS–1, RT–5A, GRB–1, CS–2, or 26– § 238.311 Single car test. (3) With regard to switches: R brake systems. (This listing of brake (a) Single car tests of all passenger (i) All hand-operated switches system types is intended to subsume all cars and all unpowered vehicles used in carrying currents with a potential of brake systems using 26 type, ABD, or passenger trains shall be performed in more than 150 volts that may be ABDW control valves and PS68, PS–90, accordance with the AAR Standard S– operated while under load are covered 26B–1, 26C, 26CE, 26–Bl, 30CDW, or 044 contained in AAR ‘‘Instruction and are operative from the outside of the 30ECDW engineer’s brake valves.) Pamphlet 5039–4, Supplement 3’’ (April cover; (3) Every 736 days for all other MU 1991), or an alternative procedure (ii) A means is provided to display locomotives. approved by FRA’s Associate whether the switches are open or (c) Conventional locomotives. The Administrator for Safety under § 238.21. closed; and brake equipment of each conventional (b) A railroad shall perform a single (iii) Switches not designed to be locomotive shall be cleaned, repaired, car test of the brake system of a car or operated safely while under load are and tested at intervals in accordance vehicle described in paragraph (a) of legibly marked with the voltage carried with following schedule: this section when the car or vehicle is and the words ‘‘must not be operated (1) Every 1,104 days for a locomotive under load’’. found with one or more of the following equipped with a 26–L or equivalent (4) Seats and seat attachments are not wheel defects: brake system. broken or loose. (1) Built-up tread; (5) Luggage racks are not broken or (2) Every 736 days for a locomotive (2) Slid flat wheel; loose. equipped with other than a 26–L or (3) Thermal cracks; (6) All beds and bunks are not broken equivalent brake system. (4) Overheated wheel; or or loose, and all restraints or safety (d) Passenger coaches and other (5) Shelling. latches and straps are in place and unpowered vehicles. The brake (c) Except as provided in paragraph function as intended. equipment on each passenger coach and (e) of this section, a railroad shall (7) A representative sample of each other unpowered vehicle used in a perform a single car test of the brake emergency window exits on its cars passenger train shall be cleaned, system of a car or vehicle described in properly operate, in accordance with the repaired, and tested at intervals in paragraph (a) of this section when: requirements of § 239.107 of this accordance with following schedule: (1) The car or vehicle is placed in chapter. (1) Every 1,476 days for a coach or service after having been out of service (8) All manual door releases operate vehicle equipped with a 26–C or for 30 days or more; as intended. equivalent brake system. (2) The trainline is repaired; or (c) Nonconformity with any of the (2) Every 1,104 days for a coach or (3) One or more of the following conditions set forth in this section vehicle equipped with other than a 26– conventional air brake equipment items renders the car defective whenever C or equivalent brake system. is removed, repaired, or replaced: discovered in service. (e) Cab cars. The brake equipment of (i) Brake reservoir; each cab car shall be cleaned, repaired, (ii) Brake cylinder; § 238.309 Periodic brake equipment and tested in accordance with the (iii) Piston assembly; maintenance. following schedule: (iv) Vent valve; (a) General. (1) This section contains (1) Every 1,476 days for that portion (v) Quick service valve; the minimum intervals at which the of the cab car brake system using brake (vi) Brake cylinder release valve; brake equipment on various types of valves that are identical to the passenger (vii) Modulating valve or slack passenger equipment shall be coach 26–C brake system; adjuster; periodically cleaned, repaired, and (2) Every 1,104 days for that portion (viii) Relay valve; tested. This maintenance procedure of the cab car brake system using brake (ix) Angle cock or cutout cock; requires that all of the equipment’s valves that are identical to the (x) Service portion; brake system pneumatic components locomotive 26–L brake system; and (xi) Emergency portion; or that contain moving parts and are sealed (3) Every 732 days for all other types (xii) Pipe bracket. against air leaks be removed from the of cab car brake valves. (d) Each single car test required by equipment, disassembled, cleaned, and (f) Records of periodic maintenance. this section shall be performed by a lubricated and that the parts that can The date and place of the cleaning, qualified mechanical inspector. deteriorate with age be replaced. repairing, and testing required by this (e) If the single car test cannot be (2) A railroad may petition FRA’s section shall be recorded on Form FRA made at the point where repairs are Associate Administrator for Safety to 6180–49A or a similar form developed made, the car may be moved in 49810 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules passenger service to the next forward minute if leakage will affect service prior to midnight may complete its daily location where the test can be made. performance; operating cycle after midnight without The single car test shall be completed (8) The emergency brake application performing another Class I or Class IA prior to, or as a part of, the car’s next and deadman pedal or other emergency brake test. A Class I or Class IA brake calendar day mechanical inspection. control devices function as intended; test shall be performed on such a train (9) Each brake shoe or pad is not before it starts a new daily operating § 238.313 Class I brake test. below the minimum thickness cycle. (a) Each commuter and short-distance established by the railroad. This (c) A Class I or Class IA test may be intercity passenger train shall receive a thickness shall not be less than the performed at a shop or yard site and Class I brake test once each calendar day minimum thickness necessary to safely need not be repeated at the first that the train is placed or remains in travel the maximum distance allowed passenger terminal if the train remains passenger service. between Class I brake system tests; (b) Except as provided in paragraph on a source of compressed air and in the (10) Each angle cock and cutout cock custody of the train crew. (h) of this section, each long-distance is properly positioned; (d) The Class IA test shall be intercity passenger train shall receive a (11) Brake rigging does not bind or performed by either a qualified person Class I brake test: foul so as to impede the force delivered or a qualified mechanical inspector as (1) Prior to the train’s departure from to a brake shoe, impede the release of defined in § 238.5. an originating terminal; and a brake shoe, or otherwise adversely (2) Every 1,500 miles or once each affect the operation of brake system; (e) Except as provided in § 238.15(b), additional calendar day, whichever (12) If the train is equipped with a railroad shall not use or haul a occurs first, that the train remains in electropneumatic brakes, an passenger train in passenger service continuous passenger service. from a location where a Class IA brake (c) Each Class I brake test shall be electropneumatic application of the brakes is made and that the train is test has been performed, or was required performed by a qualified mechanical by this part to have been performed, inspector. walked to determine that the brakes on each car in the train properly apply; with less than 100 percent operative (d) Each Class I brake test may be brakes. performed either separately or in (13) Each brake disc is free of cracks; conjunction with the calendar day (14) If the equipment is provided with (f) In performing a Class IA brake test, mechanical inspection required under a brake indicator, the brake indicator it shall be determined that: § 238.303. operates as intended; and (1) Brake pipe leakage does not (e) Except as provided in § 238.15(b), (15) The communication of brake pipe exceed 5 pounds-per-square-inch per a railroad shall not use or haul a pressure changes at the rear of the train minute if brake pipe leakage will affect passenger train in passenger service is verified. service performance; from a location where a Class I brake (g) A qualified mechanical inspector (2) Each brake sets and releases by test has been performed, or was required that performs a Class I brake test on a inspecting in the manner described in by this part to have been performed, train shall place in the cab of the paragraph (g) of this section; with less than 100 percent operative controlling locomotive of the train a written statement, which shall be (3) The emergency brake application brakes. and the deadman pedal or other (f) A Class I brake test shall determine retained in the cab until the next Class I brake test is performed and which emergency control devices function as and ensure that: intended; (1) The friction brakes apply and shall contain the following information: remain applied on each car in the train (1) Date and time the Class I brake test (4) Each angle cock and cutout cock until a release of the brakes has been was performed; is properly set; initiated on each car in response to train (2) Location where the test was (5) To the extent determinable, piston line electric, pneumatic, or other performed; and travel is within the nominal range for signals. This test shall include a (3) The number of the controlling the type of brake equipment; and verification that each side of each car’s locomotive of the train. (6) Brake pipe pressure changes at the brake system responds properly to (h) A long-distance, intercity rear of the train are properly application and release signals; passenger train that misses a scheduled communicated to the controlling (2) The brake shoes or pads are firmly calendar day Class I brake test due to a locomotive. seated against the wheel or disk with delay en route may proceed to the point (g) In determining whether each brake the brakes applied; where the Class I brake test was sets and releases— (3) Piston travel is within prescribed scheduled to be performed. A Class I (1) The inspection of the set and limits, either by direct observation, brake test shall be completed at that release of the brakes shall be completed observation of an actuator, or by point prior to placing the train back in by walking the train to directly observe observation of the clearance between the service. the set and release of each brake, if the brake shoe and the wheel with the railroad determines that such a brakes released; § 238.315 Class IA brake test. (4) The communicating signal system (a) Except as provided in paragraph procedure is safe. is tested and known to be operating as (b)(1) of this section, either a Class I or (2) If the railroad determines that intended; Class IA brake test shall be performed: operating conditions pose a safety (5) Each brake shoe is securely (1) Prior to the first morning departure hazard to an inspector walking the fastened and aligned in relation to the of each commuter or short-distance brakes, brake indicators may be used to wheel; intercity passenger train; and verify the set and release on cars so (6) The engineer’s brake valve or (2) Prior to placing a train in service equipped. However, the observation of controller will cause the proper train that has been off a source of compressed the brake indicators shall not be made line commands for each position or air for more than four hours. from the cab of the locomotive. The brake level setting; (b) A commuter or short-distance inspector shall position himself or (7) Brake pipe leakage does not intercity passenger train that provides herself to be able to accurately observe exceed 5 pounds-per-square-inch per continuing late night service that began the indicators. Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49811

§ 238.317 Class II brake test. contained in Federal statute at 49 U.S.C. (1) The train remains upright, in-line, (a) A Class II brake test shall be chapter 203 and in FRA regulations at and with all wheels on the track performed on a passenger train when part 231 and § 232.2 of this chapter. The throughout the collision; and any of the following events occur: requirements of this subpart are (2) Resistance to structural crushing (1) Whenever the control stand used effective on the effective date of the following the force-versus-distance to control the train is changed; final rule. function determined during the (2) When previously tested units are structural analysis required under added to or removed from the train; and § 238.403 Crash energy management requirements. § 238.103 as part of the design of the (3) When an operator first takes train. charge of the train, except for face-to- (a) Each power car and trailer car shall be designed with a crash energy (f) Passenger searing shall not be face relief. permitted in the leading unit of a Tier (b) A Class II brake test shall be management system to dissipate kinetic II train. performed by a qualified person or a energy during a collision. The rash qualified mechanical inspector. energy management system shall § 238.405 Longitudinal static compressive (c) A railroad shall not use or haul a provide a controlled deformation and strength. passenger train in passenger service collapse of designated sections within the unoccupied volumes to absorb (a) To form an effective crash refuge from a terminal or yard where a Class for crewmembers occupying the cab of II brake test has been performed, or was collision energy and to reduce the decelerations on passengers and a power car, the longitudinal ultimate required by this part to have been compressive strength of the underframe performed, with any of the brakes crewmembers resulting from dynamic forces transmitted to occupied volumes. of the cab of a power car shall be a known to be cutout, inoperative, or minimum of 2,100,000 pounds unless defective. (b) The design of each unit shall consist of an occupied volume located equivalent protection to crewmembers (d) In performing a Class II brake test is provided under an alternate design on a train, a railroad shall determine between two normally unoccupied volumes. Where practical, sections approach, validated through analysis that: and testing, approved by the FRA (1) The brakes on the rear unit of the within the unoccupied volumes shall be designed to be structurally weaker than Associate Administrator for Safety train apply and release in response to a under the provisions of § 238.21. signal from the engineer’s brake valve or the occupied volume. During a controller of the leading or controlling collision, the designated sections within (b) The longitudinal compressive unit; the unoccupied volumes shall start to strength of the underframe of the (2) The emergency brake application deform and eventually collapse in a occupied volume of each trailer car and deadman pedal or other emergency controlled fashion to dissipate energy shall be a minimum of 800,000 pounds control devices function as intended; before any structural damage occurs to without deformation. To demonstrate and the occupied volume. compliance with this requirement, the (3) Brake pipe pressure changes are (c) At a minimum, the train shall be 800,000-pound load shall be applied to properly communicated at the rear of designed to meet the following the underframe of the occupied volume the train. requirements: as it would be transmitted to the (1) Thirteen megajoules (MJ) shall be underframe by the full structure of the § 238.319 Running brake test. absorbed at each end of the train vehicle. (a) As soon as conditions safely through the controlled crushing of (c) Unoccupied or lightly occupied permit, a running brake test shall be unoccupied or occasionally occupied volumes of a power car or a trailer car performed on each passenger train after spaces, and of this amount a minimum designed to crush as part of the crash the train has received, or was required of 5 MJ shall be absorbed outboard of energy management design are not under this part to have received, either the operator’s cab in each power car; subject to the requirements of this a Class I, Class IA, or Class II brake test. (2) A minimum of an additional 3 MJ section. (b) The running brake test shall be shall be absorbed by the power car conducted in accordance with the structure between the operator’s cab and § 238.407 Anti-climbing mechanism. railroad’s established operating rules, the first trailer car; and (a) Each power car shall have an anti- and shall be made by applying brakes in (3) The end of the first trailer car climbing mechanism at its forward end a manner that allows the engineer to adjacent to each power car shall absorb capable of resisting an upward or ascertain whether the brakes are a minimum of 5 MJ through controlled downward static vertical force of operating properly. crushing. 200,000 pounds. A power car (c) If the engineer determines that the (d) For a 30-mph collision of a train constructed with a crash energy brakes are not operating properly, the on tangent, level track with an identical management design is permitted to engineer shall stop the train and follow stationary train: crush in a controlled manner before the (1) The deceleration of the occupied the procedures provided in § 238.15. anti-climbing mechanism fully engages. compartments of each trailer car shall Subpart EÐSpecific Requirements for not exceed 10g; and (b) Interior train coupling points Tier II Passenger Equipment (2) When seated anywhere in the between units, including between units train, the velocity at which a 50th- of articulated cars or other permanently § 238.401 Scope. percentile male contacts the seat back joined units of cars, shall have an anti- This subpart contains specific ahead of him shall not exceed 25 mph. climbing mechanism capable of requirements for railroad passenger (e) Compliance with paragraphs (a) resisting an upward or downward equipment operating at speeds through (d) of this section shall be vertical force of 100,000 pounds. exceeding 125 mph but not exceeding demonstrated by analysis using a (c) The forward coupler of a power car 150 mph. As stated in § 238.433(b), all dynamic collision computer model. For shall be attached to the car body to such passenger equipment remains the purpose of demonstrating resist a vertical downward force of subject to the requirements concerning compliance, the following assumptions 100,000 pounds for any horizontal couplers and uncoupling devices shall be made: position of the coupler without yielding. 49812 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules

§ 238.409 Forward end structures of power collision posts, or their structural attachment, without exceeding the yield car cabs. equivalent, located at approximately the or the critical buckling stress; and This section contains the design one-third points laterally, each capable (3) A horizontal, longitudinal or requirements for the forward end of withstanding the following: lateral shear load of 150,000 pounds at structure of the cab of a power car. (A (1) A shear load of 500,000 pounds at its joint with the roof, without conceptual implementation of this end its joint with the underframe without structure is provided in Figure 1.) exceeding the ultimate strength of the exceeding the ultimate strength of the (a) Center collision post. The forward joint; and joint. end structure shall have a full-height (2) A horizontal, longitudinal force of (d) Skin. The skin covering the center collision post, or its structural 300,000 pounds, applied at a point on forward-facing end of each power car equivalent, capable of withstanding the level with the bottom of the windshield, shall be: following: without exceeding the yield or the (1) Equivalent to a 1⁄2-inch steel plate (1) A shear load of 500,000 pounds at critical buckling stress. with a 25,000 pounds-per-square-inch its joint with the underframe without (c) Corner posts. The forward end exceeding the ultimate strength of the structure shall have two full-height yield strength—material of a higher joint; corner posts, or their structural yield strength may be used to decrease (2) A shear load of 150,000 pounds at equivalent, each capable of the required thickness of the material its joint with the roof without exceeding withstanding the following: provided an equivalent level of strength the ultimate strength of the joint; and (1) A horizontal, longitudinal or is maintained. (3) A horizontal, longitudinal force of lateral shear load of 300,000 pounds at (2) Securely attached to the end 300,000 pounds applied at a point on its joint with the underframe, without structure. level with the bottom of the windshield exceeding the ultimate strength of the (3) Sealed to prevent the entry of without exceeding the yield or the joint; critical buckling stress. (2) A horizontal, lateral force of fluids into the occupied cab area of the (b) Side collision posts. The forward 100,000 pounds applied at a point 30 equipment. end structure shall have two side inches up from the underframe BILLING CODE 4910±06±P Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49813

BILLING CODE 4910±06±C equivalent, each capable of posts, or their structural equivalent, withstanding the following: each capable of withstanding the § 238.411 Rear end structures of power car (1) A horizontal, longitudinal or following: cabs. lateral shear load of 300,000 pounds at (1) A horizontal, longitudinal shear its joint with the underframe without This section contains design load of 750,000 pounds at its joint with requirements for the rear end structure exceeding the ultimate strength of the joint; and the underframe without exceeding the of the cab of a power car. (A conceptual ultimate strength of the joint; and implementation of this end structure is (2) A horizontal, longitudinal or lateral shear load of 80,000 pounds at its provided in Figure 2.) (2) A horizontal, longitudinal shear joint with the roof without exceeding lead of 75,000 pounds at its joint with (a) Corner posts. The rear end the ultimate strength of the joint. the roof without exceeding the ultimate structure shall have two full-height Collision posts. The rear end structure strength of the joint. corner posts, or their structural shall have two full-height collision 49814 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4910±06±C underframe attachment without for uncoupling other than in a exceeding the yield or the critical maintenance shop, the end structure § 238.413 End structures of trailer cars. buckling stress; and requirements of paragraph (a) of this (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (iii) A horizontal, longitudinal or section apply only to the ends of the (b) and (c) of this section, the end lateral shear load of 20,000 pounds at its entire car, not to the ends of each unit structure of a trailer car shall be joint with the roof without exceeding comprising the multi-unit car. designed to include the following the ultimate strength of the joint. elements, or their structural equivalent. (2) Collision posts. Two full-height (c) If the trailer car is designed with (A conceptual implementation of this collision posts each capable of a vestibule, the vestibule inboard end end structure is provided in Figure 3.) withstanding the following: structure shall be designed with two (1) Corner posts. Two full-height (i) A horizontal, longitudinal shear full-height corner posts, or their corner posts, each capable of load of 300,000 pounds at its joint with structural equivalent, each capable of withstanding the following: the underframe without exceeding the withstanding the following (A (i) A horizontal, longitudinal shear ultimate strength of the joint; and conceptual implementation of this end load of 150,000 pounds at its joint with (ii) A horizontal, longitudinal shear structure is provided in Figure 4.): the underframe without exceeding the load of 60,000 pounds at its joint with (1) A horizontal, longitudinal shear ultimate strength of the joint; the roof without exceeding the ultimate (ii) A horizontal, longitudinal or strength of the joint. load of 200,000 pounds at its joint with lateral force of 30,000 pounds applied at (b) If the trailer car consists of the underframe without exceeding the a point 30 inches up from the multiple articulated units not designed ultimate strength of the joint; Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49815

(2) A horizontal, lateral force of (3) A horizontal, longitudinal force of (4) A horizontal, longitudinal or 30,000 pounds applied at a point 30 50,000 pounds applied at a point 30 lateral shear load of 20,000 pounds at its inches up from the underframe inches up from the underframe joint with the roof without exceeding attachment without exceeding the yield attachment without exceeding the yield the ultimate strength of the joint. or the critical buckling stress; or the critical buckling stress; and 49816 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4910±06±C supported directly on the top chords of vertical dimension of the specified the side frames and end frames. Other member for a distance of 8 feet in the § 238.415 Rollover strength. than roof sheathing and framing, the direction of the length of the car. (a) Each power car shall be designed allowable stress for occupied volumes (c) The allowable stress shall be the to rest on its side and be uniformly for this condition shall be one-half yield lesser of the yield stress or the critical supported at the top (‘‘roof rail’’) and or one-half the critical buckling stress, buckling stress with local yielding of the the bottom (‘‘side sill’’) chords of the whichever is less. side skin allowed. side frame. The allowable stress for (d) The connections of the side frame § 238.417 Side loads. occupied volumes for this condition to the roof and underframe shall support shall be one-half yield or one-half the (a) The single-level passenger car these loads. critical buckling stress, whichever is body structure shall be designed to § 238.419 Truck-to-car-body and truck less. resist an inward transverse load of component attachment. (b) Each passenger car and power car 80,000 pounds of force applied to the (a) The ultimate strength of the truck- shall also be designed to rest on its roof side sill and 10,000 pounds of force to-car-body attachment for each unit in so that any damage in occupied areas is applied to the belt rail (horizontal a train shall be sufficient to resist limited to roof sheathing and framing. members at the bottom of the window without failure a vertical force Deformation to the roof sheathing and opening in the side frame). equivalent to 2g acting on the mass of framing is allowed to the extent (b) These loads shall be considered to the truck and a force of 250,000 pounds necessary to permit the vehicle to be be applied separately over the full acting in any horizontal direction. Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49817

(b) Each component of a truck (which separation for two adjacent tracks, while locomotive without deformation of the include axles, wheels, bearings, the traveling in opposite directions, each tank. truck-mounted brake system, train traveling at the maximum (b) Internal fuel tanks. (1) Internal fuel suspension system components, and authorized speed. tanks shall have their lowest point at any other components attached to the (e) Interior equipment glazing shall least 18 inches above the lowest point truck by design) shall remain attached meet the minimum requirements of AS1 on the locomotive wheel tread and shall to the truck when a force equivalent to type laminated glass as defined in be enclosed by, or shall be part of, the 2g acting on the mass of the component American National Standard ‘‘Safety locomotive structure. is exerted in any direction on that Code for Glazing Materials for Glazing (2) Internal fuel tank vent systems component. Motor Vehicles Operating on Land shall be designed to prevent them from Highways,’’ ASA Standard Z26.1–1966. becoming a path of fuel loss in the event § 238.421 Glazing. (f) Each vehicle that is fully equipped a tank is placed in any orientation due (a) Each power car and trailer car with glazing materials that meet the to a locomotive overturning. shall be equipped with certified glazing requirements of paragraphs (a) through (3) Internal fuel tank bulkheads and meeting the following requirements: (e) of this section shall be stencilled on skin shall at a minimum be equivalent (1) End-facing exterior glazing shall an interior wall as follows: ‘‘Fully to a 3⁄8-inch thick steel plate with a resist the impact of a 12-pound solid Equipped with FRA Part 238 Glazing’’ 25,000-pound yield strength—material steel sphere at the maximum speed at or similar words conveying that of a higher yield strength may be used which the vehicle will operate, at an meaning, in letters at least 3⁄8 of an inch to decrease the required thickness of the angle equal to the angle between the high. material provided an equivalent level of glazing surface as installed and the strength is maintained. Skid plates are direction of travel, with no penetration § 238.423 Fuel tanks. not required. or spall. (a) External fuel tanks. (1) With all § 238.425 Electrical system. (2) Side-facing exterior glazing shall locomotive wheels resting on the ties resist the impact of a: beside the rail, the lowest point of an (a) Circuit protection. (1) The main (i) 12-pound solid steel sphere at 15 propulsion power line shall be external fuel tank shall clear an 81⁄2-inch mph, at an angle of 90 degrees to the combined height of the tie plate and rail protected with a lightning arrestor, surface of the glazing, with no automatic circuit breaker, and overload by a minimum of 11⁄2 inches. (This penetration or spall; and requirement results in a minimum 10- relay. The lightning arrestor shall be run (ii) A granite ballast stone weighing a inch vertical distance from the lowest by the most direct path possible to minimum of 0.5 pounds, traveling at 75 point on the wheel tread to the lowest ground with a connection to ground of mph and impacting at a 90-degree angle point on the external fuel tank.) not less than No. 6 AWG. These to the glazing surface, with no (2) The end bulkheads of external fuel overload protection devices shall be penetration or spall. tanks shall at a minimum be equivalent housed in an enclosure designed (3) All exterior glazing shall: to a 1-inch thick steel plate with a specifically for that purpose with the arc (i) Resist a single impact of a 9-mm, 25,000 pounds-per-square-inch yield chute vented directly to outside air. 147-grain bullet traveling at an impact (2) Head end power, including strength—material of a higher yield velocity of 900 feet per second, with no trainline power distribution, shall be strength may be used to decrease the bullet penetration or spall; and provided with both overload and required thickness of the material (ii) Demonstrate anti-spalling ground fault protection. provided an equivalent level of strength performance by the use of a .001 (3) Circuits used for purposes other is maintained. aluminum witness plate, placed 12 than propelling the equipment shall be (3) The skin of external fuel tanks inches from the glazing surface during connected to their power source through shall at a minimum be equivalent to a all impact tests. The witness plate shall circuit breakers or equivalent current- 1⁄2-inch thick steel plate with a 25,000 contain no marks from spalled glazing limiting devices. particles after any impact test. pounds-per-square-inch yield strength— (4) Each auxiliary circuit shall be (b) Each individual unit of glazing material of a higher yield strength may provided with a circuit breaker located material shall be permanently marked, be used to decrease the required as near as practical to the point of prior to installation, in such a manner thickness of the material provided an connection to the source of power for that the marking is clearly visible after equivalent level of strength is that circuit; however, such protection the material has been installed. The maintained. may be omitted from circuits controlling marking shall include: (4) The material used for construction safety-critical devices. (1) The words ‘‘FRA TYPE IH’’ for of external fuel tank exterior surfaces (b) Main battery system. (1) The main end-facing glazing or ‘‘FRA TYPE IIH’’ shall not exhibit a decrease in yield batteries shall be isolated from the cab for side-facing glazing, to indicate that strength or penetration resistance in the and passenger seating areas by a non- the material has successfully passed the temperature range of 0 to 160 degrees F. combustible barrier. testing requirements of paragraph (a) of (5) External fuel tank vent systems (2) Battery chargers shall be designed this section; shall be designed to prevent them from to protect against overcharging. (2) The name of the manufacturer; and becoming a path of fuel loss in the event (3) Battery circuits shall include an (3) The type or brand identification of a tank is placed in any orientation due emergency battery cut-off switch to the material. to a locomotive overturning. completely disconnect the energy stored (c) Glazing securement components (6) The bottom surface of an external in the batteries from the load. shall hold the glazing in place against fuel tank shall be equipped with skid (4) If batteries are of the type to the forces described in paragraphs (a)(1) surfaces to prevent sliding contact with potentially vent explosive gases, the through (a)(3) of this section. the rail or the ground from easily batteries shall be adequately ventilated (d) Glazing securement components wearing through the tank. to prevent accumulation of explosive shall be designed to resist the forces due (7) The structural strength of an concentrations of these gases. to air pressure differences caused when external fuel tank shall be adequate to (c) Power dissipation resistors. (1) two trains pass at the minimum support 11⁄2 times the dead weight of the Power dissipating resistors shall be 49818 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules adequately ventilated to prevent approved by the FRA Associate (2) Automatic couplers and overheating under worst-case operating Administrator for Safety under the uncoupling devices on the leading and conditions. provisions of § 238.21. trailing ends of semi-permanently (2) Power dissipation grids shall be (b) Lateral accelerations. Passenger coupled trainsets may be stored within designed and installed with sufficient cars shall not operate under conditions a removable shrouded housing. isolation to prevent combustion that result in a steady-state lateral (3) If the units in a train are not semi- between resistor elements and acceleration of 0.1g (measured parallel permanently coupled, both ends of each combustible material. to the car floor inside the passenger unit shall be equipped with an (3) Power dissipation resistor circuits compartment) or greater. automatic coupler, that couples on shall incorporate warning or protective (c) Hunting oscillations. Each truck impact and uncouples by either devices for low ventilation air flow, shall be equipped with a permanently activation of a traditional uncoupling over-temperature, and short circuit installed lateral accelerometer mounted lever or some other type of uncoupling failures. on the truck frame. The accelerometer mechanism that does not require a (4) Resistor elements shall be output signals shall be calibrated and person to go between the equipment electrically insulated from resistor filtered, and shall pass through signal units. frames, and the frames shall be conditioning circuitry designed to (b) Hand brakes. Except as provided electrically insulated from the supports determine if hunting oscillations of the in paragraph (f) of this section, Tier II that hold them. truck are occurring. If hunting trains shall be equipped with a parking (d) Electromagnetic interference and oscillations are detected, the train or hand brake that can be applied and compatibility. (1) The operating railroad monitoring system shall provide an released manually that is capable of shall ensure electromagnetic alarm to the operator, and the train shall holding the train on a 3-percent grade. compatibility of the systems critical to be slowed to a speed 5 mph less than (c) Safety appliance mechanical the safety of equipment with their the speed at which the hunting strength and fasteners. environment. Electromagnetic oscillations stopped. (1) All handrails, handholds, and sill compatibility can be achieved through (d) Ride vibration (quality). While steps shall be made of 1-inch diameter equipment design or changes to the 5 traveling at the maximum operating steel pipe or ⁄8-inch thickness steel or operating environment. speed over the intended route, the train a material of equal or greater mechanical (2) The electronic equipment shall not suspension system shall be designed to: strength. produce electrical noise that interferes (1) Limit the vertical acceleration, as (2) All safety appliances shall be with trainline control and measured by a vertical accelerometer securely fastened to the car body communications or with wayside mounted on the car floor, to no greater structure with mechanical fasteners that signaling systems. have mechanical strength greater than or (3) To contain electromagnetic than 0.55g single event, peak-to-peak; equal to that of a 1⁄2-inch diameter SAE interference emissions, suppression of (2) Limit the lateral acceleration, as steel bolt mechanical fastener. transients shall be at the source measured by a lateral accelerometer (i) Safety appliance mechanical wherever possible. mounted on the car floor, to no greater fasteners shall have mechanical strength (4) Electrical and electronic systems than 0.3g single event, peak-to-peak; and fatigue resistance equal to or greater of equipment shall be capable of and than a 1⁄2-inch diameter SAE steel bolt. operation in the presence of external (3) Limit the combination of lateral electromagnetic noise sources. acceleration (L) and vertical acceleration (ii) Mechanical fasteners shall be (5) All electronic equipment shall be (V) occurring within any time period of installed with a positive means to self-protected from damage or improper 2 consecutive seconds as expressed by prevent unauthorized removal. Self- operation, or both, due to high voltage the square root of (V2∂L2) to no greater locking threaded fasteners do not meet transients and long-term over-voltage or than 0.604, where L may not exceed this requirement. under-voltage conditions. 0.3g and V may not exceed 0.55g. (iii) Mechanical fasteners shall be (e) Compliance. Compliance with the installed to facilitate inspection. § 238.427 Suspension system. requirements contained in paragraph (d) (d) Handrails and handholds. Except (a) General requirements. (1) of this section shall be demonstrated as provided in paragraph (f) of this Suspension systems shall be designed to during the equipment pre-revenue section: reasonably prevent wheel climb, wheel service acceptance tests required under (1) Handrails shall be provided for lift, rail rollover, rail shift, and a vehicle § 238.113 and [proposed] § 213.345 of passengers on both sides of all steps from overturning to ensure safe, stable this chapter. used to board or depart the train. performance and ride quality. These (f) Overheat sensors. Overheat sensors (2) Exits on a power vehicle shall be requirements shall be met in all for each equipment bearing shall be equipped with handrails and handholds operating environments, and under all provided. The sensors may be on board so that crewmembers can get on and off track conditions and loading conditions or placed at reasonable wayside the vehicle safely. as determined by the operating railroad. intervals. (3) Throughout their entire length, These requirements shall be met at all handrails and handholds shall be a track speeds and over all track qualities § 238.429 Safety appliances. contrasting color to the surrounding of track consistent with the Track Safety (a) Couplers. (1) The leading and the vehicle body. Standards in part 213 of this chapter, up trailing ends of semi-permanently (4) The maximum distance above the to the maximum operating speed and coupled trainsets shall be equipped top of the rail to the bottom of vertical maximum cant deficiency of the with an automatic coupler that couples handrails and handholds shall be 51 equipment. on impact and uncouples by either inches and the minimum distance shall (2) Passenger equipment shall meet activation of a traditional uncoupling be 21 inches. the safety performance standards for lever or some other type of uncoupling (5) Vertical handrails and handholds suspension systems contained in mechanism that does not require a shall be installed to continue to a point Appendix C to this part or alternative person to go between the equipment at least equal to the height of the top standards providing equivalent safety if units. edge of the control cab door. Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49819

(6) The minimum hand clearance automatically coupled ends shall be (f) The brake system design shall distance between a vertical handrail or equipped with hand brakes, sill steps, allow a disabled train’s pneumatic handhold and the vehicle body shall be end handholds, and side handholds that brakes to be controlled by a 21⁄2 inches for the entire length. meet the requirements contained in conventional locomotive, during rescue (7) All vertical handrails and § 231.14 of this chapter. If the trainsets operation, through brake pipe control handholds shall be securely fastened to are semi-permanently coupled, these alone. the vehicle body. safety appliances are not required. (g) An independent failure-detection (8) If the length of the handrail (g) Optional safety appliances. Safety system shall compare brake commands exceeds 60 inches, it shall be securely appliances installed at the option of the with brake system output to determine fastened to the power vehicle body with railroad shall be firmly attached with if a failure has occurred. The failure two fasteners at each end. mechanical fasteners and shall meet the detection system shall report brake (e) Sill steps. Except as provided in design and installation requirements system failures to the automated train paragraph (f) of this section: provided in this section. monitoring system. (1) Each power vehicle shall be (h) Passenger equipment shall be equipped with a sill step below each § 238.431 Brake system. provided with an adhesion control exterior door as follows: (a) A passenger train’s brake system system designed to automatically adjust (i) The sill step shall have a minimum shall be capable of stopping the train the braking force on each wheel to cross-sectional area of 1⁄2 by 3 inches. from its maximum operating speed prevent sliding during braking. In the (ii) The sill step shall be made of steel within the signal spacing existing on the event of a failure of this system to or a material of equal or greater strength track over which the train is operating prevent wheel slide within preset and fatigue resistance. under worst-case adhesion conditions. parameters, a wheel slide alarm that is (iii) The minimum tread length of the (b) The brake system shall be visual or audible, or both, shall alert the sill step shall be 10 inches. designed to allow an inspector to train operator in the cab of the (iv) The minimum clear depth of the determine that the brake system is controlling power car to wheel-slide sill step shall be 8 inches. functioning properly without having to conditions on any axle of the train. (v) The outside edge of the tread of place himself or herself in a dangerous the sill step shall be flush with the side position on, under, or between the § 238.433 Draft system. of the car body structure. equipment. (a) Leading and trailing automatic (vi) Sill steps shall not have a vertical (c) Passenger equipment shall be couplers of trains shall be compatible rise between treads exceeding 18 inches. provided with an emergency application with standard AAR couplers with no (vii) The lowest sill step tread shall be feature that produces an irretrievable special adapters used. not more than 20 inches above the top stop, using a brake rate consistent with (b) All passenger equipment of the track rail. prevailing adhesion, passenger safety, continues to be subject to the (viii) Sill steps shall be a color which and brake system thermal capacity. An requirements concerning couplers and contrasts with the surrounding power emergency application shall be available uncoupling devices contained in vehicle body color. at any time, and shall be initiated by an Federal Statute at 49 U.S.C. chapter 203 (ix) Sill steps shall be securely unintentional parting of the train. A and in FRA regulations at part 231 and fastened. § 232.2 of this chapter. (x) At least 50 percent of the tread means to initiate an emergency brake surface area of each sill step shall be application shall be provided at two § 238.435 Interior fittings and surfaces. locations in each unit of the train. open space. (a) The seat back in a passenger car (d) The brake system shall be (xi) The portion of the tread surface shall be designed to withstand, with designed to prevent thermal damage to area of each sill step which is not open deflection but without total failure, the wheels and brake discs. The operating space and is normally contacted by the load of a seat occupant who is a 95th- railroad shall demonstrate through foot shall be treated with an anti-skid percentile male accelerated at 8g analysis and test that no thermal material. impacting the seat back. (f) Exceptions. damage results to the wheels or brake (b) The seat back in a passenger car (1) If the units of the equipment are discs under conditions resulting in shall include shock-absorbent material semi-permanently coupled, with maximum braking effort being exerted to cushion the impact of occupants with uncoupling done only at maintenance on the wheels or discs. the seat ahead of them. facilities, the equipment units that are (e) The following requirements apply (c) The ultimate strength of a seat not required by paragraph (a) of this to blended braking systems: attachment to a passenger car body shall section to be equipped with automatic (1) Loss of power or failure of the be of sufficient strength to withstand the couplers need not be equipped with sill dynamic brake does not result in following individually applied steps or end or side handholds that exceeding the allowable stop distance; accelerations acting on the mass of the would normally be used to safely (2) The friction brake alone is seat plus the mass of a seat occupant perform coupling and uncoupling adequate to safely stop the train under who is a 95th-percentile male: operations. all operating conditions; (1) Longitudinal: 8g; (2) If the units of the equipment are (3) The operational status of the (2) Lateral: 4g; and not semi-permanently coupled, the electric portion of the brake system shall (3) Vertical: 4g. units shall be equipped with hand be displayed for the train operator in the (d) Other interior fittings shall be brakes, sill steps, end handholds, and control cab; and attached to the passenger car body with side handholds that meet the (4) The operating railroad shall sufficient strength to withstand the requirements contained in § 231.14 of demonstrate through analysis and following individually applied this chapter. testing the maximum operating speed accelerations acting on the mass of the (3) If two trainsets are coupled to form for safe operation of the train using only fitting: a single train that is not semi- the friction brake portion of the blended (1) Longitudinal: 8g; permanently coupled (i.e., that is brake with no thermal damage to wheels (2) Lateral: 4g; and coupled by an automatic coupler), the or discs. (3) Vertical: 4g. 49820 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Fittings that can be expected to be female without requiring the use of a (c) A railroad may protect a manual impacted by a person during a collision, tool or other implement. override device used to open a powered, such as tables between facing seats, (3) If the passenger car is bi-level, exterior door with a cover or a screen shall be designed for the mass of the each main level shall have a minimum capable of removal by a 5th-percentile fitting plus the mass of the number of of four emergency window exits, either female without requiring the use of a occupants who are 95th-percentile in a staggered configuration or with one tool or other implement. If the method males that could be expected to strike located at each end of each side on each of removing the protective cover or the fitting. level. screen entails breaking or shattering it, (e) The ultimate strength of the (4) Each passenger car of special the cover or screen shall be scored, interior fittings and equipment in power design, such as a sleeping car, shall perforated, or otherwise weakened so car control cabs shall be sufficient to have at least one emergency window that a 5th-percentile female can resist without failure loads due to the exit in each compartment. penetrate the cover or screen with a following individually applied (b) Roof hatches. (1) Each power car single blow of her fist without injury to accelerations acting on the mass of the cab shall have a minimum of one roof her hand. fitting or equipment: hatch emergency entrance location with (d) Passenger compartment end doors (1) Longitudinal: 12g; either a minimum opening of 18 inches shall be equipped with a kick-out panel, (2) Lateral: 4g; and by 24 inches or a clearly marked pop-out window, or other similar means (3) Vertical: 4g. structural weak point in the roof to of egress in the event the door will not (f) To the extent possible, interior provide a minimum opening of the same open. fittings, except seats, shall be recessed dimensions to provide quick access for (e) Marking and instructions. or flush-mounted. Corners and sharp properly equipped emergency [Reserved] edges shall be avoided or otherwise personnel. § 238.443 Headlights. padded. (2) Each passenger car shall be (g) Energy-absorbent material shall be equipped with a minimum of two roof Each power car shall be equipped used to pad surfaces likely to be hatch emergency entrance locations with at least two headlights. Each impacted by occupants during collisions with either a minimum opening of 18 headlight shall produce no less than or derailments. inches by 24 inches or two clearly 200,000 candela. One headlight shall be (h) Luggage stowage compartments marked structural weak points in the focused to illuminate a person standing shall be of the enclosed, aircraft type roof to provide a minimum opening of between the rails at 800 feet under clear with ultimate strength sufficient to the same dimensions to provide quick weather conditions. The other headlight resist loads due to the following access for properly equipped emergency shall be focused to illuminate a person individually applied accelerations personnel. standing between the rails at 1500 feet acting on the mass of the luggage that (c) Marking and instructions. under clear weather conditions. [Reserved] the compartments are designed to § 238.445 Automated monitoring. accommodate: § 238.441 Doors. (a) Each passenger train shall be (1) Longitudinal: 8g; equipped to monitor the performance of (2) Lateral: 4g; and (a) Each passenger car shall have a the following systems or components: (3) Vertical: 4g. minimum of four side doors, or the functional equivalent of four side doors, (1) Reception of cab signals and train § 238.437 Emergency communication. each permitting at least one 95th- control signals; A means of emergency percentile male to pass through at a (2) Truck hunting; communication throughout a train shall single time.2 (3) Dynamic brake status; (4) Friction brake status; be provided and shall include the (1) Each powered, exterior side door (5) Fire detection systems; following: shall be equipped with a manual override that is: (6) Head end power status; (a) Transmission locations that are (7) Alerter or deadman control; clearly marked with luminescent (i) Capable of opening the door without power from both inside and (8) Horn and bell; material at each end of each unit (9) Wheel slide; adjacent to the unit end doors; outside the car; (10) Tilt system, if so equipped; and (b) Clear and understandable (ii) Located adjacent to the door (11) On-board bearing-temperature operating instructions at or near each which it controls; and sensors, if so equipped. transmission location; and (iii) Designed and maintained so that (b) The operator shall be alerted when (c) Back-up power for a minimum a person may access the override device any of the monitored parameters are out time period of two hours. from both inside and outside the car of predetermined limits. In situations without the use of any tool or other where the system safety analysis § 238.439 Emergency window exits and implement. indicates that operator-reaction time is roof hatches. (2) The status of each powered, crucial to safety, immediate automatic exterior side door shall be displayed to (a) Emergency window exits. Except as corrective action such as limiting the the crew in the operating cab. If door provided in paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) speed of the train shall be taken. of this section, each passenger car shall interlocks are used, the sensors used to (c) The monitoring system shall be have a minimum of four emergency detect train motion shall be nominally designed with an automatic self-test window exits, either in a staggered set to operate at 3 mph. feature that notifies the operator that the (b) Each powered, exterior side door configuration or with one located at monitoring capability is functioning shall be connected to an emergency each end of each side of a passenger car. correctly and alerts the operator that a back-up power system. (1) Each sealed emergency window system failure has occurred. exit on a passenger coach shall have a minimum free opening of 30 inches 2 The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) § 238.447 Operator's controls and cab Accessibility Specifications for Transportation layout. horizontally by 30 inches vertically. Vehicles also contain requirements for doorway (2) Each emergency window exit shall clearance (See Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (a) Operator controls in the power be easily operable by a 5th-percentile Part 38). vehicle or control cab shall be arranged Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49821 to be comfortably within view and (6) Equipped with a manually (c) General safety inspection, testing, within easy reach when the operator is reclining seat back, adjustable from the and maintenance procedures. The seated in the normal train control seated position; inspection, testing, and maintenance position. (7) Equipped with an adjustable program under paragraph (a) of this (b) The control panels shall be laid headrest; and section shall contain the railroad’s out to minimize the chance of human (8) Equipped with folding, padded written procedures to ensure that all error. armrests. systems and components of in service (c) Control panel buttons, switches, (h) Sharp edges and corners shall be equipment are free of any general levers, knobs, and the like shall be eliminated from the interior of the cab, condition that endangers the safety of distinguishable by sight and by touch. and interior surfaces of the cab likely to the crew, passengers, or equipment. (d) An alerter shall be provided. If not be impacted by a crewmember during a These procedures shall protect against: acknowledged, the alerter shall cause a collision or derailment shall be padded (1) A continuous accumulation of oil brake application to stop the train. with shock-absorbent material. or grease; (e) Cab information displays shall be (2) Improper functioning of a designed with the following Subpart FÐInspection, Testing, and component; characteristics: Maintenance Requirements for Tier II (3) A crack, break, excessive wear, (1) Simplicity and standardization Passenger Equipment structural defect, or weakness of a component; shall be the driving criteria for design of § 238.501 Scope. formats for the display of information in (4) A leak; This subpart contains inspection, the cab; (5) Use of a component or system testing, and maintenance requirements (2) Essential, safety-critical under a condition that exceeds that for for railroad passenger equipment that information shall be displayed as a which the component or system is operates at speeds exceeding 125 mph default condition; designed to operate; and but not exceeding 150 mph. (6) Insecure attachment of a (3) Operator selection shall be component. required to display other than default § 238.503 Inspection, testing, and (d) Specific safety inspections. The information; maintenance requirements. program under paragraph (a) of this (4) Cab or train control signals shall (a) General. Under the procedures section shall specify that all Tier II be displayed for the operator; and provided in § 238.505, each railroad passenger equipment shall receive (5) Displays shall be readable from the shall obtain FRA approval of a written thorough safety inspections in operators’s normal position under all inspection, testing, and maintenance accordance with the following lighting conditions. program for Tier II passenger equipment standards: (f) The cab layout shall be arranged to prior to implementation of that program (1) Except as provided in paragraph meet the following requirements: and prior to commencing passenger (d)(3) of this section, the equivalent of (1) The crew has an effective field of operations using that equipment. As a Class I brake test contained in view in the forward direction and to the further specified in this section, the § 238.313 shall be conducted prior to a right and left of the direction of travel; program shall describe in detail the train’s departure from an originating (2) Field-of-view obstructions due to procedures, equipment, and other terminal and every 1,500 miles or once required structural members are means necessary for the safe operation each calendar day, whichever comes minimized; and of the passenger equipment, including: first, that the train remains in (3) The crew’s position in the cab is (1) Safety inspection procedures, continuous service. located to permit the crew to be able to intervals, and criteria; (i) Class I equivalent brake tests shall directly observe traffic approaching the (2) Testing procedures and intervals; be performed by qualified mechanical train from either side of the train. (3) Scheduled preventive- inspectors. (g) Each seat provided for a maintenance intervals; (ii) Except as provided in § 238.15(b), crewmember shall be: (4) Maintenance procedures; a railroad shall not use or haul a Tier (1) Equipped with a single acting, (5) Special testing equipment or II passenger train in passenger service quick-release lap belt and shoulder measuring devices required to perform from a location where a Class I harness as defined in § 571.209 of this safety inspections and tests; and equivalent brake test has been title; (6) The training, qualification, and performed, or was required by this part (2) Secured to the car body with an designation of employees and to have been performed, with less than attachment having an ultimate strength contractors to perform safety 100 percent operative brakes. capable of withstanding the loads due to inspections, tests, and maintenance. (2) Except as provided in paragraph the following individually applied (b) Compliance. After the railroad’s (d)(3) of this section, a complete safety accelerations acting on the mass of the inspection, testing, and maintenance exterior and interior mechanical seat and the crewmember occupying it: program is approved by FRA under inspection, in accordance with the (i) Longitudinal: 12g; § 238.505, the railroad shall adopt the railroad’s inspection program, shall be (ii) Lateral: 4g; and program and shall perform— conducted by qualified mechanical (iii) Vertical: 4g; (1) The inspections and tests of power inspectors at least once during each (3) Designed so all adjustments have brakes and other primary brakes as calendar day the equipment is used in the range necessary to accommodate a described in the program; service. 5th-percentile female to a 95th- (2) The other inspections and tests (3) Trains that miss a scheduled Class percentile male; described in the program in accordance I brake test or mechanical inspection (4) Equipped with lumbar support with the procedures and criteria that the due to a delay en route may proceed to that is adjustable from the seated railroad identified as safety-critical; and the point where the Class I brake test or position; (3) The maintenance tasks described mechanical inspection was scheduled to (5) Equipped with force-assisted, in the program in accordance with the be performed. vertical-height adjustment, operated procedures and intervals that the (e) Movement of trains with power from the seated position; railroad identified as safety-critical. brake defects. Movement of trains with 49822 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules a power brake defect as defined in (4) Describe the use of any safety (2) Each railroad shall serve a copy of § 238.15 (any primary brake defect) shall equipment necessary to perform the each submission to FRA on designated be governed by § 238.15. task; representatives of railroad employees (f) Movement of trains with other (5) Be approved by the railroad’s chief responsible for the equipment’s defects. Movement of trains that with a mechanical officer; operation, inspection, testing, and defect other than a power brake defect (6) Be approved by the railroad’s maintenance under this subpart. shall be conducted in accordance with official responsible for safety; (b) Comment. Not later than 45 days § 238.17, with the following exception. (7) Be enforced by supervisors with from the date of filing the program or When a failure of the secondary brake responsibility for accomplishing the amendment, any person may comment on a Tier II passenger train occurs en tasks; and on the program or amendment. route, that train may remain in service (8) Be reviewed annually by the (1) Each comment shall set forth until its next scheduled calendar day railroad. specifically the basis upon which it is Class I brake test equivalent at a speed (j) Quality control program. Each made, and contain a concise statement no greater than the maximum safe railroad shall establish an inspection, of the interest of the commenter in the operating speed demonstrated through testing, and maintenance quality control proceeding. analysis and testing for braking with the program enforced by railroad or (2) Three copies of each comment friction brake alone. The brake system contractor supervisors to reasonably shall be submitted to the Associate shall be restored to 100 percent ensure that inspections, tests, and Administrator for Safety, Federal operation before the train departs that maintenance are performed in Railroad Administration, 400 7th Street, inspection location. accordance with Federal safety S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. (3) The commenter shall certify that a (g) Maintenance intervals. The standards and the procedures copy of the comment was served on the program under paragraph (a) of this established by the railroad. railroad. section shall include the railroad’s (k) Identification of safety-critical (c) Approval. (1) Within 60 days of initial scheduled maintenance intervals items. In the program under paragraph receipt of each initial inspection, for Tier II equipment based on an (a) of this section, the railroad shall testing, and maintenance program, FRA analysis completed as part of the system identify all inspection and testing will conduct a formal review of the safety program. The maintenance procedures and criteria as well as all program. FRA will then notify the interval of a safety-critical component maintenance intervals that the railroad primary railroad contact person and the shall be changed only when justified by deems to be safety-critical. designated employee representatives in accumulated, verifiable operating data § 238.505 Program approval procedure. writing whether the inspection, testing, and approved by FRA’s Associate and maintenance program is approved Administrator for Safety under (a) Submission. Not less than 90 days and, if not approved, the specific points § 238.505 before the change takes effect. prior to commencing passenger in which the program is deficient. If a (h) Training, qualification, and operations using Tier II passenger equipment, each railroad to which this program is not approved by FRA, the designation program. The program railroad shall amend its program to under paragraph (a) of this section shall subpart applies shall submit for approval an inspection, testing, and correct all deficiencies and resubmit its describe the training, qualification, and program with the required revisions not designation program, as defined in the maintenance program for that equipment meeting the requirements of later than 45 days prior to commencing training program plan under § 238.111, passenger operations. established by the railroad to qualify this subpart with the Associate Administrator for Safety, Federal (2) FRA will review each proposed individuals to inspect, test, and amendment to the program within 45 maintain the equipment. Railroad Administration, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. If a days of receipt. FRA will then notify the (1) If the railroad deems it safety- railroad seeks to amend an approved primary railroad contact person and the critical, then only qualified individuals program, the railroad shall file with designated employee representatives in shall inspect, test, and maintain the FRA’s Associate Administrator for writing whether the proposed equipment. Safety a petition for approval of such amendment has been approved by FRA (2) Knowledge of the standard amendment not less than 60 days prior and, if not approved, the specific points procedures described in paragraph (i) of to the proposed effective date of the in which the proposed amendment is this section shall be required to qualify amendment. A program responsive to deficient. The railroad shall correct any an employee or contractor to perform an the requirements of this subpart or any deficiencies and file the corrected inspection, testing, or maintenance task amendment to the program shall not be amendment prior to implementing the under this part. implemented prior to FRA approval. amendment. (3) Following initial approval of a (i) Standard procedures for safely (1) Each program or amendment program or amendment, FRA may performing inspection, testing, under § 238.503 shall contain: reopen consideration of the program or maintenance, or repairs. The program (i) The information prescribed in amendment for cause stated. under paragraph (a) of this section shall § 238.503 for such program or include the railroad’s written standard amendment; Subpart GÐIntroduction of New procedures for performing all safety- (ii) The name, title, address, and critical equipment inspection, testing, Technology to Tier II Passenger telephone number of the primary person Equipment maintenance, or repair tasks. These to be contacted with regard to review of standard procedures shall: the program or amendment; and § 238.601 Scope. (1) Describe in detail each step (iii) A statement affirming that the This subpart contains general required to safely perform the task; railroad has served a copy of the requirements for introducing new (2) Describe the knowledge necessary program or amendment on designated technology that affects a safety system of to safely perform the task; representatives of railroad employees, existing Tier II passenger equipment. (3) Describe any precautions that must together with a list of the names and For purposes of this subpart, ‘‘existing be taken to safely perform the task; addresses of persons served. Tier II passenger equipment’’ is Tier II Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49823 passenger equipment that has been (c) Each railroad shall complete a pre- behavior of horizontally-mounted floor approved for revenue service by the revenue service demonstration of such covering systems exposed to a flaming FRA Associate Administrator for Safety passenger equipment described in ignition source in a graded radiant heat under the procedures of § 238.21. paragraph (b) of this section in energy environment in a test chamber. accordance with the approved plan, Flame spread index (Is) means, as defined § 238.603 Process to introduce new shall fulfill all of the other requirements in ASTM E–162, a factor derived from the technology. prescribed in § 238.113, and shall obtain rate of progress of the flame front (Fs) and the rate of heat liberation by the material under (a) If a railroad plans a major upgrade special approval from the FRA × or introduction of new technology on Associate Administrator for Safety test (Q), such that Is = Fs Q. existing Tier II passenger equipment, as under the procedures of § 238.21 prior Specific optical density (Ds) means, as defined in ASTM E–662, the optical density defined in § 238.601, that affects the to using such passenger equipment in measured over unit path length within a performance of a safety system on such revenue service. chamber of unit volume, produced from a equipment, such major upgrade or Appendix A to Part 238ÐSchedule of specimen of unit surface area, that is introduction of new technology shall be 2 Civil Penalties [Reserved] irradiated by a heat flux of 2.5 watts/cm for designed and implemented using the a specified period of time. system safety process prescribed in Surface flammability means the rate at Appendix B to Part 238ÐTest § 238.101. which flames will travel along surfaces. Performance Criteria for the (b) Under the procedures of § 238.21, Flaming running means continuous Flammability and Smoke Emission each railroad shall obtain special flaming material leaving the site of material Characteristics of Materials Used in approval from the FRA Associate burning or material installation. Constructing or Refurbishing Administrator for Safety of a pre- Flaming dripping means periodic dripping Locomotive Cab and Passenger Car revenue service acceptance testing plan, of flaming material from the site of material Interiors under § 238.113, for existing Tier II burning or material installation. (b) Required test procedures and passenger equipment with a major This appendix provides the performance performance criteria. standards for testing the flammability and upgrade or new technology that affects The materials used in locomotive cabs and the performance of a safety system on smoke emission characteristics of materials used in constructing or refurbishing passenger cars shall be tested according to such equipment, prior to implementing the procedures and performance criteria set the plan. ‘‘New passenger equipment,’’ locomotive cab and passenger car interiors, in accordance with the requirements of forth in the following table. In all instances, for purposes of § 238.113, includes § 238.115. the most recent version of the test procedures existing Tier II passenger equipment (a) Definitions. or the revision in effect at the time a vehicle with such a major upgrade or new Critical radiant flux (CRF) means, as is ordered should be employed in the technology. defined in ASTM E–648, a measure of the evaluation of the materials specified.

Category Function of material Test procedure Performance criteria

1, 2, 5, 9 Passenger seats, Sleeping and dining Cushions, Mattresses ...... ASTM D±3675 IS ≤ 25 car components. ASTM E±662 DS (1.5) ≤ 100; DS (4.0) ≤ 175 1, 5, 8 Seat and/or Mattress Frame ...... ASTM E±162 IS ≤ 35 ASTM E±662 DS (1.5) ≤ 100; DS (4.0) ≤ 200 1, 5 Seat and Toilet Shroud, Food Trays ASTM E±162 IS ≤ 35 ASTM E±662 DS (1.5) ≤ 100; DS (4.0) ≤ 200 Seat Upholstery, Mattress Ticking and FAR 25.853 (Ver- Flame Time ≤ 10 sec.; Burn length ≤ 6 Covers, Curtains 1, 2, 3, 5. tical) inch ASTM E±662 DS (4.0) ≤ 250 coated; DS (4.0) ≤ 100 uncoated 1, 5, 10 Panels ...... Wall ...... ASTM E±162 IS ≤ 35 ASTM E±662 DS (1.5) ≤ 100; DS (4.0) ≤ 200 1, 5, 10 Ceiling ...... ASTM E±162 IS ≤ 35 ASTM E±662 DS (1.5) ≤ 100; DS (4.0) ≤ 200 1, 5 Partition, Tables and Shelves ...... ASTM E±162 IS ≤ 35 ASTM E±662 DS (1.5) ≤ 100; DS (4.0) ≤ 200 1, 5 Windscreen ...... ASTM E±162 IS ≤ 35 ASTM E±662 DS (1.5) ≤ 100; DS (4.0) ≤ 200 1, 5 HVAC Ducting ...... ASTM E±162 IS ≤ 35 ASTM E±662 DS (1.5) ≤ 100 4, 5 Window ...... ASTM E±162 IS ≤ 100 ASTM E±662 DS (1.5) ≤ 100; DS (4.0) ≤ 200 5 Light Diffuser ...... ASTM E±162 IS ≤ 100 ASTM E±662 DS (1.5) ≤ 100; DS (4.0) ≤ 200 Flooring ...... Structural 6 ...... ASTM E±119 Pass Covering 7, 10 ...... ASTM E±648 CRF ≤ 0.5 w/cm 2 ASTM E±662 DS (1.5 ) ≤ 100; DS (4.0) ≤ 200 1, 2, 5 Insulation ...... Thermal ...... ASTM E±162 IS ≤ 25 ASTM E±662 DS (1.5) ≤ 100 1, 2, 5 Acoustic ...... ASTM E±162 IS ≤ 25 ASTM E±662 DS (1.5) ≤ 100 Elastomers ...... Window Gaskets, Door Nosing, Dia- ASTM C±542 Pass 1 phragms, Roof Mat. . ASTM E±662 DS (1.5) ≤ 100; DS (4.0) ≤ 200 1, 5 Exterior Plastic Components ...... End Cap, Roof Housings ...... ASTM E±162 IS ≤ 35 ASTM E±662 DS (1.5) ≤ 100; DS (4.0) ≤ 200 49824 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Category Function of material Test procedure Performance criteria

1, 3, 5 Component Box Covers ...... Interior, Exterior Boxes ...... ASTM E±162 IS ≤ 35 ASTM E±662 DS (1.5) ≤ 100; DS (4.0) ≤ 200

1. Materials tested for surface flammability A proportional reduction may be made in the (iv) Surface Flammability of Materials must not exhibit any flaming running or dimensions of the specimen provided that it Using a Radiant Heat Energy Source, STM E– flaming dripping. represents a true test of its ability to perform 162. 2. The surface flammability and smoke as a barrier against under-car fires. (v) Bonded and Laminated Apparel emission characteristics must be Penetrations (ducts, etc.) must be designed Fabrics, ASTM D–2724. demonstrated to be permanent by washing, if against acting as passageways for fire and (vi) Critical Radiant Flux of Floor Covering appropriate, according to FED–STD–191A smoke. Systems Using a Radiant Heat Energy Source, Textile Test Method 5830. 7. Floor covering must be tested in ASTM E–648. 3. The surface flammability and smoke accordance with ASTM E–648 with its (vii) Specific Optical Density of Smoke emission characteristics must be padding, if the padding is used in actual Generated by Solid Materials, STM E–662. demonstrated to be permanent by dry- installation. (Available from: American Society for cleaning, if appropriate, according to ASTM 8. Arm rests, if foamed plastic, are tested Testing Materials, 1916 Race Street, D-2724. Materials that cannot be washed or as cushions and, if hard material, are tested Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.) dry cleaned must be so labeled and meet the as a seat back shroud. applicable performance criteria after being 9. Testing is performed without upholstery. Appendix C to Part 238ÐSuspension cleaned as recommended by the 10. Carpeting on walls and ceilings is to be manufacturer. System Safety Performance Standards 4. For double window glazing, only the considered wall and ceiling panel materials, This appendix contains the minimum interior glazing must meet the materials respectively. suspension system safety performance requirements specified herein; the exterior (c) The sources of test procedures specified standards for Tier II passenger equipment as need not meet those requirements. in the table are as follows: 5. ASTM E–662 maximum test limits for (1) Leaching Resistance of Cloth, FED– required by § 238.427. These requirements smoke emission (specified optical density) STD–191A–Textile Test Method 5830. shall be the basis for evaluating suspension must be measured in either the flaming or (Available from: General Services system safety performance until an industry non-flaming mode, depending on which Administration Specifications Division, standard acceptable to FRA is developed and mode generates the most smoke. Building 197 Washington Navy Yard, approved under the procedures provided in 6. Structural flooring assemblies must meet Washington, D.C. 20407.) § 238.21. the performance criteria during a nominal (2) Federal Aviation Administration Passenger equipment suspension systems test period determined by the railroad Vertical Burn Test, FAR–25.853. shall be designed to limit the lateral and property. The nominal test period must be (3) American Society for Testing Materials vertical forces and lateral to vertical (L/V) twice the maximum expected period of time, (ASTM): ratios, for the time duration required to travel under normal circumstances, for a vehicle to (i) Specification for Gaskets, ASTM C–542. six feet at any operating speed or over any come to a complete, safe stop from maximum (ii) Surface Flammability of Flexible class of track, under all operating conditions speed, plus the time necessary to evacuate all Cellular Materials Using a Radiant Heat as determined by the railroad, as follows: passengers from a vehicle to a safe area. The Energy Source, ASTM D–3675. 1. The maximum single wheel lateral to nominal test period must not be less than 15 (iii) Fire Tests of Building Construction vertical force (L/V) ratio shall not exceed minutes. Only one specimen need be tested. and Materials, ASTM E–119. Nadal’s limit as follows:

tan(δ ) − µ Wheel L/ V ≤ ( for positi ve angle of attack) 1+ µtan( δ ) where: δ=flange angle (deg). percent of the static vertical axle load. This of the nominal vertical wheel load on level µ=coefficient of friction of 0.5. shall include the effect of a crosswind track. 2. The net axle lateral force shall not allowance as specified by the railroad for the Issued in Washington, D.C., on September exceed 0.5 times the static vertical axle load. intended service. 12, 1997. 3. The vertical wheel/rail force shall be 5. The maximum truck side L/V ratio shall Jolene M. Molitoris, greater than 10 percent of the static vertical not exceed 0.5. Federal Railroad Administrator. wheel load. 6. When stopped on track with a uniform 4. The sum of the vertical wheel loads on 6-inch superelevation, vertical wheel loads, [FR Doc. 97–24713 Filed 9–22–97; 8:45 am] one side of any truck shall be greater than 20 at all wheels, shall be greater than 60 percent BILLING CODE 4910±06±P